[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Talk about being biased and standing a firm stand against freedom of speech. Why is there a theology thread if no one can argue God exist? Why bate people with this forum and with questions? What is the purpose of this forum if no one is allowed to say God exist?

Its unfortunately becoming a bit more than disingenuous of you continue to claim unfair persecution in the face of the oft-times restated explanation of the distinctions made by our rules, which are more accepting than your slanderous and false claims, made all the more egregious by the fact that you have very non-sensically and obnoxiously blamed one of our most religious members of doing this "baiting."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

People are absolutely able to say the words "I believe God exists" on this Forum. If you are going to say "the existence of God is a Fact" then you have crossed over into the realm of science, and it requires proof.

What MySiddhi is doing here is actually *supported* insofar as he is trying to provide proof, as opposed to what you have done in so far here which is to *demand* *acceptance* of the existence of God, which is non-scientific and considered Proselytizing.

The fact that he has provided a proof of course means that it can be critiqued according to the Scientific Method, and that's what's going on here: while he's been warned about the consequences of demanding acceptance of calls to unsupportable metaphysics, he's being given free reign to try to support his proof.

To try to make this even clearer, please consider the following point you just made to coldcreation:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Sincerely, why is it a false statement to claim that God and Nature are equal? By what authority do we separate God from nature?

"By what authority" is indeed the point. For those who hold different opinions, you are *demanding* that *you* are the sole authority.

The issue simply comes down to the fact that "God is Nature" is an opinion.

We consider it very offensive to demand that other people agree with your opinion.

Boerseun believes strongly that there's no evidence of God and thus that God does not exist. I believe that God is Nature, but that God really doesn't care much about us, and if its a Him, then he's just running his Tonka truck off the top steps while if its a Her then she's probably much more interested in the ducks and bunnies. Jim Colyer believes Christ is the Savior of us all.

What links all of the three of us is that we all understand that these beliefs are opinions, and that allows all of us to get along quite well together here on this forum.

By continuing to stir the pot and try to claim persecution and create conflict, you make everyone here quite angry at you no matter what their beliefs are.

Don't worry, I'm quite patient. I'll continue to try to explain this to you until you understand.

Why, he is the prince's jester,
Buffy

[MySiddhi]

By definition, a state of divinity is very different from the patterns of behavior observed in the environment, or what is deduced from experience.

That is your definition.

to attribute E = mc^2 to Poincaré and Pretto is like trying to attribute ...., and Einstein the father of relativity.

Poincaré was the first to derive the mass-energy equivalence equation as well as the Lorentz transformations of the principle of relativity. Pretto was the first to explain; "the matter of any body contains in it a sum of energy represented by the entire mass of the body". Even the gravitational equations were first derived by Hilbert.

So, maybe someone was a gross and disgusting plagiarist?

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" - Albert Einstein

the attempt to explain the supernatural with logic

Nowhere have I said that God is "supernatural". God may have non-physical aspects but that does not mean that God is not natural.

Only with the accurate knowledge of the natural laws, combined with firm understanding of our association to evolution fostered by objective observation, can there be productive growth, an increased capacity for positive human relations and peaceful interaction. Knowing the facts relevant to the underlying principles of nature will lead to a better understanding of the general notions of personality, creativity: the genetic and ontogenic factors in growth and evolution; recognition of environmental, internal or individual, unconscious and conscious factors as determinant of behavior; the idea that personality is connected to and indivisible from the physical laws; the recognition that human beings are social animals; and that the cyclical budding phases of life mirror synchronization between the developing individual, his societal environment and the evolving universe.

And all the more so if you had a respectful AWE of nature.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by CraigD

MySiddhi, either your post is nonsensical, or I don’t understand your notation.

Please write the quoted proposition in plain English. For example, I would write it:
“A implies and is implied by A, or A implies A, or the property A valued A implies A, or there exists Ax such that A equals x”
Although a tautology (any proposition of the form (x ≡ x)∧y is), this doesn’t make sense to me.

Before any communication can occur, writer and reader must understand the writer’s notation. At present, I’m unable to read more than a few lines of your post.

My equation;

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

reads as follows in plain English;

(nothing equals nothing) AND (nothing involves nothing) AND (nothing has the property of nothing) AND (nothing exists as nothing)

I look forward to our discussion.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

My equation;

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

reads as follows in plain English;

(nothing equals nothing) AND (nothing involves nothing) AND (nothing has the property of nothing) AND (nothing exists as nothing)

I am not sure you can validate this clause:

(idA: A → A)

which in stricter logical terms should be translated as "A has the property that A implies A."

I believe you will find that this is an excellent example of a case where Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds: (A → A) is a stated Axiom of the system (or should be, and it is a weakness of your presentation, perhaps caused by your desire for economy), and thus cannot without justification be said to be an inherent property of A. In certain formal systems it certainly could be, but you need to show why in your own formal system it should. What you are doing here is attempting to remove an axiom by making A its own logical meta-property. It could definitely be useful in your proof if this was the case because it allows you to bootstrap the truth-value of A, however I believe you will find that Gödel would view this as an invalid mechanism for circumventing his First Theory of Incompleteness, because it is inherently undecidable unless you add it as an Axiom.

Axioms of course are "givens" and thus their truth value is assumed, although they can be in conflict with any concrete application of the formal system.

-----------------------------------------

On a separate issue, I note that the only Axiom in your system is:

(A1) Something cannot be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

Which is reasonable in the colloquial sense, with the exception of the above-discussed issue of the lack of specificity about the meaning of the term "something."

However one of the implications of your claimed Tautologies is the statement:

Nothing = ~Something

And thus we can conclude from your Axiom:

~(A1) = "Nothing" can be true and false at the same time

Thus making all of your Tautologies undecidable!

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us,
Buffy

[MySiddhi]

I am not sure you can validate this clause:

(idA: A → A)

which in stricter logical terms should be translated as "A has the property that A implies A."

I believe you will find that this is an excellent example of a case where Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem holds: (A → A) is a stated Axiom of the system (or should be, and it is a weakness of your presentation, perhaps caused by your desire for economy), and thus cannot without justification be said to be an inherent property of A. In certain formal systems it certainly could be, but you need to show why in your own formal system it should. What you are doing here is attempting to remove an axiom by making A its own logical meta-property. It could definitely be useful in your proof if this was the case because it allows you to bootstrap the truth-value of A, however I believe you will find that Gödel would view this as an invalid mechanism for circumventing his First Theory of Incompleteness, because it is inherently undecidable unless you add it as an Axiom.

Axioms of course are "givens" and thus their truth value is assumed, although they can be in conflict with any concrete application of the formal system.

(idA: A → A)

This formula is called the Identity Morphism... feel free to look it up.

Gödel's theorems are only relevant to axiomatic deduction systems. I only have one deduction and it is natural (needing no axioms).

On a separate issue, I note that the only Axiom in your system is:

(A1) Something cannot be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

Which is reasonable in the colloquial sense, with the exception of the above-discussed issue of the lack of specificity about the meaning of the term "something."

However one of the implications of your claimed Tautologies is the statement:

Nothing = ~Something

And thus we can conclude from your Axiom:

~(A1) = "Nothing" can be true and false at the same time

Thus making all of your Tautologies undecidable!

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us,
Buffy

Nothing can be true and false in the same respect at the same time.

My tautologies aren't nothing silly. So, this statement is actually true as a variation of my axiom.

[gareth]

Trying to define a formula for this may be a bit like grasping around in the dark for something that may not even be there, but MySiddhi's efforts are more in the spirit of science (i.e. reaching out into the unknown), and certainly more courageous, than those of Dawkins.

Disproving the existence of a supernatural being is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by gareth

Trying to define a formula for this may be a bit like grasping around in the dark for something that may not even be there, but MySiddhi's efforts are more in the spirit of science (i.e. reaching out into the unknown), and certainly more courageous, than those of Dawkins.

Disproving the existence of a supernatural being is like shooting fish in a barrel.

One can also understand from my proof that it is necessarily a logical impossiblity that a supernatural being exists.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

One can also understand from my proof that it is necessarily a logical impossiblity that a supernatural being exists.

Proof is not required to arrive at that conclusion. Supernatural, by definition (see below) is outside the physical world, i.e., nowhere.

Also, saying that a supernatural being does not exist, therefor He must be physical, is quite a leap of faith.

Originally Posted by CraigD

In the absence of a precise definition of “God” and “nature”, I don’t believe the truth of the statement “God and nature are equal” can be established. Such limitations due to the lack of precise definitions are endemic in philosophy discussion, and a large reason, IMHO, for the “fundamental maxims of philosophy”:...

Good point GraigD. Both the words 'god' and 'nature' are ambiguous from the start, at least as expressed by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I could have used the words supernatural and physical in their place.

So the sentence could just as well read:

It would be a false statement to claim that the supernatural and physical are equal.


Here are some definitions, far less open to interpretation than 'god' and 'nature':

_________________________________________________

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

supernatural:

1:*of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially :*of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
2 a:*departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b:*attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).

_____________________________________________

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical

physical:

1 a:*of or relating to natural science b (1):*of or relating to physics (2):*characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
2 a:*having material existence :*perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey>

______________________________________________

If anyone disagrees with the relation 'god-supernatural' then the burden of proof is on him/her/them to show that god is related or attached to the physical world.

Simply saying "nothing is the cause of nothing" means nothing.




CC

[gareth]

I was very interested in your definition:

"An eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists."

This seems a very plausible definition for what I understand 'God' to be.

I'm sure you realise that your idea of God is very different from the idea of God that many people have in the West, which is probably why certain people in this forum have such an unhelpful knee-jerk reaction to what you are trying to do.

Without meaning to hijack this thread to criticise Dawkins, I believe he chose to tackle the perception of God many of us have in the West because it is just so easy to do.

I'd like to see him take on Hinduism and Buddhism (yes - I know the last one isn't really considered a religion) in his next book.

[MySiddhi]

Proof is not required to arrive at that conclusion.

Possibly you meant "belief" instead of conclusion... as a conclusion is arrived at after proof considerations.

Supernatural, by definition (see below) is outside the physical world, i.e., nowhere.

And here is your semantic effort at a proof.

Also, saying that a supernatural being does not exist, therefor He must be physical, is quite a leap of faith.

Is this a straw man fallacy with respects to my proof?