OK, lesson one. Are you listening?

You can't define things into existence. Just because you can describe something, it doesn't mean it maps to anything real.

(April 1, 2016 at 8:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: OK, lesson one. Are you listening?

You can't define things into existence. Just because you can describe something, it doesn't mean it maps to anything real.

Perhaps that's why scientists actually attempt to test and prove their hypotheses rather than just build logical syllogisms all day.

It could well be!

"My magic golden lollipop is defined to be the thing that created God, and which requires no further explanation."

Done. Wow, theology is easy. It's reality that's the bitch.

(March 31, 2016 at 11:41 pm)Kitan Wrote: Looks like a bunch of hoopla to me.

(April 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 8:04 am)RozKek Wrote: God of the gaps everytime. "We don't know the answer, therefore geud". "We don't see another answer, therefore jebus". Like Rob said: arguments aren't evidence for god.

There's no gap here. We know that scientific explanations will be either incomplete or inconsistent and they are in such a way so that an explanation of the Universe must regress to an infinitely great power, i.e. God. This isn't a gap. It's an inescapable fact.

(April 1, 2016 at 7:19 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 7:14 pm)RozKek Wrote: If you'd ask a viking: "What causes thunder"? They'd answer "Thor" (which is merely an assumption just like god). Why? Because they didn't know the real answer. According to your logic at that time Thor really was the cause of thunder since there was no other explanation.

I know what god of the gaps is. If I was guilty of that, I would admit it. But there is no gap. I present no gap and say "god". I'm actually demonstrating the absence of a gap. I don't know what your Thor analogy is about but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

You do present a gap by claiming that science can't explain the universe and you fill that problem with god without having any evidence for god.

I'll explain the Thor example for you.

The vikings didn't know the cause/explanation/reason of thunder so they said Thor (i.e a god) caused thunder, they used Thor (a god) as the reason and explanation just because they didn't know the real cause of thunder.

You don't know the cause/explanation/reason of the universe, and you claim it cannot be known with a scientific approach (you can't support that claim or at least don't) so you say god caused the universe and is the reason and explanation for the universe, just because you don't know the real cause/answer.

I used the vikings as an example to show your way of thinking (your logic) from another perspective so you see the fault in it.

At the end of the day, all of what I wrote doesn't matter because arguments aren't evidence, and you got no evidence, just arguments. So there is no point in continuing the debate unless you come with evidence.

If he did he'd be the first.  I don't think this one can pass muster.

(April 1, 2016 at 7:19 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 6:56 pm)smfortune Wrote: Well then, there's no convincing you. Good day.

P.S. as per your link, a GUT is not a TOE.

I, and the link, never said GUT was TOE. Well, maybe the link did somewhere, I know I didn't. In my world GUT is intestinal tract and TOE is a digit.

I thought we were done? Or do you have something else that you believe will convince me that your fantasy belief is a reality and god actually exists? Perhaps another set of equations.

Here's the thing. You're welcome to your belief. I have no problem with that. Most of the people around me function with that belief and I don't take issue with them. They make reference to it often, sometimes inappropriately and insensitively, and I let it slide. If it works for them, fine. However, I do take issue when my belief (or lack there of) is challenged. I think that was your intent in coming to AF. Correct me if I'm wrong but it came across as "Here is my proof, try to find the holes in it, find fault with it. If you can't (and you indicated up front that we [certainly I] would not be able to), smf wins, you loose."

OK, no holes found by me. What does that prove? Only that you're good at math and symbols. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing in your math, the logic, that changes a belief (at least this kind of belief) into a reality. You have still not demonstrated to me that god(s) exist(s). Math does not equal god.

On a side note and with no offense intended, good luck with your book and site. I hope the believers out there support you.

Yeah, a proof of god is going to happen here on AF........

This religion shit combines the worst parts of us.  A person who considers themselves to be a lowly human worm in comparison to the almighty simultaneously believes that they've cracked open the cosmos with their brilliance...and an immensely powerful god deadset on hiding came dripping out of the newly christened orifice.  

Quote:Oh, a causation problem. Who caused the causer?

That's a problem for logic, an inability to arrive at a reliable conclusion given the rules with the propositions on offer...not a problem for me. -I don't know- what, let alone who (kind of silly to slip in a who before we've even established a what or an if, huh?) "caused the causer".

Clearly, I can't arrive at an answer by reference to reason, and neither can you. That's the -actual- problem of infinite regress. It's a problem for a conclusion generating system, not a problem for me or the universe, or cause. If a conclusion generating system is incapable of generating a conclusion, an infinite regress, either the system or the propositions are failures. Which do you think it is, in this case? Has logic failed, or have our malformed propositions tanked us?

I don't believe your "just-so" statement. How will you convince me?

