It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence

[Ringtone]

Zzz. So. Maybe now that you know what your own conclusion is, you can admit or deny that you used the existence of God as a premise.

False.

 

[BackAgain]

False.

Finally. You ceased pretending that you didn’t recognize your own conclusion and you stopped evading and deflecting with obvious dishonesty. Then, you managed to step right up and deny what you’d done.

But I predicted you’d deny this, too. Now I’ll show that you (and that argument) do posit the conclusion as a premise — actually 2 premises):

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.).

Both 3.15 and 3.16 reference “God.” Admit it. Deny it. Doesn’t matter. They do. And that’s why your “proof” is a fallacious argument. You’ve assumed your conclusion as a premise (twice).

 

[BackAgain]

False.

Finally. You ceased pretending that you didn’t recognize your own conclusion and you stopped evading and deflecting with obvious dishonesty. Then, you managed to step right up and deny what you’d done.

But I predicted you’d deny this, too.

 

[Ringtone]

Finally. You ceased pretending that you didn’t recognize your own conclusion and you stopped evading and deflecting with obvious dishonesty. Then, you managed to step right up and deny what you’d done.

But I predicted you’d deny this, too. Now I’ll show that you (and that argument) do posit the conclusion as a premise — actually 2 premises):



Both 3.15 and 3.16 reference “God.” Admit it. Deny it. Doesn’t matter. They do. And that’s why your “proof” is a fallacious argument. You’ve assumed your conclusion as a premise (twice).

The psychology of those who talk themselves out of the obvious and necessary, as if God, for example, wouldn't reveal his existence via the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics never ceases to amaze . . . even though I fully understand what drives it.

You totally disregard the actuality of the argument. The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the a priori imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.

In general, a priori imperatives are necessarily true to the human mind as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false without denying the viability of any given rational or mathematical imperative itself.

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.

It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established before 3.15 and 3.16! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (3.15), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (3.16.). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.

 

[BackAgain]

The psychology of those who talk themselves out of the obvious and necessary, as if God, for example, wouldn't reveal his existence via the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics never ceases to amaze . . . even though I fully understand what drives it.

You totally disregard the actuality of the argument. The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the a priori imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.

In general, a priori imperatives are necessarily true to the human mind as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false without denying the viability of any given rational or mathematical imperative itself.

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.

It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established before 3.15 and 3.16! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (3.15), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (3.16.). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.

That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident. KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.

You went off on a tangent when you were asked a straightforward question. Re: 2.11. You were asked why an actual infinite cannot exist. (You chose to pontificate about the meaning of infinite vs infinity.) But back to the point, you did not choose to answer why an actual infinite cannot exist.

But we can go back even earlier. KCA posits: 1. “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.” Why is that? Matter/energy does exist. Presumably at some point it began to exist. So the claim that there “must be a cause for it@ presumes something, doesn’t it? It presumes that matter/energy can be created. But we also maintain that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, which is it? Tell us from observation and logic, which one is wrong. How do you support that answer?

Don’t misunderstand. Your answer of a priori “imperatives” is simply a way of offering a premise which you cannot support by observation. For instance: How can you know that an “actual infinite cannot exist?@ That’s a statement of belief. It is an assumption which can’t be proved or disproved.

Declaring that something is an “absurdity” doesn’t answer the question, either.

You like the KCA. I get that. It has some appeal. But despite your claim to the contrary, it does have some premises that are actually statements of the ultimate conclusion. It is largely based on that fallacy. It also has other logical flaws as I’ve noted. And many scholars have also discussed those flaws. Those aren’t an exhaustive list, either.

Despite all of your irrelevant insertion of ad hominem nonsense, when you tried to stick to the topic, I found your comments interesting. And it did lead me back to reviewing the entire philosophical conversation in greater depth than I’d ever gone before. So, I enjoyed the topic and some of the discussion.

I don’t find the KCA to prove the existence of God and so of course I don’t agree that it’s bullet proof. On the other hand, I still end up in the same place.

