Merged A Proof of the Existence of God / Did Someone Create the Universe?

[abaddon]

Please clarify what article you are talking about.

This one.

It appears the website server was down on Saturday, I could not respond to the post. This time I have an article. I want to see if the server works.

 

[abaddon]

Do not expect me to depart from this website in a near future.

That is not necessarily within your remit.

I have a plenty of other ideas that I would like to test in front of specific audiences including this one.

You have yet to present this one. Colour me unimpressed.

Currently I am also testing my controversial ideas that go against Christian faith at the Christian websites.

Got a link? I'm bored.

 

[SumDooder]

Worth a shot, maybe

I can easily modify my your proof be getting rid of the tape to hopefully make a point you can grasp. Here it is:

1. The Creator is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The Creator came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the Creator.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.

Am I doing this right?

 

[abaddon]

Okay I'm calling shenanigans on this. Really, we're supposed to believe he has no clue what Rock Paper Scissors is? This is him trolling at worst, and a sort of "I don't even OWN a television" at best.

Unfair. I didn't own a TV for better than a decade, Until my kids harassed me into it not long ago.

That said, anyone claiming to be unaware of R-P-S is clearly living under the eponyomous rock or on a wind-up exercise. Or possibly a bridge dweller.

If you must know, I went full on home cinema. Surround sound, the lot. Personally, I am in or not. No middle ground.

 

[jrhowell]

3. Someone created the Creator.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.

Am I doing this right?

Excellent proof! Creators all the way down.

 

[aleCcowaN]

http://therestofyourmice.blogspot.com/2010/12/soundfury-variable.html

//Slight hijack// Dilbert creator and, well mostly full time idiot, Scott Adams wrote an entire short novel based on this concept, called "God's Debris" where a delivery man delivers a package to a strange old wise man who explains that since God is all power, all knowing, and all good he was left with nothing to do but commit suicide and all that was left, the very base elementary particles of the universe and probability, are what is left of him.

It's a fascinatingly stupid book that I sort of have to recommended as such pure, distilled nonsense that takes it self so seriously.

I only provided other possibilities as nonsensical as "Buddha"'s demiurge in point 3). He's basically saying 1) is wrong because of i-can't-hear-you-i-can't-hear-your reasons, 2) is also wrong because of i-can't-hear-you-i-can't-hear-your reasons, therefore 3)[insert any stupidity you want to promote here] is right.

So I wanted to say that his "reasoning" (lack thereof) serves to any number of ulterior motives in the field of addressing the gullible masses.

Because human demiurges who create godly demiurges are the kind of people who lack moral compasses and that should be a concern of us all.

 

[Hellbound]

Excellent proof! Creators all the way down.

Matryoshka God?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I would not call it a proof of anything.

You just don't understand his genius.

It's one of many rehashes of the good o'le "god exists, therefore god exists".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I only provided other possibilities as nonsensical as "Buddha"'s demiurge in point 3). He's basically saying 1) is wrong because of i-can't-hear-you-i-can't-hear-your reasons, 2) is also wrong because of i-can't-hear-you-i-can't-hear-your reasons, therefore 3)[insert any stupidity you want to promote here] is right.

So I wanted to say that his "reasoning" (lack thereof) serves to any number of ulterior motives in the field of addressing the gullible masses.

Because human demiurges who create godly demiurges are the kind of people who lack moral compasses and that should be a concern of us all.

Oh I know you weren't promoting any of that yourself on any serious level, no worries.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Excellent proof! Creators all the way down.

Matryoshka God?

Guys it's simple.

God created the universe. Chronos created God. Q from Star Trek created Chronos. Mitichlorians created Q. Mitichlorians were created by George Lucas. George Lucas was created in a lab in Burbank back in the 50s. The lab was started by IBM. IBM was created by a secret cabal of Illuminati. The Illuminati were created by Dan Brown for his DaVinci Code novel, Dan Brown is, of course, the reincarnation of Dante....

Long story short, plastics.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Am I doing this right?

Yes. That's certainly in the style of "Buddha"'s which consists of a mix of nonsense, special pleading, affirming the consequent, salt and pepper.

You can develop that into a chain of demiurges shaped as sacred dominoes and make it into fantastic storytelling about the beginning of the universe.

Something like this

 

[aleCcowaN]

Oh I know you weren't promoting any of that yourself on any serious level, no worries.

I know, but others, like "Buddha", may misconstrue it later. It was an innocent just-in-case clarification.

 

[SOdhner]

Unfair. I didn't own a TV for better than a decade, Until my kids harassed me into it not long ago.

To be clear, there's "I don't own a television" as a simple statement of fact and there's "I don't even OWN a television!" as a holier-than-thou attempt to belittle or dismiss something that others said. I don't actually care if any given person owns a television.

If you must know, I went full on home cinema. Surround sound, the lot. Personally, I am in or not. No middle ground.

Nice.

 

[Craig4]

I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.
End of proof.

There are several theories regarding creation of the universe that do not involve God (or Gods), the theory of quantum fluctuation is one them, that contradict each other. Without the observer, how can anyone tell which one of them is correct?

This is nothing. It's just some silly little thought game. You said you had proof. Why did you write this?

 

[JayUtah]

This is nothing. It's just some silly little thought game.

