Trying to prove God exists lack physics background thothoughts appreciated

[powersgood]

Hi,

I'm new here..

For fun (recently) I've been trying to make logical arguments to prove the existence of God.

lol yes i know... its probably not possible.

Anyway i came up with this one that involves astrophysics concepts... but I'm not sure whether they're valid (from a physics perspective) ... from a logical perspective the premises are valid, but I'm trying to determine if they're sound or not.

So if someone of you astrophysics buffs could comment on this argument and point out any glaring flaws (related to physics) i'd greatly appreciate it!


I'm mostl concerned about the premises related to universal constants and the required change of such constants (premises 12 and and beyond)... anyway here it is:


1. If one form of the universe is different from another form of the universe, then those forms have different physical behaviors and are thus governed by different laws
2. No pre-big bang forms of the universe are things that are ever expanding.
3. All post-big bang forms of the universe are things that are ever expanding.
4. So, the pre-big bang form of the universe and the post-big bang form of the universe are different.
5. If the pre-big bang form of the universe is different than the post-big bang form of the universe, then it is a thing with different natural laws than those of the post-big bang form of the universe.
6. So, the pre-big bang form of the universe is a thing with different natural laws than those of the post-big bang form of the universe.
7. All self-directed processes are things governed by natural laws.
8. [Assume] The transition between the pre-big bang universe to the post-big bang universe was a self-directed process.
9. If #8, then the transition was governed by the natural laws of the pre-big bang universe.
10. So, the transition between the pre-big bang form of universe to the post-big bang form of universe was governed by the natural laws of the of universe.
11. If #6 and #10, then the natural laws of the pre-big bang universe governed their own change.
12. So, the natural laws of the pre big-bang form of universe governed their own change.
13. Natural laws are established and unchanging because they are defined by universal physical constants.
14. If the laws of the pre-big bang universe governed their own change, then the laws are permanently changeable.
15. If the laws are permanently changeable, then they are not defined by universal physical constants.
16. Laws that are not defined by universal physical constants (and thus not unchanging) are totally variable
17. If the laws are totally variable, then they cannot govern processes in an orderly fashion.
18. If the laws were incapable of governing processes in an orderly fashion, then a universe governed by such laws would be in a state of chaos.
19. But the post-big bang universe is not in a state of chaos; it is governed by unchanging natural laws defined by universal constants.
20. If the laws of the universe are unchanging and defined by universal constants, then these laws cannot govern their own permanent changes.
21. The laws of the universe are unchanging and defined by universal constants.
22. Thus the laws could not govern their own permanent changes.
22. If the natural laws cannot govern their own changes, then these laws could not govern a pre-big bang to post-big bang transition.
23. So, if there was a transition between the pre-big-bang universe to the post-big bang universe, it would require something that could change the universal constants.
24. Since the natural laws of the universe cannot change their own constants, then this transition was governed by laws/forces outside the universe.
25. The transition between the pre-big bang universe to the post-big bang universe was governed by laws outside the universe.
26. So, the conversion to the post-big bang universe is not a self-directed process.
27. If the universe is not self-directed, then it cannot be self-sustaining.
28. If the universe is not self-sustaining, then it cannot always exist.
29. So, the universe cannot always exist.
30. If #28, then the universe was created by outside forces.
31. So, the universe was created by outside forces.
32. If something can create the universe, the natural laws within in, and govern/manipulate the universe, then that thing is a supernatural creating force.
33. So, the universe was created by a super-natural force.






Oh and if you do comment...i'd also like it if you could state what your physics background is if you don't mind... thanks

 

[cristo]

This sort of post is not suited to the technical forums, if at all on PF.

Still, I'd like to know what you mean by 'outside the universe' since, to me, this is not defined.

 

[powersgood]

This sort of post is not suited to the technical forums, if at all on PF.

Still, I'd like to know what you mean by 'outside the universe' since, to me, this is not defined.

outside the universe just means something not bound to space/time/energy/matter/natural laws, something that can change the universal constants,... ie something not bound to the universe, something that is perhaps in a realm of its own.


I guess i posted it mostly because I'm not sure if i can make the claim that universal constants cannot change (effectively) otherwise there would be no constants at all(they would be variables) and thus there would be no established laws. Such a change in constants would be necessary for a pre-big bang to post big bang transition. This would seem to require laws which are defined by "constants" that could change into new constants. Meaning that they weren't constants in the first place, and thus the laws were variables/chaotic laws incapable of governing any sort of meaningful process. This is contradictory to our universe which IS governed by established laws and universal contsants. I'm not sure if this is a reasonable argument or if there is actually a physics explanation that can account fpr this change in constants between pre and post big bang. Kind wanted to get a physicists opinion on it.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I don't have a physics background. But I went to a Catholic college and took a little theology and I'm familiar with a few of the classic proofs of the existence of God.

I would say that your proof is tending towards the general form "Only God could do X, and X was done, ergo God must exist." So just make sure that X is really something that there's reason to believe that only God could actually do.

I see many weaknesses in that proof but it seems pretty creative to me. So I would say A for effort if nothing else!

⚛​

 

[out of whack]

1. If one form of the universe is different from another form of the universe, then those forms have different physical behaviors and are thus governed by different laws

...or not. Not everything is affected by the same influences in the same way under all conditions. Magnets work on metal, not on wood. A single set of natural laws in a pre-BB state might inevitably lead to the BB in question and continue to work unchanged after it, but on a dramatically transformed state of the universe. You can't know for sure without re-creating pre-BB conditions to see what happens. Your starting premise is unproven so you cannot reach any conclusion on that basis.

 

[Landru]

You'll always arive at the conclusion that there is a creating force, which you will choose to call "God" because you will never find the absolute beginning of everything. We don't know what happened before the "big bang" so we'll say "God" created the big bang, but suppose we do find out what preceded a "big bang", we'll say that "God" created that environment, and so on, and it will never tell us anything interesting about that god. His or her motives are not self evident. It's not even evident that there is a motive or any tinge of intent whatsoever.

 

[Evo]

This doesn't meet posting criteria for the forum.