Proof of God

[Mog]

MySiddhi wrote

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

Have you crosschecked your claims with critical sources? Just because a paper was peer reviewed, it doesn't mean that mistakes were made in the research.

In http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html for example, the suggestion is that the sequence that Sheldrake used wasn't properly randomized.

[Victus]

MySiddhi wrote

"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

So then you can produce no logical reason why it is necessary, only why you need to assume it for your proof to be true?

[nkb]

MySiddhi wrote

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.

So, your proof could be much shorter then? But didn't you say this is the shortest you can make it?

MySiddhi wrote

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

Are you familiar with argument from authority? You invoking Spinoza does absolutely nothing for me, because I don't accept that he has done anything more than come up with some ideas, not definitive truths.

MySiddhi wrote

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

You can reword it however you like, it still makes no sense. You can't leap from "information as a property" to "omniscience", because you have not shown how that logically follows.

MySiddhi wrote

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

If a being is omniscient, it knows all things, including the future. If it is omnipotent, it can do anything it wants, including changing the future. So, how did this omniscient being know the future, if the future can be changed.
Of course, then there's also the old "Can God make a burrito so hot, even he can't eat it?". Nothing like a Homerism to shoot down your omnipotence claim.

MySiddhi wrote

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

But God does not have a cause, right?

MySiddhi wrote

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

You do understand that integrating all the power, and being all powerful are two different things.

MySiddhi wrote

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

Where does Xelios bring up a strawman? I think he summarizes your "proof" quite neatly.

[nkb]

MySiddhi wrote

It seems I now have link posting rights

Hey, genius. There is no such thing as earning "link posting rights" on this forum, you were able to post links from the moment you joined.

[antix]

MySiddhi wrote

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

Sorry, but you might want to do a bit more research before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions.

[nkb]

Hey, it was peer-reviewed by all the leading psychics. You can't argue with that.

[antix]

Perhaps the psychics reviewed it before any research was done. Now that would be impressive.

Mog wrote

Have you crosschecked your claims with critical sources? Just because a paper was peer reviewed, it doesn't mean that mistakes were made in the research.

In http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html for example, the suggestion is that the sequence that Sheldrake used wasn't properly randomized.

Sheldrake has responded to the critics;

http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Pa...ing/index.html

Victus wrote

So then you can produce no logical reason why it is necessary, only why you need to assume it for your proof to be true?

A synonym for "perfection" is "completeness".

Something that is eternal or does not change is complete.

I really don't see why you are having a problem with the attribute of perfect.

Even if you deny the attribute of perfect (can't comprehend it)... nothing is deduced from it... so it does not effect the proof except the comments themselves about perfection.

nkb wrote

So, your proof could be much shorter then? But didn't you say this is the shortest you can make it?

My proof is far shorter than Spinoza's because I only need one deduction.

If I had to deduce the other attributes it would be longer.

You can reword it however you like, it still makes no sense. You can't leap from "information as a property" to "omniscience", because you have not shown how that logically follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endomorphism

Information is mapped in energy by energy and of energy.

If a being is omniscient, it knows all things, including the future. If it is omnipotent, it can do anything it wants, including changing the future. So, how did this omniscient being know the future, if the future can be changed.
Of course, then there's also the old "Can God make a burrito so hot, even he can't eat it?". Nothing like a Homerism to shoot down your omnipotence claim.

God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. To understand how the paradoxes are destroyed one much use the scientific definition of power as I have highlighted it.

Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

But God does not have a cause, right?

God has no external cause. God is his own cause. In other words, God is conscious.

You do understand that integrating all the power, and being all powerful are two different things.

Nowhere did I integrate all power.

antix wrote

Sorry, but you might want to do a bit more research before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions.

Go ahead and deal with the Princeton research if you think you have a point.

[psychodiva]

well, seems we have another arrogant fuck among us - I'll just get the popcorn out and wait for you physics and philosophy bods to rip him a new one- very entertaining Sid - thank you

[Choobus]

This clown is not deserving of the effort needed to counter his absurdity. This is telling given that very little effort is needed.

[Sternwallow]

MySiddhi wrote

Maybe those who wonder whether God can be proven.

A few of the simpler minds here might read that post and really think that something logically, mathematically and physically had been proven about God and His various (comedic) attributes.

Paraphrase: "Everything that exists must have had a cause, except those things that didn't."

This is laughable exercise in agenda-directed illogic and emotion-based misunderstanding of physical fundamentals.

[Victus]

MySiddhi wrote

A synonym for "perfection" is "completeness".

Main Entry: perfection
Part of Speech: noun
Synonyms: acme, consummation, excellence, faultlessness, fullness, fulness, ideal, impeccability, integrity, maturity, ne plus ultra, paragon, pink

No it's not. This appears to be little more than linguistic gymnastics.

MySiddhi wrote

Something that is eternal or does not change is complete.

A glass of water that is forever half empty is not full.

MySiddhi wrote

I really don't see why you are having a problem with the attribute of perfect.

Because its is arbitrary and artificial.

MySiddhi wrote

Even if you deny the attribute of perfect (can't comprehend it)... nothing is deduced from it... so it does not effect the proof except the comments themselves about perfection.

Then remove it from your proof, as it is superfluous. Can you accept the resulting effect on your deity?