It seems absurd to me that our universe can operate according to laws of physics (which can largely be discovered and supported) but all of the matter/energy/time/space which those laws address came around by way of some huge cosmic quantum burp with no design behind them. My view is not one grounded in such fine syllogisms. I’m ok with that. I have no problem with the notion that the universe is far tooo mysterious a creation to ever be fully grasped by the human mind.

 

[Ringtone]

That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident. KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.

You went off on a tangent when you were asked a straightforward question. Re: 2.11. You were asked why an actual infinite cannot exist. (You chose to pontificate about the meaning of infinite vs infinity.) But back to the point, you did not choose to answer why an actual infinite cannot exist.

But we can go back even earlier. KCA posits: 1. “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.” Why is that? Matter/energy does exist. Presumably at some point it began to exist. So the claim that there “must be a cause for it@ presumes something, doesn’t it? It presumes that matter/energy can be created. But we also maintain that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So, which is it? Tell us from observation and logic, which one is wrong. How do you support that answer?

Don’t misunderstand. Your answer of a priori “imperatives” is simply a way of offering a premise which you cannot support by observation. For instance: How can you know that an “actual infinite cannot exist?@ That’s a statement of belief. It is an assumption which can’t be proved or disproved.

Declaring that something is an “absurdity” doesn’t answer the question, either.

You like the KCA. I get that. It has some appeal. But despite your claim to the contrary, it does have some premises that are actually statements of the ultimate conclusion. It is largely based on that fallacy. It also has other logical flaws as I’ve noted. And many scholars have also discussed those flaws. Those aren’t an exhaustive list, either.

Despite all of your irrelevant insertion of ad hominem nonsense, when you tried to stick to the topic, I found your comments interesting. And it did lead me back to reviewing the entire philosophical conversation in greater depth than I’d ever gone before. So, I enjoyed the topic and some of the discussion.

I don’t find the KCA to prove the existence of God and so of course I don’t agree that it’s bullet proof. On the other hand, I still end up in the same place.

It seems absurd to me that our universe can operate according to laws of physics (which can largely be discovered and supported) but all of the matter/energy/time/space which those laws address came around by way of some huge cosmic quantum burp with no design behind them. My view is not one grounded in such fine syllogisms. I’m ok with that. I have no problem with the notion that the universe is far tooo mysterious a creation to ever be fully grasped by the human mind.

I note that you habitually avoid dealing with one point at a time.

You write:

That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident. KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.​

​

The above is yet another bald, unsubstantiated claim. I need not take it seriously.

 

[BackAgain]

I note that you habitually avoid dealing with one point at a time.

You write:

That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident. KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.​

​

The above is yet another bald, unsubstantiated claim. I need not take it seriously.

I note that your note is false. I did mention a few different facets of why I reject the KCA. But my claim is not even remotely unsubstantiated. Indeed, you chose to ignore what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, that your KCA premises 3.15 and 3.16 do reference God.

So, in fact, there is no need to take your argument seriously.

 

[Ringtone]

I note that your note is false. I did mention a few different facets of why I reject the KCA. But my claim is not even remotely unsubstantiated. Indeed, you chose to ignore what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, that your KCA premises 3.15 and 3.16 do reference God.

So, in fact, there is no need to take your argument seriously.

To save time, I'm going to subject your thoughtless prose to the Socratic method.

You write:

I note that your note is false.​

Ringtone: Why is it false?

BackAgain: I did mention a few different facets of why I reject the KCA. But my claim is not even remotely unsubstantiated. Indeed, you chose to ignore what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, that your KCA premises 3.15 and 3.16 do reference God.

Ringtone: Your claim that my post didn't address your objection regarding sub-premises 3.15 and 3.16 is bullshit! All I need do is copy and paste my counter, which, in fact, you ignored!

