Proof of God

Livingstrong wrote

he doesn't bother to debate with nobody.

I am arguing with all of you (and successfully) at the same time.

If you can get more people to join your side all the better as I hope to see more sophisticated arguments from you guys in the future.

[Kamikaze189]

MySiddhi wrote

Is this another variation of the "straw man fallacy"?

No.

Now try answering my original question. Can or cannot your entire proof be accurately summed up as: "The universe cannot have made itself, therefore a god must have created it"? If not, what is the significant difference? If so, why write so much needless gibberish?

[DrunkMonkey]

Let's just look at a representative bit:

MySiddhi wrote

(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.

You take a perfectly acceptable scientific formula and twist it to mean things that it has nothing to do with. I no longer have my quantum textbook, but I am fairly sure that it never mentioned ZPE being perfect.

Zero-point energy is the energy of a quantum mechanical system in it's ground state. You seem to be referring to quantum field theory. This means that the zero point energy is technically infinite because it exists at every point in space.

Now what?

Because it is infinite it is unchanging in its nature.
I guess you could say that because it is always equal to infinity it never changes.

While embodying the existence of all things
Uh... what?

it is therefore perfect
This is a completely nonsensical followup. Why is something perfect if it is infinite?

You have basically combined a physics equation with random nonsense. Let me try.

n1*sin(θ1) = n2*sin(θ2) (Snell) [noodly bending]
In optics, refraction occurs when light waves travel from a medium with a given refractive index to a medium with another. At the boundary between the media, the wave's phase velocity is altered, it changes direction, and its wavelength increases or decreases but its frequency remains constant. Because this occurs we can see that light is only an illusion that can be altered. The phase is changed and because it only occurs with a difference in the refractive index we can see that something must be noticing the different refractive index and bending the light to let us know. This force bending the light must be invisible to us and all-powerful, therefore it must occur via the power of the noodly appendage of his holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

nkb wrote

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

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

You are mistaken. If you even grant but a few of the logical tautologies I will be able to deduce all of the other attributes of God from them, including those that are otherwise covered by the logical tautologies you would deny.

For example Spinoza's Ethics deduces all of the other attributes of God from substance (what I hold as the fourth logical tautology).

In the very first part, you have already muddied the waters (energy that is omniscient?),

Information is a property of energy. Energy as the medium and object of universal endomorphism necessitates omniscience.

and already have a logical contradiction (omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive).

You are welcome to demonstrate the contradiction. A claim is obviously not a demonstration.

This does not logically follow.
At best, you might be able to say that something is the cause of some things.

In other words, all things have a cause... you will find the same can be deduced from second logical tautology.

I'm not a philosophy expert, by any stretch, but this is chock full of assumptions that I don't agree with.

That is merely the statement of the proposition that was to be deduced in the proof.

How the fuck did you come up with this assertion?

From the second logical tautology.

Did you think you could slip this one through along with all the real equations? Explain the leap to something being allpowerful.

P = ∫ ∇E dv is a real equation.

Here is my derivation;

ΔE/Δt = ΔE/Δt
ΔE/Δt = ΔE/Δs⋅[Δs/Δt]
ΔP = ∇E⋅Δv
∫dP = ∫ ∇Edv
P = ∫ ∇E dv

Power is the indefinite integral of gradient energy with respects to velocity.

ergo P ∈ ∞E

I would like to quote a member (Xelios) from the SciForums, who summarizes your entire proof quite nicely:

Appealing to Xelios' straw man fallacy may not help you very much.

[Victus]

MySiddhi wrote

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.

Exactly. You postulate that God (parent) does not interfere so as to allow humanity (children) to learn from our mistakes. Thus far as a species we have made mistakes which are increasingly large in scope and costly in lives. Your analogy does not hold water, much like your proof.

Kamikaze189 wrote

No.

Now try answering my original question. Can or cannot your entire proof be accurately summed up as: "The universe cannot have made itself, therefore a god must have created it"? If not, what is the significant difference? If so, why write so much needless gibberish?

Believe it or not my proof is a summarization and I highly doubt (though hope otherwise) that it could be summarized or simplified further.

The main difference? Gosh, I am not even sure how to compare your straw man with my proof.

DrunkMonkey wrote

Why is something perfect if it is infinite?

Something is perfect if it has an unchanging nature.

[Kamikaze189]

MySiddhi wrote

Believe it or not my proof is a summarization and I highly doubt (though hope otherwise) that it could be summarized or simplified further.

The main difference? Gosh, I am not even sure how to compare your straw man with my proof.

So there is no difference, then? You can't name one?

Very well.

Enjoy repeating your inanity. This crowd isn't gullible enough to fall for a simple and flawed argument under a sophist's shitty disguise.

[Victus]

MySiddhi wrote

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.

MySiddhi wrote

Something is perfect if it has an unchanging nature.

Why?

Conceptually, something could be non-perfect and ever the same. This definition is contrived.

Victus wrote

Exactly. You postulate that God (parent) does not interfere so as to allow humanity (children) to learn from our mistakes. Thus far as a species we have made mistakes which are increasingly large in scope and costly in lives. Your analogy does not hold water, much like your proof.

Only if we have learned nothing.

[antix]

MySiddhi wrote

Something is perfect if it has an unchanging nature.

But what if it has a big hiddeous boil right in the middle of its face? All the other things laugh at it for this blemish of imperfection, but it cannot change and is stuck with the boil forever. Thus invoking a chorus of laughter from everything else around it that never ends?

Of course, on the other hand, you might be on to something here. This would explain why bible god is such a douche.

[Victus]

MySiddhi wrote

Only if we have learned nothing.

For the third and final time, the behaviours tend to increase in over the history of our species. Your analogy is faulty.

Victus wrote

Why?

Conceptually, something could be non-perfect and ever the same. This definition is contrived.

"A powerful but difficult tradition in philosophy and theology associates reality, perfection, absence of change or eternity, and self-sufficiency. A perfect being would be that which is most real; there is a departure from perfection if anything that could be real is not. Hence a perfect being has no potential that is unrealized, and undergoes no change. Evil is downgraded to mere defect, or absence or lack of something positive: criminality is the failure of some genuine potentiality to be actual, and all such actualization is good. The line of thought is at least as old as Parmenides and the Eleatics. It issues in the association of perfection with self-sufficiency, since the real cannot depend upon the less real. The results are visible in the ethics of Plato and Aristotle, and are crucial in creating the climate of thought for the ontological, cosmological, and degrees of perfection arguments for the existence of God. See also chain of being; plenitude, principle of." - Oxford University Press

Victus wrote

For the third and final time, the behaviours tend to increase in over the history of our species. Your analogy is faulty.

Is our learning increasing as well?

It seems I now have link posting rights... so here are the links to the peer reviewed research papers on psychic functioning;

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Pa...bstat_abs.html
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Pa...tests_abs.html
http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/pdfs/correlations.pdf
http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/%7Eutts/air2.html