...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.

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.

That would be an easy way for you to avoid answering the question of what caused the big bang - if you assert it had a cause, what was it? God?

oh, so where was God?

What makes it God and not just the universe?

........awareness?

okay, now i'm bored. i haven't got all night to bring you face to face with the logical fallacy of your theory. You've already contradicted your original post. see if you can spot how...because i'm done with you - you ludicrous fool.
please stop spamming this crap!

No, it's not. Tautologies are closed logical systems. For instance, if you claim that 1+1=2 is some sort of transcendent truth, I can easily respond that 1+1=2 simply because that is one way of defining 2. (which could also be defined as 0.1 + 1.9). There is no external reference.

tautology

This is the name for a particular fault in expression

Your argument begins by establishing the law of reflexivity on the basis that nothing implies nothing, but as I have questioned you you have suggested the universe was caused by quantum self-interaction. Therefore nothing does not imply nothing, does it? Thus, the law of reflexivity in the subsequent arguments is falsely employed, as I originally argued. I thank you and goodnight.

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.

That is the error in reason, there is nothing that relates in support. It is a free-floating notion, not responsible to anything but itself for support. Isolated from any 'reality' but it's own, isolated 'validity'.
Then all the dictionaries and encyclopedia are in error. Perhaps you missed this;



This is not my imagination or opinion, this is what I found on the web when I wanted to know something about 'tautology'. Perhaps your disagreement is with the dictionaries and encyclopedia? It certainly is not with me. Perhaps you do not understand why a 'tautology' that cannot be falsified is not seriously considered valid, hence called a "fault". See definition above. It seems rather simple to me, perhaps it simply means something else to you. Perspective... The other definitions seem to be quite similar to the one referenced.
Make of it as you must.
Peace.

You assume the quantum field is nothing?

oh no, here goes...



No, you do... nothing implies nothing.

That is your argument.

I'm done.

logical proofs don't necessitate truth outside the boundaries of the proof itself, so even if you can logically prove God that doesn't have any bearing on whether he ACTUALLY exists.

Aedes correctly points out that there is a certain gap between any logical conclusion and existence

For those who feel that logic in a vacuum somehow can prove something about the external world. But if you look closely, people who PROVE something using logic are almost certainly just rationalizing a pre-existing belief. In this way it becomes a kind of highly precise sophistry.