Existance of God

[Praesidium]

I wrote up this up but am in need of someone to pick the argument apart to kingdom come because I know it needs revising…the actual work is a proof of God that I’m going to present to some agnostics I know. Here it is.

Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but is it not a fact of parallel dimension physics that each of us exists somewhere in some universe in whatever way, shape, or form we can imagine? (yes, a Stargate quote but follow me here)

So expanding on that premise in one of the infinite number of universes out there anything could and in order to maintain the validity of the theory must exist. Although this opens many cans of worms (like a universe where Star Wars really happened, and others where the laws of physics don’t apply) it also means that in many of these universes there by default must also be an omnipotent, all-knowing God. But by reason of definition and also backed by the requirements of the theory in at least one of those universes there must be a God who knows all that occurs in all the other universes, and can control them all. At this point, the theory totally falls apart because that God would be God of all the universes, but there must also be universes where there is no God in control. That is only one of many contradictions that must result from the theory in order for it to stick to its own premises.

Now one may say that I have only disproved a theory and not proven God but I’ll take this a step further. Now atheism relies totally on the principle of an evolution that by reason of definition does not involve God. Now that form of evolution relies totally on the theory of spontaneous generation, that life could arise by the random mixing of chemicals in some primordial pool. Science proves and even atheistic scientists are forced to admit that the chances of such an occurrence are extremely unlikely. In support of their belief, however, they point to the practical applications of infinity.

Now infinity of which they speak can be loosely placed into three categories in order of greatest practical application, parallel infinity (relating to the supposed infinite number of universes), temporal infinity (that the universe exists forward and backward for the entirety of eternity) and spatial infinity (that the universe expands infinitely out in all directions). By the argument above the postulate of parallel infinity must be discarded as completely illogical and full of contradictions. Temporal infinity is also reduced to a finite object because the loss of parallel infinity means that eventually the universe must grow dark, dismal, and cold; at some point all of the universe’s energy must be expended. Likewise, the chances of spatial infinite are reduced to the incomprehensible by the loss of parallel infinity.

Therefore, by reason of the loss of these three types of infinity the only infinity that remains is the one in infinity chance that spontaneous generation could occur. Thus by backtracking along the arguments in the third paragraph, the entire support of atheism is removed, leaving only the possibility of theism.

 

[Nullasalus]

Interesting argument. I do remember John Polkinghorne saying something along these lines - namely that by MWI, God must exist in one universe. But if God exists in one universe, by definition He has to exist in all of them.

Some potential problems, though this isn’t my field of expertise.

I think the odds of abiogenesis as we understand it are potentially slim (I think Hoyle went into this), but the argument will be that we just haven’t discovered the ‘right’ abiogenesis path. Or an argument that there are billions and billions of stars, planets, etc, which may affect the odds. So this will devolve into ‘Not enough information’. If you have a reference for the odds you’re using here, I’d love to see them - my reading on it has been that it’s a very murky field, despite a lot of effort.

I think you may be on to something with eternities and infinities. I’ve been thinking recently that there’s two obvious options when it comes to the universe: It’s either infinite in both directions, or it had a beginning. Frankly, even though theists prefer the latter to the former typically, either situation strikes me as mind-boggling enough to come across as a… well, miracle. And both result in a mystery, since it’s hard to prove either. (If the universe just blinked into existence and had a cause outside of itself, we can’t get at it because the cause is outside of itself. If it’s eternal, there’s always going to be ‘more past’ to go back through, looking for a beginning.)

 

[Praesidium]

I have a small background in astrophysics as in taking some introductory courses some years back. But simply much of it rests on E=MC^2 which is necessary for the big bang theory. But basically it says energy that exists independent of the known particles (small amount of proof for that) was condensed in this single event producing matter…but this also means by that definition that multiple big bangs have occurred in space and will continue to occur for infinity (I think I found a hole in my own argument)…

There can’t be statistic for abiogenesis for that would require that we actually be able to produce even the most simple bacterium in a lab which no one has ever done. Also cellular biology is a promising field for an attack on abiogenesis for the human cell couldn’t have evolved by normal natural selection. It would require the Monster Theory (I believe that is what its called) and even Darwin himself said that evolution of that sort was purely absurd.

Well, also time is a created dimension just as the other three and so God exists independent of it. As such it has to be created.

