Proof of God:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
(2) The universe began to exist
......(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
...........(2.11)An actual infinite cannot exist
...........(2.12)An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
...........(2.13)Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist
......(2.2)Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition
...........(2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite
...........(2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition
...........(2.23)Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually an infinite
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence


The math problem for infinite with its absurdities

(2.11) an illustration: Hilbert’s Hotel by the German mathematician David Hilbert, Suppose all the rooms of a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives to ask for a room the Owner of the Hotel says no I am sorry we are full. But know lets looks at the hotel with an infinite set of rooms. The guest arrives and wants a room, the Owner says but of course. He moves each person to a successive new room adding a vacant room in room 1. But remember when the quest arrived all the rooms were full! In addition, based on mathematics no guests were added, the number is just infinite. In fact this is the same no matter how many quest u add. Because of 2.11, 2.12 cannot be. Therefore according to mathematics the universe is a Finite system since there is not infinite, and a process of growing or potential is not an actual infinite. But to claim a potential infinite, does not exist; only the past is actual in a way the future is not, and in the present we have traces to the past, whereas the future we do not. Hence, if the series of past events never began to exist, there must have been an actual infinite number of past events which based on 2.1 cannot occur. (2.1) is the utter impossibility based on above to ever reach infinite for it to be actual through successive addition. The impossibility of counting to infinity; time is irrelevant in this mathematical problem the problem is in the definition of what infinite is. Working this problem backwards or forwards causes the same dilemma “infinites are impossibility.” Thus the Universe has a beginning and an ending and is a closed system.

Scientific Proofs

The universe has aa definite beginning we know that this is true because cosmic echoes //Analysis of the cosmic microwave background radiation—the fading afterglow of the big bang discovered in the late 1960s—indicated that the universe erupted into existence in an astonishingly uniform state.— Paul Davies, Scientific American, "In Memoriam: John D. Barrow," 10 Oct. 2020 We also know that the universe has an end based on the second law of thermodynamics // The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that processes that involve the transfer or conversion of heat energy are irreversible. ... It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. Basically, overtime heat death will occur and since heat powers the universe it will end. Heat death is basically the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy).

Some have tried to use the theoretical model of the universe oscillating, the issue according Dr. Beatrice Tinsley is the mathematics/physics starts from a beginning, expands, collapses, and then ends. The fact that the model ends does not help a theorist for an infinite, it just further proves that the second law of thermodynamics affects all models that would attempt to have continuance, furthermore, because of the finite future of the universe based on thermodynamics, an infinite past would mean that our current universe would already be dead aka heat death or in a state of equilibrium. Since it is not, The only solution is that it had a beginning. A few physicist try to use a multicycle model where with each successive cycle growth and entropy increase, but this works backwards to a beginning, Novikov and Zeldovich proponents of this model would say that the universe has a finite past. Therefore, a beginning and an end where no work can further be exploited which makes the universe a closed system for if work can no longer be exploited or transferred than the system itself must be closed. This brings us to the third and final stage of thought. Quantum physics specifically the Schrodinger equation says that no closed system can start itself, invent energy, mass, matter, time, information or any of the features that our universe has from within itself. For this some have pointed to singularity as the closed system already having all these things which causes a few problems. One singularity only occur in black holes where nothing can escape and have an event horizon which gives us that proof that not even Light the fastest possible expansion cannot escape. The other issue is even with singularities we start with a beginning in which a cause must necessarily occur to kick the expansion. So singularities, which according to Forbes is disproven click here for article “One thing that we can mathematically demonstrate, in fact, is that it's impossible for an inflating state to arise from a singularity. Here's why: space expands at an exponential rate during inflation. Think about how an exponential works: after a certain amount of time goes by, the Universe doubles in size. Wait twice as long, and it doubles twice, making it four times as large. Wait three times as long, it doubles thrice, making it 8 times as large. And if you wait 10 or 100 times as long, those doublings make the Universe 210 or 2100 times as large. Which means if we go backwards in time by that same amount, or twice, or thrice, or 10 or 100 times, the Universe would be smaller, but would never reach a size of 0. Respectively, it would be half, a quarter, an eighth, 2-10, or 2-100 times its original size. But no matter how far back you go, you never achieve a singularity.” We also know, for example, that inflation cannot arise from a singular state, because an inflating region must always begin from a finite size. -Ethan Siegal

Since there is nothing beyond such as the universe and heat death is eventual at the end of the universe the only option is that something outside the closed system started the system. Some physicist have tried to get around this truth by speaking of multiverses and such all while ignoring the same principles of heat death that the original universe abides by. Eventually you end up with the same restriction of the and 2nd law of thermodynamics which leads to heat death of all possible universes with an ultimate beginning and an ultimate end with no way to introduce the stuff to make the system except from a source that is “intelligent, sends info, matter, time, mass, energy…” only a being outside the systems of time, matter and energy can press the go button and that is GOD. But you might say why does it have to be God? You can call God at this point whatever you like, but it must be All Powerful to start a Universe, and a fully conscious being to obey the Observer affects that quantum mechanics demands, it must also stand outside of all that it creates Matter, mass, and time, thus, eliminating physical beings of any kind that are bound by time. What is this observer problem, namely that based on wave particle equation, until something is observed it doesn’t exist, it is the observance that causes it to exist. This has been proven over and over by science through quantum entanglement Quantum entanglement — or "spooky action at a distance," as Albert Einstein famously called it — is the idea that the fates of tiny particles are linked to each other even if they're separated by long distances. Therefore, scientifically the first observer must be a conscious being and your very existence is due to the mind of God.

The incredibly fine-tuned universe

Dr. Robin Collins says, "When scientists talk about fine-tuning, they are referring to the extraordinary balancing of fundamental laws and parameters of the." Scientist Paul Davis says,"the impression of design is overwhelming because these coincidences are simply too amazing to have happened by chance." The Fine-tuning is estimated to be at least one part in 10^53-that is, one peart in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. It would be like throwing a dart at the surface of the Earth from outer space and hitting a bull's eye one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter-less than the size of an atom! It is quite easy to understand why so many scientists have changed their mind in the last 30 years, agreeing that the universe cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident.

The problem with atheistic foundation-materialism/physicalism

Since Thomas Nagel's thesis of how does it feel to be a bat in 1974click here for article, atheist have had a touch time maintaining any since of credibility in the academic realm. Basically, the argument goes like this: If I were to put you in a dark room with only headphones and fed you continual information about a bat. I fed you the information on echolocation, flight, how they fly, how they function, and every possible PHYSICAL piece of information about a bat and then one day allowed you to leave the room. Do you have all the possible knowledge about a bat? The answer is obviously no, because you still do not know what it FEELS like to be a bat unless you ARE a bat. So new information is possible yet unattainable through simply physical processes. The honest atheist then must admit that all that can be known must include something beyond the physical thus borrowing the theistic position of metaphysics, violating his own foundation. The only position for a true atheist to take since they would then be acknowledging the metaphysical is an agnostic position of "I simply do not know." However, as shown above we have enough information from science to at least prove a theistic position.

As Grant Bartley states, "As a scientifically-aware thinker, you'll recognize that the world is in many ways like a meticulous material machine: physical events cause physical events, and in this way the physical universe is kept in business. Physicallist say ALL events can be explained completely by causal chains of previous physical events. This was, roughly, the scientific worldview before the discovery of quantum physics. Now we know, however, that some events at a subatomic level are affected by whether there is an observing mind.

Since the brain is a physical object, the changing states of the brain can be explained with reference to electrochemical processes and so on. however, the physicalist goes further, and, ignoring quantum mechanics, claims that since scientist can give entirely physical explainations for what happens in the physical world, not only do we not need anything non-physical in our explanation of the world, there is no room for anything non-physical in our explanation of how this big machine runs. Therefore, everything must be physical, even experiences in the mind.

The most extreme version of this idea is eliminative materialism. This says that distinct minds and experiences don't exist: there are only brains and physical activities.

As just formulated, this is an absurd doctrine. If it were true as stated, you could not be having experiences, such as the experiences you're having now, and the perpetrators of this doctrine would have to claim themselves to mindless zombies or automata, writing their books mindlessly. Even to say experience is an illusion ignores the fact that a supposed 'illusion' of having an experience is still having an experience; and for an experience to exist, all that is necessary is that the experience is experienced, regardless of whatever else one might say about its nature or cause.

Well, a clearer-minded materialist might say, "You do have experiences; but to speak in terms of experience as something extra to brain activity is simply to misrepresent brain activity. In the end, there is only physical activity of the brain, and experience is this brain activity." This variant is often called reductive materialism. This says that science will eventually be able to describe all mind states in the same terms in which we describe brain states.

However, i would reply that this idea doesn't make sense, since experiences must be defined as not being brain activity. This is because experience content is only specifiable through properties that are distinctly different from brains and brain activity. Indeed, if the mind were not disctinctly different from the brain, we could never have come up with the distinct concept of the mind."

Prudence Lousie, a writer on philosophy and religion, explains that in 1994 philosopher David chambers killed the Zombie in cold blood, igniting "a zombie apocalypse." Sounds like an unusual role for a philosopher. And the Zombie?: "The philosophical notion of a zombie basically refers to conceivable creatures which are physically indistinguishable from us but lack consciousness entirely (Chambers 1996)-Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy