God, proof

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The purpose of this page is to provide a logical and empirical proof that is straight forward and easily understandable for those gifted in reasoning and science; as well as to point to the principles and techniques of living which give joyous harmony in this knowledge.

There is only one thing in this proof that is not proven, and that is the axiom of non-contradiction; which is required to prove anything at all. It has been a custom among modern sophists to deny the existence of absolute truth and therefore deny the existence of any standard to measure or determine a rational truth. Such sophists must concede that if they deny my proof because of this axiom they; Therefore cannot disprove my proof, and if my proof is wrong (by this measure) all proof is wrong. This is a conclusion I am happy to accept. I only highlight this point because of the multitude of modern sophists claiming intellectual superiority these days. As Plato characterized them; they are superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic. Unfortunately our universities are filled with sophistry; acting as factories of intellectual godlessness. We may make the point; God is truth; If you deny the existence of truth surely you have denied the existence of God.

The proof has one definition, one Axiom, five logical Tautologies with five corollaries, five Deductions, five Inductions, with (credits), [attributes], and some resolved Paradoxes.

Definition;
By God, I mean an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite pantheistic energy that is the generating and sustaining cause of that which exists.

(A1) Something cannot be true and false in the same respect at the same time. (Parmenides)
This axiom is required to prove anything at all.

(T1) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is existence. (Parmenides)
This is a definitional truth.
(T2) Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something. (Parmenides)
This is a predicative truth.
(T3) Nowhere does nothing exist. - Something exists everywhere. (Mars Turner)
This is a predicative truth from the definitional truth.
(T4) At no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed. (Mars Turner)
This is a predicative truth from the definitional truth.
(T5) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. (Mars Turner)
This is a predicative truth.

(D1) One thing has the essence of existence (Spinoza) [monism]
Proof–The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the nature of the thing defined. From this it follows that–No definition implies or expresses a certain number of individuals, inasmuch as it expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist [T5]. This cause of existence must either be contained in the nature and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individual things exist in nature, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the nature of something [T1], existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that has the essence of existence. Q.E.D.

(D2) Every existent thing is made of one thing (Mars) [monopantheism]
Proof–Everything is made of something [T2] and one thing has the essence of existence [D1]. Therefore every existent thing is made of one thing. Q.E.D.

(D3) One thing exists everywhere (Mars) [omnipresence]
Proof–Something exists everywhere [T3], one thing has the essence of existence [D1]. Therefore one thing exists everywhere. Q.E.D.

(D4) One thing has always existed (Mars) [eternal, invincible, perfect]
Proof–Something has always existed [T4], one thing has the essence of existence [D1]. Therefore one thing has always existed. Q.E.D.

Note; Something that has always existed it eternal. That which is eternal cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore it is invincible. Because it is eternal it also has an unchanging nature and this while embodying the existence of all things [D2], therefore it is perfect.

(D5) One thing is the cause of all existent things (Mars) [all-power-full, omniscience]
Proof–Something is the cause of all things [T5], one thing has the essence of existence [D1]. Therefore one thing is the cause of all existent things. Q.E.D.

Note; from [D1] we know that one thing has no external cause. It therefore follows from [D1] and [D5] that one thing is it’s own cause. Consequently it is self-causal i.e. self-deterministic or teleological. Consciousness is a form of self-causation. Therefore consciousness is a fundamental property of reality, and is the cause of the creation of all things. Therefore God is conscious being and humans partake in this essence of the creative source to the extent that they are conscious or self-causal.

(I1) (Jules Henri Poincaré & Olinto De Pretto) [immanence]
Mass-Energy Equivalence; bradyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all spatial things are made of energy.

(I2) (Edmund Taylor Whittaker & Thomas E. Bearden) [transcendence]
Delta Time-Energy Equivalence; tachyons have transformational pathways with gauge bosons; all temporal things are made of energy.

(I3) (Werner Karl Heisenberg & Hendrik Gerhard Casimir) [infinite, omnipresence, perfect]
Zero-Point Energy; we have a contribution of 1/2 hbar omega from every single point in space resulting in a substantial infinity as well as making energy spatially infinite. Because it is infinite it is unchanging in it’s nature, while embodying the existence of all things, it therefore is perfect.

(I4) (Julius Robert Mayer) [eternal, invincible]
Conservation of Energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore it is temporally infinite.

(I5) (Mars Sterling Turner) [all-power-full]
Power Integral; power involves the transformation of energy, therefore the infinite, omnipresent, and eternal energy is all-power-full.