 

[Nullasalus]

I have a small background in astrophysics as in taking some introductory courses some years back. But simply much of it rests on E=MC^2 which is necessary for the big bang theory. But basically it says energy that exists independent of the known particles (small amount of proof for that) was condensed in this single event producing matter…but this also means by that definition that multiple big bangs have occurred in space and will continue to occur for infinity (I think I found a hole in my own argument)…

This has been kicked around on this forum recently, I think - arguments of eternal inflation, though it doesn’t seem to be past-eternal. I believe you still have to get into the fine-tuning of the start event, and even the nature of it, in such a situation. But you’re the one with the background - I yield to anyone with relevant knowledge in this case.

Still, at least you’re refining the argument - that’s why you posted it after all.

 

[Praesidium]

Well, I don’t pretend to be an expert on astrophysics…merely a dabbler…

I almost forgot to add something…the existance of carbon, hydrogen, and other neccesary elements require a near infinite number of opportunities. So I must return to the drawing board against temporal infinity.

Yup

 

[masterjedi747]

Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but is it not a fact of parallel dimension physics that each of us exists somewhere in some universe in whatever way, shape, or form we can imagine? (yes, a Stargate quote but follow me here)

http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_smilies/tealc-pancarte04.gif http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_smilies/vortex04.gif

So expanding on that premise in one of the infinite number of universes out there anything could and in order to maintain the validity of the theory must exist. Although this opens many cans of worms…it also means that in many of these universes there by default must also be an omnipotent, all-knowing God.

I really don’t think that follows at all. Because God is, by definition, outside of the universe, and not composed of the matter/energy with which the universe is composed. It’s just a non-sequitur…a scientific theory concerned with matter/energy is never going to touch upon the existence of a spiritual being. (I guess that kind of destroys your argument at the beginning…)

That is only one of many contradictions that must result from the theory in order for it to stick to its own premises.

I’m not sure there are any inherent self-contradictions within the multiverse theory. I just don’t buy it because, first of all, it’s really nothing more than a pure hypothesis, but secondly, and perhaps more importantly, because I think it totally negates Divine Providence.

Now that form of evolution relies totally on the theory of spontaneous generation, that life could arise by the random mixing of chemicals in some primordial pool. Science proves and even atheistic scientists are forced to admit that the chances of such an occurrence are extremely unlikely.

I think that really holds for all theories of evolution, not just the atheistic version. And yes, it might have been unlikely. But it wasn’t impossible…and it happened. And I think such an event would certainly fall under the realm of Divine Providence…it happened because God wanted it to, and really for no other reason.

…the entire support of atheism is removed, leaving only the possibility of theism.

Honestly, I think you’re making this much harder than it needs to be.
There is a much easier way to prove the existence of God…

Essence: What a thing is. (Noun. Notice “is” used as a linking verb.)
Existence: That a thing is. (Verb. Notice “is” used as an action verb.)
The main point here is that there is a distinction between things, and existence.
And when I say “things exist”, you automatically realize this anyway. That sentence contains a noun and verb.

Contingent: Dependent for it’s existence upon something else.
Necessary: Not dependent for it’s existence upon anything else.
Everything that you can possibly see around you is a contingent being.
If it ever began to exist, if it ever had a beginning, then something caused it to exist.
The concept of a “necessary being” is the only other conceivable possibility.
A “necessary being” would be one that had no beginning, and thus was not caused.
We have not yet proved that any “necessary being” exists. I’m simply explaining the concept.

Logical Proof For The Existence Of God ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Premise 1: Something cannot come from nothing.
Premise 2: A thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect. (Principle of Non-Contradiction)

Step 1: Things exist.
Reason: Self-evident fact.

Step 2: A thing cannot cause itself to exist.
Reason: Principle of Non-Contradiction.
If a thing does not yet exist, it cannot possibly act to cause it’s own existence.
Important: Because a thing cannot give existence to itself, it’s existence is not it’s own.

Step 3: Contingent beings cannot cause the existence of another contingent being.
Reason: Something cannot come from nothing.
Contingent beings have no existence of their own (see Step 2), so they cannot give existence.
Example: When you bake a cake, you cause the essence of cake, but you used pre-existing materials.
You didn’t cause those original materials to exist. You simply combined existing substances in new ways.

Conclusion: There must be a Necessary Being, that’s essence is existence, and that causes the existence of all other things.
Reason: All other possibilities have been logically eliminated.
Contingent beings exist.
A contingent being cannot cause itself to exist.
A contingent being cannot cause another contingent being to exist.
Therefore, a necessary being must exist, and be the source of existence for all contingent things.