Proof of God

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: 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.
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: A → A) [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: A → A) [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: A → A)∧(∃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

[psychodiva]

Here we go again

LOL, what the heck is this?

[psychodiva]

crap? possibly of the doggie doo-doo variety bt I'm sure Ghoul and Choobus could come up with a better analogy

If this is proof of anything, who cares?

Pablobee wrote

If this is proof of anything, who cares?

Maybe those who wonder whether God can be proven.

[psychodiva]

well- as you have been posting this exact same crap on other forums- maybe you would like to explain a bit? or maybe introduce yourself?

psychodiva wrote

well- as you have been posting this exact same crap on other forums- maybe you would like to explain a bit? or maybe introduce yourself?

I am seeking to simplify my proof to a level where anyone with a basic college education should be able to at least understand the concepts used (though with some effort on their part).

The only way I know how to do this is to get as many people to peer review or challenge my proof as possible; Especially those who have an emotional investment to be against it (such as atheists).

I am a Christian and I have been claiming that God could be proved for years... but I was ignorant of how to do it. Through discussions with atheists and reading Spinoza's Ethics and Christopher Langan's CTMU I learned propositional calculus, lots of physics, and finally did end up creating a proof that is more geometrically concise than Spinoza's and founded more on logical tautologies and with more empirical verification than Langan's.

[Eva]

well, your proposition does not ptove your version of god, sidd....sorry...

besides, why not present it to a reputable peer reviewed theological publication? i mean, that would be the way o show it around to the pertinent people...

please, go to the introduce yourself section and intrduce yourself!
thanks.

mmmm.....I thought that "Why god won't heal amputees" had already come up with the "purrrfect" physic formula to proof the existence of gawd....Testing God, A Bayesian Approach?

So....this means nothing. They beat you to it.

Eva wrote

well, your proposition does not ptove your version of god, sidd....sorry...

You are right if you are referring to the specific theistic notions of God found in the bible. That is another proof all together... I am not sure if I have picture and link posting rights yet... so I guess that will have to wait.

besides, why not present it to a reputable peer reviewed theological publication? i mean, that would be the way o show it around to the pertinent people...

Can you point me to a reputable peer reviewed theological publication so that I can submit my proof?

Livingstrong wrote

mmmm.....I thought that "Why god won't heal amputees" had already come up with the "purrrfect" physic formula to proof the existence of gawd....Testing God, A Bayesian Approach?

So....this means nothing. They beat you to it.

Do you think if God intervened in every one of our problems we would learn to stop creating problems for ourselves?

[Eva]

i don't know of any, sid, but i thought that if you were into this kind of thing, you would know.......
or a philosophy journal, something like that....

have you posted this in other forums many times?

Eva wrote

i don't know of any, sid, but i thought that if you were into this kind of thing, you would know.......
or a philosophy journal, something like that....

have you posted this in other forums many times?

Maybe a philosophy journal would work.?.

I have been arguing God's existence all over the internet for years.

I have posed my proof of God in science forums, philosophy forums... and now this atheist forum.

I am hoping to find at least someone capable of debating or discussing the proof with me.


If you have any suggestions on a forum with capable persons... let me know.

[Eva]

what have the responses from other forums said?
have you debated this anywhere? what formal education do you have?