Proof of God

[Buffy]

Oh my! Good example of why I so enjoy the weekends off with friends!

 

Thanks to ALL of you for all the kind posts and rep and PMs! Overwhelmed! :eek_big:

 

It is a marvel to me however how out of that entire post Mr. MySiddhi chose "implication is equivalent to causation," that being by far the most unsupportable part of his argument. Just really hard to imagine it being said with a straight face...

 

But as y'all know, "Pride goeth before the fall..." :)

 

Oh, and before you leave Mr. Siddhi, here's your hat!

 

Farewell the tranquil mind! farewell content! Farewell the plumed troop and the big wars that make ambition virtue! :)

Buffy

[Overdog]

...

Oh, and before you leave Mr. Siddhi, here's your hat!

 

:)

 

Oh, I took the trouble of looking up Christopher Langan, whom he referred to earlier.

 

Why does this not surprise me?

 

Langan is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID),[21] a professional society which promotes intelligent design,[22] and has published a paper on his CTMU in the society's online journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design in 2002.[23] Later that year, he presented a lecture on his CTMU at ISCID's Research and Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) conference.[24] In 2004, Langan contributed a chapter to Uncommon Dissent, a collection of essays that question evolution and promote intelligent design, edited by ISCID cofounder and leading intelligent design proponent William Dembski.[25]

 

Christopher Michael Langan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MySiddhi]

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

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0506/0506017.pdf

 

Some of the problems with "ZPE = dark energy" include;

 

The expression for the density of ZPE, was written down in an ambiguous manner; It is divergent at k→∞ limit; an arbitrary energy cutoff was chosen; No one knows exactly how many varieties of different fields should be added; No one really understands why this positive vac rho would lead to negative pressure of dark energy; No one can concretely explain how this negative (but isotropic) pressure exerts an outward repulsive force on a supernova to render it accelerating; And the theoretical estimation of vac rho differs in a ratio from that of observation as absurd as >10^120.

[InfiniteNow]

That's not relevant to the thrust of this thread. I am still awaiting your proof of god, as I'm sure others are as well.

[MySiddhi]

Oh my! Good example of why I so enjoy the weekends off with friends!

 

Thanks to ALL of you for all the kind posts and rep and PMs! Overwhelmed! :cheer:

 

It is a marvel to me however how out of that entire post Mr. MySiddhi chose "implication is equivalent to causation," that being by far the most unsupportable part of his argument. Just really hard to imagine it being said with a straight face...

 

But as y'all know, "Pride goeth before the fall..." :shrug:

 

Oh, and before you leave Mr. Siddhi, here's your hat!

 

Farewell the tranquil mind! farewell content! Farewell the plumed troop and the big wars that make ambition virtue! :)

Buffy

 

Do you concede that implication suggests causation and is correlation? And that implication necessarily is causation when there is zero possibility for missing variables?

 

I underline your straw man fallacy for you.

[MySiddhi]

:shrug:

 

Oh, I took the trouble of looking up Christopher Langan, whom he referred to earlier.

 

Why does this not surprise me?

 

He was going to be placed as the smartest man in the world in the guineas book of world records until they removed that category for "political correctness".

 

He has resolved several paradoxes in philosophy as well as provided the meta logical space for the "set of all sets", including giving a model for intelligent evolution.

[MySiddhi]

That's not relevant to the thrust of this thread. I am still awaiting your proof of god, as I'm sure others are as well.

 

I will wait for "modest" and "Buffy" to concede their best arguments where completely destroyed by yours truly... until I respond to anything else they have to say.

 

I wouldn't want them to be disingenuous on who's points have been being destroyed throughout this thread... for the sake of those who cannot comprehend our arguments.

 

But if you see a particular point that you feel is extraordinarily relevant to a refutation of my proof please highlight it for me that I may respond promptly.

[InfiniteNow]

I will wait for "modest" and "Buffy" to concede their best arguments where completely destroyed by yours truly... until I respond to anything else they have to say.

 

I wouldn't want them to be disingenuous on who's points have been being destroyed throughout this thread... for the sake of those who cannot comprehend our arguments.

 

But if you see a particular point that you feel is extraordinarily relevant to a refutation of my proof please highlight it for me that I may respond promptly.

 

Extraordinarily relevant point? Hmm... okay.

 

Please show us all exactly where it is that you believe you "completely destroyed" the "best arguments" of Modest and Buffy.

 

 

I'm just not seeing it. All I'm seeing is self-delusional arrogance. I'm familiar with it, have done it myself on more than one occasion. However, I would prefer to see 1) your proof of god, and 2) where you "completely destroyed" Buffy and Modest.

 

 

Thanks for your willingness toward "prompt" response. :shrug:

[MySiddhi]

your proof of god,

 

Read the OP

 

where you "completely destroyed" Buffy and Modest.

 

Read the last posts on the last page I have for "Buffy" and "modest".

 

 

Let God deal with my arrogance as it is an ad hominem fallacy to keep appealing to it.

[InfiniteNow]

Read the OP

IIRC, your OP was actually demolished by Buffy. Where did you rebut her criticisms again? A specific link to the post would be useful.

 

 

 

Read the last posts on the last page I have for "Buffy" and "modest".

Which one, again? Was that the one where you misdefined zero point energy, or where you said:

 

"I do not have faith that God exists. I know God exists!"

 

:)

 

Let God deal with my arrogance as it is an ad hominem fallacy to keep appealing to it.

 

God? You haven't proven it, now you're assigning behavioral responses to this ambiguously defined three letter word? Curious leap of logic, that.

 

Speaking of logic, it would only have been an ad hominem fallacy if I were showing your ignorance and saying, "See how deluded he is? He can't be right." Since I was simply making a valid observation of your tone and ability, and not using it to attack your presentation, your suggestion that I was ad homming you is misapplied.

 

Please sir. Try again. You may want to look up these words you're using before hitting submit. :shrug:

[Overdog]

But if you see a particular point that you feel is extraordinarily relevant to a refutation of my proof please highlight it for me that I may respond promptly.

 

I already showed you a particularly relevant point. Instead of refuting it, your response was that you see god and god talks to you.

 

Thats a pretty pathetic argument. You expect me to believe that?

 

Sorry, if that's all you've got, then you've just got diarrhea of the mouth.

 

Prove it, show evidence, or bug out.

[InfiniteNow]

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?

 

Yes, to apparently everyone but the OP.

[MySiddhi]

IIRC, your OP was actually demolished by Buffy. Where did you rebut her criticisms again? A specific link to the post would be useful.

 

Which one, again? Was that the one where you misdefined zero point energy, or where you said:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/15497-proof-god-11.html#post230869

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/15497-proof-god-11.html#post230876

[MySiddhi]

I already showed you a particularly relevant point.

 

Would you be able to highlight or at least link to the post?

 

Better yet, could you present your argument as formally as possible?

[InfiniteNow]

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/15497-proof-god-11.html#post230869

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/15497-proof-god-11.html#post230876

 

I'm still not seeing it. :shrug:

[InfiniteNow]

Would you be able to highlight or at least link to the post?

 

Better yet, could you present your argument as formally as possible?

 

I see that you, again, are trying to shift the topic since your own formal presentation was so completely shown nonsensical.

 

Good debate tactic. How's that proof of god working out for ya?

[Overdog]

Would you be able to highlight or at least link to the post?

 

Better yet, could you present your argument as formally as possible?

 

If you can't keep up, take notes.

 

Call two theories empirically equivalent just in case exactly the same conclusions about observable phenomena can be deduced from each. 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