Proof of the existence of God

Sarkus said:
The theme remains the proof of the existence of God, and within that the subject of causality is currently at the fore - not exactly issues undiscussed previously, Jan .
Click to expand...

So why the harsh response which triggered this conversation?

Sarkus said:
I'd simply prefer it if you were consistent in your views, irrespective of what you were discussing, where or with whom. I know it might seem too much to ask of you, but I do so anyway.
Click to expand...

My views are consistent. Why would you believe otherwise?

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
So why the harsh response which triggered this conversation?
Click to expand...
Harsh? I merely pointed out that you had moved your position, from claiming an initial cause to have been proven (per the BVG theorem) to one of "could"; and secondly pointing out that proofs (the subject of this thread) do not stem from "could".
Why on earth would you find that harsh?
My views are consistent. Why would you believe otherwise?
Click to expand...
I know otherwise: when you move from a position of certainty to one of possibility, that is being inconsistent. Not to mention the other instances of hypocrisy already identified that litter your posts. Your views seem only to be consistent in their inconsistency, Jan.
Oh, sorry, is that being harsh? :rolleyes:
 
Sarkus said:
Harsh? I merely pointed out that you had moved your position, from claiming an initial cause to have been proven (per the BVG theorem) to one of "could"; and secondly pointing out that proofs (the subject of this thread) do not stem from "could".
Why on earth would you find that harsh?
Click to expand...

Firstly, I only asserted the findings and the conclusion to those findings, by Vilenka. Secondly I am utilising that conclusion to discover how such an event could have taken place before time and space came into existence. Using the definition of time given by Write4u, would it be possible that space existed before time.

Sarkus said:
I know otherwise: when you move from a position of certainty to one of possibility, that is being inconsistent. Not to mention the other instances of hypocrisy already identified that litter your posts. Your views seem only to be consistent in their inconsistency, Jan.
Oh, sorry, is that being harsh? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't comprehend the range of what you term my consistency.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Firstly, I only asserted the findings and the conclusion to those findings, by Vilenka.
Click to expand...
That does not stop it from being your position. You don't abdicate responsibility for your position by simply declaring that you copied the conclusion from someone else. If you hand the homework in, you are claiming it as yours (unless there are clear disclaimers).
Secondly I am utilising that conclusion to discover how such an event could have taken place before time and space came into existence. Using the definition of time given by Write4u, would it be possible that space existed before time.
Click to expand...
So you are accepting that space may have always existed, yet cried foul in claiming that noone could possibly imagine anything eternal.

But an argument against your position is as follows:
Splitting time from space (as Write4u does with his definition) is somewhat non-classical with regard space-time, which would mean the BVG theorem is moot - as it uses classical spacetime (e.g. a space-time continuum as understood by Einstein etc). I'm not sure the conclusion of that theorem can be used in any relevant way in cases where such assumptions/premises simply do not hold.
If time and space are separate, the whole notion of the need for any original cause might simply disappear.
Maybe you don't comprehend the range of what you term my consistency.
Click to expand...
The only thing you are consistent in is your inconsistency... so do I understand the range of your inconsistent behaviour? No, I doubt I truly do. I might only spot a small percentage of what you get away with.
 
Sarkus said:
The only thing you are consistent in is your inconsistency...
Click to expand...
Jan's consistency comprises one single stance - that "god" undeniably exists.
To maintain this stance he will divert, obfuscate, lie, twist and deflect.
It's utterly futile engaging him because he is incapable of entertaining even the possibility that "god" doesn't exist, and will do everything to preserve his unthinking belief.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Jan's consistency comprises one single stance - that "god" undeniably exists.
To maintain this stance he will divert, obfuscate, lie, twist and deflect.
It's utterly futile engaging him because he is incapable of entertaining even the possibility that "god" doesn't exist, and will do everything to preserve his unthinking belief.
Click to expand...
It"s just a word.
 
Write4U said:
Actually, unification (greatest satisfaction) is achieved when the balls come to rest at their lowest point closest to the center of the earth. The patterns created from the different string lengths while in motion is proof of the mathematical function.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
I see no contradictions throught my eyes sorry, the art work of God is magnificent, wondrous, beautiful.

Even the good and the bad.

It's romantic...
 
Jan Ardena said:
Firstly, I only asserted the findings and the conclusion to those findings, by Vilenka. Secondly I am utilising that conclusion to discover how such an event could have taken place before time and space came into existence. Using the definition of time given by Write4u, would it be possible that space existed before time.
jan.
Click to expand...

Jan, you must have misunderstood my argument. I claimed that time does not exist unless there is change. IOW, before the creation of (our) universal space there was only a timeless metaphysical condition (s = 0), (t = 0).

During the creation of space, time (duration) was created and was inextricably associated with the chronology of spacetime from that point on (st = 1).

I based this opinion on the deBroglie-Bohm Pilot wave theory, which is accepted theory. I also feel intuitively that CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) is the mathematical function in the evolution of spacetime.

Actually, you might have used this proposition to your advantage by claiming that this timeless metaphysical (pre)condition is God.

I would have countered that, in view of the unknowable properties of this timeless metaphysical condition, you can use any word you like, but it does not define a sentient God in any way. Certainly not a God which could be influenced by prayer.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said: ↑
Actually, unification (greatest satisfaction) is achieved when the balls come to rest at their lowest point closest to the center of the earth. The patterns created from the different string lengths while in motion is proof of the mathematical function.
Click to expand...
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that affirmation, but are you proposing that God is a mathematical function?

p.s. I fully empathize with your feeling of wonder and awe for the incredible complexity and artistic beauty of the universe. But, alas, that is not proof of an intentional God, but of the incredible power of mathematical functions, such as the fractal function.

And here is the result of the fractal function, LIFE!
Self similar
The fractal patterns look complex, but Narbonne says their self-similarity means that very simple genomes – expected in early organisms – would suffice both to assemble individual frondlets and to control their assembly into larger structures. That would explain why the rangeomorphs evolved first.
Click to expand...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6162-fractal-patterns-of-early-life-revealed/#.UeNyZbfn-Hk
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that affirmation, but are you proposing that God is a mathematical function?
Click to expand...

No I am affirming that God is the creator. He can have a signature, such as a fibbanaci sequence, or if you like fractals. This is just His work... Things that appear seperate are unified on higher dimensions.
 
My thoughts on God are too complex to describe I simply see no contradictions, all of your mutually inconsistent or consistent point of views can co-exist, and in no way affect any of my views on God at all.
 
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
No I am affirming that God is the creator. He can have a signature, such as a fibbanaci sequence, or if you like fractals. This is just His work... Things that appear seperate are unified on higher dimensions.
Click to expand...
Like Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate order"?
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
No I am affirming that God is the creator. He can have a signature, such as a fibbanaci sequence, or if you like fractals. This is just His work... Things that appear seperate are unified on higher dimensions.
Click to expand...
I agree with the concept of a hierarchical ordering, as it was explained by David Bohm in his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order

p.s. minor correction: It is the Fibonacci Sequence and it is purely mathematical, and the function existed long before Fibonacci was born. He did not invent it, he discovered it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
 
Last edited:
BrianHarwarespecialist said:
My thoughts on God are too complex to describe I simply see no contradictions, all of your mutually inconsistent or consistent point of views can co-exist, and in no way affect any of my views on God at all.
Click to expand...
As atheist, I do not discriminate against "believers". I judge people by their actions.
So far, belief in God has not been an unqualified success in action. History is witness to that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top