Proof of God

[MySiddhi]

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

 

"All forms of argument afford equal opportunity for jests." - Quintilian

[MySiddhi]

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.

 

I never had to prove the axiom in the first place silly.

 

I changed it because the semantics provoked unnecessary reference into the proof which would incline one to try and prove the axiom with the proof which would make the proof inconsistent because the axiom is my proof system. Reference Godel's theorems.

[gareth]

My Siddhi - You are clearly a very intelligent young man, but you have massive delusions of grandeur.

 

Why do you state: 'humility is the highest virtue'. I see no evidence of humility on your website or in your posts. A humble person would not claim to have ESP, for example. In fact, you seem to be focussed on scoring points and trying to prove how very clever you are, rather than trying to understand the world around you.

 

Saying things about Buffy such as 'she will be put in her place soon enough' means you come across as an arrogant brat. Humility is clearly not very high on your list of priorities.

 

You should listen to some of the wise people on this website (C1ay,

Buffy and coldcreation, to name but a few), and try to take on board what they are saying. I am sure it would help you greatly in your understanding of science.

[Overdog]

MySiddhi:

 

I pointed out earlier why you cannot prove god with your logic.

 

Let T be any theory which posits unobservable phenomena. There will always be infinitely many theories which are empirically equivalent to T but which are such that each differs from T, and from all the rest, in what it says about unobservable phenomena (for formalized theories, this is an elementary theorem of mathematical logic). Evidence in favor of T's conception of unobservable phenomena ("theoretical entities") would have to rule out the conceptions represented by each of those other theories. But, since T is empirically equivalent to each of them, they all make exactly the same predictions about the results of observations or experiments. So, no evidence could favor one of them over the others. Thus, at best, we could have evidence in favor of what all these theories have in common--their consequences about "observables"--we could confirm that they are all empirically adequate--but we could not have any evidence favoring T's conception of unobservable theoretical entities. Since T was any theory about unobservables, knowledge of unobservable phenomena is impossible

Scientific Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

You haven't refuted this. This says you must provide evidence of god, and claiming you can see him is not evidence of god, but of delusion.

[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.

 

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

 

So, what has this got to do with proving the Christian God exists?

 

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

 

Energy is energy and just because someone calls energy God does not prove the existence of any God, certainly not the Christian God that you claimed you can prove.

 

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

 

What flood? There is no empirical evidence that there actually was a global flood but even if there were it would not prove your claim.

 

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

 

I'm amazed at the wonders of nature myself but it doesn't delude me into imagining deities.

 

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.

 

What proof? You've not proved anything here or elsewhere. And what does psychics have to do with your claim that you can rigorously prove the existence of the Christian God?

 

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.

 

knowledge • noun

1. information and skills acquired through experience or education.
2. the sum of what is known.
3. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation: he denied all knowledge of the incident.

 

All you've posted here is beliefs, not knowledge.

 

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

 

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

 

I have no desire to not see God, only a desire to see proof from those that claim there is such a God. I've made no claim that God does not exist. All I said was that you cannot prove what you said you can prove. So far all you've done is talk in circles and prevaricate. My statement remains, you cannot rigorously prove the existence of the Christian God. Now, do you think you can actually stay on topic and prove the existence of the Christian God or not. You've made a claim and I expect you to back it up.

[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.

 

~modest

 

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.

 

 

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

 

Free Energy - Zero-Point Energy Extraction from the Quantum Vacuum

 

Here is Valone's Phd thesis;

 

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

 

Your links do not address my objection nor support your claim.

 

~modest

[MySiddhi]

My Siddhi - You are clearly a very intelligent young man, but you have massive delusions of grandeur.

 

Why do you state: 'humility is the highest virtue'. I see no evidence of humility on your website or in your posts. A humble person would not claim to have ESP, for example. In fact, you seem to be focussed on scoring points and trying to prove how very clever you are, rather than trying to understand the world around you.

 

Saying things about Buffy such as 'she will be put in her place soon enough' means you come across as an arrogant brat. Humility is clearly not very high on your list of priorities.

 

You should listen to some of the wise people on this website (C1ay,

Buffy and coldcreation, to name but a few), and try to take on board what they are saying. I am sure it would help you greatly in your understanding of science.

I state that "humility is the highest virtue" because that is what God has told me.

 

Stating a fact, such as that I have ESP is not relevant to whether I am humble or not.

 

I never claimed to be humble. Anyone that actually thinks they are humble is delusional (for reasons of polarity that I care not to explain).

 

My cleverness is not even in question to anyone with comprehension abilities. So, why would I need to try and prove it?

 

Obviously the goal of the thread is the prove God. Whether I am an "arrogant brat" or not is irrelevant as to whether I can prove God; Ad hominem fallacy?

 

I have been witnessing to atheists for years now and I know that if I speak extremely kind to someone that is intentionally provoking me while arguing with me they will assume that my points did not destroy theirs!

 

So, anyone that provokes me arrogantly I will hand their a.. to them in no uncertain terms!

 

If you are looking to build up your faith, and hope, and love go to Joel Osteen.

 

But if you are looking to build up your knowledge, and understanding, and wisdom come to me.

 

I have already benefited from the thoughts of "Buffy" and have clearly thanked her in this thread.

[MySiddhi]

MySiddhi:

 

I pointed out earlier why you cannot prove god with your logic.

 

 

Scientific Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

You haven't refuted this. This says you must provide evidence of god, and claiming you can see him is not evidence of god, but of delusion.

 

My logic does not posit a theory of unobservables. Feel free to look up endomorphism;

 

Endomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

All mappings of reality are mappings IN my logic. In other words, all observables are the mapping of God as a necessity from my logic.

 

The equation looks like this;

 

D:Θ → r∈Θ

 

where r, is any particular observable, and theta is God

 

We can thank Christopher Langan for this insight;

 

Introduction to the CTMU - Christopher Michael Langan

[gareth]

"So, anyone that provokes me arrogantly I will hand their a.. to them in no uncertain terms!"

 

The baby Jesus would be proud of you, wouldn't he?

 

Any proof of God would remove the need for faith.

 

Faith, hope and love come from within, not from you or Joel Osteen.

 

I have been informed by a reliable source that Fermat's Last Theorum has something in it that can prove the existence of God.

 

Bye bye everyone, my foray into this forum has been fun, but life is too short.

 

 

:hihi:

[MySiddhi]

So, what has this got to do with proving the Christian God exists?

 

Your argument can only remain consistent if you also claim that "particles" cannot be proven to exist.

 

If you do make such a claim it will be apparent that your position is absurd... and I need not address it any further.

 

Energy is energy and just because someone calls energy God does not prove the existence of any God, certainly not the Christian God that you claimed you can prove.

 

It shows that a proof of God has resulted in direct empirical verification. You are right though... to prove the theistic notions of God one much prove teleological interactions with humans.

 

What flood? There is no empirical evidence that there actually was a global flood but even if there were it would not prove your claim.

 

Feel free to pick apart my proof starting with the first points on how it is a necessity that the earth has expanded based on core date sampling and that the granite plates fit completely together;

 

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

 

And what does psychics have to do with your claim that you can rigorously prove the existence of the Christian God?

 

The reason psychic functioning is relevant is because such phenomena cannot fit inside the world view of a materialist!!!

 

I said was that you cannot prove what you said you can prove.

 

To say that I cannot is a claim!

[MySiddhi]

"So, anyone that provokes me arrogantly I will hand their a.. to them in no uncertain terms!"

 

The baby Jesus would be proud of you, wouldn't he?

 

Any proof of God would remove the need for faith.

 

Faith, hope and love come from within, not from you or Joel Osteen.

 

I have been informed by a reliable source that Fermat's Last Theorum has something in it that can prove the existence of God.

 

Bye bye everyone, my foray into this forum has been fun, but life is too short.

