The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Proof of God  (Read 5246 times)

Offline MySiddhi

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« on: 26/07/2008 17:57:49 »
The proof has one definition, one Axiom, seven logical Tautologies with ten corollaries, one Deduction, five Inductions, with (credits), [attributes], and some resolved Paradoxes.

Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

(A1) Propositions cannot be both true and false. (Parmenides)
The axiom of non-contradiction is required to prove anything at all.

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃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: AA “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.
Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

(T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan)
(A ≡ A)∧(idA: AA) [intentional]
Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

(T4) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence. (Parmenides)
(A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [substance]

(T5) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides)
(A → A)∧(idA: AA) [pantheism]

(T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
(A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [causal]

(T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars)
(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect]
Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.

(D1) One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. (Spinoza) [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, monism]
Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1]. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

(I1) E = m⋅c^2 (Jules Poincaré & Olinto Pretto) [immanent]
Mass-Energy Equivalence; bradyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all spatial things are forms of energy.

(I2) E = Δt⋅c^2 (Edmund Whittaker & Thomas Bearden) [transcendent]
Delta Time-Energy Equivalence; tachyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all temporal things are forms of energy.

(I3) E = (h⋅ω)/2 (Max Planck & Werner Heisenberg) [infinite, omnipresent, perfect]
Zero-Point Energy; we have a contribution of 1/2 hbar omega from every single point in space resulting in a substantial infinity as well as making energy spatially infinite. Because it is infinite it is unchanging in it's nature, while embodying the existence of all things, it therefore is perfect.

(I4) ∑E = Et+Ek+Ep (Julius Mayer) [eternal, invincible]
Conservation of Energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it is temporally infinite.

(I5) P = ∫ ∇E dv (Mars Turner) [all-power-full]
Power Integral; power involves the transformation of energy, therefore the infinite, omnipresent, and eternal energy is all-power-full.

Note; The definitive and causal mechanism for mind-matter interactions (Mars Turner);
Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are dually related harmonic convergents of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)
sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum
telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis


by Mars Sterling Turner


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #1 on: 26/07/2008 20:07:50 »
This assertion " Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality " is unevinced.

The "proof" is unable to distinguish between a God and a big bang.
This "One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere." sems to me to be an assumption rather than a deduction. Further more it seems to be equivalent to the assumption that there is a God. If that's right then the proof is meaningless. It does nothing but prove it's own assumption.

Anyway, it still leaves the time honoured question of where did God come from?
 

Offline MySiddhi

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #2 on: 26/07/2008 20:55:55 »
This assertion " Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality " is unevinced.

The "proof" is unable to distinguish between a God and a big bang.
This "One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere." sems to me to be an assumption rather than a deduction. Further more it seems to be equivalent to the assumption that there is a God. If that's right then the proof is meaningless. It does nothing but prove it's own assumption.

Anyway, it still leaves the time honoured question of where did God come from?

I can't find "unevinced" in the dictionary. Is that a unique word in the UK?

Did the big bang cause itself?

"One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere."

This is a proposition and the deductive proof is provided.

You will notice the proposition is not used as an axiom in the deduction.

The question of "where did God come from?" is answered; One thing has always existed everywhere!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #3 on: 27/07/2008 14:00:28 »
Unevinced is the opposite of evinced. It means that there is no evidence supplied for it.

"Did the big bang cause itself?"
Did God cause Himself?
It's the same problem. From the available evidence something must have been the primary cause. We can't say with certainty what it was because we were not there at the time. However there is evidence from the observation of the expanding universe that the universe was once at a point (or at least something very much smaller than it's current size.
There is no evidence for any God.

So, now you know what the word unevinced means you will understand when I say that "The question of "where did God come from?" is answered; One thing has always existed everywhere!" is unevinced, yet you calim it to be true.
By assuming it to be true you are effectively assuming the existence of God. Proving God's existence based on the assumption that He exists is simply tautology. It's a waste of time.

This statement "Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed" is roughly equivalent. It is stated, but not proven to be true; and it forces the existence of something eternal which you can label as God.
The proof simply isn't valid.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Proof of God
« Reply #4 on: 27/07/2008 18:05:10 »
Humans are amazing creatures.
They evolved with an incredibly high intellect (which was, clearly, a huge evolutionary advantage) then they found a need to 'explain' things which are actually beyond their fundamental capability - their being only a small part of what it is they are trying to explain.

They want an answer to the "Why" question but all they can hope for is the answer to some of the many "How" questions.

IF there were a God, then just how bloomin arrogant it would be for Humans to think they could have the slightest clue about how it / he / she operated.

