First order logic, set theory and God

[Peebothuhlu]

Uhm... 'Hawking radiation'?

Stephen hawkin's work that won him a Nobel prize, if I'm not mistaken?

Energy out of the closest thing we have to 'nothing' that we know of.

Now... if you want to demonstrate a better 'nothing' T0th3 M4X, that'd be great.

Not at work.

[Cepheus Ace]

No, I am getting the argument. But there are three rebuttals.

One with the axioms and the inability to construct the necessary system V without a specific axiom allowing such.

One that says that P1 should only state that *finite* systems have causes (because that is the most we can extrapolate to from our knowledge).

And one that says P1 is simply false in the real world: we know of systems that are uncaused in the real world.

And no, the energy is NOT the cause in a quantum system: if anything it is an effect that is caused by the configuration of the system. But the specific results of a quantum system are *not* caused: there is nothing prior to them that determines what they will be.

And yes, quantum systems do allow for energy to appear (and disappear) in short time intervals. This is a measured effect related to the uncertainty principle. In particular, it explains the spread of masses for systems of very short duration.

As for 'pre-existing energy changing forms', that begs the question of *why* the forms change. And there is no 'cause' for those changes.

But the rebuttals don't work.  You're assuming out of nowhere there is energy.  Well, where did it come from?  Even in quantum mechanics you assume energy, even if it's very small amounts.   What are you suggesting, "pop" and then there was energy? You can say something is a good rebuttal if you can't even demonstrate the process.  If I'm wrong, show me a video of someone making energy out of nothing.  And it would even be harder back then if we're assuming "no cause."  If you can't demonstrate it with a cause (someone prepping it), how do you expect it to happen without?

ever heard of quantum fluctuation? its a phenomena where temporarily the law of conservation of energy is completely and utterly violated for short time for no reason or causation whatsoever. that's right energy coming in and out of existence from pure nothingness with no causation behind it

and lets get real here, the only reason people use the origins of the universe to argue for god is because a lot of the other garbage they used to say proved god has already been debunked by science long ago. There has never been an instance of saying god cause anything ever lead to an improvement in human knowledge and understanding. It offers no new insight into anything, it has no discernible changes or effects on our daily lives regardless of whether its true or not, it makes no empirically verifiable predictions or models. But that doesn't matter because the whole point of it was to use gaps in human knowledge to conclude god without proving god

these philosophical arguments fails completely and utterly at proving anything but its own redundancy.

and even if the argument was completely sound and irrefutable it still fails by default because arguing that a god exists is completely difference from proving a god exists which no one has ever been able to properly define let alone make a testable hypothesis.
Its the equivalent of arguing that if you poke a bush with a stick it will poke you right back, but if you can't demonstrably show it happening then any argument you make for your position can be flat out rejected without any objection


Here's a simple job for you
Step 1: Define God thoroughly
step 2: create a hypothesis around this definition
Step 3:Create a falsifiable experiment to determine whether the hypothesis if true or not
Step 4: verify the results of the experiments
Step 5: give the results for peer review
Step 6: if you're experiments successfully proved god then go collect you're nobel prize

but no one who argues that a god exists has ever been able to accomplish step 1,this is precisely why these arguments are heard mainly in public gatherings and not in serious scientific conferences. These arguments are there solely to fool lay people who don't know any better with fancy sounding jargon and well known psychological tricks.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

But the rebuttals don't work.  You're assuming out of nowhere there is energy.  Well, where did it come from?  Even in quantum mechanics you assume energy, even if it's very small amounts.   What are you suggesting, "pop" and then there was energy? You can say something is a good rebuttal if you can't even demonstrate the process.  If I'm wrong, show me a video of someone making energy out of nothing.  And it would even be harder back then if we're assuming "no cause."  If you can't demonstrate it with a cause (someone prepping it), how do you expect it to happen without?

ever heard of quantum fluctuation? its a phenomena where temporarily the law of conservation of energy is completely and utterly violated for short time for no reason or causation whatsoever. that's right energy coming in and out of existence from pure nothingness with no causation behind it

and lets get real here, the only reason people use the origins of the universe to argue for god is because a lot of the other garbage they used to say proved god has already been debunked by science long ago. There has never been an instance of saying god cause anything ever lead to an improvement in human knowledge and understanding. It offers no new insight into anything, it has no discernible changes or effects on our daily lives regardless of whether its true or not, it makes no empirically verifiable predictions or models. But that doesn't matter because the whole point of it was to use gaps in human knowledge to conclude god without proving god

these philosophical arguments fails completely and utterly at proving anything but its own redundancy.

and even if the argument was completely sound and irrefutable it still fails by default because arguing that a god exists is completely difference from proving a god exists which no one has ever been able to properly define let alone make a testable hypothesis.
Its the equivalent of arguing that if you poke a bush with a stick it will poke you right back, but if you can't demonstrably show it happening then any argument you make for your position can be flat out rejected without any objection


Here's a simple job for you
Step 1: Define God thoroughly
step 2: create a hypothesis around this definition
Step 3:Create a falsifiable experiment to determine whether the hypothesis if true or not
Step 4: verify the results of the experiments
Step 5: give the results for peer review
Step 6: if you're experiments successfully proved god then go collect you're nobel prize

but no one who argues that a god exists has ever been able to accomplish step 1,this is precisely why these arguments are heard mainly in public gatherings and not in serious scientific conferences. These arguments are there solely  to fool lay people who don't know any better with fancy sounding jargon and well known psychological tricks.

What caused the quantum fluctuation?  Unless you can prove the source, stop making nonsensical hocus pocus claims.  Even if you can prove on a small scale, you can't prove it on a mass scale.  If you can't prove it on a small scale, then how the heck are you going to suggest that it was a large scale anomaly?  Why aren't we observing these large scale anomalies today?  If what you said is true, then you should be able to demonstrate steps 1-6 and claim your noble prize for creating a universe, even if it's smaller than ours.  Even the journals suggesting these "quantum fluctuations" are saying they are "indirect" by testing them against light waves.  Since this report in 2015, there have been additional studies showing the properties of light.  I believe it was at MIT they made some observations that what demonstrated that light can travel much faster than we thought possible.  I'll have to look for the study here in a bit when I get on my other computer.  Anyway, we can make assumptions, and we can even form a hypothesis and try to test those assumptions but indirect observations don't equate to large scale observations, so even if you could observe you are still leaps away from it happening, especially in regard to energy and matter.  It may very well be that there was a source for those fluctuations and that they weren't quite what we thought.

[Angrboda]

God this fellow is an idiot.  "Unless you can show me the cause of this uncaused event then I won't believe you."  

[Cepheus Ace]

What caused the quantum fluctuation?

what caused quantum fluctuations? hey moron there doesn't need to be a cause just like the so called uncaused cause you keep saying exists. Its basically in layman's terms mandated by the laws of physics that the law of conservation of energy be violated in a total vacuum

Unless you can prove the source, stop making nonsensical hocus pocus claims.

says the one claiming that there is an uncaused deity running amok creating universes all willy nilly out of nothingness while everything else needs a cause. Yet you have not offerred a shred of evidence to support it.

Even if you can prove on a small scale, you can't prove it on a mass scale.  If you can't prove it on a small scale, then how the heck are you going to suggest that it was a large scale anomaly?

bottom line is if it can be proven to happen on a small scale which it has already been done, it shows that the law of conservation of energy can be violated, it having an effect or not on the universes existence is irrelevant either way.

Why aren't we observing these large scale anomalies today?

quantum fluctuations can only be observed on the quantum scale.

If what you said is true, then you should be able to demonstrate steps 1-6 and claim your noble prize for creating a universe, even if it's smaller than ours.

what does creating universes have to do with quantum fluctuations? the phenomena is already been demonstrated and proven by scientists long ago.

Even the journals suggesting these "quantum fluctuations" are saying they are "indirect" by testing them against light waves.

and it being measured using light proves what exactly? you're ignorance on how scientists do  stuff?

Since this report in 2015, there have been additional studies showing the properties of light.  I believe it was at MIT they made some observations that what demonstrated that light can travel much faster than we thought possible.

and thats relevant to what?

Anyway, we can make assumptions, and we can even form a hypothesis and try to test those assumptions

which you have failed to do just like anyone who has argued for the existence of a deity

but indirect observations don't equate to large scale observations, so even if you could observe you are still leaps away from it happening, especially in regard to energy and matter.  It may very well be that there was a source for those fluctuations and that they weren't quite what we thought.

how do they not? there is nothing stating that indirect observation can't prove anything happening on a large scale

meanwhile you're position has zero evidence or anything behind it.

[Cepheus Ace]

ever heard of quantum fluctuation? its a phenomena where temporarily the law of conservation of energy is completely and utterly violated for short time for no reason or causation whatsoever. that's right energy coming in and out of existence from pure nothingness with no causation behind it

and lets get real here, the only reason people use the origins of the universe to argue for god is because a lot of the other garbage they used to say proved god has already been debunked by science long ago. There has never been an instance of saying god cause anything ever lead to an improvement in human knowledge and understanding. It offers no new insight into anything, it has no discernible changes or effects on our daily lives regardless of whether its true or not, it makes no empirically verifiable predictions or models. But that doesn't matter because the whole point of it was to use gaps in human knowledge to conclude god without proving god

these philosophical arguments fails completely and utterly at proving anything but its own redundancy.

