Proof of God

[MySiddhi]

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

 

I personally think everyone is quite special and has gifts that would shock themselves if they only understood their own nature.... and didn't resist the divinity within themselves.

 

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.

 

I will do my best. My greatest gift is not that I use gross intelligence,... but that I have the ability to learn from other people... and use their intelligence for my own end. Their brain becomes an extension of my own. I suppose that is more of a psychic thing though.

 

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.

 

I hope all of you will come to realize you are chosen for a higher purpose.

 

O, I lost my mind years ago... and I hope I never find it.

[coldcreation]

There are at least three outstanding issues that have not been addressed. Here they are again:

 

If anyone disagrees with the relation 'god-supernatural' then the burden of proof is on him/her/them to show that god is related or attached to the physical world. Simply saying "nothing is the cause of nothing" means nothing.

 

In another way, if anyone thinks god is a physical entity, property or manifestation of the physical world, they must show empirical evidence to support the claim.

 

Saying a chicken came before an egg means nothing.

 

The fallacy used (amongst others) as a proof to argue that god must exist in this thread so far is a fallacy known as *** hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other. Its negation, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

 

 

By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

 

This chimera has yet to be substantiated.

 

Proof be verbosity: excessively verbose mathematical proof that may or may not actually prove the result, was presented in the OP a proof of the existence of god. All the proof showed, in fact, is that the author doesn't fully grasp the concepts he/she are writing about. Students often fall into this trap by presenting such proofs in the hopes of hiding their lack of understanding of the subject (in this case He, It, god).

 

 

 

"If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit."

(see argumentum verbosium)

 

 

 

 

 

...what makes you so special that you can see god where other's can't?

 

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

 

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

 

 

This is nothing less than (amongst other fallacies) a wishful thinking fallacy: the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality.

 

 

 

...God and nature are one and the same thing... if we do consider God and nature as the same thing, then what has to be proven?

 

Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

 

What makes you think the supernatural and physical are one and the same thing?

 

Or, if you prefer: What makes you think that what is observed in the universe (measurable by weight, motion, and resistance) is attributable to god?

 

 

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.

 

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."

 

This not an answer. If not a fallacy of the Beard, it is nothing less than a Equivocation; ambiguity arising from the misleading use of the words "nothing," "something" and "proposition."

 

 

 

I hope all of you will come to realize you are chosen for a higher purpose.

 

And what "higher purpose" might that be?

 

O, I lost my mind years ago... and I hope I never find it.

 

That just about explains everything. :phones:

 

 

 

CC

[Buffy]

Oh my this was fun!

 

Okay, so it’s clear MySiddhi that what’s necessary is a formal refutation of your proof. You’ve made the claim above that it’s a formal proof, and thus should stand on its own under scrutiny of Formal Logic and I have approached it in this way.

 

As you have been unwilling to entertain a strict definition of the words “something” “thing” and “nothing” and since from the point of view of Formal Logic (whether using Natural Deduction or Axiomatic Systems), these are simply Propositions that can be abstracted, I have taken that step in analyzing your theorem.

 

Although it becomes clear that your unspecified Propositions are indeed critical to your translations of both your Tautologies and your Deduction, by abstracting this in a way that is legitimate within Formal Logic, your theorem seems to come apart at the seams.

 

But don’t take my word for it, let’s just dive in….hang on… “You can't take three from two, two is less than three, so you look at the four in the eights place… “

Definition;

By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

We’ll pass on this because it’s not relevant to an understanding of the logical validity of the proposed theorem, but return to it in the conclusion.

(A1) Something cannot be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

This is a standard axiom of Predicate Calculus and there’s nothing to say about these with the very important exception of the fact that it only refers to Well-Formed Propositions. The use of the word “something” here is inexact and colloquial, and this this should be restated as:

A Proposition cannot be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

Propositions that are not Well-Formed include vague, dualistic terms—quite common in colloquial or idiomatic speech—or quantum-mechanical phenomena (which by the way, some people attribute to God, which we will ignore for now).

 

For the purposes of clarity of exposition, we will eschew the use of the term “nothing” since it can be applied at a later point (and as we will see, becomes unnecessary). Since the intent of the author is to imply an Exclusive-Or relationship between the terms “nothing” and “something” (or in some instances merely “thing”) they are replaced here by not-A and A respectively.

