First order logic, set theory and God

[Amarok]

Even humor fits my definition as i said it does not matter about the nature of the bee your still choosing to respond

One of the most efficient ways to trap a problematic wolf is to cause it to use its own nature against itself.  It's not that you want to have to trap and slay the wolf, but it is persistent to the point that it becomes the best solution.  Luckily its nature is so predictable that the trap is all but guaranteed when it encounters it.  It may take a day or two until it finds the trap, but when it does, it's a sure thing.

Why would you wanna trap a wolf in the first place ?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Why would you wanna trap a wolf in the first place ?

Well.... they did posit said canine being a 'Problematic' wolf.

Now, how such a beast compares to a natural or wild variety? *Shrugs*

One would hope better than their postulated 'Mindless' Drones bees.....

[Amarok]

At work.

Why would you wanna trap a wolf in the first place ?

Well.... they did posit said canine being a 'Problematic' wolf.

Now, how such a beast compares to a natural or wild variety? *Shrugs*

One would hope better than their postulated 'Mindless' Drones bees.....

Is the wolf problematic or is the man

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It was the Eskimos who figured out how to destroy the wolves in such a manner. They would take a sharp knife and freeze it in a block of seal blood. Once a wolf would find the blood encased knife, it would begin to lick at the block and its desire for blood would make it do so all the more. Eventually it's tongue would numb from the ice but in its mind it was feasting. Now this is when the final demise begins for the wolf. Once it hits the knife, it's numbed tongue is still licking at the blood, but now it has cut its tongue and is drinking its own blood. It has become damaged, weakened, and will either kill itself or be picked because it is too weak to defend itself.

[Cepheus Ace]

Below is a copy-paste of my own thread that was posted in another forum. I'm reposting it here in hopes to spark an intelligent discourse on what I believe to be the most refined proof of God's existence.

Here it goes.


*******************************************************


With that being said, I would be more than curious to see if anyone could spot a noticeable error in Hatcher's logical deduction

sigh... the whole thing can be boiled down to 

P1: everything that exists has a cause
P2: The universe exist
P3: the universe has a cause (in accordance with P1 and P2)

C1: the cause is god
P4: God exists
C2: therefore god has a cause (in accordance with above premises)
C3: the cause of the universe doesn't need a cause (no good reason is given to why that is the case) (fallacy of special pleading )

now if the god/original cause doesn't need anything to cause it into existence then why does the universe need a cause? this all amounts to a mundane statement of the obvious that not everything needs a cause.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Below is a copy-paste of my own thread that was posted in another forum. I'm reposting it here in hopes to spark an intelligent discourse on what I believe to be the most refined proof of God's existence.

Here it goes.


*******************************************************


With that being said, I would be more than curious to see if anyone could spot a noticeable error in Hatcher's logical deduction

sigh... the whole thing can be boiled down to 

P1: everything that exists has a cause
P2: The universe exist
P3: the universe has a cause (in accordance with P1 and P2)

C1: the cause is god
P4: God exists
C2: therefore god has a cause (in accordance with above premises)
C3: the cause of the universe doesn't need a cause (no good reason is given to why that is the case) (fallacy of special pleading )

now if the god/original cause doesn't need anything to cause it into existence then why does the universe need a cause? this all amounts to a mundane statement of the obvious that not everything needs a cause.

This ignores the main point of the whole thing.  Whatever you started with has to be self-sufficient to "cause" itself.  So if you determine that it doesn't need a cause, then the explanation would be supernatural, because we know cause and effect applies in the natural world.  So you would need the whole gun, the gun would need to have made itself, then you could fire the trigger. If not, you have to apply something to the natural world that isn't evident.

[polymath257]

sigh... the whole thing can be boiled down to 

P1: everything that exists has a cause
P2: The universe exist
P3: the universe has a cause (in accordance with P1 and P2)

C1: the cause is god
P4: God exists
C2: therefore god has a cause (in accordance with above premises)
C3: the cause of the universe doesn't need a cause (no good reason is given to why that is the case) (fallacy of special pleading )

now if the god/original cause doesn't need anything to cause it into existence then why does the universe need a cause? this all amounts to a mundane statement of the obvious that not everything needs a cause.

This ignores the main point of the whole thing.  Whatever you started with has to be self-sufficient to "cause" itself.  So if you determine that it doesn't need a cause, then the explanation would be supernatural, because we know cause and effect applies in the natural world.  So you would need the whole gun, the gun would need to have made itself, then you could fire the trigger. If not, you have to apply something to the natural world that isn't evident.

Actually, we know exactly the opposite: cause and effect, as classically understood, do NOT apply to the natural world. From what we know of quantum mechanics, causality is NOT a necessary feature of our universe and, in fact, many quantum events seem to be genuinely uncaused.

A big part of the problem is even defining what it means for a system A to cause an event B. If the notion of causality dictates that *whenever* A happens, then B happens, then we know causality is frequently violated.

Similarly, if you say that B would not happen unless A happens, then this is also violated in quantum systems.

Finally, if you only claim that A *affects* the probabiliy that B occurs, then there *is* causality in quantum systems, but it is clear that this sort of causality is very, very weak and does NOT allow for the type of conclusions you want to derive.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

This ignores the main point of the whole thing.  Whatever you started with has to be self-sufficient to "cause" itself.  So if you determine that it doesn't need a cause, then the explanation would be supernatural, because we know cause and effect applies in the natural world.  So you would need the whole gun, the gun would need to have made itself, then you could fire the trigger. If not, you have to apply something to the natural world that isn't evident.

