Proof of God

[MySiddhi]

the notion of God has no consistent definition among the various religious factions

 

The notion of a particle has no consistent definition among the various theories of physics.

 

all definitions of God refer to words that do not point to anything verifiable or testable in the 'real world'

 

Spinoza defined and proved a God called substance. Two hundred years latter it was empirically verified and call ENERGY.

 

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

 

Could you explain to me how humans survived the global flood?

 

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

 

You see God because you do not genuinely question what you think you see.

 

I see God because I am amazed at what I see... it provokes curiosity in my to question all the more.

 

I would like you to respond to the links I provided at the end of my proof. Self proclaimed skeptics deny psychic powers. And yet they have been demonstrated.

 

"Skeptic" is just a name you like to call yourself or anyone that shares your religion called materialism. I question that it would actually mean you are a skeptic of your own belief system.

 

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".

 

Well, my knowledge of God has lead me to quite a few discoveries in physics including a causal mechanism of earth's expansion as proof of a global flood, and the causal mechanism of mind matter interactions....

 

Knowledge in the sciences has increase many times from individuals desire to understand God.

 

You desire to not see God at all costs makes you inclined to ignore all the evidence that surrounds you. LOL

 

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.

Burden of proof rests on anyone making a claim... including the claim that God does not exist.

[Moontanman]

QUOTE=MySiddhi;229462]The notion of a particle has no [consistent definition among the various theories of physics.

 

Yes particles do have a consistent definition in accepted theories of physics.

 

Spinoza defined and proved a God called substance. Two hundred years latter it was empirically verified and call ENERGY.

 

Yes, energy, notice it's not called god.

 

 

Could you explain to me how humans survived the global flood?

 

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

 

There was no flood, your proof is not even close to proving anything but that you have a intense desire to mislead people into thinking you are correct.

 

 

I see God because I am amazed at what I see... it provokes curiosity in my to question all the more.

 

I would like you to respond to the links I provided at the end of my proof. Self proclaimed skeptics deny psychic powers. And yet they have been demonstrated.

 

Your belief in god or your ability to see him every where does not constitute proof by any definition.

 

"Skeptic" is just a name you like to call yourself or anyone that shares your religion called materialism. I question that it would actually mean you are a skeptic of your own belief system.

 

No a Skeptic is some one who requires proof other than belief or your word on what you believe.

 

Well, my knowledge of God has lead me to quite a few discoveries in physics including a causal mechanism of earth's expansion as proof of a global flood, and the causal mechanism of mind matter interactions....

 

No flood, no proof of a flood or of your mind and matter interactions.

 

 

Knowledge in the sciences has increase many times from individuals desire to understand God.

 

Could very well be true but still no proof of god, some believe the muses inspire them to discover things but no proof of muses either.

 

 

You desire to not see God at all costs makes you inclined to ignore all the evidence that surrounds you. LOL

 

You assume far too much, I would truly love to see proof of god but simply wanting something and having it are not the same thing.

 

Burden of proof rests on anyone making a claim... including the claim that God does not exist.

 

I make no claim that god doesn't exist, I say he cannot be proved to exist, different thing completely. You are the one making a claim, the burden of proof lies directly on you.

[MySiddhi]

Yes particles do have a consistent definition in accepted theories of physics.

Do you have a tendency to speak about things you know nothing about?

 

The Standard Model does not define a particle the same way as Quantum Mechanics... and neither is a particle defined the same for either in String Theory.

 

A particle is not even defined consistently in all the different interpretations of Quantum Physics.... likewise neither is it for all the different interpretations of String Theory.

 

Yes, energy, notice it's not called god.

 

Calling substance by another name does not refute the fact that it was logically proven BEFORE it was empirically verified.

 

I make no claim that god doesn't exist, I say he cannot be proved to exist, different thing completely. You are the one making a claim, the burden of proof lies directly on you.

 

This is a claim.

[modest]

Spinoza defined and proved a God called substance. Two hundred years latter it was empirically verified and call ENERGY.

 

Hello MySiddhi. Is this the definition of substance you're referring to?:

 

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
    
   
2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
   • Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one."
    
   
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
    
   
4. Substance cannot be caused.
   • Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
    
   
5. Substance is infinite.
   • Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
    
   
6. Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
   • Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
   

- Baruch Spinoza

 

What kind of energy is this? Thermal, Kinetic, Potential, Chemical, Electric, Nuclear, etc? How does that definition apply to any or all of these forms of "energy"? For instance, when it says "Substance is infinite." does that mean chemical energy is infinite or all forms of energy are infinite? When it says "No two substances can share the same nature" does that mean no two forms of energy can share the same nature? If that's the case then "There can only be one substance" would mean there can be only one form of energy.

 

Can you explain how this definition is "empirically verified" by energy.

 

~modest

[MySiddhi]

Hello MySiddhi. Is this the definition of substance you're referring to?:

 

1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
    
   
2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
   • Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one."
    
   
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
    
   
4. Substance cannot be caused.
   • Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
    
   
5. Substance is infinite.
   • Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
    
   
6. Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
   • Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
   

- Baruch Spinoza

 

What kind of energy is this? Thermal, Kinetic, Potential, Chemical, Electric, Nuclear, etc? How does that definition apply to any or all of these forms of "energy"? For instance, when it says "Substance is infinite." does that mean chemical energy is infinite or all forms of energy are infinite? When it says "No two substances can share the same nature" does that mean no two forms of energy can share the same nature? If that's the case then "There can only be one substance" would mean there can be only one form of energy.

 

Can you explain how this definition is "empirically verified" by energy.

 

~modest

 

Substance refers to energy itself not any particular form of energy. Forms of energy are called "modification" or "extension".... Forms of energy can be created and destroyed... energy itself cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

Pure energy is called zero-point energy and it is indeed infinite.

 

As we know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed... therefore it has no external cause.

[InfiniteNow]

Interesting the attempts at a topic change since Buffy spanked him (but, then again, her post just couldn't have been correct since it didn't contain any appeals to ridicule or LOLs).

 

 

 

I think it's already clear where this membership is heading. He's not interesting in dialogue. He's interested in masturbating with his keyboard, pretending he understands logic and trying to make other people look stupid because his own insecurity and lack of certainty is so intense.

 

 

Sometimes you need people like me to tell it how it is.

[MySiddhi]

Interesting the attempts at a topic change since Buffy spanked him

 

She will get her reply soon enough.

 

I admit that she has made the strongest arguments out of all of you put together.

 

But on a down side with her she has not conceded a single point that I have made... even though she has made at least twenty points that have been completely refuted.

 

And on my part I quickly corrected my proof and thanked her for the discussion that provoked the correction on the axiom. However... somehow she has ignored the fact that I changed the axiom and is still arguing the same old rusty point.

 

Other then that, she is cool... and she will get put in her place in due time. lol

[InfiniteNow]

Other then that, she is cool... <pointless content-free ego stroking>

 

I think you meant, "Other than that, she is cool..."

[modest]

Pure energy is called zero-point energy and it is indeed infinite.

 

This is a misunderstanding. The vacuum expectation value is non-zero because everywhere in space there are present quantum fields. Each point has energy:

[math]E= \frac{\hbar \omega}{2}[/math]

As there are an infinite number of points in space the total vacuum energy is naively infinite. However, quantum theory is not a theory of the large. It breaks down above the plank scale beyond which we need new physics. This is provided via general relativity where vacuum energy is synonymous with the cosmological constant:

 

[math]\Lambda = 8 \pi \rho_{vac}[/math]

 

where [imath]\Lambda[/imath] or lambda is the cosmological constant and can be indirectly measured. Being non-infinite and proportional to [imath]\rho_{vac}[/imath] means the pressure of the vacuum or vacuum energy is non-infinite.

