The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[BULLDOG]

The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible.

The purpose of Ringtone's regressive parlor tricks is to beguile, obfuscate, and to create perpetual uncertainty. The bait and switch in the cheap parlor trick is switching "we don't know" with "therefore, god". Interestingly and ironically enough, and probably unbeknownst to our charlatan OP, these arguments were all created by people trying to defeat their own powers of reason in order to believe in a magical sky daddy. So this entire thread concept is merely an exercise, where the guy on the ledge is begging someone to give him a reason not to jump, knowing already he is going to jump regardless.

True, but in the cause of brevity, I'll just say he's a goofy idiot.

 

[Hollie]

You should take the time to proofread what you write. . . .

I'll give you one last chance to be civil and sensible.

Are you saying, then, that you did in fact know what I meant to say but instead of simply pointing that out, you made a big deal out of nothing? or are saying that God should be able to do the impossible?

I went back and read the origin excerpt from my article and agree that the observation I made is poorly expressed. Thank you for pointing that out.

Revision:

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms could possibly exist in the first place.​

Better?

I’ll give you one last chance to present a coherent argument.

In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods. You are attempting to argue from a position that is untenable in terms of any standard of debate. Ask yourself which worldview fits with empirical, day-to-day events of existence: "The naturally occurring universe is extant and was induced via laws and processes we can understand. Basic laws are never violated: a living entity dies, it stays dead. The laws of nature operate in this solar system as they appear to work as far back in time as we can see."

OR,

"The core of existence are supreme beings who create laws and then violates them per their whims. The dead don't necessarily stay dead, in fact, they will conclusively all rise again (Etc.)".

Honest debate is not being violated here by me-- I readily acknowledge the entities you assert are unknowable and beyond human perception and understanding. Given those three qualifications (among numerous others), I accept that what you assert does not exist (until such time as you offer your case for their existence). The attributes of the gods in terms of perceiving them externally are precisely the same as that of nothingness. We both agree completely on these characteristic issues, and the only bone of contention is our conclusions. You conclude that the gods being indistinguishable from nothingness supports their existence, and I conclude it defines their lack of same.

Existence becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation, doesn't it? No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it seems to be playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

Why couldn’t the gods create a rock so heavy they couldn’t lift it or microwave a burrito so hot they couldn’t eat it? You are putting limitations on the gods and I find no indication that you are the final arbiter of what the gods can and cannot do. Nothing about omnipotence would necessarily preclude the gods from the rock or burrito scenario above, unless of course, your omniscience is a counter to my claim.

 

[Ringtone]

The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible. Seems like you prefer to put on aires over effective communication. It's a common mistake among those who have recently gained only. a small amount knowledge. Take a speaking course. It will help keep you from sounding like an insufferable ass.

Yawn

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the contents of the OP, not your stunted vocabulary, intellectual bigotry, ignorance, hysterics, vapors, baby talk, disingenuousness, dissembling, bruised ego, petty insults, hypocrisy, arrogance, rudeness, let alone your insufferable snobbery.

So stop putting on airs, sunshine.

Have you an argument of substance that begins by demonstrating that you objectively and accurately grasp the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the ramifications thereof, or not?

 

[anotherlife]

Most atheistic logic is founded on the claim that faith in existing God is a circular logic.

What can be shown however that if we follow the chains of causes and effects, then every logic ever is circular

All logic is circular? How's that?

No matter what aspect you take and no matter what approach you choose, all logic about everything is circular. You can pick anything. Then reason for its causes. Then pick one of those, and reason for the cause of that. And so on. Eventually you arrive that the original thing that you picked is the reason for for your latest reason in the chain of reasons.

For example, time is circular.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For example, time is circular.

It is? I am curious to hear this one.

 

[anotherlife]

For example, time is circular.

It is? I am curious to hear this one.

You can look it up on Google plus the philosophy forum had it a few times too.

I am not a philosophy studeny, but it is also taught at philosophy classes.

If I remember correctly, it goes like this.

You determine your future as per your expectations in your past. But your past is only visible reality to you in terms of what you expect in the future.

For example if you are a chicken you run from the fox. Your past determines your future, even though you have not ever been eaten.

I am more interested in the mathematical aspects of this. Yes, every quantum mechanical equation, as well as the Maxwell electromagnetism equations function unchanged, no matter what function you put in for its time variable.

Furthermore, if you write out the equations of quantum electro dynamic in terms of relativistic factors, then the time variable falls out on both sides of the equation. So it all is really nothing but a bunch of competing and coexisting set of copies of the same thing.

In fact, modern mathematics proves that St Thomas Aquinas was right about the fundamental nature if all logic, most notably the idea of time. But that is not new either, Jesus and Pontius Pilate discuss this too.

 

[Ringtone]

Further, Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for creation out of nothing) is a theological term of art that means creation out of no priorly existing substance, not creation out of an ontological nothingness.

Edit post #73: the above should read creation out of no priorly existing material substance. . . .

 

[Hollie]

Religious arguments really don't belong in the Science and Technology Forum. Religious arguments don't fit well with any of the defining criteria for Science and Technology. There's not much about supernaturalism which is focused on the observable Universe and the consequent, definable characteristics. Miracles, supernaturalism, philosophical / religious arguments are not generally considered "testable" or "scientific."

 

[justinacolmena]

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

The word "exist" is Latin for something that "is" or it "comes out" or "becomes evident."

