VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:07:38 06/15/02 Sat
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: adialup70.logn.uswest.net / 207.108.168.134
Subject: Logical Proof of God?

Hi Guys,

I just want to test out this "proof" on you to see how it goes. Let me know if something doesn't make sense. So far, I haven't gotten any feedback over in Crapshoot of the Fray. Remember, it's just a rough draft though. Have fun. Later.

Patrick

---------------------------------------------

LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD
by Patrick



1) Whatever begins to exist at some point in time has a unique state of information derived from outside itself.
a. It could be said that the universe began as a single quantum event, but the universe must have gotten its quantum state of information from outside itself anyways. Furthermore, even quantum events must have a unique initial set of conditions and, therefore, "instructions" (i.e. logical rules or patterns, e.g., "if electron A flies too close to electron B = 'repel'").
2) History has its end in the present (the future is not history). So, if the past was of infinite duration, an infinity came to its end, but this is a self-contradiction since infinity never stops (Luke Wadel; derived from the Kalam Cosmological argument).
3) Similarly, by Olber's Paradox, the universe is finite in size because the night sky is not a solid color of starlight (i.e. if the universe was infinite, there would be an infinite number of stars which would light the night sky).
4) So, by 2 and 3, the universe began to exist, and by 1, something "instructed" it by supplying it with initial information from outside itself.
5) By Godel's incompleteness proof (supplimental explanation at the end), these instructions (as logical systems) cannot be demonstrated to be true by using the logical machinery of the system unless moving up to a time of "metasystem", therefore, they are not derived from the system called "universe" (we could incorporate information theory as the logical structure of the universe, by the way).
6) However, logical instructions or systems cannot ultimately exist apart from some mind.
7) Therefore, a mind "instructed" the universe into initial existence since logical instructions cannot originate apart from some mind.
8) There must be a limit to the degrees of mind because if there were no end to intelligent levels, then God is not the end of the line since there is a mode of mind more intelligent than he is. However, let God or God's mind = G. Let's also define G as infinite since the potential is unbounded (i.e. G = infinite). Furthermore, let G' = infinite + 1 (G' means "G prime"; something other than God). "Infinite + 1" still equals infinite, therefore, G' = infinity.
9) By the transitive principle, if G = infinity, and G' = infinity, then G = G'. So, G' must be a part of G if not G itself. Therefore, there is nothing that can be smarter or more intelligent than G as infinite and less than G's.
10) All other minds are, are therefore, finite, but by 5 there are hierarchies. Furthermore, the universe cannot hold all types of intelligent minds because there is a limit placed on energy and the amount of minds it can hold. Hence finite minds cannot be sustained indefinitely in hierarchal levels. So, the number of hierarchal minds must be finite at all times of existence even though the potential is infinite.
11) By Godel's incompleteness proof, the highest hierarchy must be infinite. So, either the highest mind is infinite, or there are an infinite number of finite mind hierarchies. However, as in 2, these hierarchies would never come to an end and we could not reach our present state of human existence. They, therefore, must be finite (as in 9)
12) Let's assume that God did not directly "instruct" or create our universe, but that some other finite mind created it instead.
13) However, by 1 and 5, God is ultimately responsible for creating that mind, and by 7-9, he creates all minds as the limit to the Godelian hierarchy (i.e. there must be nothing greater than the infinite).
14) Since no other mind can create God, he must exist uncaused out of necessity to the Godelian hierarchy which is finite.
15) Therefore, God exists and he created the universe by either creating it directly (as the mind in 6), or by creating the minds that lead up to its creation.


-------------------------------------------
Essence of Godel's incompleteness proof:

Let us call a particular system of logic, "Tom" the computer. Tom is supposed to know the truth or falsity of any statement (by following a set of instructions). Anyone can test Tom's infallibility. All Tom has to do is spit out the answer of "true" or "false". However, there is one statement that we know the truthity of that Tom cannot demonstrate to be true. It is:

Statement A: "Tom cannot prove this statement to be true".

The answer could not be "true" because then the statement will have been falsified, and if "false", then Tom will have arrived at a false conclusion. A paradox! It is only when we move up a higher order system of "human" logic that we find the answer to be "true". Hence, the information must be derived from outside the computer system of instructional logic. That is, we know that "Tom cannot prove this statement to be true" is true but only from outside its system.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.