 

I would have to agree with InfiniteNow. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with your original claim (nor any subsequent claim it would appear). Using catch phrases like "vacuum energy" appears to be an effort at obfuscation. Your entire opening post could be seen in the same light. Maybe you've had good success with this in the past, but as you're now finding out: You can't obfuscate in this way to people who know what they're doing.

 

If you tried this style of debate on a religious forum or some other non-science forum you might have better luck.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Do you have a tendency to speak about things you know nothing about?.

 

 

Not as much as you mysiddhi, not as much as you:bow:

[MySiddhi]

"Buffy" your responses become more sophisticated each time which makes me think you are highly intelligent. What we will do is argue over a single point until you concede it. It seems your best argument is over causation so we will start there.

 

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 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.

"To say that "Correlation does not suggest causation" is false: A demonstrably consistent correlation often suggests some causal relationship (or implies it, in the casual sense of the word)."

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The implication in my logical tautology does suggests causation... but even more; the form itself used with the negation of thing makes the causal relationship a necessity. Here is why;

 

IF nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing

THEN nothing is not implicated

 

In other words, it is impossible for there to be missing variables not covered by the implication.

 

Only the possibility of other variables prevents a correlation from being causation!

 

Regarding consciousness; self-causation is consciousness.

 

 

Let me know if you concede.

[InfiniteNow]

"To say that "Correlation does not suggest causation" is false: A demonstrably consistent correlation often suggests some causal relationship (or implies it, in the casual sense of the word)."

 

Carrying of umbrellas is highly correlated with rain. This means that rain is caused by people carrying umbrellas.

 

 

:eek:

 

 

Give me a break. You're making yourself look silly by continuing with this forced and contorted attempt to bring your mere belief into the realm of empirical reality.

[MySiddhi]

I think you meant, "Other than that, she is cool..." :eek:

 

I definitely need a grammar and spell checker... you are hired!

[InfiniteNow]

Another appeal to ridicule. At least you're consistent.

[coldcreation]

That's the difference between men of sciences and men of the cloth, between those who observe and interpret the physical world and those with ingrained beliefs.

 

When evidence is presented that contradicts a theory, or show it to be untenable, either a major revision is in order, or the theory will be abandoned. But when proof is presented that contradicts the dogma (such as the case above where the opening post proof fell apart at the seams, thanks to Buffy and the others who saw right through the obfuscation cloud) the belief remains intact.

 

Changing an axiom couldn't save the proof anymore than Humpty Dumpty could be put together again by all the king's horses and all the king's men.

 

But revealed is not just a difference amongst men. It demontrates a fundamental difference between nature and god, between the physical and the supernatural, between science and religion. It shows that science alone is the field of study that enables mankind to understand his environment, the workings of the world around him, his origin, the essence of the physical universe and its evolution in time.

 

 

 

CC

[MySiddhi]

I have been asked by Admin to support the following claims scientifically. For future reference ALL THAT I SAY shall be interpreted scientifically and if you do not understand what I am saying PLEASE ask.

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...

 

http://streaming.mou.org/MOU/Dr_Hagelin/Tucsontalk.wmv

 

This video discusses Consciousness, Creativity & the Brain presented by physicist John Hagelin.

 

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

 

This is based on my discovery of the causal mechanism of mind matter interactions;

 

Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are the dually related harmonic destructive interference of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

 

Tachyon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Pure energy is called zero-point energy and it is indeed infinite.

 

Here is an interesting video that explains the science of zero point energy;

 

Free Energy - Zero-Point Energy Extraction from the Quantum Vacuum http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5738531568036565057&hl=en

 

Here is Valone's Phd thesis;

 

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=44

[InfiniteNow]

Ermmm... Yeah. Isn't this thread your attempt to prove god? If so, you're failing miserably, and straying terribly off topic.