Well niminus, have I beaten you at your own game of showing off with pretentious philosophy? Your silence seems like it. Please have more logic to your argument than someone who wants to havs sex with a man is not gay.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
I can prove God exists
- Thread starter invest07
- Start date
Werbung:
Child's play.
It has everything to do with duality.
The same mathematics (idea) that you use to explain physical reality also breaks down when applied to its limits. You cannot point to an infinite physical thing, can you? You cannot divide matter indefinitely. At one point, you are left with an indivisible something.
And if you want a more rigorous exercise in this direction, contemplate the axiom of choice (which deals with uncountably many sets) and how it results in skolem's and banach-tarski paradoxes.
Theology and natural philosophy (science) are THE SAME logical inquiry with completely different premises.
Let us stick to the basic question of the thread - proving merely the EXISTENCE (and not the nature) of god, shall we?
The argument I am making is that causation (which is the basic premise of science) inevitably leads to a first cause. The alternative, an infinite chain of causality or an infinite regress, is ILLOGICAL.
That is an example of it. There are many philosophical traditions that adhere to some form of duality. You already know buddhism, no?
Sigh
Ask yourself what constitutes as immutable, objective and independent reality, and you would realize that only ideas fit this.
Then let us discuss kant. I think such a discussion would be more appropriate in the homosexuality thread. I was hoping to draw acg in a discussion of the comparative merits of hume and kant in that thread. No such luck.
Ask yourself what constitutes as proof, in your opinion. And lets test your standard of proof using the rigors of logic, shall we?
NO NO NO
A priori reasoning is as indispensible to math and science as it is in philosophy. MATHEMATICAL AXIOMS have no formal proof except its intuitive correctness. They are a priori. And if you still don't understand - would you mind giving the formal and rigorous proof of (lets make it grade school simple) the commutative, associative and identity axioms of addition and multiplication.
a+0=a; ax0=a - proof?
a+b=b+a; ab=ba - proof?
(a+b)+c = a+(b+c) - proof?
Any takers?
LOL
That the authors prefered to use allegorical tales to convey truth doesn't mean it is a lie.
And if you insist on applying scientific rigor to an allegorical tale and completely ignore its truth, as some people I know insist on doing, then you are just as dumb as they are.
There is actually some truth in what was considered a mythical tale. Religion and these fanciful tales were transmitted to us through the SAME oral tradition. We marveled at the archeological evidence even if the original authors never meant to give archeological evidence. At the very least, that should prompt any reasonable individual to re-examine his biases.
Have you read the kalam or thomasian cosmological argument, hmm?
So why do you think an imperative to eat cabbage, regardless of the imperative's source, is absurd, eh?
It is the inevitable conclusion to the premises of science.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Good to see you're still living in ancient Rome.
Then please, by all means, go violate the laws of gravity for us. Make sure to get a video as proof.
The Scientific Revolution introduced empiricism and experimentation to the study of "natural philosophy," transforming it into modern day science and separating it from the rest of philosophy.
You're mincing things horribly. Materialism is a school of monist thought, which is a school of metaphysical thought, which is a school of philosophy. The "natural sciences" were also a school of philosophy. "Philosophy" is not a "part" of natural philosophy (which eventually became modern-day science).
Elephants are gray. You wouldn't say that Elephants are an indispensable part of the color gray, would you?
Take our very own Irishone21 for example. Go read some of his posts and tell me why he doesn't get his own religion.
Lacing a lie with elements of the truth can be helpful. This doesn't make it any less a lie.
Perhaps you'd like to cite a few instances of history proving you right?
I asked you to prove it (not mention get yourself published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal since the ability to conclusively prove the existence of God would be a big breakthrough). All you did was state that you already have. If you're not going to dredge up even a link to your actual evidence I'm not going to bother looking for it.