It may give people a cosy feeling to be allow themselves to believe in a greater entity but, as to it being anything 'ultimate', who are they to assess?
It is not impossible that we are part of a big experiment but the 'Great Experimenter'  would be operating at such a higher level than us, as individuals or as a whole that, again - how could we hope to grasp what is going on.
It is another piece of incredible arrogance to think that we are consequential enough to be worth experimenting on.
And, in any case, as BC says, "where did God come from?"

I appreciate that a 'God' figure is an extremely useful construct to help us get through our lives - just like other aspects of our culture. Why is it so upsetting to accept that? 
God just replaces a much more intellectual reason (humanism) for behaving right.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #5 on: 27/07/2008 21:41:59 »
I've merged these two topics, even though I personally see no merit in either of them.

Jesusdpm - please don't post topics that consist of nothing but links.  At least make a valid comment about the links.  Furthermore, the links contain no content except a random blog post.  They certainly contain no mathematical proof of the existence of your god.

Also, I would like to add that seeking mathematical proof of a metaphorical being is just a silly thing to do. It also cheapens everything that religion stands for.
 

Offline MySiddhi

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #6 on: 30/07/2008 05:48:11 »
Unevinced is the opposite of evinced. It means that there is no evidence supplied for it.

"Did the big bang cause itself?"
Did God cause Himself?
It's the same problem. From the available evidence something must have been the primary cause. We can't say with certainty what it was because we were not there at the time. However there is evidence from the observation of the expanding universe that the universe was once at a point (or at least something very much smaller than it's current size.
There is no evidence for any God.

So, now you know what the word unevinced means you will understand when I say that "The question of "where did God come from?" is answered; One thing has always existed everywhere!" is unevinced, yet you calim it to be true.
By assuming it to be true you are effectively assuming the existence of God. Proving God's existence based on the assumption that He exists is simply tautology. It's a waste of time.

This statement "Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed" is roughly equivalent. It is stated, but not proven to be true; and it forces the existence of something eternal which you can label as God.
The proof simply isn't valid.


Do you agree that; nothing is nonexistence?

Are you sure the statement;

"Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed"

cannot be determined to be true or not?

How about this statement;

"Nowhere and at no time has nonexistence existed"

?

Can nonexistence exist?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Proof of God
« Reply #7 on: 30/07/2008 09:41:41 »
The contributions to this thread are, mostly, far too simplistic.
Discussing Time as though it is not part of the Universe is a big mistake. If the Big Bang event was what created Space and Time (Our Universe), then there is not meaning to 'before' this event because negative time could not exist; it would be Outside the Universe.
To discuss origins or causes doesn't involve 'before'; it involves 'outside'.
The only real issue is whether what is outside our Universe actually 'cares' about what goes on here  or is/was 'just there'. That would constitute a God.

That word 'cares' is anthropmorphism in the extreme. It assumes that the way our brains work is capable of grasping what is actually going on and that God would be thinking like we do. I can't imagine that is the case. But I can understand how the brain would construct the idea of a God figure. One word takes the place of books and books of open ended Science discussion.

Of course, if there IS a God, then all the above is rubbish.
However, unless He chooses to make it incontrovertably obvious that He exists, it is the height of arrogance to assume that anyone is clever enough to 'prove'  His existence.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #8 on: 30/07/2008 19:22:08 »
Questions like "Can nonexistence exist?" don't really get anywhere. Lots of things stop making sense when they are used self-referentially.
It's like asking "can an all powerfull God set Himself a task He can't acomplish?"
anyway

Re
"Are you sure the statement;

Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed"

cannot be determined to be true or not?"

OK; I assert it is false. I say there was a time when nothing existed (and that it was roughly 15 billion years ago). Can you prove this to be wrong? If you cannot prove it's false then it's undetermined.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Proof of God
« Reply #9 on: 31/07/2008 17:38:16 »
I would question that last statement.
If space - time were created together, then, there 'would' have been no time if there was nothing else.
15billion years ago would represent the beginning of time and the beginning of space and matter.
Could be wrong, tho; it's not as simple as Newton's Laws.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #10 on: 31/07/2008 18:55:07 »
Feel free to question it, but until someone proves that it's false, it remains undecided.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Proof of God
« Reply #11 on: 31/07/2008 22:32:20 »
I question therefore I am.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #12 on: 01/08/2008 18:05:12 »
Are you sure?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Proof of God
« Reply #13 on: 01/08/2008 18:51:43 »
You question so you must 'am' too.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Proof of God
« Reply #14 on: 02/08/2008 01:58:55 »
It's roughly 2 o'clock on a Saturday morning and I am honestly not sure about a lot of things.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Proof of God
« Reply #14 on: 02/08/2008 01:58:55 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums