Proving God in 20 statements

[Nay_Sayer]

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.

---

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

Maybe you just don't get our jokes.

Sure, You guys have this great one about an invisible sky daddy, Cracks me and FSM up every time.

[smfortune]

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.

Well I don't know how to help you understand further. Horse to water kind of thing. Perhaps you could justify to yourself your continued discomfort with the premise by thinking of an uncaused thing? Good luck.

---

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

---

Maybe you just don't get our jokes.

Sure, You guys have this great one about an invisible sky daddy, Cracks me and FSM up every time.

Hmmm, the miscommunication must work both ways. I don't find you funny.

[Mystic]

Peace be upon you smforture, I'm not asking how you derive those statements from double implications. I'm asking why you are stating those double implications are true in the first place.

[Silver]

God has been proven in twenty statements. I do not see the problem.

[Losty]

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).

Allah is a girl!?!?!? D:
I never knew D:

[smfortune]

Peace be upon you smforture, I'm not asking how you derive those statements from double implications. I'm asking why you are stating those double implications are true in the first place.

(1) Eu iff Ku - the Universe is only explained if and only if there is a complete and consistent explanation of the Universe. This is true or else it would only be partially or imperfectly explained. (2) For all x, x is complete and consistent only if x is infinite. This is from Gödel's incompleteness theorem. (3) Ix iff Gx. An infinite explanation of the Universe is logically equivalent with the greatest explanation of the Universe. It must be infinite to include all true statements and thus be the greatest explantion imaginable. If it can be improved on, it is not the greatest or infinite. and (4) For all x, if x is the greatest, x refers to God. This is by definition true.

[Excited Penguin]

God is so 2015. We're in 2016 now, move on. Lol.

[Alex K]

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.

Well I don't know how to help you understand further. Horse to water kind of thing. Perhaps you could justify to yourself your continued discomfort with the premise by thinking of an uncaused thing? Good

No. You are presenting a proof, you need to establish that the terms you use are well-defined and apply to the situation at hand. Shifting the burden of proof to me to falsify your premise based on your ill defined terms, is silly - I don't even buy yet that you have a consistent notion of causation that applies to the universe as a whole. You don't seem to be able to elaborate on your definitions and instead hide behind a bit of smugness. That's not very convincing. Or have you not thought about it any deeper?

[Redbeard The Pink]

Look dude...you can put new shoes on an old whore, but she's still gonna walk with a limp.


The First Cause argument is not good, it is not new, and you have not improved on it. It still has the exact same problems it's always had.

The problem with the first cause argument is that it can be thought of as circular in that it begs the question of an external cause. My argument does not do that. Only a causation is needed. Internal or external. This was explicitly stated in Note (ii) of the proof. However, the proof itself isn't a first cause (cosmological) argument. If anything it is more aligned with ontological arguments. But even then, it skips over the criticism of an appeal to infinity as an abstract concept since infinity is itself necessarily proved within the proof itself. In other words, infinity CANNOT be abstract because it necessarily exist for an ultimate explanation of the Universe. This also was explicitly stated in the Notes to the proof; Note (vi). So, yes, I have materially improved on both the cosmological and ontological arguments.

No, you really haven't. I read your proof, I read the notes on it, and no...it's not an improvement.


For one thing, you keep insisting the Universe would require something infinite to cause it, and yet I see no evidence of that assertion. You also claim that your argument provides proof that something infinite must exist, and yet there is no evidence for that assertion either. You simply keep asserting these things and then pointing back to the "proof" as if we just didn't read it enough.


Well, I did read it, and it doesn't prove anything except that you don't know how to prove that things exist.

[Cyberman]

Insulting the Staff over points of forum rules. I can see this ending well.

Quick!




Gather rocks!

I'll take two points, two flats and a packet of gravel.

As for our "godlike" powers, we do work in largely invisible ways, but at least we do work. As long as you lot stay within the rules, you'll hardly ever know we've been there. Show me the forum that doesn’t require Staff to function.