In Finnish it is said «tulee olemaan» that something "comes into being."

In Swedish there is a very similar expression for the existence or more literally the cause of something's existence «det kommer åstad» — literally “it comes to town” or “comes into place” as one might say “falls into place” in English.

 

[Ringtone]

No matter what aspect you take and no matter what approach you choose, all logic about everything is circular. You can pick anything. Then reason for its causes. Then pick one of those, and reason for the cause of that. And so on. Eventually you arrive that the original thing that you picked is the reason for for your latest reason in the chain of reasons.

For example, time is circular.

I still don't follow why you're saying logic is circular, and, given entropy, how is time circular? Causation is sequentially linear as well, in spite of the fact that the emergence of the causal conditions for any given effect and the effect thereof occur simultaneously. In any event, I read you other post and sounds like you are onto something interesting. Let me hear more.

 

[Ringtone]

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.

The word "exist" is Latin for something that "is" or it "comes out" or "becomes evident."

In Finnish it is said «tulee olemaan» that something "comes into being."

In Swedish there is a very similar expression for the existence or more literally the cause of something's existence «det kommer åstad» — literally “it comes to town” or “comes into place” as one might say “falls into place” in English.

I thought the words for exist in Latin were esse or existo.

 

[Kilroy2]

Science and math can determine the existence of God. If science is still evolving how could it determine that? Science is only what is known at some point in time. Science and math is nothing more than cause and effect. If the effect or cause is not known then it is speculated as to what the effect or cause will be. Of course this invites errors, beliefs and disagreements.

God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is.

If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with me?

 

[justinacolmena]

I thought the words for exist in Latin were esse or existo.

Sure. The same words have a lot of different endings and conjugations.

 

[Ringtone]

In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods.

If by gods you mean God the Creator, see OP. Thanks. As for your notion that God should be able to do the impossible, that's crazy talk.

 

[Ringtone]

Science and math can determine the existence of God. If science is still evolving how could it determine that? Science is only what is known at some point in time. Science and math is nothing more than cause and effect. If the effect or cause is not known then it is speculated as to what the effect or cause will be. Of course this invites errors, beliefs and disagreements.

God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is.

If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with me?

I'm not sure what you're saying in the emboldened sentence. Shouldn't that read can't or should the sentence end with a question mark?

One can know that God exists and what His fundamental attributes are from the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science. See OP above. One cannot fully know God or His will sans revelation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For example, time is circular.

It is? I am curious to hear this one.

You can look it up on Google plus the philosophy forum had it a few times too.

I am not a philosophy studeny, but it is also taught at philosophy classes.

If I remember correctly, it goes like this.

You determine your future as per your expectations in your past. But your past is only visible reality to you in terms of what you expect in the future.

For example if you are a chicken you run from the fox. Your past determines your future, even though you have not ever been eaten.

I am more interested in the mathematical aspects of this. Yes, every quantum mechanical equation, as well as the Maxwell electromagnetism equations function unchanged, no matter what function you put in for its time variable.

Furthermore, if you write out the equations of quantum electro dynamic in terms of relativistic factors, then the time variable falls out on both sides of the equation. So it all is really nothing but a bunch of competing and coexisting set of copies of the same thing.

In fact, modern mathematics proves that St Thomas Aquinas was right about the fundamental nature if all logic, most notably the idea of time. But that is not new either, Jesus and Pontius Pilate discuss this too.

Excellent, thank you. I have also read about quantum mechanical experiments that show the future affects the past. Mind blowing stuff.

Aquinas still understood that logic was a tool, but premises are more subjective than numbers in mathematics. 1+2=3 is objectively true, always. "Something cannot come from nothing" is not. Sonwhile Aquinas did love his arguments, even he acknowledged they were not "proof", even though he viewed them as emergent from the creation as he did mathematics. I would say he was right on both counts, right up to when he then insisted design.

 

[justinacolmena]

God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:30 - King James Version

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

www.biblegateway.com

If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with me?

MARK 1:24 KJV Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy...

Mark 1:24 KJV: Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:30 - King James Version

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

www.biblegateway.com

If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with me?

MARK 1:24 KJV Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy...

Mark 1:24 KJV: Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

God wants me to just be a good person and not worry about him. That's my god. If he exists at all.

 

[anotherlife]

No matter what aspect you take and no matter what approach you choose, all logic about everything is circular. You can pick anything. Then reason for its causes. Then pick one of those, and reason for the cause of that. And so on. Eventually you arrive that the original thing that you picked is the reason for for your latest reason in the chain of reasons.

For example, time is circular.

I still don't follow why you're saying logic is circular, and, given entropy, how is time circular? Causation is sequentially linear as well, in spite of the fact that the emergence of the causal conditions for any given effect and the effect thereof occur simultaneously. In any event, I read you other post and sounds like you are onto something interesting. Let me hear more.

I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.

Thesis is that every logic is circular. Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d. You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,... Your argument is A.

By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:

dS/dn = A*S

and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:

S(n) = exp(A*n)

The argument A of logic is the key. It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking. Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.

So, what is imagination? Imagination is something whose power changes reality. For example +1 is real, and so is -1. But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).

Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.

S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)

And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.

To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero. But this would have to be a very exact zero. And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:

accuracy * time = Planck constant

Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js

This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance. In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.

So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.

 

[Sunsettommy]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

What caused gods to begin to exist?

So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh? Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term sufficient cause and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness. Magic!

Then you can't answer his simple question.