That is not a very useful definition. Don't you see that? Wouldn't a concept of god require at least that it possesses a mind? Otherwise your definition could be applied to the laws of science in general; those known and unknown. Why call it "god" at all then? Sounds like you are purposefully trying to be controversial or something..Originally Posted by sigurdW
By "god" is meant cause of existence.
Not so! If you prove that god is intelligent then Ill be happy to accept it!That is not a very useful definition. Don't you see that? Wouldn't a concept of god require at least that it possesses a mind? Otherwise your definition could be applied to the laws of science in general; those known and unknown. Why call it "god" at all then? Sounds like you are purposefully trying to be controversial or something..By "god" is meant cause of existence.
But why introduce lots of unnecessary qualities ad hoc?
Is it to satisfy prejudice? Or to make the concept ridiculous so it cant be accepted?
My definition is the first that CAN be accepted by everyone...
By scientists because no mysticism is involved
and by religious ppl since they cant deny that their own god needs to be able to create existence!
AND: What other definition makes a proof of the existence of god possible?
1 If there is no cause for existence then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a cause for existence.
4 Therefore there is a god.
Your point #1 has yet to be backed up though.
Why call it "god" though? If you are willing to accept an infinite god, why not consider the possibility of an infinite existence of the universe for example?Not so! If you prove that god is intelligent then Ill be happy to accept it!That is not a very useful definition. Don't you see that? Wouldn't a concept of god require at least that it possesses a mind? Otherwise your definition could be applied to the laws of science in general; those known and unknown. Why call it "god" at all then? Sounds like you are purposefully trying to be controversial or something..By "god" is meant cause of existence.
But why introduce lots of unnecessary qualities ad hoc?
Is it to satisfy prejudice? Or to make the concept ridiculous so it cant be accepted?
My definition is the first that CAN be accepted by everyone...
By scientists because no mysticism is involved
and by religious ppl since they cant deny that their own god needs to be able to create existence!
AND: What other definition makes a proof of the existence of god possible?
1 If there is no cause for existence then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a cause for existence.
4 Therefore there is a god.
My main problem with your whole point is your insistence on calling this enigmatic cause "god". Why? When you do that you imply a host of undefined attributes that you seem unwilling to acknowledge. This "naked god" concept of yours seems like complete folly to me, unless, like I say, you are motivated by some kind of agenda. What is that agenda?
The fundamental assumption of science is: If there is no cause for x then there is no x.
The idea of science is to study causes of x to deduce laws that governs x!
If there are no causes for x then how shall we describe understand and explain x?
Try to imagine what happens if you deny that If there is no cause for x then there is no x.
Then we can expect trolls to wait outside our door! Pigs to fly and whatever...
So its rather you that need to back up a refusal to accept premiss one
The basic reason is that I think its the proper name!Why call it "god" though? If you are willing to accept an infinite god, why not consider the possibility of an infinite existence of the universe for example?Not so! If you prove that god is intelligent then Ill be happy to accept it!That is not a very useful definition. Don't you see that? Wouldn't a concept of god require at least that it possesses a mind? Otherwise your definition could be applied to the laws of science in general; those known and unknown. Why call it "god" at all then? Sounds like you are purposefully trying to be controversial or something..By "god" is meant cause of existence.
But why introduce lots of unnecessary qualities ad hoc?
Is it to satisfy prejudice? Or to make the concept ridiculous so it cant be accepted?
My definition is the first that CAN be accepted by everyone...
By scientists because no mysticism is involved
and by religious ppl since they cant deny that their own god needs to be able to create existence!
AND: What other definition makes a proof of the existence of god possible?
1 If there is no cause for existence then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a cause for existence.
4 Therefore there is a god.
My main problem with your whole point is your insistence on calling this enigmatic cause "god". Why? When you do that you imply a host of undefined attributes that you seem unwilling to acknowledge. This "naked god" concept of yours seems like complete folly to me, unless, like I say, you are motivated by some kind of agenda. What is that agenda?
We all are (or should be) asking why are we here, why is there a universe, why is there anything at all...
Normally questions stop there but we cant help thinking there are answers to our questions
and we vaguely think of some "higher force" , if we dont simply say that god is the explanation.
Here I point to something REAL as the "essence" of god and you seem to think its nothing out of the ordinary...
He who wants a better dressed god should turn to religion... here we shall study god scientifically.
PS The word "god" indeed implies things... but most of them are not necessary: I find them ridiculous.
Those things are implied by superstition and prejudice and needs to be removed.
Last edited by sigurdW; August 10th, 2012 at 01:08 PM.
Seriously, the depths of your ignorance are infinite, but that's about it.
You can't demonstrate that God is real, now you're trying to ascribe characteristics that do not exist for any demonstrable entity in the universe to this being you can't even prove exists? Seriously? You're trying to define your way to victory and that doesn't fly. Want to try that? Fine, I'm going to define the universe as infinite, thus not needing your God.
Please come up with something better, you're embarrassing yourself.
We do not know if there is or is not a cause for "x" in this case though, and you seem to be using that lack of definitive answer as an excuse to assert the existence of a mythological being (which one you have yet to specify either)
I'm afraid that you've simply made this up.The fundamental assumption of science is: If there is no cause for x then there is no x.
This seems to be a variation of The Argument from Contingency/Cosmological Argument (CA) for the existence of god. The CA has been refuted on the basis that:
1. Special Pleading - the god of this argument is given an exemption of requiring a cause.
2. Identity - Even if you accept there was a initial cause, why is it a god that caused it and not something else (e.g. Fred).
3. The requirement that all things need a cause hasn't been demonstrated.
Philosophy of Religion » The Argument from Contingency
I will not introduce any mythological being. Rest assured on that.
I have introduced a definition and two premisses...the rest of my time goes to explain why I did what I did.
What you do is trying to analyze and I applaud! You point out that for most x the FAS (fundamental assumption of science) works satisfyingly...but now you see it taken to an utmost test:
Can existence have a cause?
Shall we not exclude existence from the caused things and declare it to be an uncaused thing?
I doubt its the proper thing to do...isnt it dangerous to restrict research in this way?
Shall we leave existence to religion? Cant we accept it in science?
Mind you we cant abandon existence: We need to state that objects exist or do not exist. So shall we say that existence has no cause, which means that there is a limit to scientific research? Actually there are lot of things we cant tell exactly what was their cause but that doesnt mean they were without cause...Well I cant see a pressing need to abandon the FAS: Everything has a cause!
Are you really prepared to accept things that have no cause?
Things that dont obey natural laws? I for my part try to resist as long as possible.
Apart from MrMojo's last post, he has some weird compulsion to call something "god" that would not lend itself to that description by anyone else, even foregoing the most basic of recognised attributes of a god, namely that it has a mind. His declaration of the cause of the universe as "god" has no value whatsoever that I can see
1 Hmmm I dont get you. I claim everything has a cause, where do I give what an exemption?
2 I dont say anything is initial...I define "god" as the cause of existence and if that cause turns out to be Fred then I (grudgingly) will accept.
3 Neither has the law of gravity been demonstrated, inductions always can be wrong! And I will be very happy to read an essay on how science successfully can treat uncaused things scientifically. Is there one?
That said I applaud the idea to check my argument...eh: proof... for errors. (I myself didnt find any, the conclusion seems to follow from premisses difficult to deny.)
Heh! So if left to choose between an intelligent but powerless god
and a non intelligent god with the power to create universes
then you vote for the intelligent god?
Is that really very smart?
This talk of "recognized attributes" of god is superstition...
Are you telling us that you actually BELIEVE in an intelligent god?
Isnt it rather so that you want me to believe in a god that you can prove not to exist?
Its very simple: If the thing can not cause a reality then its not a god!
That, and ONLY that, is what gods are needed for!
All other qualities are projections of ourselves into godhood... pure prejudice!
Gods need not be exaggerated males.
PS I never claimed god is the cause of our universe. Where did you get that from?
Last edited by sigurdW; August 10th, 2012 at 03:24 PM.
I made the formulation myself since Im no parrot, and its perhaps a little outmoded to speak about causes, but nevertheless science is about finding the causes of things and events:
Finding invariances of the form "if a then b".
It should be clear to anyone that there is a basic assumption in science that there are objects and invariances...thats to say that reality is organized and explainable. The simplest formulation of the belief is that everything has a cause: That nothing happens without sufficient reason (a synonym for "cause").
