The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists?

[IWantGod]

The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty. So why are people still atheists. Are Atheists irrational?

 

[inocente]

What proof is this? The world eagerly awaits.

I’m thinking that armed with this metaphysical certainty you could prove everything there is to know about God without there ever being a need to sacrifice Christ on the cross. If only God had waited for your metaphysical certainty!

 

[IWantGod]

What proof is this? The world eagerly awaits.

I’m thinking that armed with this metaphysical certainty you could prove everything there is to know about God without there ever being a need to sacrifice Christ on the cross. If only God had waited for your metaphysical certainty!

You cannot prove everything there is to know about God, but you can prove the existence of an intelligent first cause with metaphysical certainty.

 

[rossum]

The existence of an Absolute Intelligent First Cause has been proven to exist with absolute metaphysical certainty.

So, you agree that intelligence can arise without a cause – your uncaused First Cause is intelligent. Now you have the task of showing that other intelligences, such as human intelligence, cannot also arise uncaused.

So why are people still atheists. Are Atheists irrational?

No, it is your fault for failing to sufficiently spread the news of your claimed absolute proof.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

So, you agree that intelligence can arise without a cause

No i don’t agree that intelligence can “arise” without a cause.

 

[inocente]

You cannot prove everything there is to know about God, but you can prove the existence of an intelligent first cause with metaphysical certainty.

Are you claiming your proof is so certain it will be impossible for anyone to doubt?

Then lay out your stall.

No i don’t agree that intelligence can “arise” without a cause.

Do you mean your Absolute Intelligent First Cause is not intelligent, or that your Absolute Intelligent First Cause has a cause?

 

[IWantGod]

Are you claiming your proof is so certain it will be impossible for anyone to doubt?

It’s certain to the extent that to believe otherwise would lead to a reductio ad absurdum.

 

[inocente]

inocente:

Are you claiming your proof is so certain it will be impossible for anyone to doubt?

It’s certain in the extent that to believe otherwise would lead to a reductio ad absurdum.

Is it a secret or will you tell us this glorious proof?

 

[rossum]

No i don’t agree that intelligence can “arise” without a cause.

But you do agree with the existence of an uncaused intelligence I presume. Where is your evidence/argument that human intelligence is not also uncaused?

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

Do you mean your Absolute Intelligent First Cause is not intelligent, or that your Absolute Intelligent First Cause has a cause?

No, i’m saying that an intelligence cannot “arise” without a cause, and i am saying that a first cause is not something that “arises”.

 

[IWantGod]

1. Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Do you agree?

 

[inocente]

No, i’m saying that an intelligence cannot “arise” without a cause, and i am saying that a first cause is not something that “arises”.

I think rossum’s point is that we have lots of examples of intelligence, such as everyone on the planet, and you need to prove our intelligence needs to have a cause, otherwise all intelligence is uncaused.

And of course you’ll need to prove that without appealing to your uncaused cause, or it’s circular.

Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Do you agree?

Hang on. You admitted your proof cannot tell us everything about God, and now you’ve downgraded it from metaphysical certainty to mere psychological certainty. If B always follows A, then we might be psychologically certain that A causes B, but really all we can say is that in our experience we’ve always seen B when A. We can’t be certain that B without A, tomorrow we might observe B without A. That’s a long way from metaphysical certainty, and is why science is always provisional.

 

[rossum]

Nothing cannot be the cause of something. Do you agree?

No I do not agree. Some events in quantum mechanics are uncaused, like beta decay or pion decay. It is also the case that nothing can be the cause of nothing, and that second “nothing” can take forms that make it look like something:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Both cosmology and quantum mechanics are very strange. Assumptions that work well in the human scale do not always work well on cosmological or quantum scales.

rossum

 

[JohnC_1571]

I believe that the OP was referring to something along these lines: Godel’s Theoem Proved

I’ve seen the “spontaneous” appearance of particles to be evidence that something can appear from nothing, but this has also been refuted in arguments by pointing out that may simply be the effect that certain particles are of a sufficiently low energy state that they cannot be detected or measured until conditions changes for them to appear.

 

[adamhovey1988]

No, atheists are not irrational. Atheism, however, is. By the way, could you offer the evidence? You don’t have to convince me, I’m already a Christian, but it may help our atheist friends out if you showed them why they should believe. They want evidence to believe, which is understandable, but some of them make the mistake assumption that we haven’t got any.

 

[IWantGod]

No I do not agree. Some events in quantum mechanics are uncaused, like beta decay or pion decay. It is also the case that nothing can be the cause of nothing, and that second “nothing” can take forms that make it look like something:

How does this refute the principle of non-contradiction? Science cannot do that, it doesn’t make metaphysical claims. Firstly I’m talking about an existential cause and not a mechanistic cause. Secondly how does what you have said prove that a thing can come from absolutely nothing without a cause?

I’m sorry you are talking nonsense.

 

[rossum]

Secondly how does what you have said prove that a thing can come from absolutely nothing without a cause?

It is proved because it is observed. The different modes of pion decay are observed and have no cause: each pion is identical and yet some decay one way and others decay a different way.

I’m sorry you are talking nonsense.

It is you who is talking nonsense, I’m afraid. I have a proof that the universe is uncaused:

• the universe is all that exists.
• the cause of the universe must be external to the universe.
• anything external to the universe does not exist.
• the universe cannot have any cause that exists.

QED.

We have still seen neither hide nor hair of your claimed metaphysical proof of a cause.

rossum

 

[IWantGod]

It is proved because it is observed. The different modes of pion decay are observed and have no cause: each pion is identical and yet some decay one way and others decay a different way.

IWantGod:

And how does that prove that something can come from nothing?

 

[IWantGod]

the universe is all that exists.
the cause of the universe must be external to the universe.
anything external to the universe does not exist.
the universe cannot have any cause that exists.

That’s a circular argument, try again. Remember it is you who thinks something can come from nothing. It may be pointless having a rational conversation with you.

 

[rossum]

And how does that prove that something can come from nothing?

First, please acknowledge that I have answered your question about uncaused events. After that I suggest that you re-read the Hawking quote I gave above. A zero energy universe requires zero energy (name removed by moderator)ut: nothing (name removed by moderator)ut.

We are still awaiting your description of your claimed absolute proof.

rossum