But let us put that aside for the moment

Why do you incessantly misread things and waste my time? I didn't quote the entirety of Post #405. Hello! I quoted only the following portion of that post:

That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident. KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.​

And then I said, regarding that portion and only that portion of your post:

The above is yet another bald, unsubstantiated claim. I need not take it seriously.​

​

In other words, you're repeating yourself again. Cut to the chase and stick to one point at a time. Careless reading and raising multiple objections at a time leads to miscommunications and slopy argumentation.

We are currently on this point in the discourse:

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.​

​

It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established before 3.15 and 3.16! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (3.15), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (3.16.). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.​

​

 

[BackAgain]

To save time, I'm going to subject your thoughtless prose to the Socratic method.

You write:

I note that your note is false.​

Ringtone: Why is it false?

BackAgain: I did mention a few different facets of why I reject the KCA. But my claim is not even remotely unsubstantiated. Indeed, you chose to ignore what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, that your KCA premises 3.15 and 3.16 do reference God.

Ringtone: Your claim that my post didn't address your objection regarding sub-premises 3.15 and 3.16 is bullshit! All I need do is copy and paste my counter, which, in fact, you ignored!

But let us put that aside for the moment

Why do you incessantly misread things and waste my time? I didn't quote the entirety of Post #405. Hello! I quoted only the following portion of that post:

That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident. KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.​

And then I said, regarding that portion and only that portion of your post:

The above is yet another bald, unsubstantiated claim. I need not take it seriously.​

​

In other words, you're repeating yourself again. Cut to the chase and stick to one point at a time. Careless reading and raising multiple objections at a time leads to miscommunications and slopy argumentation.

We are currently on this point in the discourse:

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.​

​

It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established before 3.15 and 3.16! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (3.15), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (3.16.). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.​

​

Your efforts to convert my very thoughtful prose into what you mislabel the Socratic method are neither helpful nor responsive.

And you didn’t save time. Your dishonesty is a waste of time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The psychology of those who talk themselves out of the obvious and necessary

It's so "obvious and necessary", you have not a shred of evidence and the only argument you have is a running joke in university philosophy departments. Heh heh...

 

[Ringtone]

Your efforts to convert my very thoughtful prose into what you mislabel the Socratic method are neither helpful nor responsive.

And you didn’t save time. Your dishonesty is a waste of time.

Whatever you say, sociopath.

My refutation of Post #402 stands and stays unanswered:

You totally disregard the actuality of the argument. The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the a priori imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.​

​

In general, a priori imperatives are necessarily true to the human mind as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false without denying the viability of any given rational or mathematical imperative itself.​

​

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.​

​

It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established before 3.15 and 3.16! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (3.15), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (3.16.). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.​

​

Your objection is falsified. You are refuted!​

 

[Ringtone]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It stands and stays unanswered!

 

[BackAgain]

Whatever you say, sociopath.

My refutation of Post #402 stands and stays unanswered:

You totally disregard the actuality of the argument. The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the a priori imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.​

​

In general, a priori imperatives are necessarily true to the human mind as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false without denying the viability of any given rational or mathematical imperative itself.​

​

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.​

​

It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established before 3.15 and 3.16! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (3.15), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (3.16.). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.​

​

Your objection is falsified. You are refuted!​

A priori means you have no basis by which to support your premise. Nothing more. So, you remain a worthless vainglorious gutted trout. Your attempt at falsification is of no value.

 

[Ringtone]

A priori means you have no basis by which to support your premise. Nothing more. So, you remain a worthless vainglorious gutted trout. Your attempt at falsification is of no value.

False!

That which is a priori is derived from incontrovertible reasoning or logic. It is knowledge derived from deduction rather than from observation or experience. Its purest form proceeds from the incontrovertible axioms of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics.

You talk like a relativist, indeed, like a leftist loon, denying the reality of universally objective truth.

 

[BackAgain]

False!

That which is a priori is derived from incontrovertible reasoning or logic. It is knowledge derived from deduction rather than from observation or experience. Its purest form proceeds from the incontrovertible axioms of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics.

You talk like a relativist, indeed, like a leftist loon, denying the reality of universally objective truth.