 

Please note that the claim has been made that this is a formal system and as such should be valid no matter what the Proposition A is, although by the time we get to the Deduction 1, we’ll see that we’ve strayed so far from formal logic that it the deduction bears no relationship whatsoever to the preceding Tautologies.

(T1) A is A.

(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)

Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;

A ≡ A “A equals A” Law of Identity

That’s pretty straight forward, and is the usual meaning of what the word “is” is. (Bill Clinton)

A → A “A involves A” Reflexivity of Implication

The logical statement is translated as “If A is true then A is true” thus making it “reflexive.” However the use of the word “involves” is colloquial and non-standard and its use here is invalid for any special meanings attached to the word “involves.”

idA: A → A “A has the property of being A” Identity Morphism

Under the notion of Morphism—a central element of Abstract Algebra—this translates as “The elements of A map onto the elements of A” thus making it “an Identity Morphism” as opposed to to A → B where there exists a mapping of all elements of A onto elements of B (homomorphism if there are elements of B which are not mapped and isomorphism if all elements of B have correspondents in A). However the use of the phrase “A has the property of being A” is colloquial and non-standard and leads to the false implication that a Proposition is a property of itself.

 

This has been justified in earlier posts by the colloquial use of expressions like “Blue has the property of being blue” which is certainly an obvious Tautology in common usage but its validity as part of a logical proof is belied by translating it into a Formal Logical statement as in “A is true has the property that A is true” which is nonsensical, whereas under the actual definition of Morphism, it translates to “a System which contains the proposition ‘A is true’ can be mapped on to a system in which the proposition ‘A is true’” which is a genuine Tautology. To be much stricter in the specific example is to translate the phrase into “the color blue—the noun—have the property of being the color blue—the adjective.” Thus it can clearly be seen that the argument to bootstrapping is false, although despite protestations to the contrary, bootstrapping is indeed the goal and is used extensively later.

(∃Ax)(A = x) “A exists as A” Reflexivity of Existence

The logical statement translates into “in a system where the Proposition A exists, there exists a proposition x that is A.” The key problem with the phrase “A exists as A” is that in the colloquial understanding it implies that A is always true, although in fact it could be false; something that needs to be taken into account wherever this Tautology is used.

(T2) Not-A is uninvolved. - A is self-causal.

(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]

Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

The logical formula translates to “A is equivalent to A and A implies A.” In Predicate Calculus the truth table for the entire statement is equivalent to simply A≡A, which is always true: since (A → A) is also always true, the conjunction and implication clause can be eliminated as they add no explanatory power. It will become clear as we go through the following Tautologies that misrepresentations of the specific meanings of the clauses presented are essential to making the argument work, it’s very useful to understand this logical transformation into simple Tautological Identity as we will see in a moment. This should not be mistaken for a misunderstanding of the nuances explicated in T1, which are acknowledged in the following, just that in absence of their misapplication they are indeed redundant from the point of view of determining the validity of statements about the system.

 

In this one however we see the first key example of straying far into misapplication of logic: the first clause is “A implies A” which has absolutely *no* implication of “causality”. This is the most fundamental concept in Probability and Statistics: “Correlation is not Causation.” In Formal Logic “implication” is very strict in saying (in probabilistic terms) that “the correlation coefficient of A to B is 1.0, thus ensuring that if A is true, then B is true, but there is *absolutely no* temporal implication that “A happened before B, and there is an explicit, physical (or even metaphysical) cause-and-effect link between A and B.” This is a logical jump that is totally unfounded.

 

Why any of this has anything to do with “involvement” or “consciousness” is completely unclear.

(T3) Not-A is nondescript. - A is self-descriptive.

(A ≡ A)∧(idA: A → A) [intentional]

 

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

As discussed in the previous Tautology, both clauses are always true, and therefore the formula simply reduces to A≡A.

 

The important thing to note here is that the argument *has indeed* made the invalid colloquial tie between a Proposition being a Property of itself, which is not strictly true as an interpretation of logic, only as a epistemological mapping where due to the limitations of a specific language one word is mapped onto two different semantic meanings.

 

“Self-descriptive” as discussed above is an affectation of language and can and should be disambiguated—unless of course it is an intentional appeal to bootstrapping, which as we start to see here is essential: this is the first attempt to tie “self-descriptive” to the notion of “intentional” although the two notions are only related by proximity and not through any explanatory justification.

