What would you accept as PROOF of a God?

My argument isn't Gödel argument. I made many changes to it correcting it's mistakes.


What a fraud! You don't even understand the notation.

I've had beginning programming students write random insult generators that produce statements conveying more meaning that what you can muster.
 
Empiricism is the only way to come to concrete truth. Your method is an attempt to come to abstract truth.

The Cartesian self is concrete truth.


That's not a truth; that's an axiom. Here's another one: The universe operates according to physical laws which can be deduced and exploited through observation and experimentation.

The Cartesian self is a 100% absolute truth. It's the ONLY thing that can be proven to truly exist.

Like it or not, we live in the age of empiricism. The ideal is no longer real. It is no longer considered legitimate to leap directly from the subjective to the objective. In our age, truth is concrete, not abstract.

You're making no sense.

What a fraud! You don't even understand the notation.

I've had beginning programming students write random insult generators that produce statements conveying more meaning that what you can muster.

I already explained in detail the notation used in my equation. Your questions concerning the notation didn't even make sense and those that made even a little bit of sense, I answered clearly and concisely. You have kept asserting that my answers were "wrong" but you haven't as of yet explained exactly how they are wrong. You didn't even know what you were asking.
 
Dusty - I've been going through the threads you started since you started participating on this forum.

You've always been silly.

As I told you before, you don't have the background to understand a short explanation of why your answers were wrong.

I have no interesting in investing the time needed to educate you on mathematical logic.

Get an f'ing book on the subject and read. Do your own work.

You behave like a spoiled child.

Many of your posts over the last few years have been demands that people look up things for you on the internet or explain things to you.

You don't believe in college, you won't educate yourself - what the hell do you expect us to do?

You pretend to knowledge that you don't have and, at this rate, will never attain.

By the way, Dustin - much of my doctoral work and study involved logic and automated reasoning. I do know what I was asking, and I understand how truly inadequate your answers were.

My best advice: Shut up, learn things, think - (lather, rinse,) repeat.
 
The Cartesian self is concrete truth.
No it isn't. The concrete is not determined through reflection.

The Cartesian self is a 100% absolute truth. It's the ONLY thing that can be proven to truly exist.
You sure are fond of unsupportable assertions.

You're making no sense.
You are failing to comprehend.

I don't really expect to convince you. Your insistence on maintaining your shaky assumptions around truth, proof and evidence is fundamental to your project - I doubt you will relent.

I'll give you some honest advice - take it or leave it. Do you remember in your "Doubting your Disbelief" thread when I was blathering on about Plato and Hegel and the Subject/Object distinction? I strongly recommend diving into some Hegel. You are attempting something very, very similar. Here is a decent summary of Hegelianism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegelianism

You don't appear to be familiar with the Subject/Object problem, but it is directly relevant to your project. Hegel proposed the most complete solution - a system of metaphysical "science" that reveals the totality of Being. In other words, Absolute Truth. If you want the abstract to be concrete, I suggest examining Hegel's attempt to make it so. You may find it useful. His masterpiece is "The Phenomenology of Spirit" (alternatively titled "Phenomenology of Mind"). Here it is:

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/Hegel Phen ToC.htm

For the record, Hegel failed in his attempt to make the "rational real" and he was one of the greatest minds the world has ever known. If you succeed, you will be immortal.


ETA: Hegel's system was the result of a Cartesian journey. He attempted to answer the question, "what is this I that thinks", and in the process claimed to acquire Absolute Knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Dusty - I've been going through the threads you started since you started participating on this forum.

You've always been silly.

As I told you before, you don't have the background to understand a short explanation of why your answers were wrong.

I have no interesting in investing the time needed to educate you on mathematical logic.

Get an f'ing book on the subject and read. Do your own work.

You behave like a spoiled child.

Many of your posts over the last few years have been demands that people look up things for you on the internet or explain things to you.

You don't believe in college, you won't educate yourself - what the hell do you expect us to do?

You pretend to knowledge that you don't have and, at this rate, will never attain.

By the way, Dustin - much of my doctoral work and study involved logic and automated reasoning. I do know what I was asking, and I understand how truly inadequate your answers were.

My best advice: Shut up, learn things, think - (lather, rinse,) repeat.


What's that? I stopped reading when I realized you didn't explain how my answers to your questions concerning my notations were wrong.