Note; The definitive and causal mechanism for mind-matter interactions (Mars Sterling Turner);
Mind (scalar temporal energy; tachyons) and Matter (vector spatial energy; bradyons) are dually related harmonic convergents of each other. i.e. The destructive interference of vector potentials creates a scalar wave, and the destructive interference of scalar waves creates a vector potential.

Experiments demonstrating the mind-matter mechanism; (p < = 5x10^-2 is statistically significant)
sense of being stared at (p < 1x10^-25) Biology Forum
telephone telepathy (p = 4x10^-16) Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
telekinesis on REG (p = 3.5x10^-13) Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
mass psychic control (p = 2x10^-9) Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy
remote viewing (p = 9.1x10^-8) Division of Statistics University of California Davis

Note; From the deductions and inductions we see arise a fundamental dual-aspect to reality (energy and consciousness) and a superficial or created dual-aspect to reality (mind and matter). This philosophy would then amount to a quanterion monopantheism.

From the fundamental dual we see that energy can be viewed as forward causation and that consciousness can be viewed as final causation so that in the end they are one via causation. This is a remarkable point because in the bible God’s very name means “he who causes to become” and God is even given the title the Alpha (forward) and the Omega (final). Forward and final causation may be connected to each other as if in a self excited circuit as an iterative fractal and holographic process where iterations are determined by the quantum potential of sequential temporal and spatial states.

The mechanism of this process is articulated in Christopher Michael Langan’s work;
Introduction to the CTMU
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

From the superficial dual we see that tachyons are a form of energy that travels faster than the speed of light and is temporal based and that bradyons are a form of energy that travels slower than light and is spatial based. Where both are one in that they are forms of energy in fact harmonic convergents of each other.

Zero-Point Energy is God the Father; pure energy; pure substance.
Zero-Energy Tachyon is Logos the Son; pure consciousness; pure form.

Pure substance has no form. And pure form has no substance. When these two fundamentals come together they create the superficial world. As all created things have both substance and form.

We are of course sapient beings assuredly composed of bradyons. However there are sapient beings assuredly composed of tachyons. They are called spirits or angels or gods.

(P1) Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?
No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

(P2) If all things have a cause doesn’t God (first cause) need a cause also?
Yes, God has no external cause (D1) and God is the cause of all existent things (D5), therefore God is his own cause i.e. God is self-causal or self-determistic.

In any proof of God there should always follow the ramifications of the understanding such that you know how to live your life in alignment with God. Here I will direct you to three teachers that have expounded on the principles and techniques of living in harmony with God;

John Hagelin; hagelin.org/

A New Science of Peace;
streaming.mou.org/MOU/Dr_Hagelin/Tucsontalk.wmv

Intention, Consciousness, and Meditation;
istpp.org/multimedia/institute_o … ences.html

Invincible Defense Technology;
invincibledefense.org/videos … gelin.html

Wayne Dyer; drwaynedyer.com/

The Power of Intention;
video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 9205608805
video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 4306428743

Abraham-Hicks; abraham-hicks.com/

The Law of Attraction;
youtube.com/watch?v=RTb6mKAwftA
youtube.com/watch?v=lmRep5MXsB0
youtube.com/watch?v=Mu3j1ztEyKs
youtube.com/watch?v=sb749f30Z8w
youtube.com/watch?v=gdXyEEE5OVA

Rampage of Appreciation;
youtube.com/watch?v=74OvS7SBZsk

The Astonishing Power of Emotions;
youtube.com/watch?v=LpkrLqahToI

Rampage of Invincibility;
youtube.com/watch?v=D8rkvEaVrG0

The Stream;
youtube.com/watch?v=fTMx3LFCuPE

Pure Thought for the Joy of it;
youtube.com/watch?v=RBmuc8_GySQ

.

2

I agree, but I wouldn’t call that God. In my understanding, ‘God’ has always included the idea of person-hood. It’s not enough that something has always existed everywhere and done everything that could ever have been done; theism seems to claim that someone has been there and done that. And that doesn’t follow from your tautologies.

3

It does from (1 & 5);

“and must also be it’s own cause (1 & 5) making it self-deterministic or teleological”

What is a person, but something that lives on purpose? Something that is self-deterministic.

This is the part I have simplified for you.