Actually, we know exactly the opposite: cause and effect, as classically understood, do NOT apply to the natural world. From what we know of quantum mechanics, causality is NOT a necessary feature of our universe and, in fact, many quantum events seem to be genuinely uncaused.

A big part of the problem is even defining what it means for a system A to cause an event B. If the notion of causality dictates that *whenever* A happens, then B happens, then we know causality is frequently violated.

Similarly, if you say that B would not happen unless A happens, then this is also violated in quantum systems.

Finally, if you only claim that A *affects* the probabiliy that B occurs, then there *is* causality in quantum systems, but it is clear that this sort of causality is very, very weak and does NOT allow for the type of conclusions you want to derive.

You're still missing the point of the argument.  If the initial "cause" is the trigger, then it defaults as the "cause" for everything since it started the whole thing.  So even if cause isn't necessary now, it couldn't have evolved into a world that doesn't need cause for certain things.  I'm assuming that's why he mentioned the "the straw that broke the camel's back"  If not, we have to explain a random accident independent of cause.  As soon as you say "quantum" you have to assume a value to energy, so that would either make it the cause or part of the cause.  Unless you're suggesting that a large amount of energy just popped out of nowhere by accident and for no apparent reason. Of course that's not even observable on a small scale.  What we see is preexisting energy changing forms.

[polymath257]

Actually, we know exactly the opposite: cause and effect, as classically understood, do NOT apply to the natural world. From what we know of quantum mechanics, causality is NOT a necessary feature of our universe and, in fact, many quantum events seem to be genuinely uncaused.

A big part of the problem is even defining what it means for a system A to cause an event B. If the notion of causality dictates that *whenever* A happens, then B happens, then we know causality is frequently violated.

Similarly, if you say that B would not happen unless A happens, then this is also violated in quantum systems.

Finally, if you only claim that A *affects* the probabiliy that B occurs, then there *is* causality in quantum systems, but it is clear that this sort of causality is very, very weak and does NOT allow for the type of conclusions you want to derive.

You're still missing the point of the argument.  If the initial "cause" is the trigger, then it defaults as the "cause" for everything since it started the whole thing.  So even if cause isn't necessary now, it couldn't have evolved into a world that doesn't need cause for certain things.  I'm assuming that's why he mentioned the "the straw that broke the camel's back"  If not, we have to explain a random accident independent of cause.  As soon as you say "quantum" you have to assume a value to energy, so that would either make it the cause or part of the cause.  Unless you're suggesting that a large amount of energy just popped out of nowhere by accident and for no apparent reason. Of course that's not even observable on a small scale.  What we see is preexisting energy changing forms.

No, I am getting the argument. But there are three rebuttals.

One with the axioms and the inability to construct the necessary system V without a specific axiom allowing such.

One that says that P1 should only state that *finite* systems have causes (because that is the most we can extrapolate to from our knowledge).

And one that says P1 is simply false in the real world: we know of systems that are uncaused in the real world.

And no, the energy is NOT the cause in a quantum system: if anything it is an effect that is caused by the configuration of the system. But the specific results of a quantum system are *not* caused: there is nothing prior to them that determines what they will be.

And yes, quantum systems do allow for energy to appear (and disappear) in short time intervals. This is a measured effect related to the uncertainty principle. In particular, it explains the spread of masses for systems of very short duration.

As for 'pre-existing energy changing forms', that begs the question of *why* the forms change. And there is no 'cause' for those changes.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You're still missing the point of the argument.  If the initial "cause" is the trigger, then it defaults as the "cause" for everything since it started the whole thing.  So even if cause isn't necessary now, it couldn't have evolved into a world that doesn't need cause for certain things.  I'm assuming that's why he mentioned the "the straw that broke the camel's back"  If not, we have to explain a random accident independent of cause.  As soon as you say "quantum" you have to assume a value to energy, so that would either make it the cause or part of the cause.  Unless you're suggesting that a large amount of energy just popped out of nowhere by accident and for no apparent reason. Of course that's not even observable on a small scale.  What we see is preexisting energy changing forms.

No, I am getting the argument. But there are three rebuttals.

One with the axioms and the inability to construct the necessary system V without a specific axiom allowing such.

One that says that P1 should only state that *finite* systems have causes (because that is the most we can extrapolate to from our knowledge).

And one that says P1 is simply false in the real world: we know of systems that are uncaused in the real world.

And no, the energy is NOT the cause in a quantum system: if anything it is an effect that is caused by the configuration of the system. But the specific results of a quantum system are *not* caused: there is nothing prior to them that determines what they will be.

And yes, quantum systems do allow for energy to appear (and disappear) in short time intervals. This is a measured effect related to the uncertainty principle. In particular, it explains the spread of masses for systems of very short duration.

As for 'pre-existing energy changing forms', that begs the question of *why* the forms change. And there is no 'cause' for those changes.

But the rebuttals don't work.  You're assuming out of nowhere there is energy.  Well, where did it come from?  Even in quantum mechanics you assume energy, even if it's very small amounts.   What are you suggesting, "pop" and then there was energy? You can say something is a good rebuttal if you can't even demonstrate the process.  If I'm wrong, show me a video of someone making energy out of nothing.  And it would even be harder back then if we're assuming "no cause."  If you can't demonstrate it with a cause (someone prepping it), how do you expect it to happen without?