Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 21, 2024, 10:40 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proving God in 20 statements
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
(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.
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
(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.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
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.
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
(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!
(August 21, 2017 at 11:31 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: "I'm not a troll"
Religious Views: He gay

0/10

Hammy Wrote:and we also have a sheep on our bed underneath as well
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
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.
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
(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.)
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
(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.
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
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.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 statements
(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).
Reply
RE: Proving God in 20 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.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Closing statements before leaving again for semester. Mystic 31 4846 January 6, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Last Post: Astreja
  When Atheists Can't Think Episode 2: Proving Atheism False Heat 18 3834 December 22, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  How would you respond to these common theist statements? TheMonster 21 6098 July 5, 2015 at 8:20 pm
Last Post: Regina
  How to respond to "God bless you" statements Fromper 40 9472 April 25, 2014 at 6:19 am
Last Post: BlackSwordsman
  Proving god with logic? xr34p3rx 47 13289 March 21, 2014 at 11:08 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
Question Proving a negative LeoVonFrost 51 13290 July 7, 2013 at 9:34 am
Last Post: genkaus
  Proving Atheism Is True chasm 45 14741 April 22, 2012 at 6:41 am
Last Post: Phil



Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)