I'm thinking about posting this to a few more religious forums, but I'd just like to hear what people have to say on here.

So, playing Devil's Advocate, and hopefully without a bunch of straw man replies, what is the best argument for God you've heard? And, if you really can't stand it, why is that argument not good enough?

My favorite is Descartes' Ontological argument- but since I don't have a clear and distinct perception of God, this one still isn't enough for me.

Excited to hear replies!

Tags: God, advocate, argument, devils, for

Views: 2070

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you, Gallup's Mirror, for your comment. I'm certain you are not a "crackpot," as you have characterized me, but I will not take offense. :)

You make insightful reference to Hatcher's work, which was the inspiration for our proof. We made several changes, as explained on our Technical Papers page, thegproof. org/technical-papers under the last subheading, "Origin of G Theory from Hatcher and Its Divergence from Hatcher."

It appears from the way you write that you might not be familiar with First Order Predicate Logic. With all due respect, your characterization of Hatcher's axioms is both incomplete and imprecisely stated. In particular the "straw that breaks the camel's back" is merely an argument related to his axiom p.2, it is not a statement of the axiom.

As I explain right at the beginning of Video 1, no rational discussion of the existence or non-existence of God can take place unless "God" is defined, and that must be done with care. You list several examples of religious dogma, and I agree with you (in substantial part) that the dogmas you list are nonsense, at best, and in some cases downright evil. However, you then demand that these dogmas somehow be incorporated into the definition "God." This is like requiring any valid theory of orbital mechanics that accurately describes the motion of the planets to ALSO explain and justify astrology. We must separate the wheat from the chaff. You can do what you like with the chaff, but I'm only eating the wheat.

Whether "The Virgin Mary levitating up to heaven" actually happened or not has NOTHING to do with whether or not God, in it simple essence, actually exists. Hatcher's result, and ours, shows that a unique, self-causing, OMNIPOTENT phenomenon DOES exist. That phenomenon can only be what is commonly known as "God," notwithstanding that our theory does not (as of yet) reach any additional qualities of God, such as goodness or love (much less account for purported legendary stories claimed by various religions). Moreover, our proven phenomenon is Absolute (not relative), which means is is NOT the big bang (the big bang is clearly relative because it is always changing as observed by science).

What we are doing here, is to FINALLY *start* putting some of this stuff on solid mathematical ground, and providing on our website thegproof. org/ the education needed to understand that mathematics. Expanding on Hatcher's work, we have taken a big first step. We shall see what the future holds.

Cheers, Mark

With all due respect, your characterization of Hatcher's axioms is both incomplete and imprecisely stated. In particular the "straw that breaks the camel's back" is merely an argument related to his axiom p.2, it is not a statement of the axiom.

It's not my characterization. You'll have to take that up with Wikipedia.

As I explain right at the beginning of Video 1, no rational discussion of the existence or non-existence of God can take place unless "God" is defined,

Go ahead then. Define God.  (Someone remind me later: I asked for it!)

and that must be done with care.

Why?

However, you then demand that these dogmas somehow be incorporated into the definition "God."

Easy, tiger. I pointed out that Hatcher's work leads to a big bang-like conclusion, then I asked where are the crackpot parts you would care about. The dogmas I cited are the standard concepts of God in mainstream Christianity and Islam and the major religions of the world: a personal God who hears prayers, rules in heaven, demands torture and death for sins, punishes the sinners in hell, blah blah. You know?

If God must be defined "with care" is that a just euphemistic declaration that you are defining God in a way that excludes all of these standard things?

And if this is NOT that kind of bloodthirsty, personal God, but an indifferent, deistic God, then why would you or anyone else care if he exists or not? You see what I'm getting at?

But let's cut to the chase. You DO believe in that stuff don't you, Mark? This as opposed to a kind of pantheistic God, or a God which is merely the universe itself. You're not here to pitch deism. You actually think the God at the end of your videos and equations is Jesus. But you're keeping that hush-hush, right?