No it isn't. The concrete is not determined through reflection.

Says who?

You sure are fond of unsupportable assertions.

Try doing some research into philosophy then get back to me. The Cartesian self is a 100% absolute truth. You call this an "unsupportable assertion"? Thought, therefor existence. If thought exists then either I am thinking it or I am perceiving it's existence in either case I personally exist. If I doubt this contention then this also proves I exist because I couldn't doubt if I didn't exist.
 
Try doing some research into philosophy then get back to me.

I have a degree in philosophy. I am quite confident that I have done more research than you ever will.

You have put all of your eggs in the deductive reasoning basket, so it is quite unsurprising that you cling to Descartes so rigidly. Unfortunately for you, results come from observation rather than reflection.

Enjoy your Cartesian journey into false certainty.
 
I have a degree in philosophy. I am quite confident that I have done more research than you ever will.

You might want to get your money back for that.

You have put all of your eggs in the deductive reasoning basket, so it is quite unsurprising that you cling to Descartes so rigidly. Unfortunately for you, results come from observation rather than reflection.

My realization that I exist came from reflection. Inorder to even come to the rational conclusion that you can even observe things outside of your mind and be able to use empiricism or science you must first use deductive reasoning and reflection to build an epistemological base.

Enjoy your Cartesian journey into false certainty.


Can you tell me how my rational for my existence is "false"? No, Of course you can't.
 
You might want to get your money back for that.



My realization that I exist came from reflection. Inorder to even come to the rational conclusion that you can even observe things outside of your mind and be able to use empiricism or science you must first use deductive reasoning and reflection to build an epistemological base.




Can you tell me how my rational for my existence is "false"? No, Of course you can't.


Here are some terms that might be helpful for you:

Philosopher:
1.a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
2. Lover of wisdom (from the Greek)

True believer:
1. a person who has been thoroughly convinced of something.
2. a fanatic, esp. a religious or political one.

Guess which one you are?

It's not your "rational" [sic] that is false; it is your certainty.

Your god is a delusion, your proof is pathetic, and your fanaticism makes you a foolish young man.
 
Here are some terms that might be helpful for you:

Philosopher:
1.a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
2. Lover of wisdom (from the Greek)

True believer:
1. a person who has been thoroughly convinced of something.
2. a fanatic, esp. a religious or political one.

Guess which one you are?

Which one? 1 or 2? It's true that I am thoroughly convinced of many things. I'm thoroughly convinced that 1+1=2. If that makes me a "True believer" then I guess that's what I am.

It's not your "rational" [sic] that is false; it is your certainty.

There's nothing wrong with being certain about obvious facts.


Your god is a delusion, your proof is pathetic, and your fanaticism makes you a foolish young man.

Yea, Well...Your Mamma!
 
One more time:

"Extremelly advanced aliens" must work within the boundaries of reality and actual physical law.

Unfortunately, this is only relevent if you actually KNOW "reality and actual physical law." If someone would have ran a computer off a battery back in 1000CE, the people there would decreed that it was outside the boundaries of physical law, and it would have been, _as they knew it._ Would that have made her a god?

Communication through copper wires? Impossible...
 
You can´t glimpse a phenomenon and dictate right away "this is alien work", "this is god work". Science does not work that way. It requires extensive research and numberless tests. You can easily rule out hypotheses once you have that kind of result. That is why we have, so far, ruled out any god-like "explanation" and thats how we are going to determine IF aliens are playing tricks on us or not.


One more time: How will you test to exclude the possibility of advanced alien technology rather than the hand of God?
 
Unfortunately, this is only relevent if you actually KNOW "reality and actual physical law."

Yes, and we do, to a very large degree. Althought science will not stop discovering for a long time, much of what it has already discovered and explained will remain. We have all reason to believe this tendency will continue over the eons.
Contrary to common belief, science does not change completely form time to time. There is a hard core that stays and there are inconclusive shells that change (such was the nature of eletromagnetic phenomena in the 19th century). We tend to focus only on the edge of science and not on those stablished knowledges which we take for granted.

I cannot, of course, know beforehand how to specifically test any possible "alien technology" that could possibly show up. But they WILL BE testable. They will have to be matter of science, they will have to work in a manner analogous to any other machine or technology. If it is a remote mechanism, a communication medium will have to exist, and we will be forced to find its source. People in 1000AD would reach the same conclusions over time.

