Proof of God

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by MySiddhi, Jul 26, 2008.

  1. MySiddhi Registered Member

    The proof has one definition, one Axiom, seven logical Tautologies with ten corollaries, one Deduction, five Inductions, with (credits), [attributes], and some resolved Paradoxes.

    By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

    (A1) Propositions cannot be both true and false. (Parmenides)
    The axiom of non-contradiction is required to prove anything at all.

    (T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
    (A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
    Four senses of “is” are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
    A ≡ A “nothing equals nothing” Law of Identity
    A → A “nothing implies nothing” Reflexivity of Implication
    idA: AA “nothing has the property of nothing” Identity Morphism
    (∃Ax)(A = x) “nothing exists as nothing” Reflexivity of Existence

    (T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
    (A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
    nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
    ergo nothing is not implicated with something
    ergo everything is implicated with something
    ergo something is self-implicated
    Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
    ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
    ergo everything is causal with something
    ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.
    Note; Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-causation is consciousness!

    (T3) Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive. (Christopher Langan)
    (A ≡ A)∧(idA: AA) [intentional]
    Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation!

    (T4) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is essentially existence. (Parmenides)
    (A ≡ A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [substance]

    (T5) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides)
    (A → A)∧(idA: AA) [pantheism]

    (T6) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
    (A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [causal]

    (T7) Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere. (Mars)
    (idA: AA)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) [eternal, invincible, perfect]
    Note; Something that has always existed is eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [T5] it therefore is perfect.

    (D1) One thing is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. (Spinoza) [omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, monism]
    Proof--The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that--No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T6]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined [T2], or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of something [T4], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal, self-descriptive, has the essence of existence, that everything is made of, that is the cause of all things, and has always existed everywhere. Q.E.D.

    Note; Consciousness is a fundamental property of reality [T2 Note & D1], and is the cause of the creation of all things [D1]. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

    (I1) E = m⋅c^2 (Jules Poincaré & Olinto Pretto) [immanent]
    Mass-Energy Equivalence; bradyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all spatial things are forms of energy.

    (I2) E = Δt⋅c^2 (Edmund Whittaker & Thomas Bearden) [transcendent]
    Delta Time-Energy Equivalence; tachyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all temporal things are forms of energy.

    (I3) E = (h⋅ω)/2 (Max Planck & Werner Heisenberg) [infinite, omnipresent, perfect]
    Zero-Point Energy; we have a contribution of 1/2 hbar omega from every single point in space resulting in a substantial infinity as well as making energy spatially infinite. Because it is infinite it is unchanging in it's nature, while embodying the existence of all things, it therefore is perfect.

    (I4) ∑E = Et+Ek+Ep (Julius Mayer) [eternal, invincible]
    Conservation of Energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it is temporally infinite.

    (I5) P = ∫ ∇E dv (Mars Turner) [all-power-full]
    Power Integral; power involves the transformation of energy, therefore the infinite, omnipresent, and eternal energy is all-power-full.

    Note; The definitive and causal mechanism for mind-matter interactions (Mars Turner);
    Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are dually related harmonic convergents of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

    Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)
    sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum
    telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
    telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
    mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
    remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis

    by Mars Sterling Turner
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MySiddhi Registered Member


    I assume nothing (enjoy the pun)!

    If you find a particular part complicated I may be able to simplify it for you.

    "All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare" - Spinoza
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

  8. MySiddhi Registered Member

    Always the jester.
  9. Alighieri Registered Member

    Your equations do not prove the existance of god, simply show a harmony that is present in physics. Unfortunately your conclusions are confined and not infinite. All of the above equations pertain only the the universe as we know it. The laws of physics, however, are superceded and governed by the laws of mathematics. The significance is that the realm where the above equations are observed is a dervitive of greater parameters, where they would not be necessarily true. Also, there may be other derivations where the laws may not apply, such as other universes.