 

The word “intentional” just being there does not create a logical equivalence or even implication.

(T4) Not-A is nonexistence. - A is essentially existence.

(A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x)

As discussed in the previous Tautology, both clauses are always true, and therefore the formula simply reduces to A≡A.

 

The terms “nonexistence” or “existence” are here purely definitional, although as has been stated in the preamble here, this is a place where there is a specific need to use the terms “nothing” and “something” in order to make some sense of what is going on in the theorem. But since the clause (∃Ax)(A = x) is simply a restatement of “existence” this turns out to be the only one of the Tautologies that passes without much complaint.

(T5) Not-A is made of Not-A. – (For all A), A is made of A.

(A → A)∧(idA: A → A) [pantheism]

Again, both clauses in the conjunction are always true, and since they are logically equivalent to (A ≡ A)

that statement can be used in its place, ignoring the false nuances.

 

Like T3, the invalid appeal to “A is a property of itself” is made. Why this implies “Pantheism” is not at all clear however.

(T6) Not-A is the cause of Not-A. - A is the cause of all Propositions.

(A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [omnipotent]

Again, both clauses in the conjunction are always true, and since they are logically equivalent to (A ≡ A), that statement can be used in its place, ignoring the false nuances.

 

As noted in the discussion of T2, the first clause is the invalid conclusion that Logical Implication is equivalent to “causality” and is totally unfounded.

 

The second clause is turned completely on its head: the English translation given trying to say “If A is True, then all Propositions in the system are true, while the clause itself simply says that “in a system which includes A, there is a proposition which is A.” This is an amazing leap of logic!

 

Of course the reason for completely torturing the second clause is that because if the interpretation were valid, then in an even more strained manner, the concept of “omnipotent” could conceivably be applied, but only with a bunch of other assumptions about “sole causation” being equivalent to “all powerful” and many other concepts that are not at all mentioned.

(T7) Nowhere and at no time has Not-A existed. - A has always existed everywhere.

(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect, omnipresent]

 

Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.

One more time, both clauses in the conjunction are always true, and since they are logically equivalent to (A ≡ A), that statement can be used in its place, ignoring the false nuances.

 

This time though, for some reason that is not clear, temporality and location are introduced, although logic accounts for neither and they add nothing to the fact that there are now six identical copies of the same Tautological truth value.

 

The first clause seems to be ignored in the English translation thus not being manipulated as it was in T5. The second clause is correctly interpreted as “If A exists in the system, then A exists in the system, and if A does not exist in the system, A does not exist in the system” but as noted referencing location/temporality is superfluous from the point of view of formal logic.

 

Now to stop for a minute and take a look at the fact that the Tautologies are all logically equivalent, they provide no explanatory value in determining the truth or falsity of any statement made about the system.

As stated in T1 each of the individual clauses used in T2-T7 represent slightly different aspects of the colloquial term “identity” and all are individually Tautologies by themselves. Thus by definition any permutation of Conjunction (“and”) of any number of them are therefore also Tautologies, and why it is useful to state them with this specific set of 6 permutations is not explained. Are the other permutions not meaningful? Redundant?

 

As stated in the responses to T2-T7, there are very significant mistranslations of the underlying Tautological clauses, which appear to be in order to justify statements that are clearly unjustified.

Finally, with respect to the mappings to the English terms given in square brackets in T1-T7, there is no apparent rhyme or reason to them have been given no justification whatsoever from the viewpoint of Formal Logic, although it’s certainly interesting to note that they are by far the most extreme and unsupportable of the unexplained terms used so far, especially “invincible”: where did *that* come from?

 

Now let’s look at the resulting deduction:

(D1) One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere.

Before examining the proof, let’s just take a quick look at the terms used within the deduction:

• Self-causal: As mentioned in T6, “implication” is not causality, and the use of this term is unsupported by that Tautology.
  
• Self-descriptive/is made of: As mentioned in T5, Propositions are not properties of themselves except in a colloquial sense, so self-description is unsupported by that Tautology.
  
• Cause of all things: As mentioned in T2, a great leap from the underlying logic is made to say that “A is true implies all things”, and the use of this phrase is unsupported—and laughably so—by that Tautology.
  

This obviously does not bode well for the proof itself, but let’s proceed…

Proof--The true definition of A neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the A defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses Not-A beyond the nature of the A defined.

