11 yr old Genius Attempts to Prove the Existence of God

[BrocepCurls]

This sums it up pretty well.
All the problems classical arguments of the first cause have this one has as well. Some would be:
-"What caused the first cause?" could be asked over and over again leading to infinite regress.
-You'd first need to be able to be able to reliably distingiush cause and causation, which we can't
-If something is outside of spacetime, it is still pretty weird to measure it in terms of causation
-If there is something outside of our universe not following the rules of space and time, there is no indication it would be close to a biblical god, who was incarnated in Christ. It could as well be an invisible teapot or a flying spaghetti monster, Allah or Nyarlathotep. So even if that argument points into the direction of some kind of higher entity, it rather supports some primitive form of monism than the big religions.

Playing devils advocate here, the infinite regress problem only applies to things which exist contingently - that is, they either could have or could not have existed. Most theists will tell you that God exists necessarily, not contingently, and so wouldn't need a cause in the same way the universe does as he never "came into being".

[sandaltan]

seems like a cool smart kid but his basic premise of "something can't come from nothing" has been proven false on the quantum level. matter pops in and out of existence, occurs in two places simultaneously, and obeys none of the rational laws of physics that we experience in our everyday lives.

also he has a specific point he's TRYING to prove - that's not good science to begin with.

[wings_unhinged]

The fact that they had to point out that he's a genius probably means the argument isn't that great.

[Mr Beer]

I don't think this child's parents are doing him any favours with this 'child genius PROVES that God exists' nonsense video. Looks like they should be making him go ride around on bikes with his friends more often rather than making his childhood all about being a child prodigy.

[acrawlingchaos]

I find some models very interesting (though I have absolutely no education on the mater)

The first cause wasn't a first cause. A black hole can be described as a closed universe, one in which no light can escape. On the other end, would be a "white hole" a singularity in which not even light can enter. In this instance, when a black hole becomes massive enough the white whole singularity explodes in a "big bang" creating a new universe.

[PimpMasterC]

God exists, but god is consciousness, and that is the thing that existed before the big bang.

[BetaAsPhuck]

This is just the cosmological argument with some extraneous high school physics.

I'll be honest, I thought something similar. "This is the Kalam Cosmological argument, mixed with science."

That's not a criticism, he presented it in a way that I haven't heard it presented before.

I don't think that the philosophical 'proofs' of God, are very good in general (I used to be an atheist, and would argue with people who presented those arguments). However, I do think that the Kalam cosmological argument is the strongest one of the bunch. (Though, there are - of course - counter arguments).

[BetaAsPhuck]

Being able to follow the BS the kid said has nothing to do with being smart. Even if you're the smartest guy in the world, if you're not into physics and haven't read up or studied the subject, there's no way you'll understand wtf he's talking about. And I'm pretty sure that's the idea, throw a bunch of nonsense at people until they feel confused and assume the kid knows what he's talking about, then follow up with "therefore God exists" and hope for the best.

Anyone who has read; A Briefer History Of Time By Stephen Hawking (a very short book on introductory physics), would be able to follow what he's saying.

It's not nonsense, even if someone doesn't agree with his conclusion.

It's the same tired-ass old "God of the gaps" argument from always, it goes as follows:

1) Present a phenomenon that's not currently explained or properly understood
2) Say "God must've done it"

No, that's not the argument. It's the Kalam Cosmological argument.

Here's the argument restated, in different wording:

You cannot have an infinite regress of naturalist mechanical causality, otherwise nothing would exist. By logical necessity there had to be a first cause, a cause that is not mechanistic or natural, because then it would be subject to the rules of causality which would lead to an infinite regress. That first cause is a conscious creator, because if the universe's existence was not a casual necessity, then it had to be a choice.

He also attempts to explain to laymen (whilst simultaneously presenting the Kalam Cosmological argument) why he believes gravity can't be the causal agent for the universe (which is what some physicists believe).

[nkiritsis13]

Alright, I'm by no means an expert on space physics, but the actual physics did make sense until he posited that if something cannot be created by nothing, then the singularity that created the Big Bang must have been first created by something, ergo God. That only means that there was a point beyond what we can date as far as our known universe, but simply labeling what is still a mystery to us on a scientific level as God is essentially throwing one's hands up in the air and saying, "I don't know - the man in the sky did it."