Whether "The Virgin Mary levitating up to heaven" actually happened or not has NOTHING to do with whether or not God, in it simple essence, actually exists.

Wait. I get it. You're another one of those tiresome, evasive, "stealth Jesus" crackpots who isn't going to admit what you believe. Too embarrassing, huh?

What we are doing here, is to FINALLY *start* putting some of this stuff on solid mathematical ground, and providing on our website thegproof. org/ the education needed to understand that mathematics.

Mathematical ground. So you have no empirical scientific evidence then. Why didn't you say so?

Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Thanks for stopping by, Mark!

Expanding on Hatcher's work, we have taken a big first step. We shall see what the future holds.

It's a bit early to tell but 90% of the time (from "scholar" Christian types) it's obscenities followed by a final exit: classic rage quit.

Thank you again, Gallup's Mirror, for your comment. I shall respond to your points one by one.

>It's not my characterization. You'll have to take that up with Wikipedia.

You quoted wikipedia, but I'm sure you realize ANYBODY can write in Wikipedia, even if they don't fully understand the material they write about. In contrast, we have studied Hatcher's source materials in depth.

>Go ahead then. Define God. (Someone remind me later: I asked for it!)

God = THE unique phenomenon that is self-creating and omnipotent.

Please see my discussion in Video 1 about uniqueness and use of the word "THE" in First Order Predicate Logic.  thegproof. org/

>>and that must be done with care.

>Why?

Because whether or not something EXISTS depends on PRECISELY how it's defined. A nuance of change in the definition can flip the thing from existence to non-existence, or the other way. For example, how would you define "number"? Depending on the definition, the square root of 2 either exists as a number or it doesn't.

>>However, you then demand that these dogmas somehow be incorporated into the definition "God."

>Easy, tiger. I pointed out that Hatcher's work leads to a big bang-like conclusion, then I asked where are the crackpot parts you would care about.

Easy, kitten. First, neither Hatcher's work nor ours "leads to a big bang-like conclusion" in part because the big bang is NOT an absolute phenomenon (it changes), and in part because our theory makes NO MENTION of astronomy. Second, you are falsely assuming I "care about" all the nonsense you recite, like talking snakes and a whole-world flood. I don't, and in fact I find portions of it as repugnant as you do. However, I'm more tolerant of people that you appear to be.

>The dogmas I cited are the standard concepts of God in mainstream Christianity and Islam and the major religions of the world: a personal God who hears prayers, rules in heaven, demands torture and death for sins, punishes the sinners in hell, blah blah. You know?

True, for the way SOME people conceive of "God". However, there are millions of people on this planet who believe in God but REJECT all that nonsense. Many call themselves "spiritual but not religious," because they wish to DISTANCE themselves from it. You appear to be "forcing" anyone who professes belief in God into ALSO believing in a pile of nonsensical fabrications that have been conconcted by hypocritic religious leaders for the purposes of amassing tyrannical power.

>If God must be defined "with care" is that a just euphemistic declaration that you are defining God in a way that excludes all of these standard things?

No. You are completely missing the point, perhaps because you seem to be blinded by all the religious nonsense. As I just explained above, "with care" is required simply because existence vs. non-existence depends critically on the definition.

>And if this is NOT that kind of bloodthirsty, personal God, but an indifferent, deistic God, then why would you or anyone else care if he exists or not? You see what I'm getting at?

Yes, I see what you're getting at. You have an agenda to denounce all the garbage, and I support you on that, albeit with a far greater measure of tolerance. If you are able to get beyond your emotional connection of the word "God" to all that garbage, there are HUGE reasons to "care" whether God, as I have defined it, exists. One such reason is that the Universe is NOT random... that there is a vast order in things that comes from a unseen source that is NOT merely the laws of physics... that there is an absolute, unseen source behind things like biological evolution and DNA. And this has NOTHING to do with a purportedly "virgin" woman purportedly levitating 2000 years ago.

>But let's cut to the chase. You DO believe in that stuff don't you, Mark? This as opposed to a kind of pantheistic God, or a God which is merely the universe itself. You're not here to pitch deism. You actually think the God at the end of your videos and equations is Jesus. But you're keeping that hush-hush, right?

NO. I DON'T. In fact, I was raised as a atheist and know well all the stuff you talk about. I do NOT view the Bible as any kind of "authority"... it has some wisdom in it, but it is also contains a lot of nonsense and contradictions. So DON'T LABEL ME a "fundamentalist Christian" which I am certainly not. I do NOT believe Jesus is the "only" son of God. If God has "sons" (which has yet to be defined, much less proven), then you too are a "son" of God (or perhaps a "daugher" if you are female, but your wording sounds male). These are traps many Christians get stuck in that limit their understanding of what God actually is.  Indeed, in first two words of the Lords' Prayer, Jesus says, "OUR Father"... he doesn't say "MY Father"! So the reported words of Jesus himself contradict the standard Christian dogma that he was the "only" son of God!!

>>Whether "The Virgin Mary levitating up to heaven" actually happened or not has NOTHING to do with whether or not God, in it simple essence, actually exists.

>Wait. I get it. You're another one of those tiresome, evasive, "stealth Jesus" crackpots who isn't going to admit what you believe. Too embarrassing, huh?

No. See above.

>>What we are doing here, is to FINALLY *start* putting some of this stuff on solid mathematical ground, and providing on our website thegproof. org/ the education needed to understand that mathematics.

>Mathematical ground. So you have no empirical scientific evidence then. Why didn't you say so?

Because emperical evidence is not needed in mathematics, which is entiely absract. You fail to understand the distinction between science and mathematics. As for our five axioms, there is plenty of emperical evidence that they are true. I gave an example in my original post of Axiom 2, where the empirical evidence is seen in a chain of dominoes. If the axioms are true, then the proof stands.

>Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Now you have generalized "empirical scientific evidence" into simply "evidence". A mathematical theory is "evidence" of truth, without being scientific or emperical.

Now, YOU SHOW ME the empirical scientific evidence that the square root of two actually exists. Go ahead. Run it out on your calculator or computer to as many decimal places as you like, and hand over the number, WITHOUT resorting to the God-like radical sign, which simply means "the square root of". Whatever number you send me, when I square it, it will NOT equal 2. You can get it as close to 2 as you like (e.g. 1.999999 or 2.000001) , but it will NEVER precisely equal 2. That is because there is ZERO scientific evidence that the irrational numbers exist... they are entirely abstract, like God. ALL scientific measurements are done in rational numbers.

And yet, if I'm not mistaken, you DO BELIEVE the square root of 2 exists, right?

YOU SHOW ME how to arrange three dominoes so that the first causes the second to fall and the second causes the third to fall, and yet, the fall of the first does NOT cause the fall of the third. If you can so arrange the dominoes, then my proof fails.

>Thanks for stopping by, Mark!

You're welcome. Thanks for chatting.

>>Expanding on Hatcher's work, we have taken a big first step. We shall see what the future holds.

>It's a bit early to tell but 90% of the time (from Christians) it's obscenities followed by a final exit: classic rage quit.

Dunno the stats on Christians freaking out in the light of hard reasoning, but those stats don't apply to me, as discussed above. I enjoyed our discussion. However, the weekend is over, and I've got some work to do today (to make money), so if you have a reply, it may take me a few days to get back to you!! Good luck in your endeavors. I invite you to have compassion for people who are less intelligent than you. I also invite you to have a more open mind, not to dogmatic nonsense, but to profound new ideas that might alter your point of view.

Cheers, Mark

You quoted wikipedia, but I'm sure you realize ANYBODY can write in Wikipedia, even if they don't fully understand the material they write about. In contrast, we have studied Hatcher's source materials in depth.

The sources must be cited on Wikipedia, so if the sources are wrong and the statements are incorrect then post the corrections yourself.

God = THE unique phenomenon that is self-creating and omnipotent.