You’ll notice that without the reference to the seemingly idiosyncratic use of the terms “thing” “something” (assumed to be different terms for the same, uh “thing,” namely A) and “nothing” (its converse, Not-A), this point seems nonsensical, but it does represent a translation of the unsubstantiated translations of the Tautologies given.

 

The first sentence seems to say that a “true definition” of A—assumed to mean in the logical sense, meaning “not false”—doesn’t include any statements (really, axioms!) which are not part of the “nature” of A: if “nature” is simply means that if an axiom Y is an attribute of A it is included in the definition and if it is not an attribute it is not. Fairly straightforward, although somewhat tortured in its exposition.

There is necessarily for each individual existent A a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition.

As mentioned above neither T2 nor T6 support the notion of causality, so the first sentence is not supported. As a result, there is no requirement that it be included in its definition.

If a given number of individual A’s exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less.

This sentence comes in out of the blue. There is absolutely no reference in any of the Tautologies about a count, and although the Identity Morphism is invoked, any Homomorphisms or Isomorphisms from the “given number of individual A’s” is completely unaddressed and unjustified, and although it is part of the Reducio ad Absurdum to follow, the lack of justification destroys the contradiction claimed below.

Consequently, the cause of each A, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual A.

Ignoring for the moment the lack of support for the notion of causality, the fact that it is being based on the logical statement (A → A) would seem to indicate that the notion that “A is the cause of A” is being used to support the notion that “B, not equivalent to A, is the cause of A.” There is nothing in any of the Tautologies that has any definition of a relationship between two different propositions and is thus completely unsupported by the Tautologies.

It therefore follows that, every A which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of A [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible.

The first sentence introduces a new notion of “individuals” which Proposition A “consists of”: since Propositions do not by definition have constituent parts, there is no obvious support for this statement. In the second sentence, the notion that “existence appertains to the nature of A” references T4, which only says that existence implies existence, but does not reference its nature, so it’s not clear why T4 supports this.

 

The following clause “existence must necessarily be included in its definition explicitly references the fallacious interpretation noted in T6. The last clause in conjunction with the immediately preceding clause is of course a marvelous example of circular reasoning, or in other words, an example of a Rhetorical Tautology, which could be supported if the individual parts were, correctly supported by Logical Tautologies, but unfortunately, they are not.

But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several A’s; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

The first sentence here is clearly a call to proof by contradiction, however as noted, there is no contradiction in the previous quote because it’s constituent parts—if you will—are not themselves supported as true or false, thus the Reducio ad Absurdum fails.

Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1].

T2 shows the term “consciousness” but presents absolutely no justification for doing so. T2 makes the unjustified claim that implication is equivalent to causality, and to take this at face value, a claim is further being made that “self-causation” is equivalent to “consciousness” which is unsupported as a claim of ontology, let alone one of epistemology or Predicate Calculus, as if the later has anything to say on the subject.

 

The final point that “Consiousness…is the cause of the creation of all things” also has no supporting Tautology, but more importantly introduces the notion of “creation” without defining it. If one were to define creation as anything involving transformation of matter from one form of matter to another, or even into more complex forms of matter—perfectly legitimate definitions of the colloquial term—then “creation” can be effected by non-biological processes.

 

If that is the case, then simple mineral catalysts can be argued to “have consciousness” so…

Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

…and God could well be a rock. Q.E.D.

Since it appears that none of the foregoing appears to make any sense whatsoever, it would be fruitless to attempt to address any of the implications that are claimed as a result of the foregoing, so I won’t bother.

 

This is a fabulous example though of how far one can go astray in the misapplication of logic.

 

Finally, let’s return to the Definition proposed at the beginning of the theorem:

Definition;

By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

Let’s quickly run through the—to emphasize undefined—adjectives used here:

• Eternal: A temporal notion that as pointed out previously is not supported, and in terms of logic is superfluous. Its appearance seems to be an appeal to the notion that nothing is Eternal except God….except well, by definition, The Universe, which would at least support a *belief* in Pagan notions of God, but would not provide any evidentiary support for “Existence.”
  
• Omnipresent: Usually defined as “everywhere at all times” but as stated previously, this is an unsupported and irrelevant call to temporality and location.
  
• Omnipotent: this would seem to try to appeal to the argument of “cause of all things” which as stated previously is not supported by the logic of the system.
  
• Infinite: This word is used nowhere else in the proof.
  