I have a question for you, numinus. If you were right about all this - and that the existence of God is provable - why haven't more people heard about it? Why aren't these studies educational requisites?
r0beph
Well-Known Member
Hahahaha.... He can't. Since you simply cannot measure infinity, even objects, spatial breadths, distances, as with numbers, cannot be defined in any "physical" terms. However one can measure "infinity" abstractly by having an infinite number set, and choosing arbitrarily any number wished. Thus 0, -12, 10^10,000,000,000 and it's all falling within the bounds. Again though this is a level of abstraction that removes the necessity to define a range which does not end. The problem herein is that a range is finite, and infinity is not, yet paradoxically it is a range. Makes your head hurt to think of it. Even thinking in hypothetical physical situations, one cannot think of it well: I have a bag, inside the bag is an infinite amount of space filled with infinite number of objects. Now if you reach into this bag and pull out an orange, place it on a table. The paradox arises now in that, if you removed the orange from a bag full of infinite objects, is that orange still in the bag; if no, then infinity does not exist, as it would HAVE to contain the very orange you just removed; if yes, then where is the orange you just removed, in the bag or on the table. The main thing here is that an infinite object existing in true infinity, would consist of an infinite repetitive nature. ie, if the universe is infinite, one must conclude that there is another earth, since in infinity there must be everything, and single objects must exist elsewhere, since the very object must exist an infinite number of times. Every subsection of infinity is infinite itself due to inheritance.
The belief in a higher power is "logical" if one basis the premise of a higher power on circumstantial evidence and that which one already knows, due to the circumstance and prior assumptions, one could conclude such logical IF there is no other explanation. This is of course, the definition of logic, the analysis of inference; inference is the coming to an assumption based on circumstances and prior conclusions. If the prior conclusions are that of a higher power, one could argue that logic, by DEFINITION, could be a valid label. However, in the face of alternative conclusions and evidence, ignoring the evidence to argue with circular logic (the reference here is more of a sarcasm than intending "logic"), is NOT logic.
I can't read all his posts.
they look like this.
it's quite annoying.
so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
maybe I'll read it later.
I really just wanted to address those two points.
it's early, I should sleep.
bye
oh yeah, does this annoy you guys too?
does me.
ok.
I'm leaving now.
really.
night.
Finally! You are still within some form of redemption.
Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY.
The cosmological argument proves that when one premises causation, its inevitable conclusion is UNIVERSAL CAUSATION FROM A FIRST CAUSE.
If you are talking about the rituals that accompany religion, yes. They mean nothing except to those who take part in them. They are external manifestations of an immutable truth.
There is the theoretical space-time singularity from which all cosmological models ensue. It is something that has NO SPACE, NO TIME, INFINITE GRAVITY, AND INFINITE DENSITY.
There are theoretical particles called tacheon which physicists believe travel FASTER THAN LIGHT. Do I need to explain how infinity is related to faster than light speed, hmmm?
Your science have no problem postulating infinity, as long as the one's claiming them have Phd's, eh?
But if the common man employs some of his god given critical thought, and comes up with the same infinity logically, he is stupid and arrogant, eh?
You need not answer. It is enough that you are proven to be a bogus intellectual with nothing but pure excrement to say.
The methodology changed. The premises remain the same.
Go look at the taxonomical dileneation of human knowledge. You'd find philosophy, mathematics and logic at the top and the natural sciences merely a sub group of one of them.
Everything I said are published.
You mean math, science and philosphy are not pre-requisite courses for most college degrees? I can understand the cosmological argument being by-passed (since americans go throught extreme psychological pain learning anything resembling religion) but don't tell me you have no idea of calculus, and physics?
Finally! You are still within some form of redemption.
Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY.
Just because we can think up pure maths, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we can think about having a soul, seperate from our body, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we think about God, it doesn't mean he exists. You really do love Anselm and Descrates don't you.
The cosmological argument proves that when one premises causation, its inevitable conclusion is UNIVERSAL CAUSATION FROM A FIRST CAUSE.
Yes, but where is this first cause from? He is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, as Aristotle said. It doesn't have the same logic pure maths has. The belief in God, and any arguments to prove his existence requires his existence to be taken as a given.
If you are talking about the rituals that accompany religion, yes. They mean nothing except to those who take part in them. They are external manifestations of an immutable truth.
And what is this immutable truth?
Because buddishm and Christianity seem to differ somewhat. Although most monotheist religions seem to fit a selection of rules to do with their invention by human nature, polytheist and especially Eastern religions do not fit the same pattern (but are still clearly man made in an attempt to satisfy their desire for the knowledge on what happens after death).
Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY.
Just because we can think up pure maths, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we can think about having a soul, seperate from our body, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we think about God, it doesn't mean he exists. You really do love Anselm and Descrates don't you.
The cosmological argument proves that when one premises causation, its inevitable conclusion is UNIVERSAL CAUSATION FROM A FIRST CAUSE.
Yes, but where is this first cause from? He is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, as Aristotle said. It doesn't have the same logic pure maths has. The belief in God, and any arguments to prove his existence requires his existence to be taken as a given.
If you are talking about the rituals that accompany religion, yes. They mean nothing except to those who take part in them. They are external manifestations of an immutable truth.
And what is this immutable truth?
Because buddishm and Christianity seem to differ somewhat. Although most monotheist religions seem to fit a selection of rules to do with their invention by human nature, polytheist and especially Eastern religions do not fit the same pattern (but are still clearly man made in an attempt to satisfy their desire for the knowledge on what happens after death).
LOL
Math is one of the few concepts that is truly OBJECTIVE, IMMUTABLE AND UNIVERSAL. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of its operation can reach the SAME MATHEMATICAL CONCLUSIONS, anytime, anywhere. It doesn't matter how many fingers you have (which I imagine would determine one's predisposition to a number system), the value and properties of numbers and their operation remain the same. That means, pi, or the natural logarithmic base e, and a host of transcendental numbers are non-repeating, non-terminating, transendental numbers in base 2, 3, 10 or n number system.
And if something that is as objective, immutable and universal as math still doesn't exist, then what the hell does, eh?
Oh, and btw, aside from descarte's contribution to math (more specifically, the cartesian coordinate system), I think very little of him as a philosopher.
Good to see you answer your own question. If the first cause came from some other cause, then it wouldn't be the FIRST, now, would it?
What are you talking about??? Negative logic is ALWAYS used in math.
Not at all.
Either the first cause is true or its contradiction (an infinite chain of causality or an infinite regress) is true. They cannot both be true.
But, we have already postulated the operation of causality, haven't we? It is EXPLICIT when you keep asking - where is the evidence? And for every cause, it has another cause, and another, and another unitl hell freezes over. At some point, you must reach an UNCAUSED CAUSE. And such a cause is said to be NECESSARY, because it could NEVER BE OTHERWISE.
The same reasoning can be said about dividing a finite object. At some point, you get something that is INDIVISIBLE. Otherwise, you will wind up with an infinite number of pieces of nothing.
That god exists.
Sigh.
Perception is utterly subjective. And because it is subjective, some human knowledge, naturally, are subjective as well. Add this subjectivity with a couple of thousand years of oral tradition and you have an iota of objective truth mixed in with a ton of subjective perceptions.
Now, do you throw away a ton of subjectivity, along with an ounce of objective truth, or do you painstakingly sift through the muck. Some people, just for the sake of knowing, would do the latter alternative. If you are inclined to the former, then what the hell is that gray matter between your ears for? Excess baggage?
r0beph
Well-Known Member
This is the immutable truth, derived from what? A book? What ensures that this is "the book" which contains the truth, why not the koran, why not the bagagavita, why not David Koresh's orations? You're using a book which has no more "proof" of being factual than any other religious text, as the basis of this conclusion, your conclusion is not based upon logic, its based on your upbringing, your environment (obviously a christian one). How does this make sense, even when according to your rules? One ignores the evidence of different higher powers, evidence that is AS FACTUAL as the bible, such as the koran and bagavagita (hindu), And ignore them, for the bible. HOW numunis, is this a valid line of reasoning, you have 3 very major, very concise manuals on spiritual development and belief, yet you believe only one, on what basis? It was the one you were first exposed to. Nothing more, nothing less, that is laughable.
r0beph
Well-Known Member
not exactly, but i think trying to explain such things will fall on deaf ears.
lol, and the tachyon, well, it's a theory from the 60s and has been pretty much walked away from. FTL speed of information is purely impossible, that is as it is. FTL travel, isn't really the issue, save that transmission
information isn't contained within the particle/etc (although none exist ) information, since this would violate causality. anyhow, this is niether here nor there, since most physicists don't really consider tachyons in any form.
Science finds no issue postulating anything, as long as their is logical reason and evidence for postulation. PhD has no basis in whether its accepted or otherwise. Infinity as you describe it is not the same as the mathmatic infinity, per se. for example,
Pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvasiṣyate
That is full, this is full
From the full, the full is subtracted
When the full is taken from the full
The full still will remain.
The idea here is that, you cannot subtract nor add to true infinity, well, you can, but it still remains infinity, Inf. + 1 = Inf. no more, no less, as these concepts do not apply to infinity, it is as it is a special quantity (bounding), with no variance in "size" (length, range, etc) no matter how much you add or remove. Inf + Inf. = Inf. It is but a small bit of poetic mathmatic poetry from (c)400bc indian text, that adequately describes true infinity. Which gets to another point; Infinity is not always true. They use infinity to describe many "types" of infinity. a distinction can be made between the countless infinities, and innumerable and endless, unlimited infinities, as well as between rigidly bounded and loosely bounded infinities. It all depends on the situation it describes. Infinity is an expression of mathematics. None of this really has anything to do with an argument around god, no one says infinity cannot exist, however its existence is unconfirmable. You're trying to argue something of dogmatic quantity using scientific quantifiers, this is like portioning food based on its weight on a scale that lists troy ounces, and trying to say its an ounce.
The problem is, infinity is a well defined quantifier / bound, to use this well defined concept one must use it in applications that also follow the same rule, you're not postulating infinity, you're using a word you heard and feel it best describes something you in truth have no idea about, ie God, how do you know God, talked to him? Seen Him? Smelled Him? Felt His warm hands on your Buttocks? Heard him screaming at you for just not getting it? No, everything you "know" of god came from a book, which is a collection of "empiric" evidence collected by people who stated thing which have not been empirically reproduced at any point since. That's it, a book, that people wrote, and translated, and wrote some more, and returned to another language, just to retranslate it. This is not evidence of anything, I'll concede one thing, there are things we don't understand, I say to continue our search for knowledge, you on the otherhand postulate WE DO understand WHY, and we simply disregard anything empiric that may weaken that argument.
Excrement? I see, nothing like the pseudo-science you spit out, right? I mean, my education and understanding of the sciences mean nothing I'm sure, your warping of well ingrained and standard scientific practices and observations to suit your will, shall be disregarded, since that's A-Ok.....right? lol...lame argument.
Werbung:
r0beph
Well-Known Member
Also...."Infinite density" that you described, isn't in true infinity. However to make sense of extreme densities, they use infinity because this defines the bounds of the density as being more than the current for all intents and purposes. However as the series of
as shown, converges to a real value X.
This is infinity, however, X shows that sum of the infinite series is a real number, which means that it is not TRUE infinity. So don't gimme that...because your derivation of the nature of infinity is flawed.
as shown, converges to a real value X.
This is infinity, however, X shows that sum of the infinite series is a real number, which means that it is not TRUE infinity. So don't gimme that...because your derivation of the nature of infinity is flawed.