and even if the argument was completely sound and irrefutable it still fails by default because arguing that a god exists is completely difference from proving a god exists which no one has ever been able to properly define let alone make a testable hypothesis.
Its the equivalent of arguing that if you poke a bush with a stick it will poke you right back, but if you can't demonstrably show it happening then any argument you make for your position can be flat out rejected without any objection


Here's a simple job for you
Step 1: Define God thoroughly
step 2: create a hypothesis around this definition
Step 3:Create a falsifiable experiment to determine whether the hypothesis if true or not
Step 4: verify the results of the experiments
Step 5: give the results for peer review
Step 6: if you're experiments successfully proved god then go collect you're nobel prize

but no one who argues that a god exists has ever been able to accomplish step 1,this is precisely why these arguments are heard mainly in public gatherings and not in serious scientific conferences. These arguments are there solely  to fool lay people who don't know any better with fancy sounding jargon and well known psychological tricks.

What caused the quantum fluctuation?  Unless you can prove the source, stop making nonsensical hocus pocus claims.  Even if you can prove on a small scale, you can't prove it on a mass scale.  If you can't prove it on a small scale, then how the heck are you going to suggest that it was a large scale anomaly?  Why aren't we observing these large scale anomalies today?  If what you said is true, then you should be able to demonstrate steps 1-6 and claim your noble prize for creating a universe, even if it's smaller than ours.  Even the journals suggesting these "quantum fluctuations" are saying they are "indirect" by testing them against light waves.  Since this report in 2015, there have been additional studies showing the properties of light.  I believe it was at MIT they made some observations that what demonstrated that light can travel much faster than we thought possible.  I'll have to look for the study here in a bit when I get on my other computer.  Anyway, we can make assumptions, and we can even form a hypothesis and try to test those assumptions but indirect observations don't equate to large scale observations, so even if you could observe you are still leaps away from it happening, especially in regard to energy and matter.  It may very well be that there was a source for those fluctuations and that they weren't quite what we thought.

so you demand proof fo quantum fluctuations then claiming that it must have a cause..... while holding the position that a god without a cause is running amok creating universes willy nilly even though you have zero evidence for it... double standards much?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What caused the quantum fluctuation?  Unless you can prove the source, stop making nonsensical hocus pocus claims.  Even if you can prove on a small scale, you can't prove it on a mass scale.  If you can't prove it on a small scale, then how the heck are you going to suggest that it was a large scale anomaly?  Why aren't we observing these large scale anomalies today?  If what you said is true, then you should be able to demonstrate steps 1-6 and claim your noble prize for creating a universe, even if it's smaller than ours.  Even the journals suggesting these "quantum fluctuations" are saying they are "indirect" by testing them against light waves.  Since this report in 2015, there have been additional studies showing the properties of light.  I believe it was at MIT they made some observations that what demonstrated that light can travel much faster than we thought possible.  I'll have to look for the study here in a bit when I get on my other computer.  Anyway, we can make assumptions, and we can even form a hypothesis and try to test those assumptions but indirect observations don't equate to large scale observations, so even if you could observe you are still leaps away from it happening, especially in regard to energy and matter.  It may very well be that there was a source for those fluctuations and that they weren't quite what we thought.

so you demand proof fo quantum fluctuations then claiming that it must have a cause..... while holding the position that a god without a cause is running amok creating universes willy nilly even though you have zero evidence for it... double standards much?

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu guoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

As far as your comment, I never made such a claim.  Nice try though.  If you believe a large scale anomaly occurred, then you need to demonstrate it.  Not just suggest that light revealed something so that it must have been how a universe filled with large amounts of mass and energy suddenly popped out of nowhere.  From it came lions, tigers, and bears...Oh my!  But even if I did suggest something else and you were able to refute it, it still doesn't validate any claims you've fabricated.  You would need to demonstrate those independently.

Your hocus pocus fairy tales aren't any better than the next fairy tale.

[downbeatplumb]

so you demand proof fo quantum fluctuations then claiming that it must have a cause..... while holding the position that a god without a cause is running amok creating universes willy nilly even though you have zero evidence for it... double standards much?

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu guoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

As far as your comment, I never made such a claim.  Nice try though.  If you believe a large scale anomaly occurred, then you need to demonstrate it.  Not just suggest that light revealed something so that it must have been how a universe filled with large amounts of mass and energy suddenly popped out of nowhere.  From it came lions, tigers, and bears...Oh my!  But even if I did suggest something else and you were able to refute it, it still doesn't validate any claims you've fabricated.  You would need to demonstrate those independently.

Your hocus pocus fairy tales aren't any better than the next fairy tale.

You say that this is a large scale anomaly but compared to what? this may be an incredibly tiny anomaly that seems large to us. What is your basis for comparison of scale?

Can the universe suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere? Sure why not, makes more sense than "magic man dun it".

I tend to think that there is some sort of pre-existing state that the universe emerged from. But I have little evidence for that and I only believe what can actually be proved.
You should try it.

[polymath257]

No, I am getting the argument. But there are three rebuttals.

One with the axioms and the inability to construct the necessary system V without a specific axiom allowing such.

One that says that P1 should only state that *finite* systems have causes (because that is the most we can extrapolate to from our knowledge).

And one that says P1 is simply false in the real world: we know of systems that are uncaused in the real world.

And no, the energy is NOT the cause in a quantum system: if anything it is an effect that is caused by the configuration of the system. But the specific results of a quantum system are *not* caused: there is nothing prior to them that determines what they will be.

And yes, quantum systems do allow for energy to appear (and disappear) in short time intervals. This is a measured effect related to the uncertainty principle. In particular, it explains the spread of masses for systems of very short duration.

As for 'pre-existing energy changing forms', that begs the question of *why* the forms change. And there is no 'cause' for those changes.

But the rebuttals don't work.  You're assuming out of nowhere there is energy.  Well, where did it come from?  Even in quantum mechanics you assume energy, even if it's very small amounts.   What are you suggesting, "pop" and then there was energy? You can say something is a good rebuttal if you can't even demonstrate the process.  If I'm wrong, show me a video of someone making energy out of nothing.  And it would even be harder back then if we're assuming "no cause."  If you can't demonstrate it with a cause (someone prepping it), how do you expect it to happen without?

Yes, the energy just 'pops'. There *is* no process: the events are not caused.

We can create situations where the probabilities change and that has allowed us to test this. The Casimir effect is one consequence of this quantum fluctuation.

And I notice that you only addressed the last of my rebuttals, not the first two. That P1 is false in the real world is an experimental fact. But the other two show *internal* difficulties with your axiomatic system.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu guoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

As far as your comment, I never made such a claim.  Nice try though.  If you believe a large scale anomaly occurred, then you need to demonstrate it.  Not just suggest that light revealed something so that it must have been how a universe filled with large amounts of mass and energy suddenly popped out of nowhere.  From it came lions, tigers, and bears...Oh my!  But even if I did suggest something else and you were able to refute it, it still doesn't validate any claims you've fabricated.  You would need to demonstrate those independently.

Your hocus pocus fairy tales aren't any better than the next fairy tale.

You say that this is a large scale anomaly but compared to what? this may be an incredibly tiny anomaly that seems large to us. What is your basis for comparison of scale?

Can the universe suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere? Sure why not, makes more sense than "magic man dun it".

I tend to think that there is some sort of pre-existing state that the universe emerged from. But I have little evidence for that and I only believe what can actually be proved.
You should try it.

Why would I need to compare it to anything?  I'm not making the claims.  Are you saying a few little particles that may have cause themselves by some unknown process equates to our universe with insane amounts of mass/energy?

As far as your second statement, it seems as though the parts of it are disqualifying to each other.  If you say it can happen, then why can't there be a source? Your last statements supports that conclusion.  What is that pre-existing state?  I'm fine with you saying "you don't know", but how do we rule out anything if "we don't know" what it was?

Interesting statement from you:

"I only believe what can actually be proved"

That sounds very similar to what you hear in Scientology.  Not to the extent of it, but I remember Tom Cruise had an interview and he said something very similar in reference to his belief.

---

But the rebuttals don't work.  You're assuming out of nowhere there is energy.  Well, where did it come from?  Even in quantum mechanics you assume energy, even if it's very small amounts.   What are you suggesting, "pop" and then there was energy? You can say something is a good rebuttal if you can't even demonstrate the process.  If I'm wrong, show me a video of someone making energy out of nothing.  And it would even be harder back then if we're assuming "no cause."  If you can't demonstrate it with a cause (someone prepping it), how do you expect it to happen without?

Yes, the energy just 'pops'. There *is* no process: the events are not caused.

We can create situations where the probabilities change and that has allowed us to test this. The Casimir effect is one consequence of this quantum fluctuation.

And I notice that you only addressed the last of my rebuttals, not the first two. That P1 is false in the real world is an experimental fact. But the other two show *internal* difficulties with your axiomatic system.

Was discussing this with one of the atheists on here the other day.  Zero-point energy and the aether hypothesis.

Regardless, feel free to believe whatever you like.  Not going around in circles with mass and energy popping out of nothing and creating an expanse with an enormous amount of energy that can't be thoroughly explained.  I'll be happy to believe it if someone can demonstrate it or replicate a large scale anamoly.  Until then it's just people asserting small things and trying to assert it towards past cause and effect.  Arguing about it is the equivalent of banging your head against the wall, because nobody can make a conclusive argument for "how it happened" since we can't go into the pass and observe it.