Proof of God

[Sternwallow]

MySiddhi wrote

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

Three unfounded claims in a row does not validate them. You have not shown that any causation implies consciousness. That must be established before you can apply it to self-causation.

Current indicators are that the universe began before consciousness existed, not after.

[Sternwallow]

psychodiva wrote

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

This may be a slightly tougher nut to crush into a throbbing pink paste than most others we have seen.

It might have actually done some homework and thinking, albeit while wearing blindfold and mittens.

It is pretty obvious that the whole argument is agenda-driven rather than as a search for truth.

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

This may be a slightly tougher nut to crush into a throbbing pink paste than most others we have seen.

It might have actually done some homework and thinking, albeit while wearing blindfold and mittens.

It is pretty obvious that the whole argument is agenda-driven rather than as a search for truth.

The nut is already out of the shell. It is nearly peanut butter at this point. The only question seems to be how thin we want to spread it.

[Sternwallow]

ghoulslime wrote

I hope you are feeling better, Stern. I just got the news of your situation.

Thanks for the kind thought, G. It is good to be able to make fingers punch reasonably chosen keys again.

[Sternwallow]

ubs wrote

Ghoulslime, you don't even have any formulas. You can't do this without formulas!

Howzis? "F = MA+G", where G stands for God, is only valid if God is nothing and is therefore identical to "F = MA" alone.

[Choobus]

Sternwallow wrote

Howzis? "F = MA+G", where G stands for God, is only valid if God is nothing and is therefore identical to "F = MA" alone.

F= ma+G could easily refer to a drag force. Therefore God is a tranny QED>

[dogpet]

Sternwallow wrote

Howzis? "F = MA+G", where G stands for God, is only valid if God is nothing and is therefore identical to "F = MA" alone.

Hi Stern

G+GxGn=G

[ILOVEJESUS]

Sternwallow wrote

Thanks for the kind thought, G. It is good to be able to make fingers punch reasonably chosen keys again.

what was wrong stern? hope nothing serious as i am pleased to see you back if im honest

[antix]

MySiddhi wrote

Almost every single attribute of God in my proof is not used to deduce the other attributes... that does not make it necessarily superfluous. It makes my proof robust and multifaceted.... and extremely resistant to refutation.

If someone were to deny an attribute (because of not comprehending it like yourself) it would do little for them in actually refuting the proof.

I know your brand of batshit has already been identified and refuted by others here, but I'd just like to add a little something as I think you have revealed more about yourself here than you perhaps intended.

You fail to realize that when real scientists, mathemiticians, logicians etc... use "proofs" they get them down as simple as they possibly can. Any extras not needed in the proof are thrown out like a used rubber. The fact that you believe adding unnecessary components to your "proof" makes it more robust is telling of your motivations.

You likely have a decent education in physical sciences and philosophy, but your biases reguarding religion have clouded your judgement in applying those tools. You have assumed your premise is true, and then tortured logic the way an inquisitor tortures pagans in order to "prove" it.

And in the process, you're entering the realm of the tinfoil hat club... Or perhaps you're the president of the tinfoil hat club, I'm not sure.

[dogpet]

MySiddhi wrote

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.

This is blatantly not true. If 2 pair of identical twins were cloned & sent in to space to be educated by computer just before a global catastrophe, they might think they could read each others thoughts.

[JU Mike]

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

So that's it? That's the answer to one of humanities biggest questions? Wow congratulations, for centuries people have look to the skies and wondered if there any beings out there watching over us. For centuries people, philosophers, kings, queens, and brilliant scientists have debated, questioned, and wondered on whether or not there is a god and finally a fellow with internet connection joins The Raving Atheists Forum and actually answers it in one post.

Amazing, hey guys we need to come with reward for this guy. Any ideas?

[Eva]

i refuse to post ideas of any kind in re: this "proof".

not even bad ideas.

[ghoulslime]

JU Mike wrote

So that's it? That's the answer to one of humanities biggest questions? Wow congratulations, for centuries people have look to the skies and wondered if there any beings out there watching over us. For centuries people, philosophers, kings, queens, and brilliant scientists have debated, questioned, and wondered on whether or not there is a god and finally a fellow with internet connection joins The Raving Atheists Forum and actually answers it in one post.

Amazing, hey guys we need to come with reward for this guy. Any ideas?

[anthonyjfuchs]

What's it cost a guy to get half-an-hour of that?

I'm just askin'.

[antix]

Eva wrote

i refuse to post ideas of any kind in re: this "proof".

not even bad ideas.

I agree that this is really nothing more than "fucking crazy" disguised as "science and/or philosophy." But at the same time, I think a retard with a GED is potentially more dangerous than a suicide bomber. Think Scientology. I'm getting the impression that this particular retard infesting our forum has the potential to "wow" retards everywhere with its tortured logic and faulty reasoning. A guy like this has the potential to be the next L Ron Hubbard

At the very least, I say we make fun of his "proof" until he cries, declares himself the winner, and moves on. (Though it is possible he may have already done just that.)