(April 1, 2016 at 9:05 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

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

I remember Torkel Franzén in his excellent "Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse" presented the very same example as in the link. But Franzén and and Chu-Carroll make the same mistake by believing that incompleteness in a TOE is surmountable - Franzén (if I can recall correctly) made some ridiculous reference to the possibility of a TOE outside of mathematics. Incompleteness in a TOE is not surmountable. Stephen Hawking in 2002, "Gödel and the end of physics" finally came to the same conclusion, a TOE is impossible given the implication of Gödel. My proof is soundly grounded within formal systems and is without the ostrich's head buried in the sand denial of the impossibility of a TOE.

---

(April 2, 2016 at 12:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote: smfortune, you know how every model logic phrase can be reworded in language (they teach you to do this)? I haven't done this for years and will have be retaking the courses that taught this stuff.

Can you do us a favor and translate all the steps in plain English?

It's already there. Just skip the logic symbols and read the text. You'll get the gist.

(April 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: Ah, it probably isn't obvious to newcomers.

I am God. Proof has already been given, as other members can attest to. I see this argument does prove my existence, but it's rather redundant since I'm here talking to you.

Is there any questions you have for me?

I attest this with a sign affidavit. I have even seen the golden plates.

I don't want the gist, I want to understand what each phrase is saying exactly. It's ok, if you won't do it, I'm going to get out the old text book I have on model logic, and relearn how to translate this stuff to plain English.  It seems it relies on proof by double implication? I just have to understand in plain English where you got the double implication from.

(April 2, 2016 at 1:32 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I don't want the gist, I want to understand what each phrase is saying exactly. It's ok, if you won't do it, I'm going to get out the old text book I have on model logic, and relearn how to translate this stuff to plain English.  It seems it relies on proof by double implication? I just have to understand in plain English where you got the double implication from.

Be careful, mathing is even more evil than the dark forces. Don't taint your soul!

I think this proof might work, don't get me wrong. I just want to understand it. It seems you are making a tautology by 3 double implications, that once you rework, will lead to the conclusion. I just don't know how you concluded on those double implications.

(March 31, 2016 at 11:39 pm)smfortune Wrote: Hello atheists,
 
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!

Good one.  I appreciate a theist with a sense of humor.  (Hard to find.)

(April 2, 2016 at 1:45 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I think this proof might work, don't get me wrong. I just want to understand it.  It seems you are making a tautology by 3 double implications, that once you rework, will lead to the conclusion. I just don't know how you concluded on those double implications.

That's right. I use the equivalence rule to break down the double implications into their single implication form.

---

(April 2, 2016 at 1:49 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 11:39 pm)smfortune Wrote: Hello atheists,
 
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!

Good one.  I appreciate a theist with a sense of humor.  (Hard to find.)

Maybe you just don't get our jokes.

I still haven't seen an explanation why the first premise is justified. Just reiterating the rough everyday notion of causation isn't doing it.

(April 2, 2016 at 1:53 am)smfortune Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 1:45 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I think this proof might work, don't get me wrong. I just want to understand it.  It seems you are making a tautology by 3 double implications, that once you rework, will lead to the conclusion. I just don't know how you concluded on those double implications.

That's right. I use the equivalence rule to break down the double implications into their single implication form.

Ok so write down the "if and only if" statement which would be the double implication. Or right the two separate implications. I'm not contesting the theory, I believe in God and believe there are various sound arguments point to her existence, I just want to see how this argument is both valid (valid seems alright) and sound. Sound is my main contention, I don't know why these double implications are evident, unless you can explain exactly what they are saying (if and only if type statement in English or show the two separate implied statements).

(April 2, 2016 at 1:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 1:53 am)smfortune Wrote: That's right. I use the equivalence rule to break down the double implications into their single implication form.

Ok so write down the "if and only if" statement which would be the double implication. Or right the two separate implications. I'm not contesting the theory, I believe in God and believe there are various sound arguments point to her existence, I just want to see how this argument is both valid (valid seems alright) and sound. Sound is my main contention, I don't know why these double implications are evident, unless you can explain exactly what they are saying (if and only if type statement in English or show the two separate implied statements).

After you get the separate implication statements, break them down with the simplification rule and then begin to re-combine, use hypothetical syllogism to arrive at the separate implication form of the conclusion and then use the conjunction rule to derive the final conclusion.