Proof of God

Eva wrote

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

The usual responses go something like this;

First they say that it can't be done.

Second they try to disprove my proof.

Third they realize they can't disprove my proof and simply remain quite.

Fourth, I venture to new forums. LOL


Formal education; I pursued a BSEEE but dropped out of college to work on my inventions.

[Eva]

so, this proof of your can be labeled as spam?

because, you see, there are no gods....so your proof is not good....

Eva wrote

so, this proof of your can be labeled as spam?

because, you see, there are no gods....so your proof is not good....

If you think labeling it spam will save your emotional investment into atheism instead of actually responding to the proof go ahead. Ad hominem fallacy.

I am not attached as to whether you accept or even comprehend that I have proven God. But I would be happy to discuss it to a point you can comprehend and accept it.

"Once you label me, you negate me" - Soren Kierkegaard

does your little formula just work with your god or does it also prove that zeus/pink unicorn/allah exists ?

WickFut wrote

does your little formula just work with your god or does it also prove that zeus/pink unicorn/allah exists ?

It is a proof of Monopantheism, which can be understood to be the foundational belief of all major religions (subconscious or not).

[Eva]

sid, if you have posted the same thing many times elsewhere, and if you have received no reaction worth repeating, it is spam.

your proof is not proof. we have a couple of philosophers here, and i doubt any would debate you on this.

if you find any volunteers then you are lucky.

MySiddhi wrote

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

What God?

MySiddhi wrote

It is a proof of Monopantheism, which can be understood to be the foundational belief of all major religions (subconscious or not).

or it proves that an energy has always existed but doesn't actually show it to be in any way supernatural.

Eva wrote

sid, if you have posted the same thing many times elsewhere, and if you have received no reaction worth repeating, it is spam.

your proof is not proof. we have a couple of philosophers here, and i doubt any would debate you on this.

if you find any volunteers then you are lucky.

I have had many responses that were quite genius in their own way... which forced me to simplify my proof or expound on it... or eliminate confusing language.

For example my axiom once read; "something cannot be both true and false at the same time"

The problem with this rendering of the axiom of non-contradiction is that it would incline one to try and prove the axiom with my proof because of the semantics of "something" being referential to the proof. Thus invoking Godel's incompleteness theorem that if you can prove your proof system (in this case my single axiom) then the proof is inconsistent.

It wasn't really an accurate technical point but I changed the semantics anyway to prevent confusion.


I have learned so much from some many different people... I am not going to repeat every fruitful conversation I ever had.

Just know that my current version of my proof is highly refined over years of research and debate...

What is a "proof", and what makes my work not a proof?

WickFut wrote

or it proves that an energy has always existed but doesn't actually show it to be in any way supernatural.

Nowhere do I claim that it is supernatural.

The proof shows that it is natural for there to be a God.


However I have clearly demonstrated nonphysical aspects of God that the less informed would call "supernatural".

Such as the logical necessity that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality... as well as the causal mechanism of mind matter interactions!

I'll be honest and tell you that I haven't a fucking clue what your first post says but I am willing to play because nobody else is biting.

You say a none supernatural god , I say a natural occuring energy.

Please explain differences

WickFut wrote

I'll be honest and tell you that I haven't a fucking clue what your first post says but I am willing to play because nobody else is biting.

You say a none supernatural god , I say a natural occuring energy.

Please explain differences

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.

you might as well be speaking serbo croat.

do you go out much ?

[ghoulslime]

MySiddhi wrote

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

Your presumption that you have the necessary variables, and their consequent values, to make an equation for something omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and infinite is sufficient proof that you are an imbecile with the mistaken belief that idiocy disguised in elaborate verbal acrobats will result in anything other than your own self-deceit. Did you really hope to inspire awe in the ignorant peasants?

[shtmag]

Have you tried pharyngula?