It's more a scientific cop-out than anything, and contrary to the point he is specifically attempting to sway, it is suddenly inserting faith into science to explain that which could very well be another level to the collective equation that flips our conceptions of space, time, and the universe upside down. The pursuit of knowledge in respect to such cosmic proportions have always run into points where everyone thought they hit a wall - a limit to what can be explained - only for that wall to be shattered with new ways of thinking and collective advances.

The crux of his argument is that something had to create the singularity, and that something has to be God, but that only raises the question: what created "God," then? God, in his argument, is just a blanket, placeholder word for, "what's next?"

You could replace "God" with "timey-wimey bullchit" and it would hold as much water.

Actually, I somewhat take that back; "timey-wimey bullchit" could very well be what lies beyond our known understanding of the universe, although obviously in a less colloquial fashion.

[keepitnatty]

seems like a cool smart kid but his basic premise of "something can't come from nothing" has been proven false on the quantum level. matter pops in and out of existence, occurs in two places simultaneously, and obeys none of the rational laws of physics that we experience in our everyday lives.

also he has a specific point he's TRYING to prove - that's not good science to begin with.

BS how are u gonna rebute life’s biggest question and not provide links

[BetaAsPhuck]

The crux of his argument is that something had to create the singularity, and that something has to be God, but that only raises the question: what created "God," then? God, in his argument, is just a blanket, placeholder word for, "what's next?"

Broceps actually presented the counter argument to that (as did I, in my post above).

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showt...post1563954751

[ScottTil]

I'm no genius but I'm pretty sure thats just pseudoscientific babble

[Streetbull]

Human knowledge is done by comparing and contrasting.

If God exists, then God is a singular existent. In other words, we cannot know God by our usual method because He is an entirely unique being.

Only if God chooses to reveal himself to you (think Lord Krsna and Arjuna) can you acquire knowledge of God.

This has happened to me at least twice with certainty. This can never be proven to others because personal experience is not scientific — it is existential.

God bless!

[adimare]

Anyone who has read; A Briefer History Of Time By Stephen Hawking (a very short book on introductory physics), would be able to follow what he's saying.

Haven't read that book (I did read A Brief History of Time as a kid tho), but I don't think any of the books that attempt to introduce laymen to complicated physics subjects do a great job (with the only exception being Quantum Mechanics and Experience). I think they slightly condition people to be more gullible when it comes to physics. They read that distances between places shrink as you accelerate and that time slows down as you get closer to a gravitational field and then when Deepak Chopra tells them they can collapse quantum states with their mind as they please to heal their bodies or this kid says "black holes are an absence of spacetime" they think "well yeah, probably, sounds just about as crazy as all the other stuff physicists agree with". But it's not, it's just nonsense.

No, that's not the argument.

Sure it is, his argument boils down to "we don't have a clear explanation of how the known Universe came to be, therefore God did it".

Here's the argument restated, in different wording:

You cannot have an infinite regress of naturalist mechanical causality, otherwise nothing would exist. By logical necessity there had to be a first cause, a cause that is not mechanistic or natural, because then it would be subject to the rules of causality which would lead to an infinite regress. That first cause is a conscious creator, because if the universe's existence was not a casual necessity, then it had to be a choice.

Who established that rule? Since when are the two only options causal necessity or choice? Let's use radioactive atom decay as an example. Let's say we have two Iodine-131 atoms that were produced almost simultaneously in a nuclear reactor, we observe them for a bit and notice that atom A decays after 8 days, and atom B decays after 16 days (this is a pretty common occurrence). Can you tell me the causal necessity for this sequence of events? Why did atom B take twice as much time to decay if its conditions were the same as those of atom A? Is the only possible explanation that the decay of each atom was a conscious choice?

[sandaltan]

BS how are u gonna rebute life’s biggest question and not provide links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

checkmate

[tyqb4]

Looks like we're gonna lose a genius to ****ty parenting.

[Mr Beer]

Haven't read that book (I did read A Brief History of Time as a kid tho), but I don't think any of the books that attempt to introduce laymen to complicated physics subjects do a great job (with the only exception being Quantum Mechanics and Experience). I think they slightly condition people to be more gullible when it comes to physics. They read that distances between places shrink as you accelerate and that time slows down as you get closer to a gravitational field and then when Deepak Chopra tells them they can collapse quantum states with their mind as they please to heal their bodies or this kid says "black holes are an absence of spacetime" they think "well yeah, probably, sounds just about as crazy as all the other stuff physicists agree with". But it's not, it's just nonsense.

Quantum mechanics lends itself nicely to charlatans and hippy-dippy nonsense in general because it's a) deeply weird and b) not understood by the vast majority of the population (including me).