• Pantheistic Energy: Pantheism is explicit mapping between Nature and God, and if it is an Isomorphism, then there is only one God as is “deduced” with no foundational proof in the theorem through contradiction. Of course the ironic thing about this is that Pantheism is antithetical to the vast majority of religions in existence today. If you are a mainstream Jew, Christian or Muslim, you should be aware that this proof is basically telling you that your notion of God is false and it would be foolish of you to support this theorem!
  
• sustaining: Yet another word that appears nowhere else in the theorem.
  

Now in conclusion, it’s clear that the development of the Formal Logic used in the proposed theorem required quite a bit of knowledge of the topic, and in previous posts, an understanding of the principles of Formal Logic have been demonstrated. However the *application* of the Formal Logic is so transparently false, that it either demonstrates a complete inability to understand the methods of application of Logic, or it is a purposeful attempt to use language and symbols that are unfamiliar to the vast majority of those who read it and through an impenetrable exposition using mystifying terms seeks to create a cloak of legitimacy for an argument that is really no more than: I know God Exists because I know God Exists” with the ultimate joke being that the proof of God’s existence is….a Tautology!

 

An economist is a man who states the obvious in terms of the incomprehensible, :phones:

Buffy

[ughaibu]

However one of the implications of your claimed Tautologies is the statement:

Nothing = ~Something

And thus we can conclude from your Axiom:

~(A1) = "Nothing" can be true and false at the same time

Thus making all of your Tautologies undecidable!

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

My tautologies aren't nothing silly. So, this statement is actually true as a variation of my axiom.

Here's the relevant proof:dfnul2 - Metamath Proof Explorer It's not clear to me what "nothing" means in the second quote, above, I guess you two agree about this. Was this matter resolved in the subsequent squabbling?

[modest]

"You're the Slayer, and we're, like, the Slayerettes"

 

~modest

[gareth]

I personally think everyone is quite special and has gifts that would shock themselves if they only understood their own nature.... and didn't resist the divinity within themselves.

 

Agreed. But it still makes you no more special than anyone else. I also agree that unlocking the divinity within ourselves is the only way to reach beyond our grasp as human beings.

 

 

 

My greatest gift is not that I use gross intelligence,... but that I have the ability to learn from other people... and use their intelligence for my own end. Their brain becomes an extension of my own. I suppose that is more of a psychic thing though.

 

Being open minded is not psychic. I use other people's thoughts on the internet and forums such as these to extend my own brain. I wouldn't quite put it in the way that you have though - your description of yourself makes you sound a bit like a computer virus. Luckilly I have a good firewall installed (I may add you to the list of exceptions though). You do seem to have done a fairly good job of dissolving your ego though. How have you done this - through meditation? If so, do you have any advice for amateur meditators?

 

 

 

I hope all of you will come to realize you are chosen for a higher purpose.

 

I suppose the whole point of life is to make the world a slightly better place than when we first found it. That may be a higher purpose or not, it doesn't matter one way or another, as long as the outcome is the same.

 

O, I lost my mind years ago... and I hope I never find it.

 

It's always in the last place you look! Seriousy, I think there a still a few crumbs of ego floating around though, but I'm sure you're more than capable of removing them.

 

Judging from your name and the ideas you have expressed, I would say that you have come on to this path via Hinduism. Of course, if we follow that path for long enough, the point of access becomes irrelevant.

 

An interesting thing about Hinduism is that Science and Religion are almost treated as one field, which is why I think you have attempted to define a formula to prove the existence of God.

 

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that a scientific formula could be made to help define belief in karma (notice I didn't say prove the existence of :phones:). The whole idea of balance between positivity and negativity is a fairly accepted idea in science, so I am sure there would be a pre-existing scientific theory that reflects this.

 

Can you think of one?

[gareth]

I personally think everyone is quite special and has gifts that would shock themselves if they only understood their own nature

 

If you did understand your own nature, then why would you be shocked by it? Surely any 'shock' at discovering these gifts would mean you hadn't really understood your own nature in the first place, and thus you wouldn't have these gifts.

 

I can see where you're coming from MySiddhi, but I do not think that someone with such advanced spiritual insights would be connected to the internet. I assume that people like that can often be found in places like caves and on the tops of mountains, and I doubt they own computers (or anything else for that matter).

[nutronjon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

...God and nature are one and the same thing... if we do consider God and nature as the same thing, then what has to be proven?