So what do YOU think science is about? Is your view very different? Can you tell us in your own words?
It is not an assumption. The term "assumption" is a misnomer, as I said before. It generally follows that naturalphenomena occur with cause because of our understanding of physics. It is an observation (not an assumption) that natural phenomena have a cause. Now, it may sound counter-intuitive, but the reason we think everything has a cause is because that is what we have observed with our physics. As I stated before, we have no understanding of the physics prior to the Planck epoch, and therefore, we have no observation of any physical phenomena that took place, and therefore, you cannot claim with confidence (at all) that "something cannot come from nothing" or "there must have been a cause" or "matter did not always exist."I made the formulation myself since Im no parrot, and its perhaps a little outmoded to speak about causes, but nevertheless science is about finding the causes of things and events:
Finding invariances of the form "if a then b".
It should be clear to anyone that there is a basic assumption in science that there are objects and invariances...thats to say that reality is organized and explainable. The simplest formulation of the belief is that everything has a cause: That nothing happens without sufficient reason (a synonym for "cause").
So what do YOU think science is about? Is your view very different? Can you tell us in your own words?
You should watch a lecture by Lawrence M. Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing": 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube
Working backwards: I have no sound on my computer so I dont watch video...But thank you for the kindness.It is not an assumption. The term "assumption" is a misnomer, as I said before. It generally follows that naturalphenomena occur with cause because of our understanding of physics. It is an observation (not an assumption) that natural phenomena have a cause. Now, it may sound counter-intuitive, but the reason we think everything has a cause is because that is what we have observed with our physics. As I stated before, we have no understanding of the physics prior to the Planck epoch, and therefore, we have no observation of any physical phenomena that took place, and therefore, you cannot claim with confidence (at all) that "something cannot come from nothing" or "there must have been a cause" or "matter did not always exist."I made the formulation myself since Im no parrot, and its perhaps a little outmoded to speak about causes, but nevertheless science is about finding the causes of things and events:
Finding invariances of the form "if a then b".
It should be clear to anyone that there is a basic assumption in science that there are objects and invariances...thats to say that reality is organized and explainable. The simplest formulation of the belief is that everything has a cause: That nothing happens without sufficient reason (a synonym for "cause").
So what do YOU think science is about? Is your view very different? Can you tell us in your own words?
You should watch a lecture by Lawrence M. Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing": 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube
Then...I know what I need to know about the theory that universes can be the result of quantum fluctuations in vacuum. Seemingly empty space contains an extraordinary amount of energy so its not a question of creating a universe from nothing.
Planck is a hero... and what might go on within amounts of time below planck length remain so far only speculation...and that also goes for the very first planck length in time... there must have been one,whether there really was a first moment (defined as a point) in time or not.
Now into "cause": Why I use the term "assumption" is simply that we cant prove by induction that every object has a cause... even if we yet have found no such object it still is logically possible that the next object to be examined will be an uncaused object. Im not committed to the term "assumption" but is "natural law" safer to use?
You say: you cannot claim with confidence (at all) that "something cannot come from nothing"
But if something really comes from nothing then the first law of thermodynamics is violated!
This even the Ancient philosopher Parmenides was aware of, he said:
Suppose nothing is,
then it is so.
But if something is,
then nothing is not!
His point was that there is no nothing something can come from. The first ocurrence of the first law of thermodynamics as I interpretate it.
Now suppose matter always existed...I cant see a violation of thermodynamics there (except for the question of why entrophy still changes)... then what is the cause of time (which need not be anywhere within time: one can think of a circle...its defined by its center which is a point equidistant from all points constituting the circle ... the defining point,ahem: the cause, is not itself a point within the set of points constituting the circle)? You see my definition of god is as the cause of existence! And that is not the same as the cause of our universe or the cause of our time. The cause of our universe most probably is a parent universe, but I am unsatisfied with models of time... I suspect time is a consequence of something hidden in the planck areas, I think of time as quantified and that someting within a time quantum produces the next quantum of time... but this is nothing but speculations on my part.
I understand your point.
What you seems to miss is that when you construct a logical argument the premises must be true.
Your 1st premise is not demonstrably true, (1 If there is no cause for existence then there is no existence.)
Thus your conclusion is automatically invalid.
Update:
This is the point that Paleoichneum made in posts# 203 and 208.
No one observed the event prior to Planck epoch - ccoale427 post #216.
Therefore you can not claim knowledge that the physics involve prior to Planck are consistent to observed causality.
Good! All I personally care for is that the argument is wellformed:
Since the validity of any proof depends on the truth of its premisses,
and the truth of a statement/premiss always is related to the observers interpretation of said statement,
theres really not any business of mine critisizing ppl for not understanding that
they can neither deny that there is existence, nor that every object has at least one cause!
Did you miss my motivation for premiss one?
I claim that the Foundational Assumption of Science is that:
IF x has no cause then x is not
Just put x="existence" and you are in for trouble!
I think it is a fact that anything we think of has a cause, that Science search for Causes
(this view is slightly outmoded, its preferred to speak of invariances)
and establishes statements/laws of the form "if a then b".
Where a is the (sufficient) cause for b.
So the question whether you accept premiss one turns out to depend of how you interprete "Science".
If you can accept that there are uncaused objects,
(Keep in mind that they have no problem in hiding under your bed waiting for you to go to sleep!)
then you should explain how Science (and you) can deal with them.
I suppose you are an atheist, then you state that there is no reason to believe in the existence of Jahve...
I totally agreee...but reasons for belief are causes so you can no longer claim that
if theres no reason for Jahve then there is no Jahve!
So honestly: Its a disaster to deny premiss one youd better find another way to deal with the proof!
Perhaps you can derive a contradiction if you accept it?
(Just a hint: No promise of a...to you...satisfying solution to the existense of god.
But what is lost? What is the real difference between God and Reality?
How do we distinguish between them? Remember: All we so far have proven is that God is Real!)
PS If you check you will find I never claimed that the cause of our universe
was somethin INSIDE this universe or inside any of its Planck Moments.
My claim is that if x exists then theres a cause for x!
Last edited by sigurdW; August 11th, 2012 at 12:26 PM.
Tao
might be a better moniker here
tao is the motive force of and for the universe
tao is the creative force of and for the universe
tao is the organizational force of and for the universe
tao is the ...(fill in the blank) ... force of and for the universe
tao creates(created) the path(way) and the way is tao
Perhaps, we seek causality because we have a species wide abhorance of the concept that "things just happen, true randomness, chaos, universes just popping into and out of existence. ... .
And, yet many athiests claim randomness as the causal factor of us.
wither hence?
Thinking back (im getting slightly bored with this subject) the first item on my hidden agenda
was to be the first actually proving there IS a god! (Yes im an explorer.)
Bishop Anselm tried and failed ...lots of clever people tried and failed...including Goedel.
Second: I was fed up with the stupid religious attitude some atheists show, so I decided
to annoy them some...
Third: I wanted to find a way to reach them poor religious souls, I can agree that there IS a God but
that they obviously have the qualities all wrong because they are mislead by their "holy" texts.
The core of religious belief is that existence has a cause , so if that is not Scientifically acceptable
then Science is dead wrong and the Bible is perhaps right...
Oh I nearly forgot: Theres also the reason that the proof inspires an explanation of what Science is about
Hi again friend!
I cant resist pointing out that something random is not something uncaused.
Take any random irrational number... its position in the number system is its cause for being
So I say we seek causes because we seek the truth!
Maybe I state things arrogantly but no harm is intended.
And things popping into and out of existence. ...
depend on if theres energy somewhere to be borrowed and soon returned.
Yes, you keep asserting that. Don't know where you get that, but it is your prerogative to assert anything. Causality is just noted based on observation. If it isn't observed, then you can not concluded it. You seem to keep missing the fact that virtual particles appear to have no cause.
Science is a tool to understand and explain the natural world. If a relationship between an event and other event is established, research is perform to understand the nature of said relationship.I think it is a fact that anything we think of has a cause, that Science search for Causes...
No, it is just an untrue premise.So the question whether you accept premiss one turns out to depend of how you interprete "Science".
I accept the scientific explanation that virtual particles exist with no apparent cause at this present time.If you can accept that there are uncaused objects,...
