Old 07-26-2008, 10:36 PM   #61
Mog
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,813
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.

"It's puzzling that Eden is synonymous with paradise when, if you think about it at all, it's more like a maximum-security prison with twenty-four hour surveillance." -Ann Druyan
Mog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 10:43 PM   #62
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
"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?

"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, 10:47 PM   #63
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
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?

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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?

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
P = ∫ ∇E dv is a real equation.

Here is my derivation;

ΔE/Δt = ΔE/Δt
ΔE/Δt = ΔE/Δs[Δs/Δt]
ΔP =EΔv
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.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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.

"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, 10:48 PM   #64
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
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.

"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, 10:49 PM   #65
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Sorry, but you might want to do a bit more research before jumping to such ridiculous conclusions.
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 10:51 PM   #66
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Hey, it was peer-reviewed by all the leading psychics. You can't argue with that.

"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, 10:57 PM   #67
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Perhaps the psychics reviewed it before any research was done. Now that would be impressive.
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 10:57 PM   #68
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Mog wrote View Post
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 11:03 PM   #69
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Victus wrote View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 11:12 PM   #70
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
But God does not have a cause, right?
God has no external cause. God is his own cause. In other words, God is conscious.

Quote:
You do understand that integrating all the power, and being all powerful are two different things.
Nowhere did I integrate all power.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2008, 11:19 PM   #71
MySiddhi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
antix wrote View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 12:53 AM   #72
psychodiva
I Live Here
 
psychodiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9,613
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

'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." Fry
psychodiva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 01:04 AM   #73
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
This clown is not deserving of the effort needed to counter his absurdity. This is telling given that very little effort is needed.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 05:19 AM   #74
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2008, 05:21 AM   #75
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
Something that is eternal or does not change is complete.
A glass of water that is forever half empty is not full.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
I really don't see why you are having a problem with the attribute of perfect.
Because its is arbitrary and artificial.

Quote:
MySiddhi wrote View Post
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?

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus is offline   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 01:52 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational