I built this argument proving God necessitates his existence using astronomy, mathematics and ontology. If anyone can contribute i would appreciate it, otherwise don't bother saying anything please

To start lets look at:

The physical universe is exhaustively and precisely mapped by invariant mathematical laws, such as Kepler’s Third Law (T^2 = \frac{4\pi^2}{G(M + m)}a^3) and Newton’s Universal Gravitation (F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}). Crucially, these mathematical equations are non-spatial, non-temporal, immaterial, and prescriptive truths that possess no mass, charge, or spatial dimensions, yet they strictly govern physical matter with absolute dominion. Material bodies cannot generate, select, or enforce immaterial laws that pre-exist them; because the physical universe behaves as a literal instantiation of abstract mathematics, an immaterial informational architecture must logically precede physical reality, as a language without a mind to author it is a foundational logical impossibility.

Building on that:

The fundamental parameters of celestial mechanics—such as the gravitational constant (G) and the electromagnetic force ratio—are tuned to precision tolerances of 1 part in 10^{40}, while solar system stability relies on exact initial conditions like Earth’s orbital eccentricity (e \approx 0.0167) and obliquity stabilization via the Moon-to-Earth mass ratio (\approx 0.0123). In probability theory, any event exceeding a 1 in 10^{50} threshold is mathematically categorized as a zero-probability event, meaning stochastic and unguided processes cannot bridge this gap to produce accidental fine-tuning. Because the mathematical precision required for multi-body orbital stability is statistically precluded from being an accident, naturalistic chance is mathematically nullified as an explanatory mechanism, leaving intentional constraint as the sole remaining logical category.

This culminates in:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that isolated physical systems universally default toward maximum entropy, molecular disorder, and thermal equilibrium (dS \ge 0), yet macroscopic celestial mechanics displays long-term, low-entropy, highly complex computational configurations like the Laplace resonance of Jupiter’s inner moons (Io, Europa, and Ganymede locked in a stable 1:2:4 orbital period ratio). Blind thermodynamic energy dissipation degrades structure rather than spontaneously building self-correcting, multi-body gravitational harmonic engines out of primeval chaos. To extract high-density informational stability and sustained low-entropy architecture out of a chaotic thermodynamic vector requires an active external constraint, meaning an unguided physical system cannot violate its own entropic decay vector to produce long-term cosmic computation without an external ordering agent being thermodynamically mandatory.

Finally leading up to:

Complex systemic organization that stores, processes, or instantiates relational rules is universally defined as code or information architecture, operating under the inviolable causal rule that information and prescriptive laws never self-compile, self-encode, or self-instantiate from raw, unorganized matter. Because the celestial mechanics of the cosmos function as an integrated, mathematically precise, low-entropy informational system, it bears the exact causal signature of a cognitive artifact. Just as a software program necessitates a programmer and a blueprint necessitates an architect, an information-saturated cosmos necessitates an antecedent Intellect.

In Conclusion:

Therefore, because physical matter cannot generate immaterial laws, because stochastic probability mathematically forbids accidental fine-tuning, because blind thermodynamic entropy cannot spontaneously produce low-entropy harmonic stability, and because complex informational architecture intrinsically requires a cognitive source, the structural laws of celestial mechanics do not merely suggest a designer—they ontologically necessitate the absolute existence of a transcendent, rational Creator.

IN topic:20620, post:15, Kv100 said

And in this post kv100 said:

I say there is a .00237% probability that these two quotes were written by the same person.

It’s just math,
KP

Why would God necessitate his existence?

1 Like

You basically just admitted I built something beyond your comprension. You can’t bench the universe, its okay. Just continue lifting a 2 kg dumbell and holding your phone on the other hand and calling it excercise. I told you what i used try to build what i built or dismantle it even. Go ask help from Grok or whatever AI and watch it also fail dismally.

I was making the argument to an atheist on twitter about a tweet he made about God is not necissary for existence to exist. So it was my response to him. So i was just sharing that.

Are you done lifting that pink dumbell?

All right, let’s look at this paragraph. I think @KPuff was pointing out that the language used is not your usual way of writing. I would agree, and I had concluded for myself that perhaps English is not you primary language. Something that @BobEstey was also pointing out. God doesn’t necessitate His existence. God exists necessarily. And He doesn’t use ontology. One could say that God IS ontology; maybe that would squeak by, with a coherent justification on your part.

This is the problem when you “build an argument” using AI, and you might not be perfectly sure of what the highly technical terms mean. You end up misusing terms in the title.

And there are other problems. In the paragraph that I quoted, an unambiguous claim is made by your AI that the universe is governed by mathematical laws.

The problem with that is that your AI claims are incoherent. Mathematical “laws” don’t govern anything. Mathematical equations are causally effete. They are abstract objects that don’t/can’t do anything. It’s God’s power that does it, and our “natural laws” equations describe what God does. Failure to understand this causes people to say silly stuff like “God cannot act outside of natural laws”. Just silliness. God made everything, and the laws of nature only hold as long as God doesn’t decided to do something different.

We use mathematics for measuring stuff mostly. And the fact that universe can be described in mathematical terms with such impossible precision is the idea that I think you are shooting for.

AI will let you down brother. And none of us will believe for a second that you just sat down and wrote that out. AI did that, with mistakes, that you would have known if you were fluent in the data.

So does it make sense to get all haughty about it? Probably not.

Edit: I remember clearly my first interface with Newtons gravitation law. I realized in an instant that it couldn’t be stochastic.

This is a forum, so you accept by posting that some may disagree. Anyone can post an answer. This isn’t a contest, and nothing is “riding” on the outcome.

We’re all just looking for answers.

You arguing linguistics, terribly. My titles are not the argument, they just vaguely giving context. As to the accusation I used AI I told you what i used to build my argument, ask whatever AI to build it and see it fail terribly. You clearly understand non of the pieces of evidence I used. Everything you just said sounds like disosiation. What i gave you is the size of the universe and it is absolutely beyond you. What you are doing is beyond embarressing. YOU AN EXAMPLE OF FAILURE AS A LIVED EXPERIENCE. I hope you see yourself.

@kv100 So what you just did is called an “ad hominem” attack. It the lowest form of argumentation, tantamount to saying “nanny nanny boo boo”, and sticking your tongue out.

People use ad hominem when they run out of actual argument. Everything I said is perfectly true, although you may not understand how or why they are true. You don’t understand the technicalities of what your AI wrote out for you, so you can’t resort to mathematics or science or philosophy to answer.

So you call names and insults. It’s all you have.

I usually relax when someone resorts to ad hominem. It’s a reliable indication that the argument is well won.

You’re building quite a reputation for yourself.

I think you the dumbest person I have ever had a conversation with. Are you halucinating? You arguing against points I never made and using terms YOU clearly don’t understand. Your relianse of AI which now you are projecting on me is a transparent attempt to cover for your own inadequacy. Your entire intellectual presence here is equavalent to a bread crum.

Dude, buy a spellchecker.

I don’t see how it’s possible for someone to have so many spelling and grammatical errors in one paragraph. I’m being serious - how do you type your stuff out? Because I’m typing right into the forum window and it makes spelling corrections for me.

You must really work hard at being wrong. It’s the only explanation.

1 Like

I speak 5 languages using my device, a typo is a glitch. But your lack of logic is a feature. Imagine being so intellectually banckrupt that a typo is your only victory. The bar is underground yet you choose to limbo under it.

5 languages! Are you sure it isn’t 6? Do you speak any of them very well?

Now seriously, this isn’t the same person who typed the last message, right? That much is obvious. You got a tag team over there?

It’s wild that you’ve ran out of actual arguments so fast that you’ve started to invent imaginary people to explain you’re own defeat. The fact remains that you tried to dismantle my argument with the full strength of AI and you failed dismally.

How could I be defeated? You haven’t argued against anything I said. You just keep sticking your tongue out and nanny nanny boo boo.

I guess I feel you do need a special bit of extra humiliation. You can’t help but reveal who you are; all I have to do is keep you talking. Next step you will take is to hit full on troll velocity. I’ve seen it a hundred times.

Right now. Using what i used, Astronomy, mathematics and ontology, build an argument proving God exist. I want you to watch me dismantle what you build with precision. I’ll expose you infront of everyone that you can’t bench the universe.

Why don’t you just define “ontology” for us?

You are the one building the argument, you define ontology as you use it.

So there’s the first problem. Ontology has a definition. You seem to think you make it up as you go.

Ontology is the study of existence. There is an “ontological argument” that has been around since Anselm, that follows a logical path to theorize the existence of a greatest possible being, and supposedly delivers us to proof that God exists. The theory has been modified by other philosophers over the decades.

It’s not my favorite.

When it gets to the point where it says “an actual MGB is greater than an imaginary MGB, so, God exists”, my support for the argument falls away.

Maybe you can point out my mistake. More importantly, you might explain how God uses ontology to prove His own existence. As I’m sure you know, that would be a circular argument, and God would not engage in an informal fallacy.

NOTE - No AI was used in the formulation of this post. Nor do I ever use AI to formulate any arguments.

Are you gonna build the argument or not as I asked you using astronomy, mathematics and ontology? or are you gonna admit that you can’t?