4

A person is so much more, and so much less. I am not self-determining, nor my own cause. I react to external stimuli, which are tautologically denied to the thing you’re calling ‘god’. When we infer that some other system is personal, we do so because of the way that they react to external stimuli. We infer people’s actions to be goal-oriented, but a universal person could not have goals in any way similar to our own. They could not understand in the way we understand. They could not desire, because they have everything and are the sum total of possibility.
To call the universe a person, then, is to misapply the term. The universe is not something that thinks about us or listens to us or understands language, because there is something fundamental about those concepts that require limitations that the universe as a whole does not have.

And teleology? Teleology begs the question, because if beauty and order can arise without intelligent intervention, then they are no indication of intelligence.

5

Do I understand you correctly, that you believe in materialism?

I will have to think about a response… but many of the things you point to are responded to by Langan;

http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

6

I don’t have an IQ of 150, at least not on a real IQ test as far as I know, but I’m still waiting for my results to come back from the last one I took. Most online ‘IQ tests’ will tell me I have an IQ of 150-160, though, so I have to wonder where you got your number.

At any rate, I understand your ‘proof’ with or without an ultra-high IQ, and it’s still wrong.

7

(5) Nothing is the cause of nothing. - Something is the cause of all things. [omnipotent, omniscient]

this does not seem directly logical.

something is the cause of everything… hmm what then was the cause of the something?

nothing is the cause of nothing… I’m not so sure flipping this statement leads to a logical conclusion

8

nothing is the cause of nothing.

the meaning of nothing can assume a plethora of meanings skewing your attempt at clarity.

i suggest rewording number 5

9

Fair enough.

Redundant and incorrect wording of (1).

As far as we know. It’s quite arrogant to assume existence is all that there is just because that’s all of which we can know, though.

Nothing can never exist by definition, i.e. redundant rewording of number 1. If there has always been something, then there has always been existence.

Then what is the cause of something? Something else?

Your ‘proof’ does nothing but define the universe, which conveniently fits your definition of God. This is no way proves a Christian god.

10

So, God is cosmic background radiation, or the Big Bang, or quarks, then? All your argument seems to lead to, from what I can tell, is the conclusion that “There is stuff”.

11

Exactly. Thank you.

12

The Zero-Point Energy if you want to be exact.

13

It would have to be it’s own cause i.e. self-deterministic or teleological!

14

[size=150][size=200][/size][/size] My Siddhi, where is the beef for those attributes of God?[ See the ignostic-Ockham thread,please.] It makes no sense to speak of nothing[ See the arguments for God thread.]. :-$

15

(1) “Something exists everywhere” just so happens to be the definition of omnipresence, i.e. everywhere present. All the rest are similarly definitional or deducible from the corollaries.

(2) You just did speak of nothing, thinking you were making sense, which is absurd [reductio ad absurdum] therefore speaking of nothing can make sense.

16

But…we don’t need an argument to show that stuff exists. We all already knew that.

17

There is a difference between believing something and proving it.

Further, many people DO NOT believe in e.g. monism nor pantheism. Yet I have demonstrated both from necessity from a simple tautology and it’s corollary.

18

You haven’t proven them, you’ve said that there is something, so that thing must be god, which is saying a lot more than your proof even attempts to show. You haven’t shown that this thing is personal, has wants/desires, that it acts towards goals, that it intends, etc. etc.

19

Could you clarify how you disagree with this;

“This one thing is the all-power-full cause of all things (5) and must also be it’s own cause (1 & 5) making it self-deterministic or teleological.”

And would you mind adding your own belief system that I might know where you are coming from e.g. materialism???

20

I still think the most important point here is that we don’t need an argument that something exists, but the logic itself is faulted too.

Your whole argument hangs on your usage of “Something”. You introduce as the alternative to “Nothing”. If that’s all it is, then fine. But under that definition, ‘something’ could be one thing, or a million things. To prove pantheism or monism, your usage of ‘Something’ has to include a notion of unity (i.e., a reason to say “thing” instead of “things”), and that’s a completely ad hoc addition to your arguement that isn’t supported anywhere in the principles you outlined.

Simply put, you start with “There isn’t nothing.” Then you say “Well, what’s the word for ‘not nothing’? Why, ‘Something’ !” Then you look at the word ‘Something’, see that it’s singular-tense and not plural, and think you’ve discovered something about the monistic nature of the universe, when you didn’t at all.

If it needs to be illustrated better than that, re-read the opening post, and replace the word ‘Something’ with ‘Stuff’ in every instance. Works 100% just as well, and all your points about monism and pluralism evaporate.