Proving God in 20 statements

[smfortune]

Oh dear god you actually used Gödel's incompleteness theorem to prove the impossibility of a theory of everything?

So incredibly wronger than wrong that I can't even

Remember, in 2002, Stephen Hawkings in "Gödel and the end of physics" came to the same conclusion. The incompleteness (or inconsistency) of axiomatic systems is inescapable.

---

Yeah, kinda wondering which God the OP is going to prove.  If the analysis ends up on demonstrating the existence of the Wormhole Aliens revered by the Bajorans in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine it could be quite a wake up call for the Vatican . . . .

You're right! I haven't begun to discuss which God is proven. That's for another time.

---

Yeah. It proves any god you like. Handy!

You're right! I haven't proven which God. Literally thousands, aren't there? There's more to this God business. But that's for another post.

---

There are no uncaused things. : From Cosmological Arguments

Oops. Your very first premise has not been shown to be a tautology.

Sorry.

I'm not sure you know what a tautology is. But in any case, notes (i), (ii) and (iii) of the proof deal with issues about first cause.

---

No uncaused thing except the uncaused thing which is very special and doesn't adhere to the whole point of the argument.

Note (iii) of the proof dealt with this: (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.

---

I stopped at "there are no uncaused things" -- OP clearly hasn't heard of quantum fluctuations.

Note (i) of the proof dealt with this: (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.

---

I disagree with first statement. I even claim that it is not merely wrong, but meaningless as applied. Unless you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by cause and causation as it applies to the universe, I don't feel inclined to read on.

Notes (i), (ii) and (iii) of the proof dealt with this. You really didn't read on.

---

Oh he means whatever fucking god he thinks is real.

You know these clowns.  They're all the same.

I didn't set out to prove a specific god. Thanks for calling me a clown. My wife and friends think I'm hilarious.

[drfuzzy]

"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."  

            What a circular convoluted pile of bullshit.  Why do theists try so desperately to prove that their imaginary friend exists?  When the imaginary friend shows up and says "hi" it will be worth paying attention.  Until then, it's irrelevant.

[smfortune]

The fact that the post is not in the original font format probably means it was copy pasted from somewhere.

Most likely OP doesn't even know what he posted or how it works.

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.

[drfuzzy]

The fact that the post is not in the original font format probably means it was copy pasted from somewhere.

Most likely OP doesn't even know what he posted or how it works.

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.

Bits and pieces of this have been posted before.  So someone is stealing from you!  
And you have had math professors go over it in detail and explain it to the theology professors, I'm sure.

[smfortune]

The fact that the post is not in the original font format probably means it was copy pasted from somewhere.

Most likely OP doesn't even know what he posted or how it works.

I don't expect to get an answer to my question that in any way indicates that the poster has any real intellectual interest in the argument.

It is copy and pasted from my website which I can't link here because I'm a newbie. I actually am quite versed in how the proof works, I created it.

---

I'm not expecting any answer at all. He probably thinks he has "won" this forum and is onto the next one.

He didn't tell us what to convert to. He might end up creating more enemies out of potential allies.

You shouldn't convert to anything that isn't rationally or logically derived.

[robvalue]

You didn't cover why I should care about any of this.

Just scientific enquiry?

[Nay_Sayer]

FSM is pleased but also irritated you left out the crucial cavatappi theorem.

[smfortune]

I'm with Alex on this.

There are no uncaused things

What does this actually mean ?  Aside from the statement being vague enough to not be utile, it may very well be false.

Boru

Quite naturally, causation: connection between two events or states such that one produces or brings about the other; where one is the cause and the other its effect. Also called causality.

Notes (i), (ii) and (iii) of the proof dealt with this issue.

[Nay_Sayer]

I'm with Alex on this.


What does this actually mean ?  Aside from the statement being vague enough to not be utile, it may very well be false.

Boru

Quite naturally, causation: connection between two events or states such that one produces or brings about the other; where one is the cause and the other its effect. Also called causality.

Notes (i), (ii) and (iii) of the proof dealt with this issue.

 Exactly.
FSM's all the way down.

[robvalue]

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?