Why do you believe any deity, or deities exist? Please provide the best reason / evidence first

Debate Room
82

And Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose mathematically proved that universe emerged from an initial singularity in this paper.

The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences

But there is zero empirical evidence that it did. So, until a purely abstract mathematical proof is supported by empirical evidence, that is what it remains - pure abstraction. Nothing real, nothing concrete, nothing actual. Just like Godel’s abstract mathematical proof of the existence of a god-like object.

The only thing that counts is evidence, bsengstock20.

Thank you,

Walter.

83

As the all-knowing god incarnate, perhaps you could tell us if any of the energy conditions listed in the abstract of the mathematical proof in this paper
 The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
are violated by conditions observed in the universe?

Thank you,

Walter.

84

And does the position of either negate the other?

Many theologians and philosophers argue that the universe can emerge from an initial singularity and still be created by God. There is no contradiction between the two, because a physical origin and a metaphysical origin operate at different explanatory levels.

In cosmology, the Big Bang singularity isn’t a “thing” so much as the breakdown of classical physics. It simply marks the point beyond which our equations stop applying. Saying the universe “emerged from a singularity” means:

spacetime, energy, and physical law unfold from an earliest describable state

physical causation begins within spacetime

the singularity is not a cause, but a boundary of physical description

This is all intra-cosmic explanation: how the universe evolves once it exists.

Even if physics described the universe emerging from a quantum vacuum, a singularity, a bounce, or no beginning at all, the metaphysical question remains: Why is there something rather than nothing? You can accept both because they do not compete. God isn’t a cause within spacetime; God is the ground of spacetime’s existence.

Suppose the singularity is real. You still need:

Why are there laws that produce inflation, symmetry breaking, or quantum fluctuations?

Why is there a mathematical structure at all?

Why does the singularity “exist” rather than
 not?

Physics describes the behavior of existence. It does not explain why existence obtains.

85

No evidence for one, so another false equivalence.

Claim, no evidence again, and this has god of the gaps written all over it.

Why is a deity you can’t evidence, and that has no explanatory powers, being offerred.

Goddidit explains nothing.

86

Richard Swinburne, Brian Leftow, and Edward Feser as examples?

If we assume Godel’s proof to be correct (as it has been demonstrated mathematically), and God (being) exists a priori to the universe, and if God (being) is omnipresent, God (being) might possess the quantity necessary to give way to spacetime.

It isn’t. The subject being discussed is that the universe can emerge from an initial singularity without it negating the existence of God or that God didn’t “cause” such to occur. Of course, it may be that God didn’t, but that says something about our universe and not the existence of God.

87

You seemed to have completely missed to the point I was making bsengstock20 and have substituted questions that I didn’t ask and issues I didn’t raise.

What I wrote was in response to something you wrote. Specifically, this
 Because Kurt Godel proved that a God-like object does exist.

Using the Hawking-Penrose Singularity theorem I have demonstrated that any mathematical proof is just a theoretical abstraction that tells us nothing about reality
 unless it is supported with evidence. Therefore, Godel’s proof shares the same status. It tells us nothing about reality
 unless it is supported with evidence.

So, unless you can cite some empirical evidence in support of Godel’s proof everything else is just mental masturbation. Got any?

Evidence, that is.

Thank you,

Walter.

2 Likes
88

Even if we assume Godel’s proof is mathematically correct, it still tells us nothing about reality.

For that his proof would have to be supported by empirical evidence.

Got any?

89

Examples of evidence for a creator deity? What on earth are you talking about?

Sigh, assumptions are not evidence. You do nothing but assume, that’s the problem.

I already addressed this and you completely ignored it. You can go back and address my objection, but given you are using a repetition of this claim to ignore something I’ve offered here again, im dubious you have the integrity.

Thats a lie, here is that very claim:

So what, this seems to be bordering on an argumentum ad ignorantiam argument. No one has to offer alternative arguments or explanations, or disprove the claim a deity created anything.

The burden of proof lies with the claim a deity exists, or created anything.

So what have you got?

90

Fyi bsengstock20, there’s a lesson to learned about mathematical proofs and the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theorem can give it to us.

Their proof is mathematically perfect. In fact ALL mathematical proofs are forever perfect. But the question we should be asking ourselves is this. Do they apply to this universe? To the reality we occupy? And the only way we can know that is by empirical evidence.

From 1970, when the H - P theorem was written, until 1998, it was considered to apply to our universe. There was no evidence to confirm this, but there was also no evidence to refute this either. Then 1998, that all changed. Evidence for a small, but positive cosmological constant in our universe was discovered.

This was the nail in the coffin of the H - P theory. Because it was formulated on the assumption that the universe had a negative or null cosmological constant. So the discovery of a constant with a positive value demonstrated that the proof didn’t apply to our universe.

The proof was still mathematically correct and perfect. But it doesn’t apply here. It applies in a different universe - one where the cosmological constant has a negative or null value.

The lesson?

Just because something has been mathematically proven, that is no reason to accept it as saying anything meaningful about reality. For that you would need empirical evidence. Evidence is the anvil upon which the H - P theorem was broken.

And because of this lesson, simply stating what Godel’s theorem proves carries no weight. Unless and until it is supported with empirical evidence it remains a mathematical abstraction that may or may not apply to our universe.

You can help here bsengstock20 by presenting empirical evidence for Godel’s proof.

Got any?

3 Likes
91

For your further information bsengstock20, I can take you through the assumptions made by Hawking and Penrose in their 1970 paper and we can then see how their perfect mathematical proof actually says nothing meaningful about the universe.

The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences

This is from the paper’s abstract.

The theorem applies if the following four physical assumptions are made:

(i) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological constant),

(ii) the energy density is nowhere less than minus each principal pressure nor less than minus the sum of the three principal pressures (the ‘energy condition’),

(iii) there are no closed timelike curves,

(iv) every timelike or null geodesic enters a region where the curvature is not specially aligned with the geodesic. (This last condition would hold in any sufficiently general physically realistic model.)

Hawking and Penrose had to assume these four things, for the following reasons. First, because at the time of writing the value of the universe’s cosmological constant was unknown. That was rectified in 1998, but in such a way that it violated assumption number 1.

Second, because at the time of writing Alan Guth and Andrei Linde hadn’t yet formulated the theorem of cosmic Inflation. They did this in 1979/80 and in doing so their theorem violated Hawking and Penrose’s second assumption. All three of the principal pressures (matter, energy and the Inflaton field) modelled in inflation theory are equal to minus the sum of the three principal pressures. Exactly the opposite of what is needed for the second assumption to hold. In a nutshell, the Singularity theorem is incompatible with Inflationary theorem from get go.

The status of the third and fourth assumptions made by Hawking and Penrose were unknown then and remain unknown to this day. They pertain to the very earliest moments of the universe’s existence and as such are forever closed off to investigation using any part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is responsible for this. It forms an opaque ‘wall’ that cannot be penetrated by anything except gravitational waves. That is why the closest cosmologists can get to observing the Big Bang event itself is 380,000 years after it. Before that time the temperature, density and pressure of the CMB was too high for any light signals (of any frequency) to pass through it. Back in 2014 the BICEP2 science team claimed to have detected a B-mode polarization signal imprinted on the CMB, made by gravitational waves emanating from the Big Bang. But this result was later shown to be an artefact generated by interstellar dust. So, assumptions three and four of the H - P remain purely theoretical and supported by no observations, no data and no evidence.

So here’s the score card for the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theorem.

Assumption # 1 - Falsified by the discovery of a small but positive cosmological constant in 1998.

Assumption # 2 - Incompatible with Inflation, which is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence.

Assumption # 3 - To date unconfirmed, due to the obscuring effects of interstellar dust.

Assumption # 4 - Ditto.

There’s another lesson to be learned from all of this bsengstock20.

A proof is only as good as the assumptions it is based upon.

If they are found to be faulty, are contradicted by empirical evidence or are untestable, then even if the proof is mathematically sound, it still fails.

Thank you,

Walter.

92

You are right, but the classical theorems come in multiple forms (Hawking cosmological theorems, Penrose trapped-surface theorems, Hawking–Penrose mixed theorems). Some depend on assumptions that our universe no longer satisfies (like the strong energy condition). Others do not, and those still apply. The singularity theorem still applies to our universe, just not the original 1965 cosmological version.

