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: 22:07:57 06/15/02 Sat
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: bdialup144.logn.uswest.net / 207.108.169.208
Subject: Re: Logical Proof of God?
In reply to: Michael 's message, "Re: Logical Proof of God?" on 15:50:52 06/15/02 Sat

"#1. i do not agree this is a fact or true..{no proof}
part of this is true or fact but part may not be..{no proof}"

Fine. Call the sun dark at high-noon then. Can you prove that the universe did not begin to exist with a unique state of information?

"#2. HUH!!!? please explain does not compute.."

An infinite history implies that the universe was infinite in spatial extent as well, thus, it does not have a beginning. Another way to look at it is infinity never stops, so an infinite duration means we could never arrive at the now. Hopefully that makes more sense. I don't know how to be more plain.

"#3.this if you will look at it from a scientific standpoint is changing because with advances in astronomy we are seeing farther and farther into space so at this time we cannot reasonably say this is true or fact..{not enough proof}"

Perhaps you do not understand. If the universe was infinite, it implies that the light from each star (which is also, therefore, infinite in number) has an infinite amount of time to travel. Therefore, the night sky should be one solid color of starlight. It is not.

"#4. you can make any assumption on anything from the final outcome and when speaking in paradoxes you are assuming true information....{just because something exsists doesnt mean a set of instructions made it}{the word instructions implies forthought when a more correct word might be explaination}"

Not sure I understand fully. Regardless, the Olber's paradox was resolved a long time ago, but it retained it's name. The resolution is that the universe does not have infinite volume and that it originated at a single point or point-like structure. You must understand that #2 and #3 cannot be assumptions. Neither is #1. That things have information is a basic tenant of information theory. That fact that things begin to exist means that they derive information.

"#6.again the word instructions implies forthought{you are prophetatizing instead of argueing resonably..."

Not at all. Information theory says that the universe is basically a logical system and/or it also follows a set of rules. The universe, therefore, cannot be based on pure randomness because there would be no rules to follow. Thus, chaos would rule and there would be no structural formations. The reasoning says that the universe originated from a single point or that all things are entangled to a single point (as in quantum mechanics). We'll come back to this in a minute.

Say an electron (e-) pops into existence. What makes it an electron? That fact that it follows certain rules. For example, a few such rules might be: if an e- flies close to proton (p+) = attract; if e- flies to close to an electron = repel; e- must have almost no mass; e-'s must follow wave-like characteristics, an e- must be based on the rules of quarks; etc. The fact that these electrons follow rules, are based on other rules (quarks), or may extend their logical systems (as when they form atoms; i.e. larger structures other than itself but must be based on them) makes them a logical system. When electrons come into existence they cannot be based on pure random chaos because then they wouldn't be electrons. There is a fine tuning in play.

When an electron pops into existence, it derives information from outside itself. Something makes it an electron. As cause and effect goes, the formation of the electron, or the effect, must have come from a cause, and that cause provides the background information needed for the electron effect (e.g. without basic background ingredients, one could not make a cake; the formation of cakes is the extension of a logical system). In otherwords, whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

The universe began to exist, but where did it get its background information from? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Logical systems follow logic. Take human math for example. Without humans, human math could not exist. I'm just saying that something has to set the logic up. If it follows logic, then it is logical, but if it is logical, that implies a mind, does it not? The rules must be given or based by a rule-giver. Something provide logical systems with its information.

"#7.a belief you have with no proof{i do not believe this is a true statement}"

It is not a belief, but it follows the logical structure of the proof. The universe began to exist, therefore, it must have obtained its background initial state of information from outside of itself. Its basically been proved. I could counter by asking you to prove that it has not, but its not needed. It's a logical a priori consequence.

You say that you do not believe this statement, then fine. But if you have no logical basis for its rejection, then you cannot logically say that there is no proof now can you.
:)

"#8.-#10. come on atleast act like you have a open mind without preaching things with no basis in fact..."

Why do you use continuation marks? Shows how logical you are I guess. If you think I'm preaching, it's only because you do not have the logical basis for refutation. You even said yourself all you could do was to "believe/disbelieve".
Logic is not based on either.

"{by this anology"

Again, it shows how logical you are. There is no analogy. You were doing fine until you accused me not having an open mind. I must, therefore, retain a defensive position.

"the statements on the planet earth only man is rational.. no woman is a man.. therefore no woman is rational... would be true statements... but the use of the word man is in two contexts so i am not making true statements but it is logical and was believed for centuries}"

Lol. I know you're trying to be logical an all, but you are making little sense! At best YOUR analogy is a false one because its based on humor. Anyone who said that no woman was rational was trying to make a joke.

"#11.a falsehood proving the preceeding falsehoods{still no proof}"

Can you prove it is a falsehood? Godel proved that there are true statement within logical systems that cannot be proven unless moving outside the system. Within this "out side system" or "higher system" there are also true statements that cannot be proved unless moving up a higher systems and so on indefinitely. Its not a falsehood because Godel proved it and it is widely accepted. The only falsehood here comes as a reflection from your own mind. Furthermore, try to put two and two together. How do logical systems exist apart from some mind? They can't! How does human math exist apart from human math? How does any math exist apart from any mind??? Are you seeing it yet or have you completely closed yourself off to reason?

"#12.-#15. more false assumptions made with no proof just your beliefs...."

Don't be an idiot. If you're so sure about yourself, prove me wrong. You must first prove that the universe did not begin to exist. Are you up for the challenge? Or are you gonna stick to your role of naysaying???

"as i said i really enjoyed this post it proves my point that religion is bad for the world...."

Hey buddy. I got news for ya. This post has nothing to do with how religion is bad for the world. Furthermore, you haven't proved a thing my friend. If fact you even said "what you wrote cant be argued with in the context...because it is based on assumptions". You sure are inconsistent. If it can't be argued with, then how could you (supposedly) prove anything? You're, like, one of the most illogical people I've ever run across. You said, "...i really enjoyed this post it proves my point...", how in the world does my own proof prove YOUR point??? It defies reason. It is also non-sequiter.

You need to be aware that you put me on the defensive. Instead of sticking to the proof, instead, you personally resort to an "ad hominem" attack ("your not even trying to have an open mind" - ring a bell?). If this dialogue is to continue, try to keep the "ad hominem" slander to a minimum or else I will not continue to discuss it with you further since you render it counterproductive?

"this post was very well written and very well thoughtout but you have no proof of any of your claims"

Unless you have proof to the contrary, you really have no say.

Okay, so I say "the universe began to exist". Of course we can't empirically observe its beginning, the proof is based on a prior proofs. It does not need to be based on a posteri proofs in order for it to true. Try to follow the simple reasoning this time:

1) The universe began to exist - fact (I've demonstrated this by both using science and logic, e.g. Olber's "paradox" and the "history" thing).
2) Information theory says that all things have information - fact (and it's a logical consequence that things like electrons follow logical rules).
3) The fact that the universe began to exist means that it has information and that it didn't always have that information (or can't you put two and two together?).
4) Where did the universe get its state of information from? By Godel's proof (which has been widely accepted among mathematicians and logicians), the universe, as a logical system, must have derived some of its information from outside itself.

Case closed. Can you logically prove otherwise? Or are you going to stick with childish naysaying?

"and it is obvious you are aware of this fact but your words will fool alot of simple minded people into believing this is proof...."

Lol. Whatever dude. If your mind is so complex, how come all you can do is "disbelieve" instead of using any real kind of logic?

"for thousands of years man believed baths would kill you.."

Hmmm, so it was based on a believe system. Big deal.

"man believed cats were creatures of satan and killed them on sight{hence the black plague from rat fleas}.."

Your analogy is obviously false. Believe systems do not equal logic systems.

"man burnt people at the stake because of differing beliefs..
man killed man not only for survival but just because another man said they believed false gods.."

That all you got? Lol. What does that have to do with the proof?????

"i only know one thing for fact"

That's obvious (lol).

"and that is as long as man keeps killing man because of a GOD then religion is not a good thing and should be banned on penalty of death{self defense for the rest of us}
morals is another matter"

Perhaps, but religion as an organization has nothing to do with my God proof.

"morality is not from god but is instead is a learned response to people living together..."

So that's supposed to prove God's non-existence? Tell me then, how does one "learn" morality? You have unwittingly just said that the moralistic humans derived information from outside themselves. Why? This morality had to exist before the humans came along or else how did they learn it? In other words, where did the first human learn it from? Em-kay, so you would probably say, they made it up or created it. In which case, you would have to change your statement. If they created it, then they didn't learn it now did they? In either case, it's not just a learned response. I mean it's not a strick Pavlov condition as you would have us believe.

Don't get me wrong though. This morality thing I just devised on whim doesn't prove that there is a God, but let me put it to you. Morality is based on a choice, but choices come from the law, and the consequences derived from law have truth values (i.e. "he broke the law, therefore, he will be punished = true; or vice versa). Morality would have, therefore, come from the first lawgiver, but as I'm trying to say, the lawgiver's law is a logical system which cannot exist without him, the lawgiver. Therefore, the lawgiver's "logical system" of consequences are based on his mind. However, the mind is also based on logical systems (e.g. neural nets, quantum synapses, etc.), and where did theses logical systems come from, and so on down the line. Whether this morality thing proves God or not is debateable, but you cannot deny that morality cannot exist apart from some mind and minds cannot exist apart from the logical structure of the universe.

"if your not moral your a danger to everyone else and that must not be allowed for it creates chaos...."

You are creating a rule and hence a logical system. How did you arrive at this information?

"is there a god"

I've proved it.

"what is god"

I don't profess to have all the answers.

"where did god come from by your post"

Difficult question. However, logic dictates that he always existed undependent on our universe.

"does god care"

I think so, but in order for the universe to have free will (that's right, "the universe" - it follows quantum rules which make it appear, at least, that subatomic particles have choices), God must purposely limit himself in our affairs.

"does anybody else care"

Why wouldn't they?

"how many gods are there millions or just the christian god
why is the christian god better than the arab god considering both side agree its the same god"

That's like asking if God is better than God. The Arab and Christian God is the same, but it is humans that make the "view" different.

"maybe god is a cat "

Why do you say that?

"maybe god doesnt exsist"

Based on what condition? You can try to create doubt all you want, but its not gonna work unless you can prove the following at the end (keep reading).

"maybe the gods take turns being god"

Sorry? I don't follow. Why do you say that?

"i have no proof either way"

Then how could you ever had "proved your point" as found above?

"you must rely on faith to believe in god"

Why's that? And how do you know that? If you know that, then you have moved outside the system of faith then haven't you?

"i have more faith in myself than in your god who kills other people just because there god isnt acceptable"

Lol. So that's how it goes huh? Typical mindset. Why would God kill other people unjustly? Are you one of those people who blame the 9/11 WTC attacks on God???

I hoped I could have discussed this with someone objectively. Instead, all I hear from you are whinning and personal attacks (no offense). If we are to further this discussion, then I want you to address the proof, not my person characteristics. I'm sorry that you put me on the defensive, but that's how I get when someone resorts to person attacks (I was being easy on you too).

The only thing you said about the proof was basically that I had no proof. Can you come up with a refutation? Anyone can say, "You have no proof". It takes little mental exercise to say such. No offense, but it is even reminscient of a child calling the sun dark while it is high-noon. Hence, anyone can say that. The burden of proof is on you now to prove me wrong. I challenge you to address three main key points.

1) Can you prove the universe did not begin to exist?
2) Can you prove that things don't have information (as in information theory)?
3) Can you prove Godel wrong? That all statements can be proven by the logical machinery of the system? (Godel says they can't unless you move outside the system.)

Later.

[ 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.