Proving God Existence

[The Grand Nudger]

I figured God was orderly.

First you "figured god" before you added an attribute. Not a problem in our discussion, but keep in mind that no matter how well designed an argument may be, if the premise is flawed then the conclusion will be worthless.

God is either orderly or he's not.

Well, could be a mix of the two, but hey, splitting hairs

If disorderly, everything created should be chaotic.

Doesn't follow.

If orderly, things should follow a set predictable formula.

Doesn't follow

I look around the world. I see predictable formula.

So do I, but who cares?

Even more so, if God weren't orderly, we couldn't use philosophy/logic, an ordered discipline, to reach knowledge of his existence.

Doesn't follow......for fucks sake....

[Cato]

@Ryan

I'll assume you're a troll. Carry on.

Tex?

Shit!. Someone call Laura.

George W. is using the internet unsupervised again.

[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....

[Tex]

I wasn't writing syllogisms, but I promise you they follow. The definition of God for this post is, "A being who is the cause/source of all things". Also, this post is not a proof of God. This is only to show that I made sense in my last post.

God is either orderly or he's not.

Well, could be a mix of the two, but hey, splitting hairs

If he was a mix, then the source of order would be elsewhere. God would have to be contingent upon some other thing, thus making God not God. God is either orderly or not.

God is the cause/source of all things.
One thing is order.
God is cause/source of order.

If disorderly, everything created should be chaotic.

Doesn't follow.

If God is not the source of order, something else is, and God is now not God. If there is no source for order including and apart from God, then nothing can be ordered.

God is the cause/source of all things.
No thing existent is order.
God is not the causer/source of order. (It doesn't exist)

If orderly, things should follow a set predictable formula.

Doesn't follow

God is the cause/source of all things.
A thing existent is order.
God is the cause/source of order.

I look around the world. I see predictable formula.

So do I, but who cares?

If I didn't, it would mean, assuming God's existence, he could never be proven.

Even more so, if God weren't orderly, we couldn't use philosophy/logic, an ordered discipline, to reach knowledge of his existence.

Doesn't follow......for fucks sake....

Like the rest of them, it does follow.

God is the cause/source of all things.
No thing existent is order.
God is not the causer/source of order.

God is not the causer/source of order.
Order includes philosophy/logic.
God is not the causer/source of philosophy/logic.

And since nothing else causes order, nothing else causes philosophy/logic. And since philosophy/logic now don't exist, we cannot use them to prove God.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL promises, promises. No, none of that garbage follows, and none of your responses follow either, wtf?

If he was a mix, then the source of order would be elsewhere.

And? So what if it was/why couldn't it be? IOW, doesn't follow.

God would have to be contingent upon some other thing, thus making God not God.

So what if he were, plenty of gods proposed have been contigent upon other things. IOW, doesn't follow

God is either orderly or not.

Re-assert, affirmative.

If God is not the source of order, something else is, and God is now not God.

Doesn't follow. (ital)

If there is no source for order including and apart from God, then nothing can be ordered.

Check your own bit above, I bolded the best part.

God is the cause/source of all things.
No thing existent is order.
God is not the causer/source of order. (It doesn't exist)

Word salad.

[Tex]

I answered all your objections. Just because you don't like it or don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't follow.

[Ryantology]

@Ryan

I'll assume you're a troll. Carry on.

I'll assume you're an idiot who believes one can call knowledge any conclusions which follow from entirely subjective experiences and unverifiable assumptions.

[Tex]

"I'll assume you're an idiot who believes one can call knowledge any conclusions which follow from entirely subjective experiences and unverifiable assumptions."

Have I claimed to have supernatural experiences? Even if I had, what would make you believe me? I'm arguing that Muslim Scholar is using Aristotle's proof wrong and made some other false claim. That's all. My goal is not to wow you all with some super-proof.

[Muslim Scholar]

I figured God was orderly. God is either orderly or he's not. If disorderly, everything created should be chaotic. If orderly, things should follow a set predictable formula. I look around the world. I see predictable formula.

Even more so, if God weren't orderly, we couldn't use philosophy/logic, an ordered discipline, to reach knowledge of his existence.

His Creation not himself
His creation is orderly so we can figure and think about it
but God himself is unique (Orderly or not is not valid), so you cannot understand how he do things.

---

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

Except your god, right?

It doesn't apply for God
God created time itself (as proved), so you cannot apply something created after God to God before it was created.
God is eternal

[The Grand Nudger]

I answered all your objections. Just because you don't like it or don't understand it doesn't mean that it doesn't follow.

Whether or not something follows has nothing to do with whether or not I like it. If I don't understand, you've failed to convey the message. Don't get pissy just because you've failed to properly establish or elaborate upon the shit you'd like to claim. Practiced in an echo chamber? This shit is entirely too easy to question - and you obviously don't have much experience driving past people who don't simply swallow the koolaid. Leave that shit at church. Here, you'll have to do work.