I Can Prove God

[iconoclast]

Your argument begins by establishing the law of reflexivity on the basis that nothing implies nothing, but as I have questioned you you have suggested the universe was caused by quantum self-interaction. Therefore nothing does not imply nothing, does it? Thus, the law of reflexivity in the subsequent arguments is falsely employed, as I originally argued. I thank you and goodnight.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Your argument begins by establishing the law of reflexivity on the basis that nothing implies nothing, but as I have questioned you you have suggested the universe was caused by quantum self-interaction. Therefore nothing does not imply nothing, does it? Thus, the law of reflexivity in the subsequent arguments is falsely employed, as I originally argued. I thank you and goodnight.

You assume the quantum field is nothing?

[iconoclast]

nameless,

from post#24

iconoclast:

I have highlighted in the text of your argument the difference between your statements 'nothing implies nothing' and 'something is self causal.'

Clearly you have now shifted the basis of your argument forward to a point you think you may be able to support given my arguments - that while you suggest are confused, have removed the fundamental basis of your argument, leaving the latter a free floating assertion.

...or what we round here call faith.

The guy just won't be told.

What to do but sleep?

goodnight.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by nameless

That is the error in reason, there is nothing that relates in support. It is a free-floating notion, not responsible to anything but itself for support. Isolated from any 'reality' but it's own, isolated 'validity'.
Then all the dictionaries and encyclopedia are in error. Perhaps you missed this;



This is not my imagination or opinion, this is what I found on the web when I wanted to know something about 'tautology'. Perhaps your disagreement is with the dictionaries and encyclopedia? It certainly is not with me. Perhaps you do not understand why a 'tautology' that cannot be falsified is not seriously considered valid, hence called a "fault". See definition above. It seems rather simple to me, perhaps it simply means something else to you. Perspective... The other definitions seem to be quite similar to the one referenced.
Make of it as you must.
Peace.

Tautology (logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Philosophical Dictionary: Tarski-Thoreau
Lecture 8 (tautologies).ooutline
Tautology -- from Wolfram MathWorld

etc etc

[iconoclast]

oh no, here goes...

You assume the quantum field is nothing?

No, you do... nothing implies nothing.

That is your argument.

I'm done.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

oh no, here goes...



No, you do... nothing implies nothing.

That is your argument.

I'm done.

I do NOT assume the quantum field is nothing. LOL

Comprehension problems here.

I have updated my proof with the following to help those who are inexperienced in logic;


First we should discuss what logical tautology is; A statement which is necessarily true because, by virtue of its logical form; having no external premises, it cannot be used to make a false assertion, and is true in all possible circumstances. In propositional calculus a tautology is a formula that is true under any possible valuation of it's propositional variables. A tautology's negation is a contradiction, a propositional formula that is false regardless of the truth values of its propositional variables.

We see here that the foundation of all truth appeals to the law of non-contradiction; the first principle; "For the same (characteristic) simultaneously to belong and not belong to the same (object) in the same (way) is impossible." - Aristotle, Meta ta physica. This principle is the expression of consistency. Any defining and reasoning in any language on any topic assumes it a priori. It cannot be doubted, as all doubting is based on inconsistency, which assumes consistency a priori.

logical proofs don't necessitate truth outside the boundaries of the proof itself, so even if you can logically prove God that doesn't have any bearing on whether he ACTUALLY exists.

Aedes correctly points out that there is a certain gap between any logical conclusion and existence

For those who feel that logic in a vacuum somehow can prove something about the external world. But if you look closely, people who PROVE something using logic are almost certainly just rationalizing a pre-existing belief. In this way it becomes a kind of highly precise sophistry.

I certainly disagree with the notion that logical necessity is irrelevant to the phenomenal world.

If my proof is correct... then all necessary truth is isomorphic to the existence of empirical facts; because information is necessarily endomorphically mapped in reality.

Morphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Endomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I demonstrate this empirical relevance and verification with the induction section as well as the causal mechanism for mind matter interactions and the peer reviewed research papers that demonstrate it.

The issue here is that, if consciousness is a fundamental property of reality (and not an epiphenomena of material structures) then a causal mechanism for mind matter interactions over space and time is a logical necessity.

Materialistic interpretations of reality cannot include the nonphysical phenomena I have demonstrated as a logical necessity and empirical fact.

Thus making my proof quite relevant to the phenomenal world.

[Justin]

After reading through this thread, there was a lot of junk and a lot of comments and even some name calling. It started to turn into more of a chat with one liners.

Several posts have been merged and some of these have been deleted.

If any of you, (not naming names) feel that this is the place where we are going to verbally abuse and attack each other with name calling, degrading and or belittling statements then do us all a favor and find a forum that accepts that type of behavior because it's NOT going to be accepted here.

The thread is temporarily closed!