Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

You must be confusing gases with quantum fields.

Nobody really knows what "quantum fields" are...

Well we know they're not gases. For the purposes of mathematics and physics, they can be described very accurately as the influence one or more perturbations in a quantum field has on one or more local (as in accessible at c or less) perturbations in the same or other field. So in practise, people who understand quantum fields know exactly what they are. Would you not agree?

...but either way, you're saying both that the BB had no cause, and that the cause was "quantum fields."

I don't think I'm saying either. Can you explain why you think I am saying both?

[Immanuel Can]

...in practise, people who understand quantum fields know exactly what they are. Would you not agree?

"In practice" means, "not in theory," but rather "in action." What "practices" are you talking about? And these "people who understand," who "know" this, who are they precisely?

I find this...to be in need of substantiation.

...but either way, you're saying both that the BB had no cause, and that the cause was "quantum fields."

I don't think I'm saying either. Can you explain why you think I am saying both?

Well, either "quantum fields" identifies the thing you think caused the BB, or you have to be saying that the BB had no cause. Do you know of a third option? What else could you be saying?

[Immanuel Can]

If First Causes are associated with deities, yes I would be saying SOMETHING about polytheism. Not that multiple deities exist, but the axioms used to get to "a deity exists" do not preclude more than one from existing.

That's the second question, not the first, of course. The first question is "Does a First Cause necessarily exist?" And the second might be, "What is the nature or character or form of this necessary First Cause?"

If we've settled the first question, then I'm ready for the second. What sorts of candidates for a plausible First Cause explanation would you consider reasonable to entertain?

No, that's still the first.

Okay, then the "what kind of First Cause" question needs to be shelved until we resolve that. There would be an absurdity in trying to discuss something that you insist simply doesn't exist, wouldn't there? Trying to exposit a First Cause you insist didn't actually have to happen would be like trying to argue what kind of pixies live in a leprechaun's pocket.

So you're still not grasping the mathematics that prove there had to be a First Cause of some kind; is that what you're saying?

[Will Bouwman]

...in practise, people who understand quantum fields know exactly what they are. Would you not agree?

"In practice" means, "not in theory," but rather "in action." What "practices" are you talking about?

Measurement. Do you understand that the influence of quantum fields on particles and vice versa can be measured? There is no doubt that quantum fields obtain epistemologically. The point you are floundering to make is that no one knows what quantum fields mean ontologically, but that's metaphysics so, duh!

...but either way, you're saying both that the BB had no cause, and that the cause was "quantum fields."

No, I'm not saying either. It's simple: I can say words you would rather shit a cactus than utter: I don't know.

Well, either "quantum fields" identifies the thing you think caused the BB, or you have to be saying that the BB had no cause. Do you know of a third option?

Perhaps you missed it, but I have already given you a third option:

We know that what appears to be empty space in our universe, in reality is teeming with particles popping in and out of existence. In 1948, Hendrik Casimir predicted this would give rise to the force named in his honour. In 1997, Steven K. Lamoreaux actually measured it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect What we don't know is whether our empty space is analogous to the emptiness we might suppose existed before the big bang, but if it is, there is no reason to think there was ever a time when it wasn't.

As anyone not stifled by dogma appreciates, there is no limit to the number of coherent explanations for any set of experiences.

[MikeNovack]

Okay, then the "what kind of First Cause" question needs to be shelved until we resolve that. There would be an absurdity in trying to discuss something that you insist simply doesn't exist, wouldn't there? Trying to exposit a First Cause you insist didn't actually have to happen would be like trying to argue what kind of pixies live in a leprechaun's pocket.

So you're still not grasping the mathematics that prove there had to be a First Cause of some kind; is that what you're saying?

You don't understand "prove". No IC, you cannot "prove First Cause" from "mathematics. The axiom sets used by the various branches of math will NOT help. A proof looks like this:
If axiom1 and
If axiom2 and
.....
If axiomN then
Conclusion

Here you are using axioms specifying the behavior of the relation "cause". When you in your argument in loose words says something like "infinite recursion impossible" you are adding an axiom, using it to get to "there exists a (at least one) First Cause". I am saying, have been saying, to change that to "there exists exactly one First Cause" you will need to add another axiom. The axioms so far describe "causal chains", and to say "exactly one First Cause" imposes constraints on those causal chains. For example (your notion of "before") the reason can't be causal rings, just chains, is from the axiom declaring the relation transitive. Note that there was not an axiom if C is caused by B and C is caused by A then A = B because that would be contrary to how we expect "cause" to act << a thing might require more than one cause --- this is again the difference between "there exists a" and "there exists the" you are having difficulty with --- when we say, unless x id a first cause y exists such that y is a cause of x we are NOT committing to y is the cause of x.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, then the "what kind of First Cause" question needs to be shelved until we resolve that. There would be an absurdity in trying to discuss something that you insist simply doesn't exist, wouldn't there? Trying to exposit a First Cause you insist didn't actually have to happen would be like trying to argue what kind of pixies live in a leprechaun's pocket.

So you're still not grasping the mathematics that prove there had to be a First Cause of some kind; is that what you're saying?

You don't understand "prove".

Yeah, I do.

But we're back to the First Cause problem. Your position is that causal chains can begin without fulfilling any prerequisites -- hence, that caused things can happen without any cause.

That's pretty clearly wrong, but none of the proofs I've provided...mathematical, empirical or personal...have convinced you. So? You're not convinced. You're still wrong, but unconvinced by any of the proofs.

I don't have a follow up for that situation.