God probably does not exist.

AveI will be presenting an interpretation of general relatitvity and Big Bang cosmology which entails that god does not exist.Preliminary DefinitionsA half-open state of time can be thought of a line segment with a maximum value, but no minimum value. A first state of time can be thought of as a line segment with a maximum value and a minimum value. Entailment ArgumentP1: Every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state.P2: If every state of the universe is sufficiently caused by a previous state, then every state of the universe has a causal explanation with reference to another state.P3: If every state of the universe has a causal explanation with reference to another state, then there is no state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe.P4: An external cause of the universe can only exist if there is a state of the universe that was not caused by a previous state of the universe.C: By P3 and P4, The universe has no external cause.C2: God does not exist.Support for the entailment argument There are two ‘’types’’ of mechanics, classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics deals with things on the scale of atoms, and quantum mechanics deals with things below the scale of atoms.[1] Classical mechanics is the most important mechanism for this specific argument. The theory of general relativity is part of classical mechanics, and it describes space-time and how gravity functions.The theory of general relativity is one of the most supported theories in science. The Hafele-Keating experiment demonstrates time dilation, which is a prediction of general relativity.[2] The orbit of Mercury is experimental vindication of the theory of relativity's equations. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton's equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy [3][4]. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true.Physicists derive equations from relativity called metric tensors (or metrics for short), which describe the geometric and causal structure of space-time[5]. Ever since Einstein created general relativity in 1915, four physicists have derived metrics from his theory that describe the universe we live in, which are now called Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metrics [6]. The FLRW metric describes a universe that is isotropic, homogenous, and expanding. These metrics also state that every state of time is half-open. [7][8]If every state of time is half-open, then this creates problems for a first state of time. A first state of time has a minimum value and a maximum value However, this contradicts the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity tells us that every state of time must have no minimum value, but a maximum value. Therefore, the theory of relativity tells us that a first state of time does not exist. Not only that, but the existence of a first state of time would actually be impossible!Now, let’s talk about sufficient causation. In the context of this argument, I use sufficient cause to refer to a condition that, when it has been actualized, will inevitably lead to something else [9]. For example, if people are playing checkers, then there is also a board and pieces in use. The act of playing checkers requires the use of a board and pieces.This is a picture of the universe if every state of time is half-open. Every end-point (represented by the U shape) sufficiently causes the next end-point, and is sufficiently caused by a prior end-point. If one end-point represents the first hour after the Big Bang, and the next end-point represents the second hour after the Big Bang, then the first hour after the Big Bang sufficiently causes the second hour, because once it has been actualized, it will lead to the second hour. The first premise is warranted, and I believe that the other premises logically follow from its truth.Big Bang cosmologyThe argument I gave is consistent with standard Big Bang cosmology. The universe still had a beginning in the sense that every state of time must be less than 13.9 billion years old, the age of the universe. In algebraic terms, if T represents a state of time, then every T < 13.9 billion years ago. I think this explanation will solve any questions about how my view of the universe is compatible with standard Big Bang cosmology, which has a finitely old universe.Some may argue that the initial cosmological singularity represents a beginning point. I think this interpretation has many problems. It is better to think of the singularity as a mathematical abstraction rather than a real thing. For example, it's supposed to have infinite temperature, but it's a zero dimensional point. Temperature relates to molecules moving around, like spreading out when heated, or getting closer together when cooled. How can temperature make any sense at a zero-dimensional point, which by definition, has no movement? Dr. Craig also points out that a physical object with no duration and no physical extension hardly qualifies as a physical thing at all! [10]Atheism with a first state Even if there is a first state of the universe, it can be explained by simultaneous causation. Simultaneous causation is the idea that ‘’the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous.’’ Alain Aspect's experiments with Bell's inequalities demonstrate simultaneous causation with spatially distant photons. The measurement of one photon causes the other photon to instantaneously take on an anti-correlated spin [11]. The first state of the universe can be logically explained by this simultaneous causation. One part of the state, X, simultaneously causes another part, Y, which simultaneously causes another part Z, which simultaneously causes another part, X.This may seem absurd, but I like to quote physicists Paul Davies on this: 'The idea of a physical system containing an explanation of itself might seem paradoxical to the layman but it is an idea that has some precedence in physics. While one may concede (ignoring quantum effects) that every event is contingent, and depends for its explanation on some other event, it need not follow that this series either continues endlessly, or ends in God. It may be closed into a loop.' [12]ValeReferences 1: http://en.wikipedia.org...2: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...3: A Brief History of Time, pg 114: http://en.wikipedia.org...5: http://en.wikipedia.org...6: http://en.wikipedia.org...7: I consulted DDO user nordmarj, who has a master's degree in Astronomy and Physics, and he told me this was a correct statement.8: http://plato.stanford.edu...9: http://www.nku.edu...10: Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, pg 22711: The Fabric of the Cosmos, pgs 112-11511B: A full description of the experiment can be found in: 'Alain Aspect and Phillipe Grangier, 'Experiments on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons', Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 1-15.'11C: A larger discusion of this can be found by reading Quentin Smith's article 'The Reason the Universe exists is that it caused itself' at the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy website.12: God and the New Physics, pg 47