It's a "logical" proof, as opposed to an empirical one. I suppose tomorrow Buddha's going to take me on another round of "he said, she said" allegations about what said he was going to provide, what I said he said he was going to provide, what he said he provided (that story changes daily), and what I said he said he was going to provide, which is all different than what he actually provided. Then, ... well, you get the picture. At this point he's just trying to stir up enough controversy to seem like it matters in discrediting his critics. None of it has the slightest to with whether his proof works and whether his critics have found its flaws.

Not having any evidence, and having read a book on the philosophy of science, Buddha seems to be trying to conjure up a God out of nothing more than vague handwaving.

You said you had proof. Why did you write this?

Because he's hoping to gaslight us further into thinking this is a Real Proof.

 

[sylvan8798]

Back in my math Proofs course our professor said that a proof is something that convinces. No one here seems to be convinced, OP. Obviously, your attempt at a proof is lacking whatever that special something is that would actually convince. More thyme, perhaps?

 

[JayUtah]

Back in my math Proofs course our professor said that a proof is something that convinces. No one here seems to be convinced, OP.

This is what I meant at the start of the thread when I told him his proposed proof wouldn't be a proof if -- in his words -- it might not be accepted by everyone because everyone has different preferences. We found out later that you have to subscribe to his personal frankensteinian concoction of half-baked, half-learned, philosophies.

Obviously, your attempt at a proof is lacking whatever that special something is that would actually convince.

Following a familiar pattern, he just accuses everyone who can't see why his proof proves the existence of God of not being sufficiently sophisticated, intelligent, or well-read. His proof fails to convince because the audience is broken, not because the proof is broken.

 

[aleCcowaN]

We found out later that you have to subscribe to his personal frankensteinian concoction of half-baked, half-learned, philosophies.

But that concoction also includes a great deal of lidocaine because it still isn't working and he has to be somewhat anaesthetized to still prevent his critical thinking from derailing his own "proofs".

With what his has claimed victoriously to have proved here and all the promises of endless new threads dealing with fundamentals of his reality and universe, "Buddha" has brought wishful thinking to a whole new dimension.

 

[smartcooky]

I can easily modify my proof be getting rid of the tape. Here it is:

You're trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic

1. The Universe is of infinite age.
There must be an observer or observers to verify that. But their evidence, whatever it might be, cannot be viewed in its entirety, so it cannot be accepted.

No; an observer is not required. We would be able to deduce this from present observations. This would be true if either of two observations were made

a. That the universe is static (not expanding at all)

b. That the universe appears similar in nature to that which was proposed by Fred Hoyle (a Steady State universe) one of the requirements of which is the regular creation of matter from nothing (one hydrogen atom per cubic metre of space per 10¹⁰ years IIRC)

We observe neither of these. Instead we observe that the universe is expanding, therefore it must necessarily have been smaller in the past.

2. The universe came to be by itself, so to speak, as a result of some empirical process.
However, there was no observer to verify that, so this claim is baseless.

Again, no; an observer is not required. We are able to deduce this from present observations.

The universe is seen to be expanding, and therefore we know that it must necessarily have been smaller in the past. By observing the rate at which it is expanding, and the rate as which it is accelerating, along with some other things which are too complicated to go into here, and in any case, which are being the scope of this question, we are able to estimate accurately that all of the matter in the the universe was in one place 13.82 billion years years ago (give or take 30 million years)

3. Someone created the universe.
In this case that someone is the Creator (or Creators) and the Observer at the time, so this hypothesis can be confirmed.

No, it isn't. This is unprovable. This is the one choice you have put before us that really does need an observer, and so far, no observer has been forthcoming, nor is there, or has there ever been any observed evidence of the existence of such an observer, or a creator

End of proof.

Quite!

Your option 2 is the correct one

 

[Buddha]

No.



Psychoanalysis is not a "theory" as science uses the term. It is a field of study that can give rise to individual theories. He rejected the approach of psychoanalysis because it's based on individual theories, and produces individual theories, that cannot be falsified according to his terms. He did not say those theories must then be false.

Similarly you go on to misrepresent Popper as saying that individual unfalsifiable theories are false. This -- as I have explained several times -- is simply wrong. I grow tired of repeating myself only to be assiduously ignored by you.

I expected your response, so I am going to quote Popper' book , The Logic of Scientific Discovery (I call it LSD)

"But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is available of being tasted by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the testability but the falsifiability of a system is to taken as a condition of demarcation"
Popper, LSD pg 40

"The theory of natural science , and especially what we call natural laws, have the form of strictly universal statements, thus they can be expressed of negations of strictly existential statements '''
For example, the laws of conservation of energy can be expressed in the form: 'There is no perpetual motion machines' or the hypothesis of the elementary charge in the form: 'There is no electrical charge other than multiple of the electrical elementary charge"
Popper, LSD pg 68-69

As I wrote before, the Popper doctrine fails when it is applied to the control systems that my colleagues and I have developed. This is why:

1. Popper would not accept them as true because they are based on an inductive method of taking few measurements and building more or less complete model of a technological process.

2. Popper demands that all scientific theories should be based on strictly universal statements while almost all control systems theories are based on strictly existential statements.

I am sure that you haven't read Popper's book, which is a sign of ignorance on your part.