 

Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

 

What makes you think the supernatural and physical are one and the same thing?

 

Or, if you prefer: What makes you think that what is observed in the universe (measurable by weight, motion, and resistance) is attributable to god?

 

Who said anything about the supernatural? It sure wasn't me. Look at my signiture.

 

The answer to your last question, is philosophy and the reasoning of men like Socrates and Cicero and Thomas Jefferson. Science got cut off from its philosophical roots by education for technology, and this a terrible misfortune.

[MySiddhi]

You do seem to have done a fairly good job of dissolving your ego though. How have you done this - through meditation? If so, do you have any advice for amateur meditators?

 

There is nothing wrong with the ego itself. Problem arises only when we identify with the ego.... or if we are stuck in it.

 

The ego is your mind.... all of your thoughts... the story you tell yourself.... the endless chatter in your head.

 

The only way to destroy the ego is to stop thinking. lol

 

Sit in a comfortable position (not too comfortable) and just relax and start to let go of all of your thoughts... don't hold onto them... become aware of the thoughts as you just watch unaffected they will become quite (the ego looses it's power when it is watched) then as the thoughts start to become more subtle you can start to become aware of your feelings, physical senses... until even that ceases ...

 

At this point your entire brain will be resonating at the same frequency, that of the earth. It will increase your intelligence, make you more virtuous, increase your spiritual powers... etc... etc...

 

People use different methods to achieving this state... I personally use a dual polarized intention; such as "I feel, I am, Vital Flux" whenever my mind starts to create thoughts again I go back to this intention and then I become quiet... and I keep doing this over and over.

 

Flux is like a notion of continuous death (or creation) and Vital is a notion of the eternal. So they are polar opposites. If I used only one polarity as an intention my mind will reverse the intention.

 

The goal is to trick the mind/ego... the ego has zero "power"... it should only be used to understand things...

 

I could probably talk on forever about magik... but not sure if you are following or interested... so I will keep it short...

 

Here is three exercises that focus on the three main aspects of cultivation;

 

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

 

"Truthfulness" will turn you into a Siddha. "Forbearance" will turn you into a Buddha. "Benevolence" is central to both... the more Benevolence you cultivate the more of a Siddha and Buddha you will become.

 

your description of yourself makes you sound a bit like a computer virus

 

Memes are considered informational viruses.

 

Seriousy, I think there a still a few crumbs of ego floating around though, but I'm sure you're more than capable of removing them.

 

Without an ego one would individually cease to exists.

 

 

Judging from your name and the ideas you have expressed, I would say that you have come on to this path via Hinduism.

 

I am a Christian... but learn from all paths.

 

I can prove the Christian God as rigorously as I can prove the nature of God (though I am far from done with the proof).

 

You would probably find my work on the Global Flood extremely interesting;

 

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/Yahova_God/index.html

 

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that a scientific formula could be made to help define belief in karma (notice I didn't say prove the existence of ). The whole idea of balance between positivity and negativity is a fairly accepted idea in science, so I am sure there would be a pre-existing scientific theory that reflects this.

 

Can you think of one?

 

I understand karma in the Christian sense that we inherit good and bad karma (blessing or sin) from our forefathers instead of from supposed past lives. That would be very interesting to see a formal proof on the matter.

 

Equations on equilibrium or symmetry? ??? not sure.

 

Karma is largely a tachyonic thing... material is only it's manifesting medium.

 

If you did understand your own nature, then why would you be shocked by it? Surely any 'shock' at discovering these gifts would mean you hadn't really understood your own nature in the first place, and thus you wouldn't have these gifts.

 

Every day I wake up I am shocked. The mind fully cannot contain the divinity. The mind is like a box... every time that box is destroyed a new one will appear (hopefully larger) in which case there is a moment of AWE. When you look out into a visual seen the sun set on a beach your mind naturally silences (dies for just a moment) and reappears in AWE.

 

I can see where you're coming from MySiddhi, but I do not think that someone with such advanced spiritual insights would be connected to the internet. I assume that people like that can often be found in places like caves and on the tops of mountains, and I doubt they own computers (or anything else for that matter).

 

It is quite irrelevant whether one is in a cave or in a mansion. The goal really is to reduce vain distractions and focus on spiritual cultivation.

 

One type of cultivation requires interaction with other people... which cannot be achieved in a cave. Though I am sure being in a cave or on a mountain top can give advantage to some forms of cultivation.