I don't know what a Jahve is since you haven't defined it. I prefer not to hold beliefs at all. IMO, beliefs tend to cloud the senses and reasoning to evaluate reality. The only Jahve I am aware of is the one mentioned in Sigmund Freud's book on Moses and Monotheism.I suppose you are an atheist, then you state that there is no reason to believe in the existence of Jahve...
I totally agreee...but reasons for belief are causes so you can no longer claim that
if theres no reason for Jahve then there is no Jahve!
If this is the Jahve you mean, then it is your right to believe in volcano gods.Jahve was certainly a volcano god. As we know, however, Egypt has no volcanoes and the
mountains of the Sinai peninsula have never
been volcanic; on the other hand, volcanoes
which may have been active up to a late period
are found along the western border of Arabia.
One of these mountains must have been the
Sinai -Horeb which was believed to be Jahve J s
abode. 2 In spite of all the transformations the
Biblical text has suffered, we are able to re-
construct according to E. Meyer the orig-
inal character of the god: he is an uncanny
Actually, the person claiming something must provide evidence or reason for the claim. The burden of proof is on you to construct a valid syllogism.So honestly: Its a disaster to deny premiss one youd better find another way to deal with the proof!
When you have acquired evidence that god/s exist and it has past rigorous examination, then I'd know it/they exist.
Didnt you know that the idea that everything has a cause is ancient? I did not make it up!Yes, you keep asserting that. Don't know where you get that, but it is your prerogative to assert anything. Causality is just noted based on observation. If it isn't observed, then you can not concluded it. You seem to keep missing the fact that virtual particles appear to have no cause.
And causality is NOT just noted based on observation. You say that "If it isn't observed, then you can not concluded it." but if you get hit in the head by a club you will accuse someone of holding the club even if you didnt see him holding it
Your argument is that the hit of the club was caused by somebody.
And the particles are caused by borrowed energy from the vacuum.
I think you only repeat things...you dont understand what you repeat.
If you think there are uncaused things then demonstrate them.
Newton defined gravity as the cause of the falling apple long before Einstein showed how the falling was explained.Science is a tool to understand and explain the natural world. If a relationship between an event and other event is established, research is perform to understand the nature of said relationship.
Check out what you claim:"Actually, the person claiming something must provide evidence or reason for the claim."No, it is just an untrue premise.
It sounds good, why not try it sometime?
Again: Virtual particles are caused by the energy in the vacuum. Theres no doubt of that!I accept the scientific explanation that virtual particles exist with no apparent cause at this present time.
But note that you dont observe this happening you just repeat what you dont understand.
Take another example: We cant predict when a neutron will split the uranium atom
but we know the cause of the splitted atom was a neutron!
Oh! You didnt know that Jahve is the old testament god in the Bible... A little unusual for an atheist... But you seem not be able to read and understand very well... I guess that explains why you think its possible for me to believe in any other god than the god I myself "created"I don't know what a Jahve is since you haven't defined it. I prefer not to hold beliefs at all. IMO, beliefs tend to cloud the senses and reasoning to evaluate reality. The only Jahve I am aware of is the one mentioned in Sigmund Freud's book on Moses and Monotheism.
If this is the Jahve you mean, then it is your right to believe in volcano gods.Jahve was certainly a volcano god. As we know, however, Egypt has no volcanoes and the
mountains of the Sinai peninsula have never
been volcanic; on the other hand, volcanoes
which may have been active up to a late period
are found along the western border of Arabia.
One of these mountains must have been the
Sinai -Horeb which was believed to be Jahve J s
abode. 2 In spite of all the transformations the
Biblical text has suffered, we are able to re-
construct according to E. Meyer the orig-
inal character of the god: he is an uncanny
A syllogism can be valid whether YOU believe in the premisses or not.Actually, the person claiming something must provide evidence or reason for the claim. The burden of proof is on you to construct a valid syllogism.
When you have acquired evidence that god/s exist and it has past rigorous examination, then I'd know it/they exist.
Look at the parallell postulat in Euclides Elementa...eh...no dont look!
You wouldnt understand why you can exchange an axiom with its denial and still have a true theory...
Sorry but the finer details of Logic and Science probably is out of your reach.
It's spelled Jehovah or Yahweh. It's difficult to understand your posting when you make up your own words and spellings.Oh! You didnt know that Jahve is the old testament god in the Bible...
Im swedish...English is but my second language...you are correct about the spelling "Jahve" is Swedish (probably also German)
Sometimes Swedish enters my English...sorry.
PS I decided not to actually press the ignore button in your case since I felt there was a small possibility youre a decent person
EDIT: Yawn, I really shouldnt be up this late but its been a fun session (Hi AlexG!)
and I feel Ill do some slowing up on tapping the keys relaxing a little getting sleepy before I go.
Ive been on the net a year now. I dont know why but lately most of my activity has been in here.
Im not faithful to the forums I enter if theres no fun ppl to discuss with Ill try other places.
I cant help thinking but It gives me like tunnel vision If it has no bearing to the problem I try to solve then I dont see it. Also im like a dog with his bone...nothing can make me stop gnawing the problem until I solved it. The record was ridding the world of the paradoxes...You know some paradoxes arent even recognized as paradoxes. Took me thirty years to crack that bone.
This proof of god took a few weeks...its less than a months old. Yawn.
Last edited by sigurdW; August 11th, 2012 at 08:29 PM.
I will try one last time to make this very simple for you to understand.
Your "proof" is an invalid one. It is not an original one, it is a variation of The Argument from Contingency/Cosmological Argument for the existence of a god. You can research this logical proof and find it refuted easily. (see my post#210). Below is one of the problems with your proof:
1 If there is no cause for existence then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a cause for existence.
4 Therefore there is a Fred.
What is Fred you may ask, as you defined it, Fred is a minimal Fred.
You can use a lower case f, I won't be insulted.
What does Fred do - Fred is undefined.
Where did Fred originate - from an infinite causality of Freds, so you might as well assume they are all the same Freds.
Is there any known observation of Fred and Fred's agency to the event prior to Planck Time and did the known physics operate at this moment - I choose to ignore this question and reiterate observed causality is a fundamental assumption of science with examples observed cause/effect events.
You are claiming causality to a event prior to Planck Time. So you must provide evidence that there was an event and that event lead to Planck time. You have not done this.
So how do you go about examining what occurred prior to Planck Time? When you figure that out with supporting evidence, you will get a Nobel prize.
What is planck time? what a weird name. I hate it when names don't explain the item. or did i get it wrong? is planck time when the first plank occured?
when you talk about a cause for existence... whats the cause of that cause?
Planck Time - The characteristic linear dimension is given as a certain combination of the three most fundamental constants of nature: (1) Planck's constant h (named after the German physicist Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics), (2) the speed of light c, and (3) the universal gravitational constant G. The combination, called the Planck length (Gh/c3)1/2, equals roughly 10-33 cm, far smaller than the distances to which elementary particles can be probed in particle accelerators on the Earth.
The energies needed to smash particles to within a Planck length of each other were available to the universe at a time equal to the Planck length divided by the speed of light. This time, called the Planck time (Gh/c5)1/2, equals approximately 10-43 second. At the Planck time, the mass density of the universe is thought to approach the Planck density, c5/hG2, roughly 1093 g/cc . Contained within a Planck volume is a Planck mass (hc/G)1/2, roughly 10-5 g. An object of such mass would be a quantum black hole, with an event horizon close to both its own Compton length (distance over which a particle is quantum mechanically "fuzzy") and the size of the cosmic horizon at the Planck time. Under such extreme conditions, spacetime cannot be treated as a classical continuum and must be given a quantum interpretation.
The latter is the goal of the supergravity theory, which has as one of its features the curious notion that the four spacetime dimensions (three space dimensions plus one time dimension) of the familiar world may be an illusion. Real spacetime, in accordance with this picture, has 26 or 10 spacetime dimensions, but all of these dimensions except the usual four are somehow compacted or curled up to a size comparable to the Planck scale. Thus has the existence of these other dimensions escaped detection. It is presumably only during the Planck era, when the usual four spacetime dimensions acquire their natural Planck scales, that the existence of what is more fundamental than the usual ideas of mass-energy and spacetime becomes fully revealed. Unfortunately, attempts to deduce anything more quantitative or physically illuminating from the theory have bogged down in the intractable mathematics of this difficult subject. At the present time superstring theory remains more of an enigma than a solution.
-Encyclopedia Britannica
Ah ok, thanks.Planck Time - The characteristic linear dimension is given as a certain combination of the three most fundamental constants of nature: (1) Planck's constant h (named after the German physicist Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics), (2) the speed of light c, and (3) the universal gravitational constant G. The combination, called the Planck length (Gh/c3)1/2, equals roughly 10-33 cm, far smaller than the distances to which elementary particles can be probed in particle accelerators on the Earth.
The energies needed to smash particles to within a Planck length of each other were available to the universe at a time equal to the Planck length divided by the speed of light. This time, called the Planck time (Gh/c5)1/2, equals approximately 10-43 second. At the Planck time, the mass density of the universe is thought to approach the Planck density, c5/hG2, roughly 1093 g/cc . Contained within a Planck volume is a Planck mass (hc/G)1/2, roughly 10-5 g. An object of such mass would be a quantum black hole, with an event horizon close to both its own Compton length (distance over which a particle is quantum mechanically "fuzzy") and the size of the cosmic horizon at the Planck time. Under such extreme conditions, spacetime cannot be treated as a classical continuum and must be given a quantum interpretation.
The latter is the goal of the supergravity theory, which has as one of its features the curious notion that the four spacetime dimensions (three space dimensions plus one time dimension) of the familiar world may be an illusion. Real spacetime, in accordance with this picture, has 26 or 10 spacetime dimensions, but all of these dimensions except the usual four are somehow compacted or curled up to a size comparable to the Planck scale. Thus has the existence of these other dimensions escaped detection. It is presumably only during the Planck era, when the usual four spacetime dimensions acquire their natural Planck scales, that the existence of what is more fundamental than the usual ideas of mass-energy and spacetime becomes fully revealed. Unfortunately, attempts to deduce anything more quantitative or physically illuminating from the theory have bogged down in the intractable mathematics of this difficult subject. At the present time superstring theory remains more of an enigma than a solution.
-Encyclopedia Britannica
The thing that really makes sense to me out of all that is "Unfortunately, attempts to deduce anything more quantitative or physically illuminating from the theory have bogged down in the intractable mathematics of this difficult subject." that it is a difficult subject is the only thing i understand about it :-)
I really dont care much if my proof can be proved not to be original...I think it is, since it actually proves there is a god if the definition and the premisses are accepted. The premisses are very difficult to prove false. And no one have succeeded so far.
Still this proof really is but one of my minor accomplishments... Left hand work if you see what I mean.
Whats the hurry?
When im checking your version of the proof:
1 If there is no cause for existence then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a cause for existence.
4 Therefore there is a fred.
Then clearly 4 doesnt follow from 3, a definition of fred is missing:
Definition: By "fred" is meant any cause for existence.
And now 4 follows from 3.
But Im not satisfied with the definition theres no connotation in the word "fred" that is connected with being a cause of existence! Then comes some questions from you:
What is Fred you may ask, as you defined it, Fred is a minimal Fred.
You can use a lower case f, I won't be insulted.
What does Fred do - Fred is undefined.
Where did Fred originate - from an infinite causality of Freds, so you might as well assume they are all the same Freds.
Is there any known observation of Fred and Fred's agency to the event prior to Planck Time and did the known physics operate at this moment - I choose to ignore this question and reiterate observed causality is a fundamental assumption of science with examples observed cause/effect events
Its a lot of undeserved implied accusations...remember that what is meant by "fred" is the cause of existence, no more nor less. Heres your best question:Where did Fred originate - from an infinite causality of Freds, so you might as well assume they are all the same Freds.
I rather dont assume that, I prefer to assume the infinite regress is equivalent to one infinite fred
So now we can combine two statements about fred: Fred exists and is infinite.
Then you introduce Planck Time and claim that it is the beginning of existence... And where is a proof of that? I agree that our universe perhaps begins with a Planck Time , but that does not prove that exixtence in general begins with a Planck time!
There exists natural numbers but they dont begin with a Planck Time, your mind probably dont begin with a Planck Time either...
So unless you can prove that every existence begin with a Planck Time I suggest we keep Planck Times out of discussion unless they fit in somewhere!
You finish with this: I ... reiterate observed causality is a fundamental assumption of science with examples observed cause/effect events
It seems you agree with me that causality is the fundamental assumption of science, but you seem to believe that causes must always be observable. I dont believe that. Take gravity which is the cause of something falling to the ground... If Newton had had to rely on observing gravity itself then no Principia would have been produced by him. Its simply not true that every cause must be observable to exist! All it needs is a cause for itself. Since you claim that every cause must be observable I ask that you prove it!
PS I wondered why you prefer connotation poor "fred" before connotion rich "god" then I realized that you being an atheist wipes out the word wherever you see it...I even think you would like to remove it from "There is no god." if you knew how to do it without changing the meaning of the statement.
Obviously you haven't taken the time to read up on The Argument from Contingency/Cosmological Argument for the existence of a god and its problems with identity. Please take to time to do so before replying.
Update:
As far as your use of existence, I assume it you meant our present known universe. If you meant some other universe, then my apologies. I have no knowledge of the origins of other universes and the physics employed there.
You guessed right. Ok Ill do that.
I'm afraid this is only true in your mind.
Please focus. I am an atheist. We are discussing your definition of god vs that of the large majority of other people. Yours doesn't agree with the commonly used definition and seems awfully like a desperate attempt to prove that some kind of god must exist. Simple question: does a definition of god not require that it have a mind of some sort? If not, why call a non-being god?Heh! So if left to choose between an intelligent but powerless god
and a non intelligent god with the power to create universes
then you vote for the intelligent god?
Is that really very smart?
This talk of "recognized attributes" of god is superstition...
Are you telling us that you actually BELIEVE in an intelligent god?
Isnt it rather so that you want me to believe in a god that you can prove not to exist?
Its very simple: If the thing can not cause a reality then its not a god!
That, and ONLY that, is what gods are needed for!
All other qualities are projections of ourselves into godhood... pure prejudice!
Gods need not be exaggerated males.
PS I never claimed god is the cause of our universe. Where did you get that from?
There is only one quality necessarily needed for something to be a god,
and that is to cause existence. Whether morally good or bad,
estethicaly pleasing or not, intelligent or non itelligent...
If the thing cannot cause existence it is not a god!
You say my definition doesnt agree with the commonly used definition,
but it can only be so if the common definition contradicts my definition!
Show, if you can , that the commonly used definition contradicts my definition
Thanks MrMojo1 for bringing this to my attention:
The Argument from Contingency
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
This argument is very similar, but not identical to mine, take away the concept "contingency"
put "reason"="cause" change (4) into a definition and its similar
except that I chose the negative formulation of "everything has a cause"...
Thats to say"If it hasnt a cause then it does not exist.".
Eh... How can you claim that my argument is an argument of contingency
when I never use contingency in any way?
I skipped everything else in Philosophy of Religion » The Argument from Contingency
Since I suspect critic will zoom in on contingency
I will however check it closer later, for now most of my right hand work is about:
Is the age of the universe the same in all frames?
Edit: Just checked. It is as I thought:
The argument from contingency rests on the claim that the universe, as a whole, is contingent.
I dont like that thought! The philosopher Parmenides proved a couple thousand years ago that something must be the case...which sort of means that even you can take lots of thing away there will always be something left when you try to empty a universe!
I dont claim I was thinking of that when I defined god, all I wanted was a valid definition I could annoy people with, both christians and atheists... I think I succeeded on all accounts.
The contingency argument should be called the argument from necessity instead.
Both contingency and necessity are concepts I, as a logican, avoid as long as possible.
Last edited by sigurdW; August 12th, 2012 at 03:49 PM.
The commonly held, minimum requirement for something to be a god is for it to have a mind. I have said this a number of times now. What you so desperately want to call god is just a natural process, which is like calling fire god or a rolling bal. It is utterly ridiculous and, like I said, a desperate attempt by you to find something to call god without having to fight your cognitive dissonance. Your attempt is even more ridiculous than standard religions, which makes for incredible irony when you ridicule them.There is only one quality necessarily needed for something to be a god,
and that is to cause existence. Whether morally good or bad,
estethicaly pleasing or not, intelligent or non itelligent...
If the thing cannot cause existence it is not a god!
You say my definition doesnt agree with the commonly used definition,
but it can only be so if the common definition contradicts my definition!
Show, if you can , that the commonly used definition contradicts my definition
This quote of yours is a proof that the common concept of god contradicts my concept??
"The commonly held, minimum requirement for something to be a god is for it to have a mind. I have said this a number of times now. What you so desperately want to call god is just a natural process, which is like calling fire god or a rolling bal. It is utterly ridiculous and, like I said, a desperate attempt by you to find something to call god without having to fight your cognitive dissonance. Your attempt is even more ridiculous than standard religions, which makes for incredible irony when you ridicule them."
Choose between an impotent (cant create existence) but intelligent "god",
or a mindless but cleverly programmed computer potent and able to create anything?
Which one CAN be god?
I suspect you are not a natural atheist, I guess you are a reformed christian and it is very painful for you
to realize how much nonsens you once believed in. You desperately want god to be what you late in your development unfortunately realized he is not! But think of this:
There is nothing that prevents you from adding any quality to the potency requirement.
(thats why religions cant contradict my god)
Let the cause of existence grow a beard, let it look like sancta claus...
But honesty prevents me from adding anything unless I can prove it is necessary!
The roughest sketch of god I can think of is exactly the amount of energy our universe contains put into a point!
But that doesnt explain the laws of Thermodynamics unless you see them as the essence of energy.
And so on... Thinking my way makes possible a scientific enquiry of god,
I thought you would appreciate that, but perhaps you are no scientist.
I wonder if not the pope will bless your side in this matter
PS Say that "the minimum requirement for something to be a god is for it to have a mind" a couple more times"... It might work as a prayer. But Science it aint!
Last edited by sigurdW; August 12th, 2012 at 03:44 PM.
Again, why call it a god? You just said this god is the minimum amount of energy our universe contains put into a point? You now have officially defined your god as a physical object: a point of energy.
Now, you have two options:
1. Your definition of god includes intelligence.
2. Your definition of god does not include intelligence.
If it includes intelligence, you need to prove it. If it does not include intelligence, then there is no reason to call it god as it is simply a natural process (which you would also need evidence for).
Ha!Again, why call it a god? You just said this god is the minimum amount of energy our universe contains put into a point? You now have officially defined your god as a physical object: a point of energy.
Now, you have two options:
1. Your definition of god includes intelligence.
2. Your definition of god does not include intelligence.
If it includes intelligence, you need to prove it. If it does not include intelligence, then there is no reason to call it god as it is simply a natural process (which you would also need evidence for).
I did nothing of the sort my definition still is: "god" is the cause of existence.
But i like your style...heres a bonus:
The definition gives room for INTERPRETATIONS or sketches.
You might introduce a Principle of Reflection:
Whatever said about god fits at least one thing not identical to god!
This is heavy! Its dangerous!Shall we reject the principle?
Is there really something dangerous in accepting? Give an example!
I almost forgot: Does the sketch imply god is intelligent?
I dont think so but notice that we have to explain the laws of thermodynamics,
if we are discussing what energy is! I said they are the "essence" of energy.
If I go on doing things in this reckless style Ill probably introduce the concept "substance".
Let me motivate "sketches": God is ...eh...how do they usually put it...Frightening to behold?
So we should try to find auxiliary objects between ourselves and god
Reasoning thusly we find ourselves Existing in Reality. With god hopefully far, far and further away in non Reality.
Is all this assuming or reasoning safe? Is it sound? Start critizising.
What must we accept?
1 there is existence (I am)
2 there is a god (I am + everything has a cause)
3 there is a Reality (How do we get it?)
Last edited by sigurdW; August 12th, 2012 at 05:12 PM.
Well, at least you understand science needs an initial cause.Ha!Again, why call it a god? You just said this god is the minimum amount of energy our universe contains put into a point? You now have officially defined your god as a physical object: a point of energy.
Now, you have two options:
1. Your definition of god includes intelligence.
2. Your definition of god does not include intelligence.
If it includes intelligence, you need to prove it. If it does not include intelligence, then there is no reason to call it god as it is simply a natural process (which you would also need evidence for).
I did nothing of the sort my definition still is: "god" is the cause of existence.
But i like your style...heres a bonus:
The definition gives room for INTERPRETATIONS or sketches.
You might introduce a Principle of Reflection:
Whatever said about god fits at least one thing not identical to god!
This is heavy! Its dangerous!Shall we reject the principle?
Is there really something dangerous in doing so? Give an example!
Science has run away from chemical evolution and now claims the theory of evolution starts with an unknown life form without identifying the base cause. It calls this logic science.
Next, it cannot explain the big bang because the 4 forces must emerge from 1 force which is impossible under causality or in logic modus ponens.
But, that does not justify your claiming that an initial cause is a necessary condition of this place and therefore GOD exists.
Claiming a lot arent you?
No! Im not sure there is an initial cause.
All I claim so far is that everything has a cause,
and that there is at least something
since existence is,god is and I am.
Im not so sure about you... but ok...you also are
BTW what do you mean by "necessary condition"?
I take it simply to mean "cause", am I wrong?
"this place" means "existence"?
To repeat: I dont claim that an initial cause is a necessary condition of this place.
I claim this place has a cause since everything has a cause.
You see the difference dont you?
No! Im not sure there is an initial cause.Claiming a lot arent you?
No! Im not sure there is an initial cause.
All I claim so far is that everything has a cause,
and that there is at least something
since existence is,god is and I am.
Im not so sure about you... but ok...you also are
BTW what do you mean by "necessary condition"?
I take it simply to mean "cause", am I wrong?
"this place" means "existence"?
To repeat: I dont claim that an initial cause is a necessary condition of this place.
I claim this place has a cause since everything has a cause.
You see the difference dont you?
All I claim so far is that everything has a cause,
This is a contradiction.
Is it? I cant see that.How do you mean?This is a contradiction.
1) You said everything has a cause.No! Im not sure there is an initial cause.Claiming a lot arent you?
No! Im not sure there is an initial cause.
All I claim so far is that everything has a cause,
and that there is at least something
since existence is,god is and I am.
Im not so sure about you... but ok...you also are
BTW what do you mean by "necessary condition"?
I take it simply to mean "cause", am I wrong?
"this place" means "existence"?
To repeat: I dont claim that an initial cause is a necessary condition of this place.
I claim this place has a cause since everything has a cause.
You see the difference dont you?
All I claim so far is that everything has a cause,
This is a contradiction.
2) Then you said you are not sure there is an initial cause.
If there is no base cause for every cause, then everything does not have a cause since there is an infinite descending list of prior causes. However, physics has no logic and neither does the foundations of mathematics for an infinite decending causal chain. Hence, this is a contradiction in science and mathematics.
If there is a base cause, then the base cause has no cause hence everything does not have a cause.
Hi chinglu!
You said:
1) You said everything has a cause.
2) Then you said you are not sure there is an initial cause.
If there is no base cause for every cause, then everything does not have a cause since there is an infinite descending list of prior causes. However, physics has no logic and neither does the foundations of mathematics for an infinite decending causal chain. Hence, this is a contradiction in science and mathematics.
If there is a base cause, then the base cause has no cause hence everything does not have a cause.
Understanding how all causes are ordered is sort of left as an exercise:
Supposing there is a cause of "the everything" is not the same as supposing that every cause has a cause.
I might have expressed myself carelessly assuming nobody would try to really interprete and draw conclusions.
My exact view is: if x is then there is a cause for x...
(And I will be very disappointed If I will be forced to admit that there is a cause that is the only cause of itself.)
You use the term "base cause", it sounds interesting what do you mean by it? Un uncaused cause? A first cause?
Im sorry but you must define the term before using it. The only undefined term in our theory so far is "cause".
We believe we understand what is meant and that if we try to define it circularity will follow.
I am slightly surprised to find myself saying this, but chinglu is absolutely correct in his application of logic here.
Why surprised?I am slightly surprised to find myself saying this, but chinglu is absolutely correct in his application of logic here.
My thinking is rejected by atheists and theists alike... which only shows their common ancestry
So strange Strange, back up your claim!
Show that the statements contradict each other.
Use my interpretation of the sentence: everything has a cause
It does not mean that there is an object called "everything".
The case is the same with the negation: nothing has a cause
It is not meant that there is an object called "nothing"!
Last edited by sigurdW; August 14th, 2012 at 09:21 AM.
Because 99% of what he writes is complete nonsense.
And 99% of what YOU writes is unproved assumptions.Because 99% of what he writes is complete nonsense.
I generally find that 99.99% of what Strange writes turns out to be true when it comes to facts. I find though a lot of what Sigurd writes is thought provoking and is about understanding a way of thinking and as such has no right or wrong answer.
Hi!
Long time no seen.
I like your view...
It explains why Im so rarely actually gets proven wrong.
Its with utmost reluctance I must report that the view is partially wrong:
Im "always" right, and truth IS provoking to must people.
[QUOTE=sigurdW;344609]Don't worry it happens often, but I try and learn from it.
Lol.
Its nice when old acquaintances shows up (wipes a tear out my eye) Hows your maths nowadays?
I decided to count gods yesterday...
Care checking for mistakes?
1 everything has a cause
2 There is at least one cause
3 Therefore there are many causes
4 Consider the object "all causes" and the object "each other cause"
5 The two can be put into "one into one correspondence"
6 Any object that can correspond to either is infinite.
I see that statement 1 implies the absoluteness of causality.
The following is experimental evidence that the implications of your statement 1 do not universally hold. I.E. the universe displays stochastic behavior.
EPR paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sigurdW,
What would you think if I were to suggest that our universe was spawned from an eternal universe, due to the laws of physics in that eternal "uber" universe?
That uber universe has always existed, and thus requires no cause, as it has no starting point.
Our universe was caused by something that needs no cause itself.
Just as the parallel postulate must be abandoned for all but the special case of an isomorphic space, so should the postulate of absolute causality be abandoned except for the special case of infinite regression.
First: I must tell you that im using shorthand: By everything has a cause" i mean"If x is then x has a cause".I see that statement 1 implies the absoluteness of causality.
The following is experimental evidence that the implications of your statement 1 do not universally hold. I.E. the universe displays stochastic behavior.
EPR paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second: Your objection has merit (means I cant answer at once).
If you can find the time, please quote the relevant portions in here,
with some comments so anyone (ok I give that a friendly interpretation)
can see that there is one thing/object/whatever that cant be given any cause but itself!
Than, to my annoyance , I will have to admit to actually have been proven wrong.
Supposing there is a cause of "the everything" is not the same as supposing that every cause has a cause.
Yes, they are the same. They both require an infinite descending chain of causes in which mankind has no reasoning or logic to express this.
Base cause.
This is all we have at the foundations of logic to express ideas such as this. It is called the Kleene Recursion theorem.
Whenever you have some human reasoning that purports to understand how any next state is attained based on a current state, like the theory of evolution, it must state a base state or base cause in order to be grounded in human logic.
Otherwise, it is a human thinking pattern that has no logical foundations to support it and is therefore not a valid system of reasoning.
OH SHIT! The Heavy Artillery is attacking my fortress!
You must fire at "Existence" since I define god as the cause of Existence!
So far nobody has noticed that. They invariably think that Existense is the same as our "Universe".
The concept of existence is much wider, some say it includes the set "nothing"
together with ALL its elements...
So ...its ok with me if you define any set of causally ordered universes
as long as they are in the most irregular "set" of them all: EXISTENCE
There is another overlooked matter of interest here, Ive been saving it
for Mighty Warriors:
So if existence has a cause, is it then inside existence or outside it?
Here in Sweden its late.
Ive no time for smashing mosquitos tonight.
You have to wait until tomorrow.
So what caused god?You must fire at "Existence" since I define god as the cause of Existence!
Would god have to exist first before causing existence?
It seems so doesnt it!? Ive been sort of surprised that I had to point it outWould god have to exist first before causing existence?
I call it : THE PARADOX OF EXISTENCE!
Either god didnt exist or he seems already created by existence!
Actually I dont believe in paradoxes, they all are caused by faulty logic,
but its extremely hard to detect where in the derivation the fault actually is made.
I also believe...ahem: actually im close to proving it...
It is THE SAME mistake done in ALL paradoxes.
(It took me thirty years to figure this out.)
What surprises me, is that we have been pointing it out from the beginning as well, i.e. if god caused the universe, what caused god? Have you been ignoring that?It seems so doesnt it!? Ive been sort of surprised that I had to point it outWould god have to exist first before causing existence?
And again, that is the rub, isn't it? You have been making these claims all along and have NOT been able to really justify them. As well as, of course, your bonkers insistence that a god need not be a person, which is like saying the mayor of London can be a box or hammers or that the laws of science responsible for the shape of a snowflake is a god, no matter how mindless it is.Actually I dont believe in paradoxes, they all are caused by faulty logic,
but its extremely hard to detect where in the derivation the fault actually is made,
In short, after all this time, your entire campaign is still just as fetidly nonsensical as it was from the start.
No you didntWhat surprises me, is that we have been pointing it out from the beginning as well, i.e. if god caused the universe, what caused god? Have you been ignoring that? (Yes! since existence is not identical to the universe.)It seems so doesnt it!? Ive been sort of surprised that I had to point it outWould god have to exist first before causing existence?
And again, that is the rub, isn't it? You have been making these claims all along and have NOT been able to really justify them. As well as, of course, your bonkers insistence that a god need not be a person, which is like saying the mayor of London can be a box or hammers or that the laws of science responsible for the shape of a snowflake is a god, no matter how mindless it is.Actually I dont believe in paradoxes, they all are caused by faulty logic,
but its extremely hard to detect where in the derivation the fault actually is made,
In short, after all this time, your entire campaign is still just as fetidly nonsensical as it was from the start.
All the cause of existence needs is some other cause of existence than existence or the cause itself.
Traditionally this is done by another god...so we get an an infinite chain of gods.
So where then did the "paradox of existence" go? Was it never there?
Edit: Something is a paradox iff its false if its true and true if its false.
I really wish youd stop your fetidly nonsensical accusations. Its bad manners!
Its very simple: If you really believe my statements are non sensical then you simply ignore them!
The reaction: SEE YOU WERE WRONG ALL THE TIME! Proves my statements had sense enough in them to possibly be wrong.
Then your inability to see WHERE in my argument any error could be detected together with
your prejudices makes you wish to insult me...Its a very childish behaviour. Shame on you
But this nonsense of yours demonstrates that theres lots of basic facts and definitions we should iron out.
The real reason behind my "campaign" as you called it was NOT to annoy people so I could laugh at the stupidity I encounter!
I annoyed to get attention... To show there are some problems that needs solving and:
To show their solution!
(I mean the paradoxes.) I noticed I couldnt start by presenting solutions because then idiots happening to pass by would look and say:
Whats this meaningless nonsense? Either its wrong or we knew it before!
Last edited by sigurdW; August 15th, 2012 at 05:25 AM.
Excellent summary. It seems impossible, but this thread seems to have gone downhill from the OP's utterly flawed logic.
sigurdW's strategy seems to be:
- Make a series of unsupported(*) assertions with no apparent connection
- Claim these non-sequiturs form a logical argument
- Any objections are to be:
- ignored
- dismissed as not logical (oh, the irony)
- claimed as confirmation he is correct
- Move goalposts
- Repeat ad nauseum
I assume his response to your post will follow the usual pattern.
(*) The use of "unsupported" is, strictly speaking, redundant as I always use "assertion" in the narrow sense of a statement unsupported by theory or evidence.
Before leaving home I noticed this post... Strange is supposed to get his facts right. Right?Excellent summary. It seems impossible, but this thread seems to have gone downhill from the OP's utterly flawed logic.
sigurdW's strategy seems to be:I assume his response to your post will follow the usual pattern.
- Make a series of unsupported(*) assertions with no apparent connection
- Claim these non-sequiturs form a logical argument
- Any objections are to be:
- ignored
- dismissed as not logical (oh, the irony)
- claimed as confirmation he is correct
- Move goalposts
- Repeat ad nauseum
(*) The use of "unsupported" is, strictly speaking, redundant as I always use "assertion" in the narrow sense of a statement unsupported by theory or evidence.
So who is the OP in here? I may seem to be, but someone else opened up the thread. Im nothing but the only defender of god and good sense remaining
Edit 1: My time is short so ill restrict my attention to this:
sigurdW's strategy seems to be:Before checking what he referes to, I checked his own post
- Make a series of unsupported(*) assertions with no apparent connection
for supported(*) assertions with apparent connection.
To my dismay I didnt find any.
What should be done? Asking Strange to tell which of his assertions are supported and connected?
And scrutinize them? Or assume they are? I guess I need some time to think that over...
Meanwhile its easy to understand what he attacks...
Its every text of mine from the beginning up to this moment,
so perhaps Id better start with my proof before analyzing his confused ramblings:
I posted a proof ot the existence of god. At the time I wasnt aware that there is a similar
but far from identical "proof" of god in Philosophy of Religion » The Argument from Contingency
The vital difference is that my proof works because it does not assume all things the Argument from Contingency does. Here is their argument: The Argument from Contingency
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists
The proof above you can now compare with my proof below.
There are similarities but there are also differenses.
Its said that my prof is illogical ... to select the most friendly
thing said about it! If you check out whats been said on the
proof above, you dont find such vile characteristics as my proof has gotten.
Im just saying I cant be completely ignorant if something similar
not utterly ignorant but comparable to what I written can be found!
Definition: If x cause existence then x is a god.
1 If there is no cause for existence then there is no existence.
2 There is existence.
3 Therefore there is a cause for existence.
4 Therefore there is a god.
Logic is the study of arguments and if something follows logically,
then that means it follows indepently of the meaning of the extralogical components!
So lets change the meanings a little:
Definition: If x is a number then x+1 is the number that follows the number x
1 if x is a number then x+1 is a number
2 1 is a number
3 therefore 1+1 follows the number 1
I dont think opponents will recognize any similarity,
but most unbiased visitors will do so!
Perhaps they will claim I only "copied" the logic of numbers,
but that would prove my proof is logical so I wont protest much
(BRB)
Last edited by sigurdW; August 15th, 2012 at 04:04 PM.
A troll. Nothing more.I annoyed to get attention...
Ok, I am just going to be blunt now: stop using the term "god." As another person already stated, the minimal most common understanding of the definition of "god" is an intelligence. You're defining god as nothing more than an event, which is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.Before leaving home I noticed this post... Strange is supposed to get his facts right. Right?
So who is the OP in here? I may seem to be, but someone else opened up the thread. Im nothing but the only defender of god and good sense remaining
Ill be back editing this.
There is absolutely no reason to call an event "god." You are arguing that there was a cause that created our existence (our universe). Fine. That is a fine argument to get started with (so long as you have evidence to back it up) but there is absolutely no reason to call this event "god." You will (and clearly you have) confused many people by using an extremely common term and simply redefining it to mean something that doesn't need a term!
The only reason you are using the term "god" is so that you can make the claim "god exists" when in reality, most people will not understand that your definition of "god" is nobody else's definition of "god." This is what it all boils down to.
It is literally no different than me making this argument:
1. Let "apple" be defined as a piece of white rubber.
2. Therefore, apples are toxic for humans to eat.
I just proved that apples are very dangerous for humans to eat, and therefore we should all stop eating apples.
I hope you see that my definition of "apple" is extremely meaningless and unnecessary. Your definition of "god" is extremely meaningless and unnecessary as well.
FAS. Obviously.
No. You are just an annoying troll.Im nothing but the only defender of god and good sense remaining
In other words, the same thing that all apologists are.
Hi!Ok, I am just going to be blunt now: stop using the term "god." As another person already stated, the minimal most common understanding of the definition of "god" is an intelligence. You're defining god as nothing more than an event, which is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.Before leaving home I noticed this post... Strange is supposed to get his facts right. Right?
So who is the OP in here? I may seem to be, but someone else opened up the thread. Im nothing but the only defender of god and good sense remaining
Ill be back editing this.
There is absolutely no reason to call an event "god." You are arguing that there was a cause that created our existence (our universe). Fine. That is a fine argument to get started with (so long as you have evidence to back it up) but there is absolutely no reason to call this event "god." You will (and clearly you have) confused many people by using an extremely common term and simply redefining it to mean something that doesn't need a term!
The only reason you are using the term "god" is so that you can make the claim "god exists" when in reality, most people will not understand that your definition of "god" is nobody else's definition of "god." This is what it all boils down to.
It is literally no different than me making this argument:
1. Let "apple" be defined as a piece of white rubber.
2. Therefore, apples are toxic for humans to eat.
I just proved that apples are very dangerous for humans to eat, and therefore we should all stop eating apples.
I hope you see that my definition of "apple" is extremely meaningless and unnecessary. Your definition of "god" is extremely meaningless and unnecessary as well.
Just check out #268. I wont probably write more in this thread tonight.
I see that statement 1 implies the absoluteness of causality.
The following is experimental evidence that the implications of your statement 1 do not universally hold. I.E. the universe displays stochastic behavior.
EPR paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPerhaps you wondered why nobody uses your argument against me?
Its simply because they dont understand it.
So why have not I done anything...ahem...
First: Im only a layman on Relativity and Physics in general.
Actually examining the EPR effect with the precision I use Is UNPAYED WORK!
So I have put it on the list of things that I should do whenever I look for something new to analyze.
Second: I guess Ill use a similar strategy as I use when they try to use virtual particles as examples of uncaused objects. I say they are caused by their borrowed energy and wait for them to prove me wrong.
If the strategy doesnt work for epr phenomena Ill try to device something designed just for that.
Im convinced there are no uncaused things. Im not alone, I think, wasnt David Bohm thinking something similar
(But Im cautious and prepared a strategy in case Im wrong.)
Third the work on relativity Im already doing takes most of my Physical energy.Check out:
Is the age of the universe the same in all frames?
PS this goes for all of you: If you dont get an answer right away to a good objection of yours its because theres too many trolls to shoot at first. I will quote you eventually... be impatient and post more...itll speed things up.
I read that post, and (in the nicest possible way) I still stand by everything I just said.Hi!Ok, I am just going to be blunt now: stop using the term "god." As another person already stated, the minimal most common understanding of the definition of "god" is an intelligence. You're defining god as nothing more than an event, which is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.Before leaving home I noticed this post... Strange is supposed to get his facts right. Right?
So who is the OP in here? I may seem to be, but someone else opened up the thread. Im nothing but the only defender of god and good sense remaining
Ill be back editing this.
There is absolutely no reason to call an event "god." You are arguing that there was a cause that created our existence (our universe). Fine. That is a fine argument to get started with (so long as you have evidence to back it up) but there is absolutely no reason to call this event "god." You will (and clearly you have) confused many people by using an extremely common term and simply redefining it to mean something that doesn't need a term!
The only reason you are using the term "god" is so that you can make the claim "god exists" when in reality, most people will not understand that your definition of "god" is nobody else's definition of "god." This is what it all boils down to.
It is literally no different than me making this argument:
1. Let "apple" be defined as a piece of white rubber.
2. Therefore, apples are toxic for humans to eat.
I just proved that apples are very dangerous for humans to eat, and therefore we should all stop eating apples.
I hope you see that my definition of "apple" is extremely meaningless and unnecessary. Your definition of "god" is extremely meaningless and unnecessary as well.
Just check out #268. I wont probably write more in this thread tonight.
Whats an apologist?
So you can show good manner? Ok. Youre first tomorrow.
This is as typical a crank statement as any you will find. 'I say..... PROVE ME WRONG.I say they are caused by their borrowed energy and wait for them to prove me wrong.
Just another trolling crank.
I dont care if others use the logical form of any of my arguments.This is as typical a crank statement as any you will find. 'I say..... PROVE ME WRONG.I say they are caused by their borrowed energy and wait for them to prove me wrong.
Just another trolling crank.
Its not a bad strategy at all.
In this case theory claims that x constitutes y then I say x is the cause of y.
Proving me wrong demands proving the theory wrong. Try it:
Prove that a pair of virtual particles does NOT exist because they have borrowed energy from vacuum!
And show your "proof" in here.
If you ever work out a proof of anything Ill check it for validity and Ill tell you the result.
Prove me wrong.
Prove a negative.
This is so crank, it seems like it was scripted to be so.
I suggest we all try to follow the rules of the forum.
What I did was presenting the following for examination:
Definition: If x is the cause of existence then x is god.
1 For every x, x has a cause.
2 There is existence.
3 There is a god.
If you have any rational comments then please post them.
I remember posts expressing the opinion that the definition is wrong.
I suppose we agree that definitions can be wrong only if contradiction follows.
As follows if you try to define a "largest natural number".
Otherwise a definition is neutral, neither true nor false.
Still definitions can contradict each other,
and the claim seems to be that the given definition
contradicts the commonly held definition of god.
The only way a common definition can contradict my definition is
if the common definition claims god is NOT the cause of existence
because that is ALL my definition claims.
Isnt it rather so that ALL definitions of god include that god created existence?
Then my definition is included in all other definitions of god,
and if my definition is wrong then also ALL other definitions of god are wrong.
And that would prove there is no god ,wouldnt it?
So isnt it of general interest to analyse my definition
and see if a contradiction can be produced?
Shall we look at it with Scientific Eyepieces on our noses?
Why? So you can ignore them again?
OK. Lets pretend you are not an annoying troll who likes to argue for the sake of it, and imagine you want to make a fresh start and have a rational discussion.
And that is part of the problem. It is too limited. For example, Hawking claims that the laws of physics are the cause of the universe. Does that make "the laws of physics" God? I'm not sure many theists would accept that. And how do "the laws of physics" respond to prayer or send their son to Earth. Or whatever people expect of their God.Definition: If x is the cause of existence then x is god.
...
The only way a common definition can contradict my definition is
if the common definition claims god is NOT the cause of existence
because that is ALL my definition claims.
So then we have your "logic":
1 is an unsupported assertion. There is some evidence it is not true. You have been given at least one example (and you only need one to disprove it).1 For every x, x has a cause.
2 There is existence.
3 There is a god.
But this is also irrelevant to your argument. This is very common in arguments based on petitio principii (begging the question). Presumably because it helps mask the circular nature of the argument.
2 Well, yeah.
3 Back to begging the question: God is that which causes existence. Existence is. Therefore God exists. This is a circular argument.
You can equally well say:
- The soul is that which allows us to think. We think. Therefore the soul exists.
- Boojums are that which causes rain. It rains. Therefore Boojums exist.
- The moon is made of cheese. The moon is up there. Therefore cheese exists.
I assume your response to this will be along the lines of, "My logic is perfect. This is not begging the question. If there are no rational objections, I win."
I would therefore like to call an expert witness, You Honour. I call "Rational Wiki" on the subject of begging the question.
Mr Rational Wiki, could you tell us your first example of "begging the question".
Begging the question - RationalWiki
This is identical to your argument:
1. Existence is evidence of God (because God is defined as that which creates existence)
2. Therefore, we know God exists.
I rest my case.
You have improved your manner...Why? So you can ignore them again?
OK. Lets pretend you are not an annoying troll who likes to argue for the sake of it, and imagine you want to make a fresh start and have a rational discussion.
And that is part of the problem. It is too limited. For example, Hawking claims that the laws of physics are the cause of the universe. Does that make "the laws of physics" God? I'm not sure many theists would accept that. And how do "the laws of physics" respond to prayer or send their son to Earth. Or whatever people expect of their God.Definition: If x is the cause of existence then x is god.
...
The only way a common definition can contradict my definition is
if the common definition claims god is NOT the cause of existence
because that is ALL my definition claims.
So then we have your "logic":
1 is an unsupported assertion. There is some evidence it is not true. You have been given at least one example (and you only need one to disprove it).1 For every x, x has a cause.
2 There is existence.
3 There is a god.
But this is also irrelevant to your argument. This is very common in arguments based on petitio principii (begging the question). Presumably because it helps mask the circular nature of the argument.
2 Well, yeah.
3 Back to begging the question: God is that which causes existence. Existence is. Therefore God exists. This is a circular argument.
You can equally well say:
I assume your response to this will be along the lines of, "My logic is perfect. This is not begging the question. If there are no rational objections, I win."
- The soul is that which allows us to think. We think. Therefore the soul exists.
- Boojums are that which causes rain. It rains. Therefore Boojums exist.
- The moon is made of cheese. The moon is up there. Therefore cheese exists.
I would therefore like to call an expert witness, You Honour. I call "Rational Wiki" on the subject of begging the question.
Mr Rational Wiki, could you tell us your first example of "begging the question".
Begging the question - RationalWiki
This is identical to your argument:
1. Existence is evidence of God (because God is defined as that which creates existence)
2. Therefore, we know God exists.
I rest my case.
I grant you that, but you cant resist insulting:
Its enough if you assume, theres no need to pretend!
That is surely what you call "begging the question"?
At the moment im pressed for time so Ill return and edit.
Edit 1: You try to "attack" at too many places at once,
trying to disprove "the whole" at once.
That is unsafe: The whole need not be a simple addition of its parts,
so I suggest we proceed carefully and, for a while,
adress the questions of "DEFINITION".
Objection 1: Sometimes its difficult to avoid circularity!
Proof by example: Two events are simultaneous if and only if
the arrival of light rays from the events at their midpoint is simultaneous.
We call such definitions "working definitions"
and aim to replace them whenever we can with "proper definitions"...
Last edited by sigurdW; August 16th, 2012 at 05:44 AM.
But that would mean ignoring the copious evidence from your posting style. As this is a science forum, I don't like to ignore evidence.
looking for something that is everywhere, everything, all the time. split a piece of wood! lift a stone!
study more, then study MORE, THEN STUDY MORE, you will find it.
here it is! there it is! its everywhere!!!
live life
I know this thread started out with appallingly bad logic and went downhill from there but...
... don't you have anything useful (or even comprehensible) to contribute?
Google is your friend.Whats an apologist?
Nah! Its yours!Google is your friend.Whats an apologist?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that makes you sound? You're the one that's ignorant, yet you insist everyone else do all the work informing you?Nah! Its yours!Google is your friend.Whats an apologist?
Entitlement-happy much?
Sig would much rather make up his own words and definitions than look them up.
And if he does look them up, he doesn't use them.
Clearly, which makes me wonder why anyone responds to him seriously?
Now that it is obvious to everyone that he is just trolling perhaps he will go away and annoy people somewhere else. Preferably something like a model train or football forum where I am not likely to encounter him.
Whats wrong with that?
Especially if youre trying to say something never said before?
You cant google what yet isnt,can you?
Your making new definitions for preexisting words, that's the problem. The only thing that will come of that is confusion.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as you're talking to yourself. If you actually want to communicate with another person, it's problematic.Whats wrong with that?
Especially if youre trying to say something never said before?
You cant google what yet isnt,can you?
What confuses me is why you didnt make a list
of such preexisting terms as you refer to,
must I and eventual other readers guess?
Risking guessing wrong: Do you mean the word "god"?
The word preexists and i give a new definition...
The word fits your definition, do you agree?
Whether they are yours or somebody elses:
Definitions are (1) used to explain, or (2) making more precise, and also sometimes
(3) the opposite, making the definition wider to include new objects.
In short there are reasons if a definition is introduced in a context.
In my case the two first reasons apply, I prefer if you yourself tell
what reasons are behind your... perhaps you will add a fourth reason to my list?
To check if we are thinking in the same way on the same things,
I now ask You for comments and answers.
I especially recommend you to tell what problem in defining
preexisting words is not explained by the reasons i have given?
And... I counted to a handful of question marks in this post of mine...
Do you mean that I am what is problematic?There's nothing wrong with that as long as you're talking to yourself. If you actually want to communicate with another person, it's problematic.Whats wrong with that?
Especially if youre trying to say something never said before?
You cant google what yet isnt,can you?
Or is it that the listener hears something never said before?
Im sorry, but I cant Imagine you having that problem! (Just kidding)
I also think it is a good idea to define communication in some way.
Maybe you mean someting very unusual with "communication", dont tell me
your definition says it is to say the same thing as many times as possible?
Im sorry, but that definition is reserved for something else...
See the thing is you keep trying to define "god" as something without intelligence. A definition that has never been applied to that word, and thus not a useful definition of the word.
This is a example of appeal to ignorance as this shows the lack of study into history of theology and philosophy. Have you even studied natural pantheism and alternative viewpoint of god other than anthropomorphic version? If you did, then you would have realized it been applied to that words for thousands of years. Why do I waste my time with theists, agnostics, and atheists? They all have their crap to say. I consider myself a ignostic apatheist with a radical pragmatic value.
In the original English?If you did, then you would have realized it been applied to that words for thousands of years.
And you have your crap. Since it's your's, you like the smell of it better.Why do I waste my time with theists, agnostics, and atheists? They all have their crap to say
| « quick logical proof that god doesn't exist | what is the definition of reason? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
42Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
