Completely lost the plot..
Now why tell me I have, if this entire thread has?
Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 467. (Read 845498 times)
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
Axiom 1 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel comments that "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995). Axioms 2, 3 and 4 can be summarized by saying that positive properties form a principal ultrafilter.
From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved:
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
An axiom is "an assumption taken to be true." What have you proved, arguing from assumptions? Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
Axiom 1 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel comments that "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995). Axioms 2, 3 and 4 can be summarized by saying that positive properties form a principal ultrafilter.
From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved:
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Remember, God spoke the light into existence. But it doesn't say how He created the Heaven and Earth in the first place. Or does it?
I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.
Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
Your logic confines you to a robotic state of mind of following a reactionary timeline indefinitely.
Regarding your picture, you have freewill. God loves all, god is love. You have freewill to channel ego, negativity and hatred. Without negativity to create this 3D reality of space and pain, how would you experience the universe other than a singular point of spaceless love and light? And without positivity, how would space exist? There would be no light.
It was never atheism vs theism, it was never science vs spirit. It has always been science and spirit. Put your faith in satan or god, it matters not. Living in fear bounds you to a life of reaction while living at peace bounds you to freedom, as you create rather than react. That's a choice you make with your freewill, so long as you can find it beneath the self doubt.
I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.
Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
Have you not known? His malevolence is "love." Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
You're talking about the atheist, right?
I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.
Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
Have you not known? His malevolence is "love." Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
The level of bullshit masquerading as knowledge in this thread is astounding.
Yes, and I am so happy that someone recognizes this fact, or is it a theory?
The level of bullshit masquerading as knowledge in this thread is astounding.
There is great underlying logic to life. People gradually deteriorate and grow old. It is gradual because the mechanisms for life are powerful in some ways, and attempt to keep us alive. As the mechanisms themselves deteriorate, we gradually fall apart (I'm not talking about people who get hit by a Mack truck.).
The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
Well, first you have to start with everything. (The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
.)There is congruence and in-congruence within everything. Rational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all real numbers") is begotten of congruence. Irrational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all imaginary numbers") is begotten of incongruence.
We aren't discussing the paradoxical (elements "of the set of all imaginary numbers"), but that rationally intelligible.
A classification, within limakasidian entropism, is a "subset of the set of all real numbers." (Note, again, only that rationally intelligible is being discussed.) When one speaks to "alive" and "dead" they are actually speaking to membership within certain subsets.
Speaking, then to death, one "dies" (ceases to be element of certain subsets of the rationally intelligible) because that was only a subset of it and the whole of them are.
What, then, does one gain by acquiring entropy within the mind?
Acquiring such entropy, such possible states of existing, it spans the assorted congruities that also had one's mind know that (that multitude of differences is entropy of existence).
As there is every congruence, there is every mind in every way. (Indeed, there is every thing in every way.)
How is this known?
An absolute tendency to become less orderly would not only generate itself but everything, Congruence (and, thus, incongruence) would be an inevitable consequence of every thing being. It is known, by change within one's own mind that there is a tendency to become less orderly, and one such tendency absolute is the most genuine embodiment of that.
What of restraint upon the genuineness of that?
Any such constraint would, itself, have to hail from a tendency to become less orderly for one would then have the "natural kind" and constraint upon its manifestation.
"Natural kind?"
Indeed, Aristotle (as all others) spoke truth! There is the natural kind, absolute tendency to become less orderly, and there are manifestations of that, every thing.
How have all others spoken truth?
Everything is by infinite congruence within an infinite number of things.
Infinite Congruence
Imagine cutting a tree into ten million slices. Should you position those slices in their original arrangement, you'll have what appears to be a tree. That's what like reality is like, except with an infinite amount of infinite varieties of "slices" (they're not actually portions of anything, save within congruence).
In-congruence
Should you position those slices in a wholly arbitrary order that does not correspond to the original, you would have an absurdity that would likely make you noxious. That is a more polite "subset of the set of all imaginary numbers" (your 1/0, if you will), for the individual slices themselves make sense.
We aren't moving from the past, through the present, to the future. We are actually moving in the exact opposite direction.
Numbers, sets, and subsets are only a language that we use to attempt to interpret reality. We live reality. Or do we?
There is great underlying logic to life. People gradually deteriorate and grow old. It is gradual because the mechanisms for life are powerful in some ways, and attempt to keep us alive. As the mechanisms themselves deteriorate, we gradually fall apart (I'm not talking about people who get hit by a Mack truck.).
The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
Well, first you have to start with everything. (The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
.)There is congruence and in-congruence within everything. Rational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all real numbers") is begotten of congruence. Irrational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all imaginary numbers") is begotten of incongruence.
We aren't discussing the paradoxical (elements "of the set of all imaginary numbers"), but that rationally intelligible.
A classification, within limakasidian entropism, is a "subset of the set of all real numbers." (Note, again, only that rationally intelligible is being discussed.) When one speaks to "alive" and "dead" they are actually speaking to membership within certain subsets.
Speaking, then to death, one "dies" (ceases to be element of certain subsets of the rationally intelligible) because that was only a subset of it and the whole of them are.