    Note that it is impossible for anyone to prove the existance of god scientifically because the properties bestowed to god cannot exist in the physical universe. Thus we are restricted to the physical universe while a hypothetical god is not, making any calculations impossible.
  10. Myles Registered Senior Member

  11. Myles Registered Senior Member

  12. MySiddhi Registered Member

    The laws of physics you are referring to;

    E = m⋅c^2
    E = Δt⋅c^2
    E = (h⋅ω)/2
    ∑E = Et+Ek+Ep
    P = ∫ ∇E dv


    The laws of mathematics you are referring to;

    A ≡ A
    A → A
    idA: AA
    (∃Ax)(A = x)


    All laws in physics are derived through logical inductions which by necessity are not necessarily true.

    All of God's immanent qualities can exist in the physical universe.

    When you say "physical" do you mean 3-space local realism? And "physical universe" as the atomic based galaxies?

    If so... then Quantum non-locality would falsify your claim that non-physical phenomena cannot be scientifically proven.
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    What a bunch of HOOOEY!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Alighieri Registered Member

    What I am referring to is the idea the physics is a restrained science while mathematics is not. There is a fine line between what can exist as a physical phenomena versus mathematic. By physical I mean anything which contains matter and exists as either a measure of mass, wave, or energy, which even the smallest fractions of subatomic particles do. Even quantum non-locality is restricted by math we do not fully understand. The point is that while physics must exist within derived math, math can exist beyond physics. Physics exists as a subset of and is encompassed by mathematics. Consider basic trancendental numbers such as pi which exact numbers yet cannot be calculated due to their existance outside of the realm of physics.

    The point is that if the laws of physics seen in our universe is one subset of a greater set of mathematics than there can be others, completely separate from ours. In this case if god existed within these laws he would only exist within a given set of parameters and contradict his omnipresence.

    Note that by 'derivitive' I am referring to the idea that they are in fact a subset of a larger set. Much how the four laws of force are theoretically derivitives of a unified theory.
  15. Alighieri Registered Member

    "transformation of energy, therefore the infinite, omnipresent, and eternal energy is all-power-full"

    Quite an assumption, note that in math, infinity is not necessarily unbounded and may be retrained by other dimensions. For instance consider the Koch snowflake of chaotic geometry, an object in which an infinitely long line is bounded around a finite area.
  16. Myles Registered Senior Member

  17. Vkothii Banned Banned

    God is Chaos, and is therefore unpredictable. He introduces unpredictable events (the dinosaurs got a big asteroid for example, courtesy of His will, supposedly) and there are always unknowns.

    God is also Regularity and is therefore predictable. He does not suddenly turn day into night (we have never observed this, it always happens gradually and predictably). Nor does He stop water from boiling, or turn the oceans into steam occasionally (that one's waiting for the final curtain).
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2008
  18. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Predictably unpredictable or unpredictably predictable?

    You know, I bet those dinosaurs said to each other "We'll never get hit by an asteroid 'cos we've never observed one..."
  19. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Well, there are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, you know...?
  20. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    You're making a whole bunch of assumptions about the nature of the universe throughout the whole proof. For example, the assumption that the universe (specifically energy) did not have a beginning, the assumption that the laws of physics as we know them have always applied and the assumption that causal relationships have always worked as they do now. When you're dealing with the origin of the universe (and therefore the origin of the laws of physics) these aren't valid assumptions to make.

    Even if we believe all those assumptions are true, the proof does nothing in the end except "prove" that everything that has ever existed is part of an infinite something. All this talk about "omnipotent" and "omniscient" is just tacked on to give that something the appearance of a theistic God. The whole thing can be boiled down into "If we assume that energy has always existed and behaves as it does now, then we can prove energy has always existed and behaved as it does now. Oh, and that energy is God."
  21. Vkothii Banned Banned

    there's also unknowable unknowns, quod vide.
  22. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Quod libet.
  23. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Oh, me ne pardonnez, hum?

Share This Page