Eventually (5000 years? whatever), what is technology will be shown to be so. But what if it isn´t? Our efforts will be useless, there will be nothing to explain. We will be able to use extensive testing to rule out the "alien" hypothesis, just like lack of evidence allowed us to rule out so many other at-the-time good ones.

Now, I know many believers like to point out what they think are "paradoxes" of science and immediately say that "can only be explained by God". There is that whole woo in the University of Oregon. I´m not one of those people and I´m sure that they are speaking out of ignorance (or maybe out of their...). Looking for horns in horse´s heads, as we say in here.
I hope you understand I´m proposing something different altogether.
 
what is proof? have you ever asked your self .. what does people mean by proof... and how many of the 6 billion people agree to a common proof? and why?

god of the bible is not a separate entity, God of the bible and any God thaqt is discribed as the all in one being, omnipotent and so on... is the natur the space the time, you and me and all others... what separates one person from another is ... self indulgence, greed what seems important to an individual.\
people grow... for a reason.
It doesnt matter what anyone believes... or think they are doing...
God, budah nature are all the same. it is people who think they are different.
In essence we are all one, from one, so forth. If anyone say what or who they worship is an individual.. .then ..... they are just worshipping and enslaving them selves to a being that is not all that omnipotent.
 
what is proof? have you ever asked your self .. what does people mean by proof... and how many of the 6 billion people agree to a common proof? and why?


Proof is whatever type and amount of evidence compels the mind to accept something as true. I don't know about agreement between all six billion residents of earth, but millions of people do agree about various levels of proof. Three hundred million Americans, for example, agree that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for a criminal conviction. Mathematicians for the last several thousand years agree that proof is the required to be the only possible and necessary explanation derived from simple axioms. Scientists demand that there be explanations for all inconsistent results.

So, this issue has actually been very well addressed.


god of the bible is not a separate entity, God of the bible and any God thaqt is discribed as the all in one being, omnipotent and so on... is the natur the space the time, you and me and all others... what separates one person from another is ... self indulgence, greed what seems important to an individual.\
people grow... for a reason.
It doesnt matter what anyone believes... or think they are doing...
God, budah nature are all the same. it is people who think they are different.
In essence we are all one, from one, so forth. If anyone say what or who they worship is an individual.. .then ..... they are just worshipping and enslaving them selves to a being that is not all that omnipotent.


Okay. Thanks for that meaningless rant.
 
I´m accepting as proof anything that would prove a scientific theory, regardless of individual notions on how science works.

To put it in other words, what makes us (correctly) so sure about gravity or Q.E.D.? I think we need the same kind of empirical evidence backing those theories, mutatis mutandis of course.
 
You know, I didn´t understand a word of what he wrote.


Okay, just to be sociable, I'll try to figure it out.


god of the bible is not a separate entity, God of the bible and any God thaqt is discribed as the all in one being, omnipotent and so on


All of the different conceptions of God in world religion really describe the same single being.


... is the natur the space the time, you and me and all others...


God is everything. He is time and space and even each of us.


what separates one person from another is ... self indulgence, greed what seems important to an individual.\


The reason most people don't feel like part of God is that greed and self-involvement keep them from doing so.


people grow... for a reason.


But the purpose of life is to unselfishly realize that one is a part of God


It doesnt matter what anyone believes... or think they are doing...
God, budah nature are all the same. it is people who think they are different.
In essence we are all one, from one, so forth


Reitterating the point.


If anyone say what or who they worship is an individual.. .then ..... they are just worshipping and enslaving them selves to a being that is not all that omnipotent.


Anyone who defines his religious belief differently is wrong and is enslaved to a false god, much as Teal'c was enslaved to Apothis at the beginning of Stargate: SG1.

Okay, I threw in that last part.
 
An entity with powers far more superious then us humans can always claim to be "god".

However, he (or she) can never prove to us that he (or she) is the only of his (or her) kind.
Also, he (or she) might prove that he (or she) is more superiour then humans but he (or she) can not prove to us that he (or she) is "almighty".

Give a gun, a flashlight and a ghettoblaster...
Send me back 2000 years in time and I will be god on earth!... :D
Till I run out of bullets and batteries... :(

Bruce Jongejans
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom