First order logic, set theory and God

[Cod]

I'm learning lots of new words today.

[no one]

Well, this settles it. The narcissistic, egotistical, maniacal, blood thirsty, whiny, snot nosed little brat is real.
Kindly tell it to: "Pick the corn out of my shit, and fuck you very much!".

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm learning lots of new words today.

My heartiest contrafibularities!

Boru

[brewer]

Hello. 

Wow, this is great! Please have god show up at my house, I'll be here most of the day tomorrow. Better yet, have him show up at the mall. Might as well have 100's verify that you're correct and that god actually exists in reality and not just as a philosophical argument.

I assume that you/god will have no problem with this, it is god after all.

What a silly comment, and God agrees with me too.

that god actually exists in reality and not just as a philosophical argument.

It seems you're implying we can only understand what we can physically perceive. I'm pretty sure that many of our current mathematical concepts cannot be experienced by the senses.

An abstraction agreed with you??? Hilarious!

[I_am_not_mafia]

that god actually exists in reality and not just as a philosophical argument.

It seems you're implying we can only understand what we can physically perceive. I'm pretty sure that many of our current mathematical concepts cannot be experienced by the senses.

Actually we can only understand what can be sensed or measured. There is zero reliable or reproducible evidence for the existence of a god.

[Brian37]

T=Thor

A=Apollo

Y=Yoda

---

A= Agnetha Faltskog
B= Benny Anderson
B= Bjorn Ulvaeus
A= Anni Frid Lyngstad

[The Grand Nudger]

Since the proof is easy, we give it here in full. However, the reader who already accepts and understands the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)

Looks to me like a person can grant the bit in it's entirety and the only reason they call it a god..is that they call it a god.

[Peebothuhlu]

Hello!

Uhm.. Aren't some of the proposition's invalide because of certain aspects of Atomic and Quantum?


As in nuclear fission/Half-life/Atomic decay and Hawking Radiation?

[Mister Agenda]

P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A->A) or other-caused (B->A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question "why?" is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason.

This sounds like a 'first cause' premise. There are a variety of hypotheses for the initiation of our universe for which the math and physics work. I don't see how this premise would invalidate any of them.

[I_am_not_mafia]

P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A->A) or other-caused (B->A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question "why?" is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason.

This sounds like a 'first cause' premise. There are a variety of hypotheses for the initiation of our universe for which the math and physics work. I don't see how this premise would invalidate any of them.

For example what if there is no first cause?

Theists argue that their god needs to be the first cause, but what caused their god to exist? And if it didn't need a cause to exist, then why does energy need a cause to exist? After all, science already tells us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Why do we need to add an undefinable god into the mix?