I Can Prove God

[Zetetic11235]

Why is it not necessary that the big bang had a cause? It seems a bit silly to assume this, especially considering that the hyperbolic boundry of space time and the constant expansion of the universe seem to indicate that the universe is expanding into somthing, the properties of which we do not know. It is entirely viable that the entirety of our universe is quite small in comparison to the totality of physical reality, and that this universe is but one of many which are each at varying stages of their life cycles.

I think all this talk is a bit premature without a cohesive theory of quantum gravitation.

You must base your proof soley on that which is provable. Empirical verification does not validate a conjecture or theory as a definite truth, so do not use sicentific conjecture, only pure logic. If you cannot prove god a priori, but rather you must rest the proof on the shoulders of scientific conjecture, you do not have a proof.

Physical science is not tautological as it is falsifiable, do not cite it in your proof to avoid confusion.

[DrZoidberg]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

God is restrained by himself. Stoics call God the Logos... from which we get our English word logic.


IF omnipotence is all-power-full and we use the scientific definition of power as I have highlighted it;

Then we have solved the paradox thus;


Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. 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.

...and now you're giving God lots of constraints you have no basis for giving it. Don't assume things just because its necessary for your model. That's backward reasoning. In logic, if you start cutting corners on your input, your output will be garbage, no matter how pretty your logical model might be.

[Zetetic11235]

A further comment I might add is that if you define all powerful using the scientific term of power, you limit god to the constraints which he created, do you not? By definition, the descriptors of god must be a proper subset of god, as they are god's creation and thus a part of god. Form doesn't matter. Physical truth is a subset of reality, which is in turn a subset of god. The limiting physical descriptors of the discrete nature of the universe such as the plank measures are not absolute truths by necessity. The theories must not be tautologies to be falsifiable, if they are not falsifiable, they must reduce themselfs to the point of an insignificance, such as stating an equivalence. By showing ideological equivalence you only clarify terms in logical space so as to better organize a basis for argumentation. Any substantial arguement in the end must be a contingency or it is a sefl evident, self referential fact and thus only a clarification of terms. By redefining god to the manner which you see fit, you achieve limited self evident ends.

The limited god you present is simply a reterming of the set of natural laws proven through self reference.

[Zetetic11235]

No doubt we could not grasp the genius of his proof enough to look past its inheirent foundational flaws, forgetting his proof is circular, and going on to find joy and harmony as our mental tachyons allow for superluminal information distribution and thus informational time travel.

By the way, does anyone here listen to coast to coast?

[nameless]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

What does the law of non-contradiction have to do with the double slit experiment?

You are welcome to provide a single example of a proposition that is both true and false in the same respect at the same time! By the way, that would actually falsify the law of non-contradiction.

At the same time;
A photon is a particle.
A photon is a wave.
A photon is neither a particle or a wave.
It can also be two places at the same time.

It seems that this very data removes any universality from noncontradictions 'lawness'. See, it doesnt falsify non-contra's local applications, pragmatic, it removes it's universal status.

However, when one is writing a proof... a logical tautology is logical truth.

Only because it says so. A very insular and useless 'error' beyond it isolated existence. I just offered what I found on the net. I would try to avoid the error if I were trying to make a real case for something. Tautologies, as far as I have found on the net, are errors, as I have offered. Perhaps you have a very 'personal' definition? I didn't come up with this, I copyed it from encyclopedia and checked various dictionaries.

No one can create a proof without using tautologies.

Then no one can create any definitive universal 'proof' sans the 'error' of tautology. If your 'proof' that something is true because you (the tautological statement) claims it to be true, is now a matter of 'belief', not rationality.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

thank you for the correction - i did indeed mean something, indeed, everything came from nothing.

it is not necessary that the big bang had a cause.

p.s. please don't reproduce this post.

There is no reason for the big bang?

On what bases then should be believe in one?

[iconoclast]

because i say so.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Why is it not necessary that the big bang had a cause? It seems a bit silly to assume this, especially considering that the hyperbolic boundry of space time and the constant expansion of the universe seem to indicate that the universe is expanding into somthing, the properties of which we do not know. It is entirely viable that the entirety of our universe is quite small in comparison to the totality of physical reality, and that this universe is but one of many which are each at varying stages of their life cycles.

I think all this talk is a bit premature without a cohesive theory of quantum gravitation.

You must base your proof soley on that which is provable. Empirical verification does not validate a conjecture or theory as a definite truth, so do not use sicentific conjecture, only pure logic. If you cannot prove god a priori, but rather you must rest the proof on the shoulders of scientific conjecture, you do not have a proof.

Physical science is not tautological as it is falsifiable, do not cite it in your proof to avoid confusion.

Of course I believe the big bang had a cause... I am just pursuing iconoclast's illogic.

By the way, there a cohesive theory of quantum gravitation; the “E8xE8 superstring field,”

It is expressed most concisely in the following, compact Lagrangian, or “super-formula,” presented, for simplicity, in the super-conformal gauge:



where i = 0, 1; m = 0, 1, …, 9; I = 10, 11, …, 25.

All the laws of physics, physiology, chemistry, and all the physical sciences can be rigorously derived from the Lagrangian, above. This derivation begins with the Fock Space Representation Equation:



This equation first identifies the massless modes of the superstring with specific forces and particles (i.e., the gravitational vielbein eim, gravitino ym, spin-1 gauge forces Am, spin-½ fermions l, etc.). It then derives their effective 10-dimensional N=1 supergravity Lagrangian L10 by examining the dependence of the superstring action (perturbatively derived as a sum over worldsheet topologies Sg) on these massless string modes (eim, etc.), introduced as background fields. After a subsequent spacetime super-compactification from 10 to 4 dimensions, the resulting supergravity Lagrangian L4 governs the whole field of expressed, macroscopic physics above the Planck scale—and thus indirectly, the whole of chemistry, physiology, and all the physical and biological sciences.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

because i say so.

Lucky for us, your opinions or conjectures are irrelevant.


Consider your argument refuted.

[iconoclast]

what? is groundless assertion not good enough for you? then why even entertain the concept of god? much less try to prove it by cutting and pasting equations that for all anyone here knows could be a recipe for ice-cream? including you.