I don't think its possible to outright prove the existence of God (unless he turns up in person).

It is a hobby of mine to try to arrive at a tentative conclusion with respect to the existence / non-existence of a creator of the universe. It passes the time. I'm hardly the only one on the forum who does it. It's certainly been a popular pastime for philosophically inclined folks down the ages (too many names to mention).

This is pretty fallacious...is Zuckerberg a reptilian just because he looks like one?

And if something's out of spacetime, then by definition it isn't bound by the laws of causality...I thought we've already established that.

The BB is a huge, suspicious looking explosion:

1. It is a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities
2. Entropy was unnaturally low at the Big Bang
3. Rather than the objects themselves moving further apart, it is space itself that is expanding - the Big Bang is no normal explosion. This expansion of space is keeping the universe from collapsing in on itself into a massive black hole.
4. That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing which also seems unnatural

If we can't judge by appearances, that handicaps us somewhat. By appearances, I judge it is possible that the BB is a creation. That ties in with other arguments.

Also, if something's out of spacetime then by definition it isn't bound by causality...I thought we've already established that. — Three-Buddy Problem

Not bound by causality but maybe still able to initiate (and even participate in) causality.

’Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason’ - Leibniz — Devans99

Isn't this just a restatement of the axiom of causality? Does Leibniz offer any reason why he believes this, or is it just an assertion of causality?

It is an assertion of causality and an assertion of non-causality at the same time in the original formation (IE God is the cause of himself).

The point of the OP was to bring out how the PSR can be altered so it makes more sense and how it neatly ties in with scientific evidence.

You consider the Big Bang to be an actual natural event, but I think it's just a label we apply to ''the beginning of the universe'', and nothing else. And again, if the spacetime is within the universe then we didn't need anyone to start the Big Bang.

What's more, it doesn't matter if, say, entropy were instead maximally high, or the universe is expanding into the shape of a tap-dancing crocodile; because the universe itself doesn't need to be bound by the laws of nature at all, so we don't need to be surprised that it acts unnaturally.

Sure, you can speculate that the universe had a creator anyway even though it didn't need one...but yeah, that's just a speculation. I can speculate that time travelers created the universe. Wanna bet?

You consider the Big Bang to be an actual natural event, but I think it's just a label we apply to ''the beginning of the universe'', and nothing else. And again, if the spacetime is within the universe then we didn't need anyone to start the Big Bang.

What's more, it doesn't matter if, say, entropy were instead maximally high, or the universe is expanding into the shape of a tap-dancing crocodile; because the universe itself doesn't need to be bound by the laws of nature at all, so we don't need to be surprised that it acts unnaturally.

Sure, you can speculate that the universe had a creator anyway even though it didn't need one...but yeah, that's just a speculation. I can speculate that time travelers created the universe. Wanna bet?

I think I'm trying to work from axioms towards a logical conclusion - I guess you can call it speculation if you want.

I can speculate that time travelers created the universe — Three-Buddy Problem

Thats an interesting idea - a future human, time traveller travels back in time and sets off the Big Bang via some sort of device. It would be ironic, after all the effort invested in religion down the years if it turned out that we are our own gods.

Thing is, we do not really know. We hardly know much at all about how such things might work and its certainly could be discovered one way or another. The universe doesnt care about our models for how it works.
The fact that we do not know doesnt mean people can just make something up in place of that knowledge. (Not that you did that). — DingoJones

Sure. I think you understand what I was trying to do - It's not that I know, it's that it doesn't seem obvious to me that everything that exists has to start existing. I'm not sure that's something that's knowable. Then again, I'm not sure it's not knowable either.

The OP on the other thread specifically addresses why things cannot have existed 'forever' in time. That leads to a model where something(s) have permanent existence outside of time. — Devans99

I didn't buy that explanation either.

I believe that causality always forms a pyramid shape in time, which is suggestive of a start of time. — Devans99

As I indicated previously, it's not clear to me that everything has to be caused.

Also, as Leibniz, Aquinas and others have said, infinite regresses are impossible - they must terminate in something concrete, permanent and uncaused - in my view that is only possible if the terminator to the regress is outside of time. — Devans99

If my memory is correct, both Leibniz and Aquinas understood the universe as one where God exists and sets definitive rules for how things work. I'll buy that - if God as he is usually portrayed exists, then everything you say about cause is probably true. If not, all bets are off and we have to figure it out for ourselves.

I didn't buy that explanation either. — T Clark

I'd be grateful if you could tell me why you did not buy the explanation.

It is the same question as: Does true randomness exist?

At a macro-level, randomness is deemed not to exist:

What we normally call “random” is not truly random, but only appears so. The randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed, rather than something inherent to it.

According to the Bell experiments, the axiom of realism mostly falls apart -- but with loopholes -- at the scale of photons and electrons. The smaller the scale, the less the axiom of realism is sustainable.

Axiom of realism: The moon exists, even if we do not look at it.

If I understand it right, according to Bell's theorem, the axiom of causality requires the axiom of realism, the existence of which really depends on just the presence of loopholes that explicitly allow for local reality.

Generalized realism, however, seems to be unsustainable.

I find QM confusing, but I was pointed to quite a helpful document which relates to your point:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609163.pdf

One of the author's points is that QM as it stands does not prove that reality is random at a micro level - that's down to the interpretation of QM.

On Bell's inequalities, I believe that the loopholes you mention imply that locality or realism do not hold. That seems like a large loophole - the violation of the inequalities does not mean that realism does not hold.

Quantum entanglement seems to be an established fact - non local behaviour. But I am not aware of any QM proof/evidence that realism does not hold?

So I believe I can maintain a belief in micro realism at this stage? Bell was, as I understand it, himself a supporter of Bohmian mechanics - non-local hidden variables but a realist interpretation.

My OP is an argument from macro level, which seems the more appropriate level when discussing the origin of the universe. The time around the singularity requires a quantum theory of gravity, but before and after the singularity, the origin of the universe appears to be a macro problem for which causality can be applied.

One of the author's points is that QM as it stands does not prove that reality is random at a micro level - that's down to the interpretation of QM. — Devans99

I certainly agree with what Hrvoje Nikolic writes on the matter:

Fundamental randomness as a myth

Of course, if the usual form of QM is really the ultimate truth, then it is true that nature is fundamentally random. But who says that the usual form of QM really is the ultimate truth? (A serious
scientist will never claim that for any current theory.)

Visual observation requires receiving light on a phenomenon. This becomes a fundamental problem when the phenomenon observed is itself of the same size or smaller than light particles. In that case, we cannot expect an ordinary observation experience to occur. It will necessarily be confused.

As an ex-computer programmer, I wonder about the ultimate source of all the information in the universe. Maybe it requires random, or maybe pseudo-random, as in a complex mathematical fractal is all that is required. I hope the second, but it seems the jury is still out.