 

For example... I share my knowledge of God's nature with other people and get them emotionally invested into disagreeing with me.

 

It looks on the surface like I am seeking to teach them... whereas in reality I am actually being taught. Even speaking to you now I am teaching myself.... whether you learn a single thing from me is quite irrelevant (I am unattached)... and rejoice in your free will.

[C1ay]

I can prove the Christian God as rigorously as I can prove the nature of God (though I am far from done with the proof).

 

No you can't. I think you could probably prove your belief in God but belief that something is true does not equal knowledge that something is true. Proof would require you to convey knowledge to others and all you have is a belief that you could convey, not true knowledge that you could support with observable, testable, verifiable evidence that is is knowledge as opposed to a personal belief.

[MySiddhi]

No you can't. I think you could probably prove your belief in God but belief that something is true does not equal knowledge that something is true. Proof would require you to convey knowledge to others and all you have is a belief that you could convey, not true knowledge that you could support with observable, testable, verifiable evidence that is is knowledge as opposed to a personal belief.

 

If you want to make this into an argument you are welcome to address my proof of a Global Flood;

 

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/Yahova_God/Global_Flood.html

 

You can create a new thread for it if you like... I don't know if I can post pictures anyway.

[C1ay]

If you want to make this into an argument you are welcome to address my proof of a Global Flood;

 

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/Yahova_God/Global_Flood.html

 

It's irrelevant. The existence or absence of a global flood would not prove or refute the existence of any deity.

[MySiddhi]

It's irrelevant. The existence or absence of a global flood would not prove or refute the existence of any deity.

 

Actually it would. If nature does not take teleological interest in our human life then theistic notions of God can not be supported.

 

However, if nature actually cares about us and will kick are a.. if we are evil, there are many reasons that is relevant.

 

Further, there are many perspectives on the gods... and if one can prove the stories of mythological proportion in a holy book of a particular God... you have a unique proof over all other supposed gods... as well as a proof of the existence of god's in general.

[C1ay]

Further, there are many perspectives on the gods... and if one can prove the stories of mythological proportion in a holy book of a particular God... you have a unique proof over all other supposed gods... as well as a proof of the existence of god's in general.

 

Proof that anything in the bible happened is only that. It is not proof of any God. There is zero evidence for the actual existence of any gods.

[MySiddhi]

Proof that anything in the bible happened is only that. It is not proof of any God. There is zero evidence for the actual existence of any gods.

 

What would constitute a proof of the theistic notions of God except the effect of God's teleological relations with man?

 

Atheist's claim they cannot see God. And yet all I can see is God.

 

The only way to prove which position is wrong is to demonstrate whether there are any verifiable teleological interactions of nature with man.

[C1ay]

What exactly is a theistic god? The question of whether or not God exists is inherently meaningless because

1. the notion of God has no consistent definition among the various religious factions, and
2. all definitions of God refer to words that do not point to anything verifiable or testable in the 'real world' but only to presupposed 'attributes' extracted through an arbitrary collection of other words.

 

What would constitute a proof of the theistic notions of God except the effect of God's teleological relations with man?

 

There is no evidence that any events in nature are teleological in that they have purposive goal-directed behavior or explanations.

 

Atheist's claim they cannot see God. And yet all I can see is God.

 

Atheists need claim nothing. Anyone that is not theist is atheist. Some may claim that there is no God, others simply reject the concept for a lack of supporting evidence. You see God because you do not genuinely question what you think you see. If you were the skeptic you should be you would realize the only true answer to many of the questions you answer with "God" is "We don't know".

 

The only way to prove which position is wrong is to demonstrate whether there are any verifiable teleological interactions of nature with man.

 

There is no burden to prove something does not exist, only to prove that it does. If I claim there is a Lazy Boy chair orbiting Neptune would you think it reasonable that I claim it must be true only because no one can prove it's not? The concept of god is an invention of man and it is man's burden to prove it right, not to prove it wrong.

[Moontanman]

If you want to make this into an argument you are welcome to address my proof of a Global Flood;

 

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual/Yahova_God/Global_Flood.html

 

You can create a new thread for it if you like... I don't know if I can post pictures anyway.

 

That is about the worst collage of misinterpretations, obfuscations, half truths, lies, and BS I have ever read. doesn't your God value truth at all?