Penrose’s black hole singularity theorem holds that positive cosmological constants do not violate the null energy condition, as black hole singularities remain predicted in our universe. Likewise, Hawking–Penrose mixed singularity theorem still applies under certain conditions.

Correct under the assumed conditions, but not perfect because it did not account for all real conditions. This is the fundamental distinction.

A proof of God and a scientific theorem (like the Hawking 1965 theorem) cannot be compared for several deep, structural reasons. General relativity is based on domain-specific axioms. Proofs of God are based on meta-level axioms about the nature of existence itself. A proof of God speaks to ultimate structure. Hawking–Penrose speaks to proximate structure.

Gödel’s proof of God and scientific theories are both “mathematical,” but they are mathematical in completely different senses. A scientific theory uses mathematical structures, but those structures are chosen to fit observations, not because they are logically necessary. Gödel’s proof uses modal logic, which is a higher level of abstraction. Modal logic deals with:

necessity

possibility

essential properties

These are not empirical concepts.

If you accept the axioms:

Positive properties are possibly instantiated

Necessary existence is a positive property

If a necessary being is possible, it exists necessarily


then the conclusion follows in all possible worlds.

You cannot falsify an “all possible worlds” claim with data from this world. That’s why Gödel’s proof is “mathematically sound” in a way science cannot be.

93

False equivalence, Gödel’s proof being mathematically correct is not the same as his conclusions being true, this has already been explained by more than one poster. Gödel did not prove God exists, he developed a rigorous, formal argument. The proof is not evidence for a deity, as it is based on axioms he defined, meaning its conclusion is only valid if one accepts its initial assumptions.

So this is not evidence for a deity, and of course, one could use it to argue almost anything into existence if one made unevidenced assumptions a priori, since it attempts to prove God’s existence from an assumed definition of God alone, rather than from empirical evidence.

1 Like
94

You had better cite from or link to which Hawking - Penrose theorems you are referring to and then show how they still apply to this universe, bsengstock. I did so, therefore please do so.

Also, what does it matter if black holes do not violate the null energy condition? Penrose shared in a Nobel prize for his 1970 work on black holes. That is agreed to be valid and robust. But that was not my point and both Hawking and Penrose have conceded that the other half of their 1970 paper, the part that deals with the initial singularity, has failed. That half of the theorem has no predictive power because, as I explained, its assumptions were faulty. There’s little to be gained from pointing to the successful half of a theorem if its the other half that proves my point. That if a proof’s assumptions are flawed, then so is any part of the proof that relies upon those assumptions.

You cannot falsify an “all possible worlds” claim with data from this world. That’s why Gödel’s proof is “mathematically sound” in a way science cannot be.

I’ve cut and pasted your words here bsengstock20 because you talk about falsification. The main objection to some of the predictions made by Inflation theorems is that they predict the existence of other, separate universes also caused by the decay of the Inflaton field. These other regions, beyond our observable universe are, of course, empirically unfalsifiable. Anything that is empirically unfalsifiable is beyond the remit of science. It is mere speculation.

On that basis Godel’s “all possible worlds” claim amounts to mere speculation. Logically consistent and mathematically sound speculation, but still speculation. If Tolkien’s Middle Earth were logically consistent and mathematically sound, would we therefore have any justification for saying that it is as ‘real’ as the universe we occupy? Of course not. That way lies madness. Where anything that meets the two criteria is considered to be as real as our own world.

My response to such evidence-free philosophizing is the same as the one Tommy Lee Jones gave to Harrison Ford when the latter said, ‘I didn’t kill my wife!’

Thank you,

Walter.

95

Here’s another thing that Godel’s theorem fails to do, bsengstock20.

Take a look at these.

https://www.oneforisrael.org/the-fine-tuned-universe-argument/

What is the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God? | GotQuestions.org.

What’s happening here is that the adherents of three different and mutually exclusive religions are all using the same argument to argue for the existence of their particular god. Not anyone else’s god, only theirs. They can do this because the fine-tuned universe argument is an open ended and non-specific argument that can be co-opted by anyone. These theists are doing just that and then inserting their particular god in at the end, BY FAITH. Not by logic or mathematics or by evidence, but BY FAITH.