That little 'the' is holding up an awful lot. No wonder you write it in all capital letters.

So if you must start with a definition, and cannot proceed without it, why did you choose that precise and particular one for God? Why not choose one of all the other concepts of God?

Because whether or not something EXISTS depends on PRECISELY how it's defined. 

Wow. So existence depends on absolute precision of the definition? Let's test this amazing claim!

I just picked up a pencil and set it down by my keyboard.

Pencil: An instrument for writing or drawing, consisting of a thin stick of graphite or a similar substance enclosed in a long thin piece of wood.

Pencil: A dish of Italian origin consisting of a flat base of dough baked with a topping of tomato sauce and cheese, typically with added meat and other toppings.

The pencil still exists whether the definition is correct or incorrect.

Back to the drawing board, Mark.

Easy, kitten.

*Giggles* I'm a married man, Mark.

First, neither Hatcher's work nor ours "leads to a big bang-like conclusion"...

As for Hatcher's work, Hatcher himself used the words "unique, universal, uncaused cause" to refer to his conclusion. That IS big-bang-like. (Note the use of the word like.) It is unique in that one big bang is known to have occurred; universal in that it originated the observable universe, space-time, and the laws of nature; uncaused cause in that general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the big bang or the singularity that existed prior (if words referring to time have any meaning when time does not exist) to the big bang.

As for your work? We haven't gotten by the definition of God yet, which you say is the essential first step before we proceed.

Second, you are falsely assuming I "care about" all the nonsense you recite, like talking snakes and a whole-world flood. I don't, and in fact I find portions of it as repugnant as you do. However, I'm more tolerant of people that you appear to be.

Never mind, Mark. Your website mentions prayer, angels, karma, blessings, and reincarnation. That's quite enough of a glimpse.

Nonsense is nonsense no matter what brand you smoke. People I tolerate to the extent of the harm they do. Nonsense I do not tolerate, especially with so many blowing it in my face. 

You appear to be "forcing" anyone who professes belief in God into ALSO believing in a pile of nonsensical fabrications that have been conconcted by hypocritic religious leaders for the purposes of amassing tyrannical power.

I didn't force anyone. Absent a clear statement from you-- which you still haven't provided-- I guessed. I happened to guess the wrong pile of nonsensical fabrications.

But the odds were in my favor. You're the rare anomaly pitching nine hours of videos about math and some rare form of hocus pocus. We just had a guy in here insisting we'd figure it all out if we'd only eat five grams of psychedelic mushrooms. (Not kidding.)

Everybody wants an audience, Mark. Take a number and get in line. You're number 40,001, and that's just the Christians ahead of you.

No. You are completely missing the point, perhaps because you seem to be blinded by all the religious nonsense. As I just explained above, "with care" is required simply because existence vs. non-existence depends critically on the definition.

You're telling me, a completely irreligious man, I am blinded by religious nonsense, while you call me to a website mentioning "wisdom" about prayers and reincarnation?

I'm not missing the point. I see the point. Like I said. Take a number and get in line.

One such reason is that the Universe is NOT random...that there is a vast order in things that comes from a unseen source that is NOT merely the laws of physics... that there is an absolute, unseen source behind things like biological evolution and DNA.

Crackpot: God exists!
Me: Evidence, please.
Crackpot: There is none.
Me: I don't believe you.

Same lyrics, different tune, Mark.

Because emperical evidence is not needed in mathematics, which is entiely absract. You fail to understand the distinction between science and mathematics.

You attribute failure to grasp science versus mathematics to me yet every page on your site screams of mathematical proof that no scientist can deny.

You don't see why that's funny, Mark?

Shouldn't you avoid the crossover between empirical science and abstract mathematics -- considering you just admitted the distinction-- and boast instead of having proof that no mathematician can deny?  

Failing in that, you are challenging scientists. Scientists employ the scientific method, which requires (among other things) empirical evidence;  knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation, and falsifiability.