(April 1, 2016 at 6:56 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 6:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: OK. Then I'll go with the positions stated here.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05...dont-know/

BTW, no amount of arguing, with math or anything else, can ever make a fantasy real.

Well then, there's no convincing you. Good day.

You won't find logical arguments to be convincing to many (if any) around here because, on their own, they prove nothing. You can make a logical argument for just about anything you fancy. Flying pigs, magical dragons, invisible pink unicorns, leprechauns, etc... But, without evidence to back up your argument, you've got nothing.

(April 1, 2016 at 7:53 pm)Time Traveler Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 11:39 pm)smfortune Wrote: Hello atheists,
 
I welcome critique on a proof of God (if you don’t know first predicate logic, just follow the text).
 
The proof is found below.
 
*** Please read the notes at the end of the proof which help establish the soundness of the premises ***
 
If the proof is valid (which it is) and sound, then God is proved!
 
I hope one day to offer a reward to anyone capable of dismissing the proof.
 
Thanks!
 
>>>>> 
 
PROOF >>>
 
There are no uncaused things. : From Cosmological Arguments
 
The Universe is a thing.
 
The Universe is caused (be it internally [self-caused] or externally).
 
∀x[Tx → Cx], Tu: Cu
1. ∀x[Tx → Cx]                 P (Premise)
2. Tu                                  P
Proof:
3. Tu → Cu                        1 UI (Universal Instantiation)
4. Cu                                  2, 3 MP (Modus Ponens) [END OF PART I]
 
It follows that for all caused things, there is an explanation.
 
The Universe is caused.
 
The Universe has an explanation.
 
∀x[Cx → Ex], Cu: Eu
1. ∀x[Cx → Ex]                 P
2. Cu                                  P
Proof:
3. Cu → Eu                        1 UI
4. Eu                                  2,3 MP [END OF PART II]
 
By definition: an ultimate explanation of the Universe must be complete and consistent (i.e., fully explained either through natural self-causation [TOE (Theory of Everything)] or otherwise).
 
Eu ↔ Ku
 
A formal system of explanation (basically, any scientifically compatible explanation) is complete and consistent only in the infinite (recall that higher type formal systems can always be formulated into the transfinite). : From Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem. This rules out a TOE and leads to the rest of this proof.
 
∀x[Kx ↔ Ix]
 
An infinite formal system of explanation is logically equivalent with the “Greatest” one imaginable.
 
Ix ↔ Gx
 
The last two premises mean that our Universe is ultimately only explainable by an infinitely great power. It is also easy to see that...
 
Any characteristic “Greatest” refers to God. : From Ontological Arguments
 
∀x[Gx ↔ Ĝx]
 
Therefore, the ultimate explanation of the Universe can only be God.
 
Eu ↔ Ĝx
 
Proving God in 20 statements:
Eu ↔ Ku, ∀x[Kx ↔ Ix], Ix ↔ Gx, ∀x[Gx ↔ Ĝx]: Eu ↔ Ĝx
1.   Eu ↔ Ku                                   P
2.   ∀x[Kx ↔ Ix]                             P
3.   Ix ↔ Gx                                    P
4.   ∀x[Gx ↔ Ĝx]                           P
5.   (Eu → Ku) & (Ku → Eu)           1 Equiv (Equivalence)
6.   Eu → Ku                                   5 Simp (Simplification)
7.   Ku → Eu                                   5 Simp
8.   (Kx → Ix) & (Ix → Kx)             2  Equiv
9.   Kx → Ix                                    8 Simp
10. Ix → Kx                                    8 Simp
11. (Ix ↔ Gx) & (Gx → Ix)              3 Equiv
12. Ix → Gx                                    11 Simp
13. Gx → Ix                                    11 Simp
14. (Gx → Ĝx) & (Ĝx → Gx)           4 Equiv
15. Gx → Ĝx                                   14 Simp
16. Ĝx → Gx                                   14 Simp
17. Eu → Ĝx                                   6, 9, 12, 15 UI, HS (Hypothetical Syllogism)  
18. Ĝx → Eu                                   16, 13, 10, 7 UI, HS
19. (Eu → Ĝx) & (Ĝx → Eu)            17, 18 Conj (Conjunction)
20. Eu ↔ Ĝx                                   19 Equiv [END OF PROOF]
 
Notes
(i) Critics often refer to Quantum Theory to show the possibility of something from "nothing" but in fact, at a minimum, a Quantum Vacuum is needed along with scientific laws. Hardly "nothing" I would say.
 
(ii) The Cosmological Argument used here does not argue for an external cause but ONLY a causation - which is not contentious.
 
(iii) God is “first cause” by definition and therefore not needed to be caused; however, God still does not necessarily violate the premise that all things are caused because the premise allows for self-causation, which can be applied to God: God causes God to exist.
 
(iv) “Explanation” as sought in the proof refers to a mode of causation, not a metaphysical “why?”
 
(v) It is important that any invocation of Gödel’s Theorem outside of mathematics maintains a sure link between formal systems with a certain amount of arithmetic and any extra-mathematical conclusions. In this proof, such a link is maintained for the soundness of the premises.
 
(vi) Infinity here is not an abstract concept as is sometimes proffered by opponents to Ontological Arguments but is necessitated for an ultimate explanation of the Universe. In other words, it cannot be abstract here because it is demonstrably necessary for the Universe’s existence.
 
(vii) The conclusion of this proof is consistent with the Big Bang Theory which is the leading theoretical description of our Universe’s beginning, supported by the Universe’s observed expansion and increasing entropy. However, even fringe theories of an “infinite” Universe could only be, in their limits, described as “transfinite” Universe theories, thus being innocuous to the proof’s conclusion.
 
(viii) Refutations of this proof invoking a multiverse are in the realm of science fiction and are not accorded further comment beyond noting their non-scientific characterization (they are not falsifiable). The irony is that such flights of fantasy actually force opponents to accept the possibility of God in a multiverse where anything is possible.
 
(ix) Given that logic entails a certain amount of arithmetic, it is not itself both complete and consistent; however, that does not mean that we can't trust logical conclusions, such as presented here. All that is necessary is that the logical system that we use is founded on true axioms.

There are no uncaused, unevolved sentient beings. (based upon observation and actual science.)
god is a sentient being. (Speculative.)
god is caused.
It follows that for all caused gods, there is an explanation.
god is caused.
god has an explanation.
By definition, an ultimate explanation of god must be complete and consistent.
Godel’s Second blah, blah, blah…
An infinite formal system of explanation is logically equivalent to the “Fattest” one imaginable.
The last two premises mean that god is ultimately only explainable by an infinitely obese power. It is also easy to see that…
Any characteristic “Fattest” refers to god.
Therefore, the ultimate explanation of god can only be someone’s overactive imagination.
Proving god is fat and imaginary in less than 20 statements.

Your very first premise is inductive. The rest of it is just as unsound. It's a conspicuous attempt at an appeal to ridicule (without the humor).

---

(April 1, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 4:48 pm)smfortune Wrote: It's posted from my website which I can't link here due to being a newbie. I'm actually quite versed in the proof and how it works, I created it.

Do you really think that the prohibition on posting links, particularly self-promoting ones, is an invitation to copy/paste the content here?

Pro-tip:  it's not.

Cry me a river.

---

(April 1, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Time Traveler Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 8:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: OK, lesson one. Are you listening?

You can't define things into existence. Just because you can describe something, it doesn't mean it maps to anything real.

Perhaps that's why scientists actually attempt to test and prove their hypotheses rather than just build logical syllogisms all day.

Lol. You guys are becoming hilarious. The scientific framework is falsification not proof. You look to FALSIFY your null hypothesis. This particular syllogism forms part of the falsification of atheism that I've developed.

---

(April 1, 2016 at 8:31 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm)smfortune Wrote: There's no gap here. We know that scientific explanations will be either incomplete or inconsistent and they are in such a way so that an explanation of the Universe must regress to an infinitely great power, i.e. God. This isn't a gap. It's an inescapable fact.

(April 1, 2016 at 7:19 pm)smfortune Wrote: I know what god of the gaps is. If I was guilty of that, I would admit it. But there is no gap. I present no gap and say "god". I'm actually demonstrating the absence of a gap. I don't know what your Thor analogy is about but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

You do present a gap by claiming that science can't explain the universe and you fill that problem with god without having any evidence for god.

I'll explain the Thor example for you.

The vikings didn't know the cause/explanation/reason of thunder so they said Thor (i.e a god) caused thunder, they used Thor (a god) as the reason and explanation just because they didn't know the real cause of thunder.

You don't know the cause/explanation/reason of the universe, and you claim it cannot be known with a scientific approach (you can't support that claim or at least don't) so you say god caused the universe and is the reason and explanation for the universe, just because you don't know the real cause/answer.

I used the vikings as an example to show your way of thinking (your logic) from another perspective so you see the fault in it.

At the end of the day, all of what I wrote doesn't matter because arguments aren't evidence, and you got no evidence, just arguments. So there is no point in continuing the debate unless you come with evidence.

Ok. Last time. There is no gap because I'm claiming that science builds itself up to reveal God. A gap would be if there was an unknown portion. I'm saying that there is no "Uhh, what goes here?". I'm saying that unequivocally, what science points to is not a gap in our knowledge with God as a placeholder, but it points to God directly. Btw, god of gaps is thrown around by atheists as if it was their own invention, it is actually derived from theists, did you know that?