Proof of God

[MySiddhi]

It appears you are failing to understand the implications of epistemology to the mapping of logical systems onto epistemological constructs.

 

That you seem unwilling to address this issue would lead one either to the conclusion that you do not understand epistemology--which I sincerely doubt given your apparent intelligence--or that you are aware of this weakness in your proof and you wish to avoid discussing it.

 

C'mon, play the game here: discuss the validity of your logical formulae on the English equivalents you use with the instance "nothing."

 

An expert is a person who avoids small error as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy, :hihi:

Buffy

I have noted that you have been taking some semantic issue with the word "thing" as if it has any sort of confusion inherent in it. lol

 

Your point bored me beyond measure and I was hoping to avoid it... but since I have destroyed everything else you had to say... carry on with this point... if you wish.

 

I will start by giving you my philosophy on epistemology since you feel epistemology is relevant;

 

Natural Rationalism; the epistemological belief that the imagination can comprehend and discover absolute truth (tautological propositions) and that (imaginary sensual input) reasoning (when used tautologically) should have primacy over belief and ethics. Natural Rationalism is also the belief that the real sensual inputs (physical senses, including extended measurement) are conditioned and limited by the imagination; therefore the real sensual inputs should only be used as a secondary reflection for belief and ethics or as a testing method for verifying empirical evidence of non tautological propositions (contingent or probable truth). Tautological propositions are isomorphic to the existence of empirical facts; therefore it is unnecessary to test the empirical evidence of a tautological fact. However, by seeking to experimentally verify a tautology the accuracy and scope of use of the real sensual inputs can be verified and expanded with respects to there use in perception; including evolving the scientific field of empirical evidence for contingent truth theorization and empirical evidence verification.

 

Now if you could so kindly express your argument as formally and coherently as possible I will respond promptly.

 

cheers

[MySiddhi]

Please don't try to avoid the question. Why are you so special that you can see god everywhere you look?

 

You haven't proved anything. You are arguing for a fantasy, and claiming to be some kind of Shaman or Prophet, expecting us to just take your word for it.

 

I don't buy it. I would have to be a fool to buy it.

 

Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment;

Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment intuition.

 

--Rumi

[Overdog]

...

I will start by giving you my philosophy on epistemology since you feel epistemology is relevant;

 

Natural Rationalism; the epistemological belief that the imagination can comprehend and discover absolute truth (tautological propositions) and that (imaginary sensual input) reasoning (when used tautologically) should have primacy over belief and ethics.

 

Please explain how this is different from Fantasy.

And please answer my question, what makes you so special?

[Overdog]

Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment;

Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment intuition.

 

--Rumi

 

You are still not answering my question.

[Buffy]

I have noted that you have been taking some semantic issue with the word "thing" as if it has any sort of confusion inherent in it. lol

That you think that this is trivial is quite enlightening as to your experience with epistemology.

Your point bored me beyond measure and I was hoping to avoid it... but since I have destroyed everything else you had to say... carry on with this point... if you wish.

If you want to declare victory, so be it, however the "boring" points are usually the most interesting ones!

I will start by giving you my philosophy on epistemology since you feel epistemology is relevant;

That's actually simply a definition and sheds no light whatsoever on your justification for the use of the word "nothing"--and note that your challenge here is to justify it as a proposition--nor your understanding or comprehension of its nuances and ambiguities.

 

Indeed you seem to be of the belief that any particular statement is true or false exclusively. With no notion that "judgment"--using the strict Natural Deduction meaning of the word--is relevant or meaningful.

 

Given that its easy to think that the reason you continue to avoid it is that you are aware that there is not justification for your argument.

Now if you could so kindly express your argument as formally and coherently as possible I will respond promptly.

I did, although you continue to pretend not to notice, so I will happily continue to repeat my questions. I'm really quite patient!

 

I will take the time to go through the logical portions of your proof, and in absence of any explanation from you as to why any of it is relevant to your conclusion, give you the benefit of the doubt that your string of tautologies is simply a mechanism for obfuscation! :hyper:

 

The very first law in advertising is to avoid the concrete promise and cultivate the delightfully vague, :hihi:

Buffy

[MySiddhi]

Please explain how this is different from Fantasy.

And please answer my question, what makes you so special?

 

Please explain to me how an automobile, or phone, or jet, or spaceship is not fantasy to the mind of one in the dark ages.

 

What makes me special? I don't know, a large frontal cortex. LOL

[MySiddhi]

If you want to declare victory, so be it, however the "boring" points are usually the most interesting ones!

 

Ok, lets see if we can do this....

 

"nothing" is the negation of "thing"

 

So, we need but define "thing" to answer your semantic challenge with reference to puting the negation of thing in the context of my equations...

 

O, wait here is a dictionary; LOL

 

thing: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

 

1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

 

I suppose that should do for our purposes.

[Buffy]

Ok, lets see if we can do this....

 

"nothing" is the negation of "thing"

 

So, we need but define "thing" to answer your semantic challenge with reference to puting the negation of thing in the context of my equations...

 

O, wait here is a dictionary; LOL

 

thing: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

 

1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.

 

I suppose that should do for our purposes.

Not really. Read 3958. Or simply address my question earlier in this thread: "I see nothing" in the conventional sense means "I see air" which is "not nothing." the list goes on.

 

The statement above:

Nothing can be both true and false in the same respect at the same time.

has at least two different interpretations. Discuss.