 

 

:hihi:

 

I do not have faith that God exists. I know God exists! There is a huge difference in how that will effect ones life. I believe direct knowledge is more powerful than blind faith.

 

"faith" is not just a belief but can refer to intentionality... and that is what I meant with respects to Joel Osteen.

[MySiddhi]

Your links do not address my objection nor support your claim.

 

~modest

 

I see what you are saying... that when you quantize a volume of space the effect of ZPE becomes finite in that finite volume.

 

I have no problem with that. That merely says no created or formed thing can become infinite.

 

But that does not refute the fact that ZPE is itself infinite.

 

When something manifests past the planck scale it is no longer ZPE.

 

The finite space that you can hold within your own hand if ZPE effect is quantized is more energy than that of our entire universe put together! And the volume of a single hydrogen atom would contains more energy than our entire galaxy.

[C1ay]

Your argument can onlyblah blah blah...

 

Quit prevaricating and prove your claim, period!

[modest]

I see what you are saying... that when you quantize a volume of space the effect of ZPE becomes finite in that finite volume.

 

I have no problem with that. That merely says no created or formed thing can become infinite.

 

But that does not refute the fact that ZPE is itself infinite.

 

When something manifests past the planck scale it is no longer ZPE.

 

Please provide a link or source that supports your claim that vacuum energy is not equivalent to the cosmological constant. Our illustrious particle physicist Eras has proven otherwise in this post:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/13902-sne-ia-implications-interpretations-lambda-cdm-7.html#post205049

 

which I will reproduce here:

 

A brief example of how gravitating zero point energy causes "dark energy." Consider a universe that has real scalar particles in it, described by a field [imath]\phi[/imath] with action

 

[math] S = \int \sqrt{-g} d^4x \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi - V\left({\phi}\right) [/math]

 

This has a stress energy tensor

 

[math] T_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi +\frac{1}{2}g^{\rho\sigma}\partial_{\rho}\phi\partial_{\sigma}\phi g_{\nu\mu} -V\left(\phi\right)g_{\mu\nu} [/math]

 

Now, lets assume that we have a vacuum, the state of lowest energy of our system.

 

[math] T_{\mu\nu} = -V\left(\phi_o\right)g_{\mu\nu} = -\rho_{vac}g_{\mu\nu}[/math]

 

Here I identified the lowest value of V as the energy density of the vacuum. Lets go to a local lorentz frame and look at this.

 

[math] T_{\mu\nu} = \rho_{vac} \left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1&0&0&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1 \end{array}\right) [/math]

 

Now compare this to the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid with energy [imath] \rho[/imath] and pressure P.

 

[math] T_{\mu\nu} = \left(\begin{array}{cccc} \rho&0&0&0\\ 0&P&0&0\\0&0&P&0\\0&0&0&P \end{array}\right) [/math]

 

We see right away that the energy of a vacuum (the positive energy density) can be thought of as a perfect fluid with [imath] P = -\rho_{vac} [/imath]. While I have shown this for one specific case, it is a general result. Vacuum energy behaves as a fluid WITH NEGATIVE PRESSURE.

 

Now, can we identify this with a cosmological constant? Consider Einstein's equations with cosmological constant (as Einstein wrote it)

 

[math] G_{\mu\nu} +\Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi T^{matter}_{\mu\nu}[/math]

 

If we move lambda to the other side, we see that the right side can be written

 

[math] 8\pi\left(T^{matter}_{\mu\nu} -\frac{\Lambda}{8\pi} g_{\mu\nu}\right)[/math]

 

Comparing this to our above expression for the stress energy tensor, we see that

 

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

 

Hence, the cosmological constant is completely equivalent to vacuum energy!

 

So, to recap- I have demonstrated that

1. Vacuum energy (what you call zero point energy) gravitates as a fluid with negative pressure.

2. This vacuum energy/pressure whatever you want to call it is exactly equivalent to a cosmological constant as Einstein introduced it.

 

Care to comment?

-Will

 

Again, please provide a source or link supporting your claim otherwise.

 

Thank you,

 

Modest

[MySiddhi]

Please provide a link or source that supports your claim that vacuum energy is not equivalent to the cosmological constant. Our illustrious particle physicist Eras has proven otherwise in this post:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/13902-sne-ia-implications-interpretations-lambda-cdm-7.html#post205049

 

which I will reproduce here:

 

A brief example of how gravitating zero point energy causes "dark energy." Consider a universe that has real scalar particles in it, described by a field [imath]phi[/imath] with action

 

[math] S = int sqrt{-g} d^4x frac{1}{2}g^{munu}partial_{mu}phipartial_{nu}phi - Vleft({phi}right) [/math]

 

This has a stress energy tensor

 

[math] T_{munu} = frac{1}{2}partial_{mu}phipartial_{nu}phi +frac{1}{2}g^{rhosigma}partial_{rho}phipartial_{sigma}phi g_{numu} -Vleft(phiright)g_{munu} [/math]

 

Now, lets assume that we have a vacuum, the state of lowest energy of our system.

 

[math] T_{munu} = -Vleft(phi_oright)g_{munu} = -rho_{vac}g_{munu}[/math]

 

Here I identified the lowest value of V as the energy density of the vacuum. Lets go to a local lorentz frame and look at this.

 

[math] T_{munu} = rho_{vac} left(begin{array}{cccc} 1&0&0&0\ 0&-1&0&0\0&0&-1&0\0&0&0&-1 end{array}right) [/math]

 

Now compare this to the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid with energy [imath] rho[/imath] and pressure P.

 

[math] T_{munu} = left(begin{array}{cccc} rho&0&0&0\ 0&P&0&0\0&0&P&0\0&0&0&P end{array}right) [/math]

 

We see right away that the energy of a vacuum (the positive energy density) can be thought of as a perfect fluid with [imath] P = -rho_{vac} [/imath]. While I have shown this for one specific case, it is a general result. Vacuum energy behaves as a fluid WITH NEGATIVE PRESSURE.

 

Now, can we identify this with a cosmological constant? Consider Einstein's equations with cosmological constant (as Einstein wrote it)

 

[math] G_{munu} +Lambda g_{munu} = 8pi T^{matter}_{munu}[/math]

 

If we move lambda to the other side, we see that the right side can be written

 

[math] 8pileft(T^{matter}_{munu} -frac{Lambda}{8pi} g_{munu}right)[/math]

 

Comparing this to our above expression for the stress energy tensor, we see that

 

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

 

Hence, the cosmological constant is completely equivalent to vacuum energy!

 

So, to recap- I have demonstrated that

1. Vacuum energy (what you call zero point energy) gravitates as a fluid with negative pressure.

2. This vacuum energy/pressure whatever you want to call it is exactly equivalent to a cosmological constant as Einstein introduced it.

 

Care to comment?

-Will

 

Again, please provide a source or link supporting your claim otherwise.

 

Thank you,

 

Modest

 

I never said ZPE does not cause the cosmological constant.

 

Obviously 1/2 hbar omega does not equal lambda. So they are related by not the same.

 

In fact ZPE causes EVERYTHING.... LOL

 

Including the speed of light.

 

Shall we also conclude that the speed of light equals ZPE... according to your funny logic?

 

Review Valone's Phd thesis on how the speed of light is based on ZPE.

 

btw... the speed of light can be broken!

[Overdog]

My logic does not posit a theory of unobservables...

Yeah, you said you see god everywhere you look, and that he talks to you as well...

 

Unbelievable. No proof. No evidence.

 

I'm outa here too.

[modest]

I never said ZPE does not cause the cosmological constant.

 

Obviously 1/2 hbar omega does not equal lambda. So they are related by not the same.

 

They are related by [math]\Lambda = 8 \pi \rho_{vac}[/math]. If you agree with this then you retract your claim that ZPE is infinite. Is this the case? Do you retract your claim that ZPE is infinite?

 

~modest