[dashdash89]

The argument of infinite regress doesn't prevent something coming from nothing when you're discussing a singularity; it is by definition infinite. The problem is that it is non-deterministic. What arises could be a universe or a puppy. This is something David Deutsch briefly mentions in his last book.

The problem with a creator is that it is unnecessary. In the infinite chain of actions that leads to the big bang arising from a singularity, anything that "creator" did could have been replaced by something else.

[keepitnatty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

checkmate

Just fkn lol at comparing a computer simulation to a the real cause in space

[7rmr]

Brb using the laws of the unicerse to explain what happened before the existence of the universe. Yeah sorry, obviously that doesn't make sense.

Why would the same laws/properties that exist now be the same as the laws/properties that existed before the universe itself

[wincel]

Quantum mechanics lends itself nicely to charlatans and hippy-dippy nonsense in general because it's a) deeply weird and b) not understood by the vast majority of the population (including me).

Sadly, "quantum woo" as they call it is here to stay. I suppose someday in the distance future, it will become less controversial. It's similar to how when people first discovered principles of geometry, they had cults build around it lol. Today, even children know the Pythagorean Theorem and do not see any mysticism in it. Similarly, one day, high schoolers may learn quantum mechanics. It's really not that hard, and after studying it enough, you will see it isn't that weird. One issue with it is it lends itself to various different philosophical interpretations, which while inconsequential to the calculations that model the outcome of experiment, may have radically different views about the nature of reality.

[BetaAsPhuck]

Sure it is, his argument boils down to "we don't have a clear explanation of how the known Universe came to be, therefore God did it".

Even philosophers who are critics of the Kalam cosmological argument, don't characterize it as a 'god of the gaps' argument. Because it isn't.

Who established that rule? Since when are the two only options causal necessity or choice?

That's a common response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, here is my wording of a common explanation....

An infinite regress of causality would not result in anything exist.

Naturalistic causes are mechanistic (meaning they have no agency).

The the first cause can't be natural, because then that natural causes is mechanistic (meaning, they have no independent agency).

Seeing as it is not necessary for the universe to exist, the exist of the universe was created via agency (ie. Choice).

Can you tell me the causal necessity for this sequence of events?

The Kalam Cosmological argument is an argument based in logic, about how the universe began to exist, it doesn't apply to anything else.

No offense, have you read about the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Again, I don't think it's an argument without flaws, but I think it's the strongest philosophical argument for God's existence.

[BetaAsPhuck]

The argument of infinite regress doesn't prevent something coming from nothing when you're discussing a singularity; it is by definition infinite. .

Logically speaking it does, an infinite regress of causality would prevent anything from arising in the first place.

(eg. imagine if people are lined up ready to start a race. And the person who is going to pull the starting pistol has to ask someone if it's OK to start, then that person has to ask someone if it's OK to start, then that person has to ask someone if it's OK to start, and that stretched out to infinity... The race would literally never begin.)


So by logical necessity there had to be a first cause.

However, (IMO) the strongest criticism of the Kalam Cosmological argument, is that the beginning of the universe doesn't necessarily have to conform to logic.

[BrocepCurls]

Logically speaking it does, an infinite regress of causality would prevent anything from arising in the first place.

(eg. imagine if people are lined up ready to start a race. And the person who is going to pull the starting pistol has to ask someone if it's OK to start, then that person has to ask someone if it's OK to start, then that person has to ask someone if it's OK to start, and that stretched out to infinity... The race would literally never begin.)


So by logical necessity there had to be a first cause.

However, (IMO) the strongest criticism of the Kalam Cosmological argument, is that the universe doesn't necessarily have to conform to logic.

Causality as referred to in the KCA makes inferences from objects within the universe, all of which are creation ex-materia or essentially rearrangement of pre-existing matter. We don't know anything about the concept of creation ex-nihilo since we've never seen it and could not possibly ever see it - and the creation of the universe itself ex-nihilo needing to follow the same logical rules of causality as creation of objects within the universe ex-materia, is one of the big leaps that the KCA makes without basically any justification.

[BetaAsPhuck]

Causality as referred to in the KCA makes inferences from objects within the universe, all of which are creation ex-materia or essentially rearrangement of pre-existing matter. We don't know anything about the concept of creation ex-nihilo since we've never seen it and could not possibly ever see it - and the creation of the universe itself ex-nihilo needing to follow the same logical rules of causality as creation of objects within the universe ex-materia, is one of the big leaps that the KCA makes without basically any justification.