You admit your work is entirely abstract and have no empirical evidence. On that basis alone any scientist can properly and reasonably deny your work is scientific proof of God or anything else. There is no data.

We're done here.

We're done here.

FALSE. We are most certainly NOT done. 

In due course I will address each and every point you have made. But in this post I am focusing narrowly on your FAILURE to respond to my question:

And yet, if I'm not mistaken, you DO BELIEVE the square root of 2 exists, right?

You and others in this forum seem to be saying in your writings (screaming actually), that you are unwilling to believe anything unless there is empirical evidence for it. You say you want "data."

Accordingly, I am right now, via this post and its follow up posts, conducting a scientific experiment that will produce empirical data. The witnesses of my experiment are all the readers of this discussion. And the subject of the experiment (i.e. the "guinea pig") is YOU. I shall state my hypothesis, make a prediction concerning YOUR behavior to test my hypothesis, and the witnesses will see if my prediction comes out right. However, before I get to my experiment, I must first make several salient points about arithmetic, measurement accuracy and right triangles.

When teaching children arithmetic, it is good practice to use blocks or other tangible objects to show them how it works. For example, to demonstrate that 5+8=13, we can put 5 blocks in one pile, 8 blocks in another pile, and count each pile to confirm (yes, 5 in the first, 8 in the second). Then we can move them all together into a single pile, and count it. Lo and behold, the count is 13. This constitutes empirical, scientific evidence that 5+8=13. Anyone who memorizes the arithmetic facts without seeing (or at least imagining) such a demonstration is unlikely to comprehend arithmetic (and tragically, there are millions out there in this category, but I digress). We could use this same method to confirm, scientifically, that the SUM of 5 and 8 does indeed EXIST... its existence is shown and is precisely measured in the pile of 13.

I'm not certain what the present limit of accuracy is, as expressed in number of decimal places, of the most advanced scientific instruments. A quick check here shows the speed of light at about 9 decimal places, the gravitation constant at 8, the reduced Plank constant at 12, the electron charge at 12. And so, it would appear to me that (say) 15 decimal places is an "outer limit" on what is currently the most precise empirical data. 

The Pythagorean Theorem states an algebraic relationship between the sides of a triangle, where one of the angles is PRECISELY 90 degrees. If we were to construct a triangle out of metal (or out of something more exotic such using optics or nano technology or some such), then how precisely could the angle and sides be measured? 15 decimal places appear to be the current outer limit, but nevertheless, let's allow 100 decimal places.

(As an aside, I will note that we can count discrete, observable things with accuracy far greater than 15 decimal places, such as counting the number of bytes in a computer file, although 100-decimal-place counts are a stretch even for the best computers. However, such measurements are not pertinent for measuring angles or side-lengths of triangles.)

If we could construct a right triangle with the two legs of length 1, then, per the Pythagorean Theorem, the hypotenuse would have length square root of 2. We will ignore, for the sake of discussion, a severe limitation with this scenario (namely, that the Pythagorean Theorem cannot be proven without assuming an axiom for which their is NO scientific evidence from either classical geometry, or from real analysis, or from set theory). Now, how precisely could we measure the length of the hypotenuse? Certainly, we cannot measure it any more accurately than 100 decimal places, which is wildly beyond anything science can do today. And of course, such an extraordinarily precise measurement of the hypotenuse would be useless unless we likewise measure the angle as equal to 90, within 100 decimal places of accuracy, and, as well, the 2 legs to be 1, within 100 decimal places of accuracy.

Here is the difficulty. Whatever number our measurement returns for the hypotenuse, accurate to 100 decimal places, it's square is guaranteed NOT to equal 2. Hence, there is NO WAY to produce empirical data that confirms the existence of the square root of 2. Indeed, for much of mathematical history, it was believed that the square root of 2 did not exist. Similarly, it was believed that you cannot "square the circle" which is more or less equivalent to saying pi does not exist.