False!

• adjective Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
• adjective Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
• adjective Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
• adjective Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.

— https://www.wordnik.com/words/a priori

You and many like you make an appeal to logic which is normally a great way to proceed. HOWEVER, as you just demonstrated, you are more than capable of overstating your case. Your “a priori” premises do not simply assume things which are axiomatic. You make claims that some of them are axiomatic, but such claims are disputable.

1.1. The KCA claim “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence” seems to be true on a surface level. But you, yourself, don’t acknowledge it’s truth so how “axiomatic” could it be in reality? EXAMPLE: On the one hand you will insist that matter/energy had to have been created since they do exist. But, on the other hand, you will claim that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. You can’t have it both ways unless you insist on the right to posit both “A” and “~A” as premises. Another EXAMPLE: God. You say not only that God exists (you even make that your ultimate conclusion and call it “proved”). But — you also deny that God had to have been created. (But that is a denial of the very first premise.)

In both examples, the allegedly “axiomatic” nature of your initial premise is falsified.

And by the way, I generally do agree with the 1st premise. I just deny that’s it is truly axiomatic.

Similarly, our Declaration of Independence said something axiomatic which I also accept as true: it claimed that certain truths are “self evident.” Maybe. Maybe not. I happen to buy that premise. But my belief doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Must God have a cause of His Own existence? If not, the mere fact of existence obviously doesn’t require that a thing had to have been created. A fluctuation of quanta could have theoretically (maybe) brought forth all the needed ingredients for a Big Bang.

 

[Ringtone]

False!


— https://www.wordnik.com/words/a priori

You and many like you make an appeal to logic which is normally a great way to proceed. HOWEVER, as you just demonstrated, you are more than capable of overstating your case. Your “a priori” premises do not simply assume things which are axiomatic. You make claims that some of them are axiomatic, but such claims are disputable.

1.1. The KCA claim “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence” seems to be true on a surface level. But you, yourself, don’t acknowledge it’s truth so how “axiomatic” could it be in reality? EXAMPLE: On the one hand you will insist that matter/energy had to have been created since they do exist. But, on the other hand, you will claim that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. You can’t have it both ways unless you insist on the right to posit both “A” and “~A” as premises. Another EXAMPLE: God. You say not only that God exists (you even make that your ultimate conclusion and call it “proved”). But — you also deny that God had to have been created. (But that is a denial of the very first premise.)

In both examples, the allegedly “axiomatic” nature of your initial premise is falsified.

And by the way, I generally do agree with the 1st premise. I just deny that’s it is truly axiomatic.

Similarly, our Declaration of Independence said something axiomatic which I also accept as true: it claimed that certain truths are “self evident.” Maybe. Maybe not. I happen to buy that premise. But my belief doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Must God have a cause of His Own existence? If not, the mere fact of existence obviously doesn’t require that a thing had to have been created. A fluctuation of quanta could have theoretically (maybe) brought forth all the needed ingredients for a Big Bang.

You write:

On the one hand you will insist that matter/energy had to have been created since they do exist. But, on the other hand, you will claim that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.​

False, on both counts! You do not properly grasp the principle of existence or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You just keep repeating the same false, nonsensical premises again and again. The false premises are yours, not mine.

It doesn't necessarily follow that matter/energy had to be created because it exists. Rather, matter/energy is a finite substance of temporality. It had to be created because it couldn't have always existed.

I never claimed that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed in the first place! Rather, there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

I could lead you through the KCA from structural premise to premise via the Socratic method.

 

[BackAgain]

You write:

On the one hand you will insist that matter/energy had to have been created since they do exist. But, on the other hand, you will claim that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.​

False, on both counts! You do not properly grasp the principle of existence or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You just keep repeating the same false, nonsensical premises again and again. The false premises are yours, not mine.

It doesn't necessarily follow that matter/energy had to be created because it exists. Rather, matter/energy is a finite substance of temporality. It had to be created because it couldn't have always existed.

I never claimed that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed in the first place! Rather, there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

I could lead you through the KCA from structural premise to premise via the Socratic method.

You probably don’t realize that you’re babbling.

it is either true that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed OR it’s not true. But when you find it expedient, because your bullet proof formulation doesn’t satisfy a variety of logical and scientific preconditions, like a liberal, you adjust by changing the meaning of words or by specifying new “conditions” under which your axioms are axiomaric

So, now, you (referring to the logic of others which you support) come up with notions like “temporality.” Ah. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed EXCEPT when it can. When it has to have been. Once again, your axioms aren’t so axiomatic.

There is (as far as I can determine) no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. So, for your axioms to be axiomatic, you have to make an allowance for a prior state (time before time, space before space, etc.) which constitutes an exception. In that mystical realm, things can exist or come into existence without being created. Cool. So, what exactly prevents matter/energy/time/space itself being the thing(s) that can exist without having to have been created?

You theoretically might have the ability to establish the KCA step by step via the Socratic method. But so far, you have more explaining to do than the KCA itself seems capable of accounting for. Yet, despite your own certitude, you haven’t proved your case. And,it remains true that I have an open mind. This doesn’t preclude asking questions. It just means that, so far, your explanation seems to have several holes in it. So, show me.

 

[Ringtone]

You probably don’t realize that you’re babbling.

it is either true that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed OR it’s not true. But when you find it expedient, because your bullet proof formulation doesn’t satisfy a variety of logical and scientific preconditions, like a liberal, you adjust by changing the meaning of words or by specifying new “conditions” under which your axioms are axiomaric

So, now, you (referring to the logic of others which you support) come up with notions like “temporality.” Ah. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed EXCEPT when it can. When it has to have been. Once again, your axioms aren’t so axiomatic.

There is (as far as I can determine) no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. So, for your axioms to be axiomatic, you have to make an allowance for a prior state (time before time, space before space, etc.) which constitutes an exception. In that mystical realm, things can exist or come into existence without being created. Cool. So, what exactly prevents matter/energy/time/space itself being the thing(s) that can exist without having to have been created?

You theoretically might have the ability to establish the KCA step by step via the Socratic method. But so far, you have more explaining to do than the KCA itself seems capable of accounting for. Yet, despite your own certitude, you haven’t proved your case. And,it remains true that I have an open mind. This doesn’t preclude asking questions. It just means that, so far, your explanation seems to have several holes in it. So, show me.

Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy (something cannot be the cause of it's own existence), would simply be there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. The term known gratuitously confounds both the philosophical and scientific reality of the matter.

Good eye!

There is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy, would simply be there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

Good eye!

ah huh. So, lacking any known natural mechanism, in order to explain the existence of matter/energy, one is compelled to appeal to a supernatural explanation. (Where supernatural does not mean “magical;” but instead literally means an explanation above (beyond) known science. Such an explanation might be a Creator of infinite and timeless capacity, like our conception of God. Alternatively, it might be found in a “law” of theoretical quantum physics where the known rules of science simply don’t apply. Either way, we don’t know and we can’t prove it.

 

[Ringtone]

ah huh. So, lacking any known natural mechanism, in order to explain the existence of matter/energy, one is compelled to appeal to a supernatural explanation. (Where supernatural does not mean “magical;” but instead literally means an explanation above (beyond) known science. Such an explanation might be a Creator of infinite and timeless capacity, like our conception of God. Alternatively, it might be found in a “law” of theoretical quantum physics where the known rules of science simply don’t apply. Either way, we don’t know and we can’t prove it.

Wait a minute! What are you going on about now? I see what you were hinting at. You're right.

Once again:

Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy (something cannot be the cause of it's own existence), would simply be there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. The term known gratuitously confounds both the philosophical and scientific reality of the matter.​

​

Good eye!​

​

Hence, simply, there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.​

Thinking and writing about logical arguments is especially hard. One should always avoid gratuitous words, as they readily serve to imply or express things not intended.