So, let us for a moment agree that Godel’s theorem does what you claim and gives a ironclad argument for the existence of a god. What then? Does that theorem specifically identify the name of this god? No? If not, then its just the same as the fine-tuned universe argument. That is, open-ended and non specific.

Which means that Godel’s theorem hasn’t actually told you what you really need to know. Instead it’s levelled the playing field, making any and all creator gods equally possible. And this is a terrible place to be in.

If you get the identity of god wrong and worship the wrong god then you will forever be shut out of his/her/its presence in whatever heaven they rule over. Godel’s theorem will be of no help to you. Like the fine-tuned universe argument it cannot identify which is the right god to worship.

Depending upon which god is the true one, for choosing the wrong one you will suffer the eternal consequences of your error - be it torment in hellfire, eternal darkness in a place of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth or some other horrible fate.

Choose wisely by faith bsengstock20, because Godel’s theorem will be of no help to you!

96

Are you sure you want to hold to this position, bsengstock20?

You are saying that real conditions matter. That the data and evidence which we use to determine what are real conditions, matter. That matter, matters. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist that one.)

Anyway, how can you simultaneously hold to two different positions?

On the one hand saying that real world conditions, as defined by evidence, matters.

But on the other hand, when talking about Godel’s theorem, saying that only logical consistency and mathematical validity matter.

Could you explain this apparent contradiction to me please?

Thank you,

Walter.

97

He can also explain his basis for disbelief, as if we assume characteristics a priori without evidence, we can pretty much argue anything into existence.

98

Sure. Topology and Singularities in Cosmological Spacetimes Obeying the Null Energy Condition. Authors: Gregory J. Galloway & Eric Ling (2017). [1705.06705] Topology and singularities in cosmological spacetimes obeying the null energy condition

This paper explicitly considers globally hyperbolic spacetimes with compact Cauchy surfaces in a setting compatible with a positive cosmological constant. They refine aspects of Penrose’s singularity theorem under the assumption of the null energy condition (NEC) and connect the topology of the Cauchy surfaces with the occurrence of singularities. This supports the idea that Penrose-type singularity theorems can be extended or adapted to cases with Λ > 0 without necessarily violating the NEC.

Initial singularity part of Penrose/Hawking’s 1970 work is not a true modal proof (i.e., it does not demonstrate necessity in the strongest sense, that a singularity must exist in all physically possible worlds satisfying minimal assumptions). Even if we accept the logic conditionally, it is not a modal statement.

This is not so with God (a proposed omnipresent and omniscience observer). Modal logic requires that the conclusion hold in all metaphysically possible worlds consistent with minimal principles. Minimal conditions are not dependent on contingent empirical facts. Physics-based theorems (Penrose/Hawking) are conditional and contingent: they can never provide absolute necessity about the universe because they rely on empirical asssumptions that might not hold in all real cases.

That’s where you’re wrong. Modal logic requires that the conclusion hold in all metaphysically possible worlds consistent with minimal principles. Minimal conditions are not dependent on contingent empirical facts. Physics-based theorems (Penrose/Hawking) are conditional and contingent: they can never provide absolute necessity about the universe because they rely on empirical asssumptions that might not hold in all real cases.

This leads to an interesting question: Assuming a proposed omnipresent and omniscience observer, and a proposed reality that is logically consistent and mathematically sound, does that reality exist via the presence of the proposed omnipresent and omniscience observer?

My view is yes, but not because of God’s “actions”. A consistent reality exists whether or not an omnipresent omniscient observer acts to initiate it because in is part of the presence of the omnipresent observer. In this case, if we could modally demonstrate this reality, in would exist as a reality. However, this assumes that everything in the proposed reality is logically consistent and mathematically sound: a VERY big ask.

  1. If an observer is truly omnipresent, then all logically consistent realities are “within” that observer’s presence. (Because omnipresence implies no “outside” where a possible world could fail to be present.)

2. If an observer is omniscient, then every logically consistent structure is fully known by that observer. (Because omniscience includes all truths of all possible worlds.)

3. Therefore, a logically consistent reality exists without requiring an additional act of creation,
because its existence is already guaranteed by being fully known and fully present within the omnipresent observer.

Modal proof:

Modal Presence Principle

If:

  1. a reality (R) is logically consistent and mathematically sound, and
  2. there exists an omnipresent, omniscient observer O,

Then:

  1. R exists virtually or ontologically because R is contained within the total presence of
    O, and R is fully known by O.

Thus:

Consistency + Omnipresence + Omniscience ⇒ Existence

99

This is cheating, bsengstock20.

Here’s what you wrote


You are right, but the classical theorems come in multiple forms (Hawking cosmological theorems, Penrose trapped-surface theorems, Hawking–Penrose mixed theorems). Some depend on assumptions that our universe no longer satisfies (like the strong energy condition). Others do not, and those still apply. The singularity theorem still applies to our universe, just not the original 1965 cosmological version.

Here’s what I wrote in response


You had better cite from or link to which Hawking - Penrose theorems you are referring to and then show how they still apply to this universe, bsengstock. I did so, therefore please do so.

But today you haven’t cited a theorem by either Hawking or Penrose, written in the 1960’s or 70’s. Instead you’ve substituted a different singularity theorem, written by Galloway and Ling in 2017. This is not the singularity theorem under discussion between us.

You’ve also slipped up today, by referring back to the H - P singularity theorem of 1970.

Initial singularity part of Penrose/Hawking’s 1970 work is not a true modal proof (i.e., it does not demonstrate necessity in the strongest sense, that a singularity must exist in all physically possible worlds satisfying minimal assumptions). Even if we accept the logic conditionally, it is not a modal statement.

Which shows that you DO know which singularity theorem is under discussion by us. And it isn’t the one by Galloway and Ling.

So, no more cheating please. Here is a link to all of the science papers published by Stephen Hawking.

If you scroll down you will find all of his published papers arranged in date order. I asked you to show where the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970 still applies to this universe. Please do that by following the link I’ve just given and make good on your claim that this particular theorem still applies to this universe. I demonstrated that their 1970 theorem doesn’t That and only that is the point of contention between us.

I will answer no more of your questions and entertain no more of your claims until you have done this. All other discussion between us is on hold until you show me where and how their 1970 singularity theorem still applies to this universe.

Walter.

100

The 1970 theorem requires:

Energy condition:

Usually the strong energy condition (SEC) or null energy condition (NEC).

Ensures geodesics converge (gravity is attractive).

Causality:

No closed timelike curves (no time travel loops).

Existence of trapped surfaces or geodesic convergence:

Regions where light rays converge, like inside collapsing matter.

Global assumptions about spacetime:

Spacetime is non-compact in certain directions, or geodesics can extend indefinitely.

Hypothetical “flip side” universe:

Let’s define the “flip side”:

A region of the universe beyond our observable horizon.

Matter-dominated, with Λ effectively negligible.

Trapped surfaces exist (e.g., black holes or collapsing regions).

No causality violations.

Step-by-step demonstration:

Suppose ρ + 3p ≄ 0 everywhere in this region.

Gravity focuses geodesics → future-directed timelike and null geodesics converge.

Imagine a collapsing star or region forming a black hole. Light rays emitted from a 2D surface converge → “trapped surface.” Hawking–Penrose theorem then guarantees geodesics cannot extend indefinitely. There must be at least one singularity in the past or future (Big Bang or black hole singularity). No closed timelike curves exist → no loopholes in the convergence argument.

In this “flip side,” the 1970 theorem holds fully, and singularities are guaranteed wherever these conditions exist.

[Observable Universe]

Λ > 0 dominant

SEC violated in voids

Theorem fails in cosmic voids

Theorem holds in black holes

[Flip Side Universe]

Λ ~ 0, matter-dominated

SEC satisfied

Theorem fully applies

Singularities guaranteed

101

Please don’t substitute your own synopsis of the Hawking - Penrose singularity theorem of 1970, bsengstock.

To answer my question you will need to cite what Hawking and Penrose themselves write, not just in the abstract of that paper but also what they say about the value of the cosmological constant in the body of the paper.

To make life easier for you, I can ask you a series of Yes / No questions about the cosmological constant in that 1970 paper, which I hope you will answer honestly.

Would you like me to do that for you?

Walter.