What, then, does one gain by acquiring entropy within the mind?
Acquiring such entropy, such possible states of existing, it spans the assorted congruities that also had one's mind know that (that multitude of differences is entropy of existence).
As there is every congruence, there is every mind in every way. (Indeed, there is every thing in every way.)
How is this known?
An absolute tendency to become less orderly would not only generate itself but everything, Congruence (and, thus, incongruence) would be an inevitable consequence of every thing being. It is known, by change within one's own mind that there is a tendency to become less orderly, and one such tendency absolute is the most genuine embodiment of that.
What of restraint upon the genuineness of that?
Any such constraint would, itself, have to hail from a tendency to become less orderly for one would then have the "natural kind" and constraint upon its manifestation.
"Natural kind?"
Indeed, Aristotle (as all others) spoke truth! There is the natural kind, absolute tendency to become less orderly, and there are manifestations of that, every thing.
How have all others spoken truth?
Everything is by infinite congruence within an infinite number of things.
Infinite Congruence
Imagine cutting a tree into ten million slices. Should you position those slices in their original arrangement, you'll have what appears to be a tree. That's what like reality is like, except with an infinite amount of infinite varieties of "slices" (they're not actually portions of anything, save within congruence).
In-congruence
Should you position those slices in a wholly arbitrary order that does not correspond to the original, you would have an absurdity that would likely make you noxious. That is a more polite "subset of the set of all imaginary numbers" (your 1/0, if you will), for the individual slices themselves make sense.
We aren't moving from the past, through the present, to the future. We are actually moving in the exact opposite direction.
Numbers, sets, and subsets are only a language that we use to attempt to interpret reality. We live reality. Or do we?
There is great underlying logic to life. People gradually deteriorate and grow old. It is gradual because the mechanisms for life are powerful in some ways, and attempt to keep us alive. As the mechanisms themselves deteriorate, we gradually fall apart (I'm not talking about people who get hit by a Mack truck.).
The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
Well, first you have to start with everything. (The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
.)There is congruence and in-congruence within everything. Rational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all real numbers") is begotten of congruence. Irrational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all imaginary numbers") is begotten of incongruence.
We aren't discussing the paradoxical (elements "of the set of all imaginary numbers"), but that rationally intelligible.
A classification, within limakasidian entropism, is a "subset of the set of all real numbers." (Note, again, only that rationally intelligible is being discussed.) When one speaks to "alive" and "dead" they are actually speaking to membership within certain subsets.
Speaking, then to death, one "dies" (ceases to be element of certain subsets of the rationally intelligible) because that was only a subset of it and the whole of them are.
What, then, does one gain by acquiring entropy within the mind?
Acquiring such entropy, such possible states of existing, it spans the assorted congruities that also had one's mind know that (that multitude of differences is entropy of existence).
As there is every congruence, there is every mind in every way. (Indeed, there is every thing in every way.)
How is this known?
An absolute tendency to become less orderly would not only generate itself but everything, Congruence (and, thus, incongruence) would be an inevitable consequence of every thing being. It is known, by change within one's own mind that there is a tendency to become less orderly, and one such tendency absolute is the most genuine embodiment of that.
What of restraint upon the genuineness of that?
Any such constraint would, itself, have to hail from a tendency to become less orderly for one would then have the "natural kind" and constraint upon its manifestation.
"Natural kind?"
Indeed, Aristotle (as all others) spoke truth! There is the natural kind, absolute tendency to become less orderly, and there are manifestations of that, every thing.
How have all others spoken truth?
Everything is by infinite congruence within an infinite number of things.
Infinite Congruence
Imagine cutting a tree into ten million slices. Should you position those slices in their original arrangement, you'll have what appears to be a tree. That's what like reality is like, except with an infinite amount of infinite varieties of "slices" (they're not actually portions of anything, save within congruence).
In-congruence
Should you position those slices in a wholly arbitrary order that does not correspond to the original, you would have an absurdity that would likely make you noxious. That is a more polite "subset of the set of all imaginary numbers" (your 1/0, if you will), for the individual slices themselves make sense.
There is great underlying logic to life. People gradually deteriorate and grow old. It is gradual because the mechanisms for life are powerful in some ways, and attempt to keep us alive. As the mechanisms themselves deteriorate, we gradually fall apart (I'm not talking about people who get hit by a Mack truck.).
The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?
Within limakasidian entropism, it is held that deliberate introduction of entropy into the mind for its unloosing can delay its loss to that uncontrolled.
The thing I would truly like to know is, are there any people on earth, right now, who are literally 200 years old or older.
Have those who have attempted or practiced introducing entropy, mentally, intentionally... are there records of the kinds of results they have received in their life? Are the results more than only mental (spiritual?) results?
Actually, for each of us the universe has an end. Life is short, so the universe experience is short. However, something way beyond the understanding of everybody put this life - such as it is - together. We see the beginning. We feel the end coming. After the end, it is gone; we don't really understand anything about it. So, how can we understand if there is going to come another life where we, our personal selves individually, are going to come back and live again... or not? We don't.
Nobody has enough knowledge to answer these questions FOR A FACT, truthfully, one way or another. Religion is the only method that we have for attempting to answer. Science is showing us that the universe is way to complicated for a scientific answer... at least anywhere within our lifetime. Religion has to do with certain kinds of odds, and the way we play those odds in our little bit of understanding that we DO seem to have.
The odds. Probability. Check out the different questions you can ask "the universe," or yourself. See if they are answered somehow. Include the method of SINCERELY asking God, 'cause He might answer, if He is real. I mean, we want the answer, right? And there isn't anything but guesswork, even in science. So, why not be sincere, trust for awhile that God exists, and ask Him? If He doesn't exist, He won't answer, right? So, nothing lost except the time that it takes to get sincere, and ask, and leave yourself open for the answer, right?
Personally, I get answers to my questions that I ask God all the time. They don't come in the form that I always expect. And I don't like some of the answers. And I often make believe I didn't hear the answer. But what can it hurt to be sincere and ask Him? We don't really have anything else.
Within limakasidian entropism, it is held that deliberate introduction of entropy into the mind for its unloosing can delay its loss to that uncontrolled. Nobody has enough knowledge to answer these questions FOR A FACT, truthfully, one way or another. Religion is the only method that we have for attempting to answer. Science is showing us that the universe is way to complicated for a scientific answer... at least anywhere within our lifetime. Religion has to do with certain kinds of odds, and the way we play those odds in our little bit of understanding that we DO seem to have.
The odds. Probability. Check out the different questions you can ask "the universe," or yourself. See if they are answered somehow. Include the method of SINCERELY asking God, 'cause He might answer, if He is real. I mean, we want the answer, right? And there isn't anything but guesswork, even in science. So, why not be sincere, trust for awhile that God exists, and ask Him? If He doesn't exist, He won't answer, right? So, nothing lost except the time that it takes to get sincere, and ask, and leave yourself open for the answer, right?
Personally, I get answers to my questions that I ask God all the time. They don't come in the form that I always expect. And I don't like some of the answers. And I often make believe I didn't hear the answer. But what can it hurt to be sincere and ask Him? We don't really have anything else.
Actually, for each of us the universe has an end. Life is short, so the universe experience is short. However, something way beyond the understanding of everybody put this life - such as it is - together. We see the beginning. We feel the end coming. After the end, it is gone; we don't really understand anything about it. So, how can we understand if there is going to come another life where we, our personal selves individually, are going to come back and live again... or not? We don't.
Nobody has enough knowledge to answer these questions FOR A FACT, truthfully, one way or another. Religion is the only method that we have for attempting to answer. Science is showing us that the universe is way too complicated for a scientific answer... at least anywhere within our lifetime. Religion has to do with certain kinds of odds, and the way we play those odds in our little bit of understanding that we DO seem to have.
The odds. Probability. Check out the different questions you can ask "the universe," or yourself. See if they are answered somehow. Include the method of SINCERELY asking God, 'cause He might answer, if He is real. I mean, we want the answer, right? And there isn't anything but guesswork, even in science. So, why not be sincere, trust for awhile that God exists, and ask Him? If He doesn't exist, He won't answer, right? So, nothing lost except the time that it takes to get sincere, and ask, and leave yourself open for the answer, right?
Personally, I get answers to my questions that I ask God all the time. They don't come in the form that I always expect. And I don't like some of the answers. And I often make believe I didn't hear the answer. But what can it hurt to be sincere and ask Him? We don't really have anything else.
Nobody has enough knowledge to answer these questions FOR A FACT, truthfully, one way or another. Religion is the only method that we have for attempting to answer. Science is showing us that the universe is way too complicated for a scientific answer... at least anywhere within our lifetime. Religion has to do with certain kinds of odds, and the way we play those odds in our little bit of understanding that we DO seem to have.
The odds. Probability. Check out the different questions you can ask "the universe," or yourself. See if they are answered somehow. Include the method of SINCERELY asking God, 'cause He might answer, if He is real. I mean, we want the answer, right? And there isn't anything but guesswork, even in science. So, why not be sincere, trust for awhile that God exists, and ask Him? If He doesn't exist, He won't answer, right? So, nothing lost except the time that it takes to get sincere, and ask, and leave yourself open for the answer, right?
Personally, I get answers to my questions that I ask God all the time. They don't come in the form that I always expect. And I don't like some of the answers. And I often make believe I didn't hear the answer. But what can it hurt to be sincere and ask Him? We don't really have anything else.
I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.
Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
You haven't reached the "black hole" (nor "stone") phase of your entropic development, have you? Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
god is real. because he's wrong. the end
I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.
Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/
Here's some food for thought.
Have a nice day.
Could you please stop spamming a thread that has valuable information in it? Would be appreciated.
So much irony my eyes are burningYour lack of understanding does not reflect my level of understanding, it reflects your perception.
Could you please stop spamming a thread that has valuable information in it? Would be appreciated.
So much irony my eyes are burningYour lack of understanding does not reflect my level of understanding, it reflects your perception.
Jump to: