I Can Prove God

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:17 pm
@DrZoidberg phil,
DrZoidberg wrote:
...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.

God has given himself many constraints.

For example God is eternal right?

Can God destroy himself? NO!

If God did destroy himself he would not be eternal, and therefore would not be God, which is absurd!

Therefore God cannot do anything contrary to his nature... including destroying himself; Which would seem to constrain your illogical notions of omnipotence... now wouldn't it?
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:20 pm
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
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.


You have bored me with your stupid illogic and ignorance of quantum physics.

Must I now endure your further babble?


Consider yourself ignored until you formulate another argument that at least looks superficially logical or scientific.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:27 pm
@MySiddhi,
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?
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:37 pm
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
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?


If the big bang started from the quantum level and there is nothing else to interact with it except itself, then it was caused by quantum self-interaction.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:39 pm
@MySiddhi,
oh, so where was God?
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 03:41 pm
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
oh, so where was God?


That which is self-causal is God.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:06 pm
iconoclast wrote:
What makes it God and not just the universe?


What makes God and the universe mutually exclusive?
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:07 pm
iconoclast wrote:
........awareness?


Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:10 pm
iconoclast wrote:
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!


Ah, you have descended into your vague and devoid "arguments" again.
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:15 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;20283 wrote:
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.

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;

Quote:
tautology

This is the name for a particular fault in expression


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.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:18 pm
@MySiddhi,
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.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:26 pm
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
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.

You assume the quantum field is nothing?
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:27 pm
@iconoclast,
nameless,

from post#24

iconoclast:

Quote:
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.


The guy just won't be told.

What to do but sleep?

goodnight.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:31 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
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.

Tautology (logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Philosophical Dictionary: Tarski-Thoreau
Lecture 8 (tautologies).ooutline
Tautology -- from Wolfram MathWorld

etc etc
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:31 pm
@iconoclast,
oh no, here goes...

Quote:
You assume the quantum field is nothing?


No, you do... nothing implies nothing.

That is your argument.

I'm done.
 
MySiddhi
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 04:34 pm
@iconoclast,
iconoclast wrote:
oh no, here goes...



No, you do... nothing implies nothing.

That is your argument.

I'm done.

I do NOT assume the quantum field is nothing. LOL

Comprehension problems here.

I have updated my proof with the following to help those who are inexperienced in logic;


First we should discuss what logical tautology is; A statement which is necessarily true because, by virtue of its logical form; having no external premises, it cannot be used to make a false assertion, and is true in all possible circumstances. In propositional calculus a tautology is a formula that is true under any possible valuation of it's propositional variables. A tautology's negation is a contradiction, a propositional formula that is false regardless of the truth values of its propositional variables.

We see here that the foundation of all truth appeals to the law of non-contradiction; the first principle; "For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same (object) in the same (way) is impossible." - Aristotle, Meta ta physica. This principle is the expression of consistency. Any defining and reasoning in any language on any topic assumes it a priori. It cannot be doubted, as all doubting is based on inconsistency, which assumes consistency a priori.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
Aedes correctly points out that there is a certain gap between any logical conclusion and existence
Quote:
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.
I certainly disagree with the notion that logical necessity is irrelevant to the phenomenal world.

If my proof is correct... then all necessary truth is isomorphic to the existence of empirical facts; because information is necessarily endomorphically mapped in reality.

Morphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Endomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I demonstrate this empirical relevance and verification with the induction section as well as the causal mechanism for mind matter interactions and the peer reviewed research papers that demonstrate it.

The issue here is that, if consciousness is a fundamental property of reality (and not an epiphenomena of material structures) then a causal mechanism for mind matter interactions over space and time is a logical necessity.

Materialistic interpretations of reality cannot include the nonphysical phenomena I have demonstrated as a logical necessity and empirical fact.

Thus making my proof quite relevant to the phenomenal world.
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:48 pm
@neo-anchorite,
After reading through this thread, there was a lot of junk and a lot of comments and even some name calling. It started to turn into more of a chat with one liners.

Several posts have been merged and some of these have been deleted.

If any of you, (not naming names) feel that this is the place where we are going to verbally abuse and attack each other with name calling, degrading and or belittling statements then do us all a favor and find a forum that accepts that type of behavior because it's NOT going to be accepted here.

The thread is temporarily closed!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 04:11:17