Old 07-26-2008, 03:56 PM   #31
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,923
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
Thank you for your honesty.

I have debated with atheists in detail.

To remain consistent in atheism you must hold the philosophy of materialism (that only the physical exists). And you must hold that consciousness is an epiphenomena of material structures (and not a fundamental property of reality as I have proven).

By "physical" we mean 3-space realism. But of course Quantum non-locality is an example of a nonphysical phenomena!

And so is psychic functioning.
Atheism is a non-position, you shallow fraud. An atheist is not logically compelled to subscribe to any position other than the lack of belief in a god or gods. Your tortured logic is beyond pathetic. I havenít the time, energy or inclination to address each flaw in your anally-discharged dissertation. But for the amusement of my peers, allow me to point out a few holes in your pink Hello Kitty underpants.


Something that has always existed is eternal.

Wrong! Because something has always existed does not guarantee it will continue to persist without end or demise.

That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed.

It this a scientifically-testable postulation or is it just a philosophical puzzle? If you believe the turd on the end of your finger is a piece of Ghirardelli raspberry-filled chocolate, does it make it true?

Therefore it is invincible.

Is eternal synonymous with invincible? Could an object not exist eternally, conditional to being insulated from some destructive factor which exists in a different realm, perhaps a parallel universe? I seem to lack any data upon which I could draw any factual conclusions. Did you have knowledge of something I am missing in my assessment?

Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things

Canít a dynamic object exist eternally? The basis of my argument for this will be as sound as your argument for the existence of a static object which is eternal.

it therefore is perfect.

Please define perfection. This seems a subjective term to me.


Hee hee! Light weight!

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator

Last edited by ghoulslime; 07-26-2008 at 04:21 PM.
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 04:29 PM   #32
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
To remain consistent in atheism you must hold the philosophy of materialism (that only the physical exists).
This is entirely wrong. Atheism only adressess the issue of god, nothing more. Atheists can and do adhere to such a philosophy, but they are not forced to. Belief in a supernatural realm where ghosts and poltergeists reign supreme-- while ridiculous-- is not out of the question for an atheist to believe.

Quote:
And you must hold that consciousness is an epiphenomena of material structures (and not a fundamental property of reality as I have proven).
consciousness is a product of the brain-- a physical thing. No brain= no consciousness. It certainly exists in reality, simply because the reality in which we live happened to support life that allowed for such complex brains to evolve. Had life not taken hold anywhere in the universe, then no consciousness would arise, yet that universe (that reality) would keep on ticking. So no, you have not "proven" anything.

Quote:
By "physical" we mean 3-space realism. But of course Quantum non-locality is an example of a nonphysical phenomena!

And so is psychic functioning.
psychic functioning? Are you kidding with this?
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 04:29 PM   #33
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
Do you think if God intervened in every one of our problems we would learn to stop creating problems for ourselves?
Irrational statement. Lack of divine intervention has not curved our occasionally antisocial behaviour. In fact our capacity to destroy ourselves has increased over time.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 06:41 PM   #34
Kamikaze189
Senior Member
 
Kamikaze189's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Giant rock hurtling through space
Posts: 767
MySiddhi, is your proof another variation of "God has to have created the universe since the universe couldn't have made itself"?

That's a very common (albeit flawed) argument. And it can be written in one sentence, as I have above.

“Whoever attacks the popular falsehoods of his time will find that a lie defends itself by telling other lies.” - Robert Ingersoll
Kamikaze189 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 06:46 PM   #35
Livingstrong
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It's a waste of time trying to debate with this person. He is a spammer. He has posted the same thing in lots of forums. He just paste the same crap and he doesn't bother to debate with nobody. In the SciForums he started the same thread and one poster responded this to him:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...78&postcount=6
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 06:47 PM   #36
shtmag
Member
 
shtmag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: oklahoma
Posts: 116
Quote:
Kamikaze189 wrote View Post
MySiddhi, is your proof another variation of "God has to have created the universe since the universe couldn't have made itself"?

That's a very common (albeit flawed) argument. And it can be written in one sentence, as I have above.

Yes, but if you put all those calculations and stuff, it looks all sciencey!

"to such heights of evil are men driven by religion." Lucretious
shtmag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 07:51 PM   #37
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
The proof has one definition, one Axiom, seven logical Tautologies with ten corollaries, one Deduction, five Inductions, with (credits), [attributes], and some resolved Paradoxes.
You have proven exactly jackshit!

Your "proof" is fraught with unfounded assumptions, false dichotomies, and anally-extracted conclusions.

Basically, if even one of your tautologies or assumptions, etc, is faulty, your entire mental masturbation exercise comes crashing down like a house of cards.

I have issues with more than one (surprisingly, most of them are your own).

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.
In the very first part, you have already muddied the waters (energy that is omniscient?), and already have a logical contradiction (omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive).

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
(T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
This does not logically follow.
At best, you might be able to say that something is the cause of some things.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
(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.
Ghoulslime already skewered this one.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
(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]
I'm not a philosophy expert, by any stretch, but this is chock full of assumptions that I don't agree with.
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1].
How the fuck did you come up with this assertion? Can you say non-sequitur?
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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.
Since the prior part makes no logical sense, this one also constitutes a huge leap.
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
(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.
As GS already pointed out, please define perfect (without circular reasoning like "that which can't be any better").
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
(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.
Did you think you could slip this one through along with all the real equations? Explain the leap to something being allpowerful.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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
And this is where you completely lose it. Mass psychic control? Telephone telepathy?

Anyway, this comes from someone who doesn't pretend to know the first thing about philosophy, and even I can see through the bullshit.

Where is Rhino when we need him? He could probably slice through this with minimal effort, while hammered, stoned, and asleep.

In conclusion, I would like to quote a member (Xelios) from the SciForums, who summarizes your entire proof quite nicely:
Quote:
Xelios on SciForums wrote
Even if we believe all those assumptions are true, the proof does nothing in the end except "prove" that everything that has ever existed is part of an infinite something. All this talk about "omnipotent" and "omniscient" is just tacked on to give that something the appearance of a theistic God. The whole thing can be boiled down into "If we assume that energy has always existed and behaves as it does now, then we can prove energy has always existed and behaved as it does now. Oh, and that energy is God."

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 08:33 PM   #38
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
And this is where you completely lose it. Mass psychic control? Telephone telepathy?
Hey, come on now. He's got equations. I always did wonder what the mathematical properties of my telephone telepathy was. I wonder if he's also got an equation for the heebie jeebies.
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 08:40 PM   #39
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
shtmag wrote View Post
Have you tried pharyngula?
For peer review? He seems like an interesting character... but he may not be skilled in logic and science. He seems more of a biologist.


I suppose it wouldn't hurt to hear what he has to say on my work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 08:53 PM   #40
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
For peer review? He seems like an interesting character... but he may not be skilled in logic and science. He seems more of a biologist.


I suppose it wouldn't hurt to hear what he has to say on my work.
Not skilled in logic and science? More of a biologist? What the fuck do you think biologists are if not scientists?

I might be able to give you an insight as to what he might say about your "work":
"Hahahahahahahahahahahaha...."

I can't be sure if this is exactly what he would say. You see, I'm using my telepohone telepathy to get the proper insight, but I may have plugged the wrong variable into my equation.
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 09:06 PM   #41
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
ghoulslime wrote View Post
Atheism is a non-position
I clearly appealed to consistency; Which means atheism as a philosophical position.

You are right, anyone (retard?) can have incoherent beliefs such as belief in a spiritual realm (non-materialist) and a belief that there is no God (atheism).

Of course you are welcome to demonstrate a single example of an atheist that believes in a spiritual realm (for my entertainment pleasure).


Quote:
Quote:
Something that has always existed is eternal.
Wrong! Because something has always existed does not guarantee it will continue to persist without end or demise.
You are mistaken. That which was not created cannot be destroyed.


Quote:
Quote:
That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed.
It this a scientifically-testable postulation or is it just a philosophical puzzle?
It is a logical necessity... and it has been empirically verified through the conservation of energy. If you prove that energy can be created you will falsify the position.


Quote:
Quote:
Therefore it is invincible.
Is eternal synonymous with invincible? Could an object not exist eternally, conditional to being insulated from some destructive factor which exists in a different realm, perhaps a parallel universe? I seem to lack any data upon which I could draw any factual conclusions. Did you have knowledge of something I am missing in my assessment?
That which cannot be destroyed is invincible by definition.


Quote:
Quote:
Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things
Canít a dynamic object exist eternally? The basis of my argument for this will be as sound as your argument for the existence of a static object which is eternal.
Where do I claim the existence of a static object? Straw man fallacy?

Quote:
Quote:
it therefore is perfect.
Please define perfection. This seems a subjective term to me.
I define perfection as "unchanging nature", that which is eternal.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 09:08 PM   #42
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
antix wrote View Post
Not skilled in logic and science? More of a biologist? What the fuck do you think biologists are if not scientists?
I suppose I meant "physics".... the science that is actually used and relevant to my proof.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 09:21 PM   #43
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
antix wrote View Post
This is entirely wrong. Atheism only adressess the issue of god, nothing more. Atheists can and do adhere to such a philosophy, but they are not forced to. Belief in a supernatural realm where ghosts and poltergeists reign supreme-- while ridiculous-- is not out of the question for an atheist to believe.
Any idiot can believe anything can't they? But NOT WHILE remaining CONSISTENT.

Quote:
consciousness is a product of the brain-- a physical thing. No brain= no consciousness. It certainly exists in reality, simply because the reality in which we live happened to support life that allowed for such complex brains to evolve. Had life not taken hold anywhere in the universe, then no consciousness would arise, yet that universe (that reality) would keep on ticking. So no, you have not "proven" anything.
An object cannot gain an attribute except through and from the medium with which it exists.

Everything and anything which is self-causal is conscious.

Quote:
psychic functioning? Are you kidding with this?
Nope, I would post the peer reviewed research papers but not sure if I have link posting rights yet.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 09:24 PM   #44
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
Irrational statement. Lack of divine intervention has not curved our occasionally antisocial behaviour. In fact our capacity to destroy ourselves has increased over time.
If a parent prevents their children from being able to make any mistakes what so ever and to see the results of those mistakes the child will never grow up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 09:27 PM   #45
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Kamikaze189 wrote View Post
MySiddhi, is your proof another variation of "God has to have created the universe since the universe couldn't have made itself"?

That's a very common (albeit flawed) argument. And it can be written in one sentence, as I have above.
Is this another variation of the "straw man fallacy"?

That's a very common (albeit flawed) argument. And it can be written in one phrase, as I have above.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational