The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Rawlings]

https://youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0

https://youtu.be/vybNvc6mxMo

https://youtu.be/Dqc42ZB24ew


The Kalam Cosmological Argument:


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.


Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11.  An actual infinite cannot exist. 
2.12.  An infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite. 
2.13.  An actually infinite temporal regress cannot be traversed to the present.
2.14  Therefore, an actually infinite temporal regress cannot exist.   

AND   

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21.  A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 
2.22.  The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 
2.23.  Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

3.  The Universe has a cause of its existence.

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic summary of the conclusion regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The Universe has a cause of its existence.

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.

3.11. The universe is a material existent.

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the physical world cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.

[Rawlings]

Whether our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse: the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.

We cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.

From an excerpt of an article I wrote a few years ago:
​
     Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold,
     provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion
     than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as
     distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating
     region of spacetime in a finite proper time (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete).​
​
This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.​
​
Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:​
​
     It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With
     the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to
     face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

[Rawlings]

Grasping the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument entails an appreciation of the distinction between potential and actual infinities. The following is an excerpt from an article I wrote regarding that distinction:

     . . . Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's
     observation regarding the existential impossibility of a quantitatively definite actual infinity. How is it possible that a professor of
     philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities? As every serious calculus student should know,
     actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of
     things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.​
​
     It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit, and the only sense in which they exist inside
     minds is strictly conceptual. There's never a point in time or being outside of minds when there isn't still more and more. . . . One might
     as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is. From this we see that the existential
     impossibility of an actual infinity outside of minds goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.​
​
     A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually. Indeed,
     the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual
     infinity. The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers
     between the integers 0 and 1, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other
     adjacently sequential ±integers from 0 to ±∞ combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)! Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the
     infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of
     infinities.​
​
     Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists, in and of itself, outside of minds either. When we talk about a real
     number like ±1 as opposed to a surreal number like ±∞, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while
     a surreal number has some indeterminate value. The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or
     numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.​
​
     Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God's attributes. When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is
     incomparably perfect in all ways. There's no divine attribute of infinity as such. God's omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are
     routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things. I've written
     on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite"
     and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual
     nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude). God is the Eternal Now who
     stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.​
​
     While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at
     one point in his critique he smugly argues that God could create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so
     obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.​
​
     But it's Morriston who's befuddled.​
​
     That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is
     not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's
     precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an
     actually infinite number of rooms couldn't possibly exist in the first place. An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of
     elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity. The
     distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the
     only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any
     given moment in time or being that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.​
​
     It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!​
​
     In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature. Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of
     metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us. For God to do something contrary to His nature is
     for God to deny Himself. God = God. God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously. How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in
     religious philosophy? Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities.​
​
     Now on to the mathematical treatment of Infinity.​

[RV]

As we have witnessed with the theory of evolution, mask mandates and the scare tactics that the media uses, "science and math" only matters if Marxists can use them to further their Communist ideology. Skew, ignore or manipulate the data to support an ideology, brainwash children in school as if it is real "science and math". This is exactly what was done with the Presidential election, illegal votes were re-counted and of course the same conclusion was reached.

Yes, there is ample evidence as well as documented witnesses in favor of God yet, nay-sayers will claim all sorts of things which they say will refute the facts, the testimony and the eye witnesses. These same people will claim that the Bible is wrong, written by neanderthals, old or otherwise irrelevant.

Until the rapture happens and it is too late for many, the haters will hate. Even after the rapture, there will be people who claim that "science and math" disproves the rapture. It will be blamed on aliens or some other such nonsense when the facts and truth are right in front of them. I suspect that the anti-christ will have an easy time of it since the Bible talks about there being "widespread" delusions at that time. I'm quite certain that the social media and news media will gladly perpetuate that delusion to the unsuspecting masses.

[Bluepig]

Seems like someone is overthinking it.

[p1tchblack]

Even if you believe that "everything" was created by a god, which is possible, how do you know that it's the god you believe in and not the god of another religion or simply a god that man has no knowledge of?

[Solar]

Even if you believe that "everything" was created by a god, which is possible, how do you know that it's the god you believe in and not the god of another religion or simply a god that man has no knowledge of?

Your atheism keeps you vacantly ignorant.

[supsalemgr]

Even if you believe that "everything" was created by a god, which is possible, how do you know that it's the god you believe in and not the god of another religion or simply a god that man has no knowledge of?

Clearly you do not understand the concept of "faith" when it comes to spirituality.

[p1tchblack]

Clearly you do not understand the concept of "faith" when it comes to spirituality.

I understand what faith used to mean to me is probably similar to what it currently means to you.  What faith means to me now is believing something on bad evidence.

[supsalemgr]

I understand what faith used to mean to me is probably similar to what it currently means to you.  What faith means to me now is believing something on bad evidence.

That is certainly your right.

[Solar]

That is certainly your right.

He's just a kid, he has yet to actually experience life. When one puts their life on the line for another, the individual rises to a new level in spirituality.
This kid has yet to take his first steps in the journey known as life.

[RV]

He's just a kid, he has yet to actually experience life. When one puts their life on the line for another, the individual rises to a new level in spirituality.
This kid has yet to take his first steps in the journey known as life.

As they say in wartime, "there are no atheists in foxholes"...

[Solar]

As they say in wartime, "there are no atheists in foxholes"...

Like the atheist who finds God the moment he realizes his time is about to expire, he actualizes there is something bigger than his faithless life.

[p1tchblack]

He's just a kid, he has yet to actually experience life. When one puts their life on the line for another, the individual rises to a new level in spirituality.
This kid has yet to take his first steps in the journey known as life.

You have no idea how old I am, what I know about the Bible or what my spiritual journey has been, so maybe you shouldn't stop pretending to know things you don't know.

[Solar]

You have no idea how old I am, what I know about the Bible or what my spiritual journey has been, so maybe you shouldn't stop pretending to know things you don't know.

Based on your responses, you are intellectually stunted with no real world experience whatsoever, so you either still living with mom, or you're a 20 something stuck at a dead-end job in the city.
Don't lie, it's soooo damned obvious.