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: 03:09:49 06/16/02 Sun
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: dialupD3.logn.uswest.net / 63.230.11.4
Subject: Re: Logical Proof of God?
In reply to: Michael 's message, "Re: Logical Proof of God?" on 23:46:42 06/15/02 Sat

"by your arguement god is independent of our universe if so why can not our universe be independent of god...."

Because a logical system cannot be independent from some mind.

"subatomic particles do not have choices they have different states but there is no proof that a choice is made but instead they can be one way or another..."

I never exactly said they had choices. I said something like "it seems" like they have choices. Regardless, the proof says nothing about that really (although it may be implied). You're right though, there is no proof. However, in quantum mechanics our observations influence "their behavior" why is that? Is it a reflection on the particles, our mind, or both?

"what we consider morality now we aquired from hundreds of thousands of years of coexsistance... moral ideas are what people through time have agreed is moral and not what god told us is moral...."

Where did man "aquire" if from? Co-existence with what?

"your reasoning is flawed....."

Thank you. That's better. At least you didn't resort to personal attacks this time. We'll see if the reasoning is flawed though. To read on...

"you are making scientific statements on empiricle facts..."

I don't seem to follow you. Science is partially based on empirism. What gives?

"even the bible states god states put no other god before me thereby implying there is more than one god... he goes on to say he is a vengefull god but the bible never states god is the only god...."

Sorry, but you totally lost me bud.

"by using electron theory as your proof you are making assumptions not based on scientific evidence"

Huh? Information theory is scientific evidence. What gives? Are you also saying that notions of electrons are unscientific too? I still fail to see what the supposed asumptions are that you are alluding too.

Mine: "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... by this statement your saying a electron derives information but a simpler explanation is that its either a electron or its not....{no proof it makes a choice}"

"you keep implying that everything was created by a conscious choice..."

No. Not everything. It might be applied, but it certain need not be the case. Many things can be created by strictly using the logical machinary of the system. Besides, did you have a choice in your existence? Did your mom and dad plan to have you?

"...when scientific evidence says everything happens by chance....you are trying to humanize what is by giving it the explanation that god did it,....."

Humanize it? Not at all. You are wrong that science says everything happens by chance. Evolution doesn't even happen by chance - try natural selection. Evolution is partially directed. Would you like to discuss this matter further?
:)

"occams razor theory says the simplist explanation is usually the correct one...."

Lol. Occam's razor is a tenant, not a theory (lol). Yes, it says that the simplist explanation is usually the correct one, but it does not say that that is always the case. It isn't a law. Besides, this makes no sense in the context that it is in because what is your comparison between what is complex and simple in this matter? In other words, why bring it up? The simplist explanation is that God created the universe, but I doubt you expected this to backfire on you.

"i do the ... because john has trouble following my train of thought and ... helps him"

Sorry, but any coherent thought you may have add is lost on me. What in the world did you just say?

"as for proving any of my points you are the one whom posted a post full of enuendo and assumptions and miscontexted facts i am just saying what you are saying is incorrect..."

Fine. So prove it.
;)

"you posted so you must prove your facts are facts and not assumptions...."

Um, the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. Saying that my statements are mere assumptions doesn't make it so. Prove it. To do so is to disprove basic cosmology, information theory, and mathematics (as in Godel's proof).

"for your information i was ordained in 1963 at 5 years of age and i preached the word of god for over 9 years and i understand what you are trying to say but you are using scientific terminology to try to explain why something is what it is.... with god as your answer but the context and the words you are using do not meet the criteria for scientific evidence..."

B.S. I used cosmology, information theory, and math (Godel's proof). Do you understand that these things come from science? Do you understand what science is even? I'm not trying to be snide. Just wondering because you said your area of expertise was faith, but you don't sound very "faithful" to me anyways. Futhermore, cosmology says that the universe began to exist. Now, prey tell, why is that an assumption since I've encorporated what science has to say???

"you use information when explanation is a more proper word ie a electron chooses to be a electron when a more logical explanation is enviorment make a electron or a neutron or another form of matter into what it is...."

HellOoooo!? What do you think I'm trying to say? If the environment "makes" an electron then it derived the information about itself from the environment, hence, "outside itself".

"at the proper stage of development some frogs will change sex if no other sexed frogs are available for breeding you could say they chose to change sexes when the truth is homones do it automatically....."

Um, their hormones would be based as a logical system then. In otherwords, the logic the "hormones" are based upon comes from the input from the frog's interacting from the environment. "Oh, no different sex?" If "true", then "change". Are you beginning to see the logical structure yet of logical systems?

"i write simply but i understand what you are trying to write"

I find this difficult to believe.

"and you write very well but your facts are not facts but are instead propaganda discuissed as facts....."

Lol. Prove it. Prove that cosmology does not say the universe began to exist. Prove that information theory doesn't say that every object has information. Prove that Godel was wrong. Prove that logical systems can exist apart from some mind (if so, then how did the logical system gain its "logic"? oh evolution? well evolution is based on the logical structure of the universe).

"logic is not a thing that everyone uses the same way"

If its logic it is/does. 2+2 ='s 4. Now, are you telling me that it doesn't it? Don't you see it the same way I do? Pure logic knows no bias. If they don't use it the same way its because 1) they either don't understand it, or 2) they choose to be subjective.

"and just because something is logical doesnt mean its true..."

I agree. However, you have not yet shown a logical basis for its rejection. You still have based everything on naysay. Where's the counter logic? Why is the "fact" that the universe began to exist incorrect?

"also just because one explanation seems reasonable doesnt mean its the only explanantion there could be many explanations and anyone of them could be true or none of them may be true..."

Yeah? So?

"reasonable and intellegent people may think logically and still be wrong....."

So, why is my proof logically wrong then. Stop naysaying and come up with it then if you're so sure. I'm waiting. Not to be cocky or anything, but I see little counter logic from you so far - mostly naysaying. One could say that your naysaying rings of tinkling cymbols and sounding brass.

"i as the responder do not have to prove anything"

Lol. Yeah ya do! The burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. Don't try to back out of it now.

"you as the poster must give truthfull facts"

I believe I have.

"and not assumptions not based on scientific evidence....which you have not done"

Prove it my friend! Stop calling the sun dark! Stop your naysaying. I based my proof on cosmology, information theory, and math (e.g. Godel). Now, you prove to me and tell me one more time that I haven't used any scientific facts. Is that the best you can do? You simply say, "Well! You haven't used science!" And that's supposed to prove your point (lol). Stop grasping at straws and come up with it then. Let's hear it then. Why does the proof fail to use science?

You also forgot to prove those three basic simple things I've required of you. Why have you failed to do so?
;)

Try again. Since you couldn't answer the last three questions (in the conclusion of my previous post), then try to answer one simple question then.

1) Why does the proof not use science, and why is it required according to your dictates.

Later.

P.S. Don't forget to prove that the universe didn't begin to exist (or do you specialize in naysaying?).

[ 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.