 

Our rash faults make trivial price of serious things we have, not knowing them until we know their grave, :hihi:

Buffy

[Overdog]

Please explain to me how an automobile, or phone, or jet, or spaceship is not fantasy to the mind of one in the dark ages.

 

What makes me special? I don't know, a large frontal cortex. LOL

 

Are you saying your mind is in the dark age? Well, I can't argue with that.

 

You are not arguing with people who's minds are in the dark age.

 

You don't know what makes you so special that you can see god where other's can't?

 

Sorry dude. If you can't answer that question your credibility is pretty much shot. Stop wasting our time.

[Buffy]

Stop wasting our time.

Don't worry, Mr. Dog, I'm working hard to waste his time for you. It's my job! :cheer:

 

Get a second-hand guitar, chances are you'll go far, :phones:

Buffy

[Overdog]

Don't worry, Mr. Dog, I'm working hard to waste his time for you. It's my job! :cheer:

 

Get a second-hand guitar, chances are you'll go far, :phones:

Buffy

 

Remind me to never get into a debate with you on propositional calculus!:eek2:

[MySiddhi]

Not really. Read 3958. Or simply address my question earlier in this thread: "I see nothing" in the conventional sense means "I see air" which is "not nothing." the list goes on.

 

The statement above:

Nothing can be both true and false in the same respect at the same time.

has at least two different interpretations. Discuss.

 

Our rash faults make trivial price of serious things we have, not knowing them until we know their grave, :phones:

Buffy

 

I have addressed the metaphor verse literal issue already... but here goes again;

 

If you take the statement "I see nothing" literal one can assume that nothing can actually be seen, which is absurd!

 

When speaking metaphorically one can say just about anything. This is why metaphor is irrelevant to logic.

 

 

Regarding;

 

"Something cannot be both true and false in the same respect at the same time."

 

My axiom here is non-contradiction. Instead of "something" I could use "a proposition" and this would avoid your semantic inquiry on nothing;

 

"A proposition cannot be both true and false."

[MySiddhi]

Well, thanks to you... I have updated my proof so that the axiom is in clearer language preventing any semantic troubles via proof quantification of nothing into the proof system (axiom) of the system (propositions proven)... which I guess would have trouble with Godel's theorem. :phones:

 

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/God_Geometric.html

 

 

Maybe you can find some more goodies to discuss in my actual essay in the link.

 

Regards

[Overdog]

Maybe you can find some more goodies to discuss in my actual essay in the link.

 

Don't think that you can just ignore me MySiddhi...

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you are so special.

[MySiddhi]

Don't think that you can just ignore me MySiddhi...

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you are so special.

 

I already took a guess at it. I have a large prefrontal cortex.

 

Besides that... God choses whomever he wishes to do his will.

 

I can teach you how I train, think, and act... and you can have any ability I have and more.

[gareth]

MySiddhi - you are no more special than anyone else on this forum. I know that for a fact.

 

If you are fortunate enough to be blessed with a larger than average brain, try not to wallow in the superiority of your own intelligence.

 

Try to refrain from calling God 'he', it'll create many negative associations, and if you do honestly think you have been chosen for some kind of higher purpose, then I wouldn't mention it here as you will simply be perceived as a lunatic.

[nutronjon]

Its unfortunately becoming a bit more than disingenuous of you continue to claim unfair persecution in the face of the oft-times restated explanation of the distinctions made by our rules, which are more accepting than your slanderous and false claims, made all the more egregious by the fact that you have very non-sensically and obnoxiously blamed one of our most religious members of doing this "baiting."

 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

People are absolutely able to say the words "I believe God exists" on this Forum. If you are going to say "the existence of God is a Fact" then you have crossed over into the realm of science, and it requires proof.

 

What MySiddhi is doing here is actually *supported* insofar as he is trying to provide proof, as opposed to what you have done in so far here which is to *demand* *acceptance* of the existence of God, which is non-scientific and considered Proselytizing.

 

The fact that he has provided a proof of course means that it can be critiqued according to the Scientific Method, and that's what's going on here: while he's been warned about the consequences of demanding acceptance of calls to unsupportable metaphysics, he's being given free reign to try to support his proof.

 

To try to make this even clearer, please consider the following point you just made to coldcreation:

"By what authority" is indeed the point. For those who hold different opinions, you are *demanding* that *you* are the sole authority.

 

The issue simply comes down to the fact that "God is Nature" is an opinion.

 

We consider it very offensive to demand that other people agree with your opinion.

 

Boerseun believes strongly that there's no evidence of God and thus that God does not exist. I believe that God is Nature, but that God really doesn't care much about us, and if its a Him, then he's just running his Tonka truck off the top steps while if its a Her then she's probably much more interested in the ducks and bunnies. Jim Colyer believes Christ is the Savior of us all.

 

What links all of the three of us is that we all understand that these beliefs are opinions, and that allows all of us to get along quite well together here on this forum.

 

By continuing to stir the pot and try to claim persecution and create conflict, you make everyone here quite angry at you no matter what their beliefs are.

 

Don't worry, I'm quite patient. I'll continue to try to explain this to you until you understand.

 

Why, he is the prince's jester, :phones:

Buffy

 

Buffy stop the power struggle. Look at all those words, and none say anything about why we can not hold God and nature are one and the same thing. Your reasoning for disliking me, is not the reasoning needed for explaining why we can not consider God and nature as the same thing, and if we do consider God and nature as the same thing, then what has to be proven?