And so, I shall now turn to my present experiment of which YOU are my subject. Your task is simple: either answer my two questions set forth below within a time limit, or don't answer them within that time (either by failing to respond to this post, or responding with a rant that fails to answer the questions). Here we go....


MY HYPOTHESIS: You are harboring inconsistent beliefs to support your atheism, and you lack the emotional maturity to admit you are doing so.


MY TWO QUESTIONS:

Question 1 (Multiple Choice): Do you believe the square root of 2 exists?
(a) No.
(b) Yes, because I have empirical evidence that the square root of 2 exists.
(c) Yes, but I admit I have no empirical evidence that the square root of 2 exists.

Question 2 has three alternative forms, depending on your answer to Question 1:

Question 2(a), to be answered only if your answer to Question 1 is (a). Justify your position as a so-called "scientist" when you reject the existence of a number, the square root of 2, the existence of which is universally believed by mathematicians, scientists and engineers today, and without which much of the mathematics developed after about 1650 (on which science firmly rests today) would collapse.

Question 2(b), to be answered only if your answer to Question 1 is (b). What is your EMPIRICAL evidence that the square root of 2 exists? Explain how the experiment was done, including what instruments were used to make the measurements. And, most importantly, produce the measured hypotenuse length, within 100 decimal places, that squares to equal exactly 2 (NOT, e.g., 1.999999999999998 or 2.00000000000001).

Question 2(c), to be answered only if your answer to Question 1 is (c). Justify your inconsistent position, wherein you defend your atheism by requiring empirical evidence before believing anything to exist, and yet you believe the square root of 2 exists WITHOUT empirical evidence.


TIME LIMIT: Post your answers to my two questions on this forum, in reply to this post, NO LATER THAN 10:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on June 30, 2013.

I note that you have been very quick to respond to most of my posts here, so it would appear that three days is ample time. However, if you need additional time (e.g. because you are going on vacation), I will gladly extend the deadline by a reasonable number of days upon receiving your polite request that includes the requested new deadline.


This is GOOD SCIENCE to test my hypothesis. Your posts in reply to this post constitute empirical data. And I can't falsify the data because everyone reading this discussion is a witness!


MY PREDICTIONS, BASED ON MY HYPOTHESIS:

Prediction 1. You will fail to answer my two questions before the deadline.

Prediction 2. You will post a rant in reply to this post that EVADES answering my two questions (and does NOT answer them), and instead attacks my questions (without answering them), and/or addresses other material I have posted that is unrelated to my two questions, and/or assassinates my character, and/or ridicules me or my website, and/or poses another experiment.


Okay, Gallop's Mirror, let the scientific experiment begin! I'm wearing my white lab coat, clipboard in hand, listening to the clock tick and watching to see what the guinea pig does. (Hint: look in the mirror... there's a red spot painted on your forehead.) We shall all see if my Predictions come out correct.

Good luck! :)

Cheers,
Mark

I apologize for misspelling Gallup at the end of my post.  Just caught it after the 15 minutes to edit expired.

Interesting read, Mark.  I was reminded of Zeno's paradoxes, in particular the dichotomy one - perhaps because your suppositions were based on Pythagoras's theory. 

I was also reminded of the ghastly 'logarithm' tables we had to use in school, that, much to our childish hilarity, failed to produce accurate results to certain apparently simple calculations.

I realise you are a mathematician, and as such, the subject must be close to your heart, so to speak.  But is it not possible that there are certain mathematical conundrums that simply cannot be resolved to a logical answer?

This is in reply to Strega's post above, which appears be at the limit of indentation on this forum, as there was no reply button.

Interesting read, Mark.

Thank you.


I was reminded of Zeno's paradoxes, in particular the dichotomy one - perhaps because your suppositions were based on Pythagoras's theory.

