I Can Prove God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:50 am
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
You cannot say 'nothing implies nothing...' it's false, as I told you in another forum. You didn't reply - but went right ahead and posted it here without addressing the issue. Typical religionist.

iconoclast.



Why exactly is Reflexivity of Implication false? Were you equally vague and devoid of a real argument in the other forum as well?
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 07:58 am
@MySiddhi,
No, just didn't want to waste my time explaining if you were going to run-away agian.:spam:

The logic of first cause is false because cause and effect is shown to be inapplicable under certain circumstances with reference to quantum phenomena that routinely obviate cause and effect. :rules:

Cause and effect applies to the existing classical scale universe - where there is energy, matter and a temopral sequence of events. :poke-eye:

Thus, the primordial universe - crushed into a quantum singulalrity :detective: is exempt on two counts - firstly, that it is on quantum scale, and secondly, there is no matter, energy or time - and thus no cause and effect. :smartass:
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:33 am
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
No, just didn't want to waste my time explaining if you were going to run-away agian.:spam:

The logic of first cause is false because cause and effect is shown to be inapplicable under certain circumstances with reference to quantum phenomena that routinely obviate cause and effect. :rules:

Cause and effect applies to the existing classical scale universe - where there is energy, matter and a temopral sequence of events. :poke-eye:

Thus, the primordial universe - crushed into a quantum singulalrity :detective: is exempt on two counts - firstly, that it is on quantum scale, and secondly, there is no matter, energy or time - and thus no cause and effect. :smartass:

Don't let the word "causation" confuse you. What is being argued here is interaction, entanglement, participation, involvement, or perturbation.

If Quantum Mechanics is easier for you to understand over logic feel free to review what is called quantum self-interaction... to validate my claim that "something is self-causal".
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:04 am
@MySiddhi,
(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
A → A “nothing implies nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
idA: A → A “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
(∃Ax)(A = x) “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence


(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something
ergo something is self-implicated
Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
ergo everything is causal with something
ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.


I have highlighted in the text of your argument the difference between your statements 'nothing implies nothing' and 'something is self causal.'

Clearly you have now shifted the basis of your argument forward to a point you think you may be able to support given my arguments - that while you suggest are confused, have removed the fundamental basis of your argument, leaving the latter a free floating assertion.

...or what we round here call faith.:whip:
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:15 am
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of "is" are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A "nothing equals nothing" Law of Identity
A → A "nothing implies nothing" Reflexivity of Implication
idA: A → A "nothing has the property of nothing" Identity Morphism
(∃Ax)(A = x) "nothing exists as nothing" Reflexivity of Existence


(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something
ergo something is self-implicated
Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
ergo everything is causal with something

ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.


I have highlighted in the text of your argument the difference between your statements 'nothing implies nothing' and 'something is self causal.'

Clearly you have now shifted the basis of your argument forward to a point you think you may be able to support given my arguments - that while you suggest are confused, have removed the fundamental basis of your argument, leaving it a free floating assertion.

...or what we round here call faith.:whip:

I underline for you that which points out that "something is self-causal" is not a free floating assertion.

Further I always had this claim including in our original discussion. But I did come to realize you would need to be a genius to comprehend it from (A ≡ A)∧(A → A).

This is why I added the underlined part so that anyone that is educated could comprehend it. Also... I was not provoked into expounding on this issue because of your arguments... but rather from someone else's who claimed I cannot arrive at causation from implication.


We both know that logic is not your favored ground... so please review and concede quantum self-interaction for me.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:27 am
@MySiddhi,
:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall:

We both know that logic is not your favored ground...

Get stuffed you snotty prick!
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:30 am
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall:

We both know that logic is not your favored ground...

Get stuffed you snotty prick!

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings there.

It just seems every time you want to make an argument against logical necessity you appeal to quantum physics... as if you actually understood it.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:08 am
@MySiddhi,
If you don't like personal abuse, don't engage in it. I'm easy - feel free, but be warned, I'm good at it and will reciprocate to the full extent of my talent.

I haven't used the term 'Big Bang' yet as I wanted you to arrive at the other logical explanation for all that exists without direction.

The logic you apply is the logic of the existing universe - but if you would begin your argument with 'nothing' then these rules do not apply.

Where the Big Bang is concerned, causality, and therefore reflexivity of implication does not apply. Nothing did come from nothing.

Thus, the nothing you refer to, that cannot even be spoken of as existing, nor of existing before the big bang - because time did not exist, implies everything. I think of it in a binary sense - 0 - nothing - 1 everything.

If you care to respond directly to the point raised without shifting the argument or engaging in personal abuse - I will be happy to engage constructively with you, but if you want this to descend into a round of name calling I will be only too happy to verbally abuse you.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:22 am
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
I haven't used the term 'Big Bang' yet as I wanted you to arrive at the other logical explanation for all that exists without direction.

The logic you apply is the logic of the existing universe - but if you would begin your argument with 'nothing' then these rules do not apply.

Where the Big Bang is concerned, causality, and therefore reflexivity of implication does not apply. Nothing did come from nothing.

Thus, the nothing you refer to, that cannot even be spoken of as existing, nor of existing before the big bang - because time did not exist, implies everything. I think of it in a binary sense - 0 - nothing - 1 everything.


Did you mean something came from nothing?

Necessary involvement (causal relation) only comes about from the reflexivity of implication of the negation of the zero arity predicate "thing".

All other forms of reflexivity of implication cannot achieve necessary involvement.

Cause is a synonym for REASON.

I can only guess that you think there is no reason for the big bang?
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:30 am
@MySiddhi,
thank you for the correction - i did indeed mean something, indeed, everything came from nothing.

it is not necessary that the big bang had a cause.

p.s. please don't reproduce this post.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 11:00 am
@iconoclast,
Why is it not necessary that the big bang had a cause? It seems a bit silly to assume this, especially considering that the hyperbolic boundry of space time and the constant expansion of the universe seem to indicate that the universe is expanding into somthing, the properties of which we do not know. It is entirely viable that the entirety of our universe is quite small in comparison to the totality of physical reality, and that this universe is but one of many which are each at varying stages of their life cycles.

I think all this talk is a bit premature without a cohesive theory of quantum gravitation.

You must base your proof soley on that which is provable. Empirical verification does not validate a conjecture or theory as a definite truth, so do not use sicentific conjecture, only pure logic. If you cannot prove god a priori, but rather you must rest the proof on the shoulders of scientific conjecture, you do not have a proof.

Physical science is not tautological as it is falsifiable, do not cite it in your proof to avoid confusion.
 
DrZoidberg phil
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 11:11 am
@MySiddhi,
MySiddhi wrote:
God is restrained by himself. Stoics call God the Logos... from which we get our English word logic.


IF omnipotence is all-power-full and we use the scientific definition of power as I have highlighted it;

Then we have solved the paradox thus;


Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.


...and now you're giving God lots of constraints you have no basis for giving it. Don't assume things just because its necessary for your model. That's backward reasoning. In logic, if you start cutting corners on your input, your output will be garbage, no matter how pretty your logical model might be.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 12:00 pm
@DrZoidberg phil,
A further comment I might add is that if you define all powerful using the scientific term of power, you limit god to the constraints which he created, do you not? By definition, the descriptors of god must be a proper subset of god, as they are god's creation and thus a part of god. Form doesn't matter. Physical truth is a subset of reality, which is in turn a subset of god. The limiting physical descriptors of the discrete nature of the universe such as the plank measures are not absolute truths by necessity. The theories must not be tautologies to be falsifiable, if they are not falsifiable, they must reduce themselfs to the point of an insignificance, such as stating an equivalence. By showing ideological equivalence you only clarify terms in logical space so as to better organize a basis for argumentation. Any substantial arguement in the end must be a contingency or it is a sefl evident, self referential fact and thus only a clarification of terms. By redefining god to the manner which you see fit, you achieve limited self evident ends.

The limited god you present is simply a reterming of the set of natural laws proven through self reference.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 01:17 pm
No doubt we could not grasp the genius of his proof enough to look past its inheirent foundational flaws, forgetting his proof is circular, and going on to find joy and harmony as our mental tachyons allow for superluminal information distribution and thus informational time travel.:rolleyes:

By the way, does anyone here listen to coast to coast?Very Happy
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 01:23 pm
@MySiddhi,
MySiddhi;20274 wrote:
What does the law of non-contradiction have to do with the double slit experiment?

You are welcome to provide a single example of a proposition that is both true and false in the same respect at the same time! By the way, that would actually falsify the law of non-contradiction.

At the same time;
A photon is a particle.
A photon is a wave.
A photon is neither a particle or a wave.
It can also be two places at the same time.

It seems that this very data removes any universality from noncontradictions 'lawness'. See, it doesnt falsify non-contra's local applications, pragmatic, it removes it's universal status.


Quote:
However, when one is writing a proof... a logical tautology is logical truth.

Only because it says so. A very insular and useless 'error' beyond it isolated existence. I just offered what I found on the net. I would try to avoid the error if I were trying to make a real case for something. Tautologies, as far as I have found on the net, are errors, as I have offered. Perhaps you have a very 'personal' definition? I didn't come up with this, I copyed it from encyclopedia and checked various dictionaries.

Quote:
No one can create a proof without using tautologies.

Then no one can create any definitive universal 'proof' sans the 'error' of tautology. If your 'proof' that something is true because you (the tautological statement) claims it to be true, is now a matter of 'belief', not rationality.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 02:51 pm
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
thank you for the correction - i did indeed mean something, indeed, everything came from nothing.

it is not necessary that the big bang had a cause.

p.s. please don't reproduce this post.


There is no reason for the big bang?

On what bases then should be believe in one?
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:00 pm
@MySiddhi,
because i say so.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:08 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
Why is it not necessary that the big bang had a cause? It seems a bit silly to assume this, especially considering that the hyperbolic boundry of space time and the constant expansion of the universe seem to indicate that the universe is expanding into somthing, the properties of which we do not know. It is entirely viable that the entirety of our universe is quite small in comparison to the totality of physical reality, and that this universe is but one of many which are each at varying stages of their life cycles.

I think all this talk is a bit premature without a cohesive theory of quantum gravitation.

You must base your proof soley on that which is provable. Empirical verification does not validate a conjecture or theory as a definite truth, so do not use sicentific conjecture, only pure logic. If you cannot prove god a priori, but rather you must rest the proof on the shoulders of scientific conjecture, you do not have a proof.

Physical science is not tautological as it is falsifiable, do not cite it in your proof to avoid confusion.

Of course I believe the big bang had a cause... I am just pursuing iconoclast's illogic.

By the way, there a cohesive theory of quantum gravitation; the "E8xE8 superstring field,"

It is expressed most concisely in the following, compact Lagrangian, or "super-formula," presented, for simplicity, in the super-conformal gauge:

http://www.maharishicentraluniversity.org/images/super-conformal-gauge.gif

where i Ihttp://www.maharishicentraluniversity.org/images/fock-space_equation.gif
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:10 pm
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
because i say so.


Lucky for us, your opinions or conjectures are irrelevant.


Consider your argument refuted.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:16 pm
@MySiddhi,
what? is groundless assertion not good enough for you? then why even entertain the concept of god? much less try to prove it by cutting and pasting equations that for all anyone here knows could be a recipe for ice-cream? including you.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 01:21:53