Bro...

I just said that. ;-)

However, (IMO) the strongest criticism of the Kalam Cosmological argument, is that the beginning of the universe doesn't necessarily have to conform to logic.

[BrocepCurls]

Bro...

I just said that. ;-)

It's not that it doesn't have to conform to logic period, it's just that it doesn't have to conform to the observed everyday logic which it derives its first premise from. The first premise of the KCA is essentially baseless

[BetaAsPhuck]

It's not that it doesn't have to conform to logic period, it's just that it doesn't have to conform to the observed everyday logic which it derives its first premise from. The first premise of the KCA is essentially baseless

C'mon bro.

Semantics. ;-)

[numberguy12]

Playing devils advocate here, the infinite regress problem only applies to things which exist contingently - that is, they either could have or could not have existed. Most theists will tell you that God exists necessarily, not contingently, and so wouldn't need a cause in the same way the universe does as he never "came into being".

Lol how convenient for most theists that "God exists necessarily, not contingently, and so wouldnt need a cause in the same way the universe does". What a nice, utterly arbitrary distinction. Do people actually fall for this stuff? Let me guess...they hear fancy words from metaphysics (which one might call babble) such as "contingent", and so they give up and dont analyze arguments like this for what they are actually worth, which is nothing.

[dashdash89]

Logically speaking it does, an infinite regress of causality would prevent anything from arising in the first place.

(eg. imagine if people are lined up ready to start a race. And the person who is going to pull the starting pistol has to ask someone if it's OK to start, then that person has to ask someone if it's OK to start, then that person has to ask someone if it's OK to start, and that stretched out to infinity... The race would literally never begin.)


So by logical necessity there had to be a first cause.

However, (IMO) the strongest criticism of the Kalam Cosmological argument, is that the beginning of the universe doesn't necessarily have to conform to logic.

No, it doesn't. Not when we're discussing a naked singularity. Something which converges on infinity would not be limited by the logical argument you've outlined above

[numberguy12]

All the tired "first cause", "prime mover", "cosmological" arguments being argued once again in this thread...sigh. Like other supposed proofs of God, they are littered with flaws, unwarranted assumptions, and bad logic.

The word "proof" and "God" being in the same sentence should itself be a red flag. Proof is a mathematical term, and existence proofs in mathematics are about things that dont really "exist", so to speak, in the actual world. We can prove that there exists a whole number strictly between 5 and 7, for example. But proving that this whole number 6 exists doesnt have any implications about the physical world, and no one is asserting 6 actually exists. Physical reality is better modeled with scientific theories, which is not the same thing as proof from mathematics. God, at least you would think, would be a physical reality for the theist, not a mere abstraction.

One dead-giveaway that the "proofs of God" out there are not convincing proofs whatsoever, and thus are equivalent to nothing? (when I say equivalent to nothing, this is because how the concept of proof works: if one small detail....even the smallest detail you can possibly imagine in a proof is wrong or objectionable.....then the entire proof collapses to saying nothing at all, as the conclusion is simply not warranted*). The dead-giveaway is that people are still constantly arguing these supposed proofs hundreds (or in the case of the prime mover argument, thousands of years out). Huge red flag here. Notice with actual proofs (and we are talking about proofs from mathematics), no one is sitting around thousands of years later debating them. No one questions a^2+b^2=c^2 for right triangles in Euclidean geometry today. No one questions whether there are an infinite number of primes today. The proofs are convincing. The proofs for God's existence, on the other hand, are not convincing at all.


*to further hammer this point: someone above was talking about the Kalam cosmological argument (William Lain Craig strikes again). Words like it's "the strongest" argument out of the God proofs etc. Arguments arent in a spectrum of "strength" lol...they are valid or not. Proofs are correct or they are not. It was even mentioned that "some philosophers raise objections......". If there are obvious objections to an argument, you discard it and reject the conclusion.

I mean what does this even mean?:

Again, I don't think it's an argument without flaws, but I think it's the strongest philosophical argument for God's existence.

If you think the argument has flaws.....then it means nothing, this is how proofs work. It is certainly not "strong", in fact it is completely worthless. Lets give an example: Imagine the most brilliant guy in the world comes up with the long-awaited proof that there are an infinite number of twin primes (this is a famous unsolved problem in math today). His proof is 10,000 pages long. On page 5,437 someone notices there is a tiny, tiny flaw in the reasoning. Guess what? The entire proof is then meaningless, and the conclusion is worthless.