You hit the nail on the head. The struggle over the millennia to resolve Zeno's paradoxes is really what this is all about. In my view, the paradoxes have all been beautifully resolved by the development of continuum methods, using epsilons and deltas with predicate logic. When I comprehended this as a student at UCLA, my atheism dissolved, and there was no going back. Forget the Bible and all of that stuff. Look at the profoundly ingenious, staggeringly beautiful, awesomely inspiring mathematical methods developed in the 20th century that transcend the limitations posed by Zeno. But in doing so, you must DROP the requirement of empirical evidence in favor of transcendent intellectual beauty.

 

I was also reminded of the ghastly 'logarithm' tables we had to use in school, that, much to our childish hilarity, failed to produce accurate results to certain apparently simple calculations.

 

Well, the square root of 2 is only the beginning of an infinity vastly larger than the infinity of the ordinals, to wit: the infinity of the real numbers (a.k.a. continuum). This includes most logarithms. Flipping the coin from your school memory, I was a student at UCLA before the days of calculators. We used slide rules, but they were only accurate to 3 decimal places. Unfortunately, in my freshman chemistry lab, 4 decimal places were required, so our slide rules were useless. As my classmates laboriously did hundreds of 4-place multiplication and division problems by hand, I purchased a good log table, and reduced all that labor to addition and subtraction!


I realise you are a mathematician, and as such, the subject must be close to your heart, so to speak. But is it not possible that there are certain mathematical conundrums that simply cannot be resolved to a logical answer?

 

The breathtaking mathematical results from about 1880 to the present, virtually all of which rest on predicate logic, provide encouragement, to say the least. On the other hand, Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem roughly states that, in any axiomatic system sufficient to describe the natural numbers, there exist true statements that have no proof. So you might be right that THAT conundrum will never be resolved, to wit: identifying such unprovable truths... how will we know they are true if we can't logically prove them? Even Fermat's Last Theorem, which resisted both proof and counterexample for several centuries, was finally proven by Andrew Wiles, as published in 1995. Not that I understand Wiles' proof... it's way over MY head! :)

Significantly, our proof that God exists rests on five axioms NONE of which requires continuum or other infinite methods.  We use predicate logic.  But we do NOT use, for example, the axiom of infinity from set theory, or Peano's successor axiom, or the completeness axiom from real analysis.  Nor do we do any mathematical induction.  And yet, we prove a unique, self-causing, omnipotent phenomenon exists.  Blew me away when I first read Hatcher's paper!

 

Cheers, Mark

"my atheism dissolved, and there was no going back"

You have my deepest sympathies --

Thank you, Mark.  

Are you saying that your proof calculations demonstrate a cosmic cause or prime mover, as opposed to affirming the religions' specific versions of god?

In other words, are you evidencing Deism or Theism?

This is in reply to Strega's post above.

Thank you, Mark. 

You're welcome.

Are you saying that your proof calculations demonstrate a cosmic cause or prime mover, as opposed to affirming the religions' specific versions of god?

Yes. Precisely. However, I don't care for the wording "proof calculations." It's simply a proof. If you watch my Videos 2 and 3, I think you will agree that "calculation" is not appropriate. 

In other words, are you evidencing Deism or Theism?

As I found Deism defined here (but without an in-depth examination of the definition), it appears we have proven the Deity exists, per such definition, which I am calling God. As for Theism, the definition here is vague, to say the least, and is certainly broader. ALL we have proven at my website is that a unique, self-causing, omnipotent phenomenon exists, which, in your words, is "a cosmic cause or prime mover."

Nevertheless, it is my opinion, based on empirical data not easily shared as well as intellectual insight, that this same God has numerous additional qualities beyond what we have proven, and our result is forward compatible. Thus, for example, if there is an omnipotent God that LOVES us and/or is GOOD, then it is necessarily the SAME unique God that we have already proven exists. Such investigation is for the future (some interesting ideas are in formation), and I cannot predict the results. However, I have no interest in exploring, either with mathematics or with science, the doctrines, scriptures, allegorical tales or myths from Christianity or any other religion.

Cheers, Mark :)

@Mark - you've tossed the word, "omnipotent" about on numerous occasions, I'd love to hear your definition of it.

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 4 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service