Proving God Existence

[pocaracas]

---

But nothing is not static... didn't you watch the video?

Here's an alternate explanation for your observations, but this one is somewhat more grounded on current understanding of physics, even if it has some speculations involved:
Empty space has zero average energy, but locally it can have positive and negative energies.

Empty space stretches out to infinity... actually, it's spacetime that stretches out to infinity... plus and minus... and you can arbitrarily put the zero where you want. You can put the spatial zero where you want, as well as the temporal zero. It doesn't matter where you put the zero, but that doesn't mean that spaceTime starts at that zero that you defined.

The total energy content of this spacetime is zero.
But locally, it can fluctuate. On rare occasions, it fluctuates so much it generates a lot of energy (and corresponding anti-energy) and we call that a Universe. Since this spaceTime nothingness stretches out to infinity, there may be an infinite number of Universes out there... but we just can't know for sure.

We know there is negative energy, because we can detect it's influence. When anti-matter comes close to matter they annihilate each other and emit two photons. We can measure these photons, which are just light.

We like to think of ourselves as having positive energy, but, again, plus and minus is just a convention. There may be galaxies out there which are entirely composed of anti-matter, and we observe them just the same as if they were made of what we call normal matter. If anyone is alive there and wondering about these things, they will probably consider their matter the one with positive energy, and our with negative energy. It's arbitrary.
What counts is that, when you sum it all up, you arrive at a big round juicy ZERO.

Nothing, empty space, has zero energy..... on average.

Now, please, do tell me how do we require a divine entity to account for these fluctuations of empty space.
And then tell me where/how did this entity come from.

---

You forgot a very important point in my proof.
Scientific theories can be proved wrong or incomplete in the future,
My premises are much stronger (Actually nothing can be more strong than that)

By Logic we can prove that space-time is not infinite (Nothing can be infinite at all)

It is proved that events itself cannot be infinite, so there must be a first event.

You don't need to distract yourself with scientific theories, to refute the proof you need to find a flaw in it, or prove that its premises are false.

The premises are impossible to be false, as it is only an Axiom.

Yes, scientific theories can be disproved.... but, so far, all the research indicates that this one is a good representation of reality.
In fact, newtonian mechanics is a good representation of reality, at a planetary scale.... even solar system scale. The physics that Newton devised can and are still applied in a lot of scenarios where it is sufficient.
Relativity becomes important at very long distances, or accelerations (typically, from gravity).
Quantum mechanics are more noticeable at very small scales, atoms and molecules scales.
QCD becomes important at even smaller scales.... quarks and the like.
But, when you average QCD to larger scales, you get Quantum mechanics. When you average quantum mechanics over larger scales, you get newtonian mechanics. When you take into consideration the electromagnetic laws (Maxwell's laws) you arrive at relativity. If you take relativity and apply it to slow speeds and low accelerations, you arrive at newtonian mechanics.
It all fits nicely. It all works. You can't disprove these theories by one experiment gone awry... You need a lot of experiments going in a very strange direction to disprove them.

Now, please, do tell me how your theory works.
You premise... your presupposition... your assumption... your axiom...

Axiom:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.;
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.;
3. "Logic, Mathematics" . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
-> if you're not using option 3, of this dictionary.com definition, then it is not an axiom.

Premise:
"Also, prem·iss. Logic. "a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

Proposition:
1. the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.
2. a plan or scheme proposed.
3. an offer of terms for a transaction, as in business.
4. a thing, matter, or person considered as something to be dealt with or encountered: Keeping diplomatic channels open is a serious proposition.
5. anything stated or affirmed for discussion or illustration.

-> your premise has no firm ground to hold itself. You propose it, and I refuse/reject the proposition. How does that leave you and your premise? sinking....