Logical Analysis Of The Existence Of God!
- Thread starter yank
- Start date
yank said:
This is the canundrum, the paradox:
1.) The nature of infinities demands that the universe as it is understood be not infinitely old.
2.) The cause of the universe must therefore be infinitely old.
3.) If there ever existed nothing, then nothing is all that could ever exist.
4.) Therefore, before the beginning of the universe, there could not have existed nothing.
5.) Therefore, there has always existed something.
6.) If there existed something before the beginning of the universe, then time did not initiate at the beginning of the universe.
7.) The passage of time denotes change.
8.) Change denotes potentiality.
9.) Potentiality only exists in the finite.
10.) Therefore, because the universe is not infinitely old, but there has always been some existing thin, and therefore the passage of time, and subsequently change, the cause of the universe is finite.
However, as you can clearly see, this contradicts the earlier conclusion that the cause of the universe must be infinitely old. This means one of the premises is wrong, or that we're missing information.
There are two possibilities that I can see immediately and they are:
1.) Premise one assumes that the way we understand the universe is the correct one. Therefore if this assumption is false, then it may be the case that the universe is infinitely old. OR,
2.) Premise two is false. The cause of the universe may be omnipresent and eternal. This would be supported in the concept of actual infinities, which is what the cause of the universe would have to be were the universe itself not infinitely old.
If one accepts the second of these two possibilities, then what this suggests is that premise 4 doesn't make sense, since there can be no "before" the universe. If there were, then this implies that what existed prior to the universe was also finite, ad infinitum. But, this again, doesn't follow.
Eh... sorry. I apologize. I just had a whole lot more written here, which I'm sure you would have found quite interesting. However, it has been erased because my computer is experiencing a certain anomaly that I haven't yet identified. I've lost my train of thought now, and it would take me some time to reproduce it now. I don't have that time at present. So please, just read over what I've posted so far, and ask the obvious questions that come. I'll attempt to answer them as best I can.
It's a theory that is 99.9% proven, with only a wee bit of it missing. That bit is why the big bang happened.c7ityi_ said:
To the thread title: The words "Logical" and "god" should not be in the same sentence, unless the word "logical" forms the word "Illogical"
Hapsburg said:
Then it doesn't really explain much. Today there are many scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang theory anymore. Many of them just want to hold on to it since they have nothing else to replace it with, they have no explanation for why the universe exists, because they deny a metaphysical view of reality. Physicists are afraid to question the foundations of their science.
Today there are many scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang theory anymore.
Sorry, but that simply is not true. The BB theory is widely accepted. You don't know anything about the theory and are sitting there making wild assertions. Read a book.
they deny a metaphysical view of reality.
Of course, they deny metaphysics because it is based on ignorance.
Physicists are afraid to question the foundations of their science.
No, they're not. Your afraid to question metaphysics becasue you know it's complete nonsense and you'll realize you haven't learned anything.
Sorry, but that simply is not true. The BB theory is widely accepted. You don't know anything about the theory and are sitting there making wild assertions. Read a book.
they deny a metaphysical view of reality.
Of course, they deny metaphysics because it is based on ignorance.
Physicists are afraid to question the foundations of their science.
No, they're not. Your afraid to question metaphysics becasue you know it's complete nonsense and you'll realize you haven't learned anything.
Last edited:
Oh really? Have you seen many scientists stand up and say: "Well, I don't actually believe in the big bang theory, I'm just pretending I do"?
Or is that just pure make believe in the hopes that you'll have someone from 'the other side' supporting your personal wishes?
The problem with trying to understand "infinite" is that TIME is a property of our Universe.beyondtimeandspace said:
We have no evidence / proof etc that time even exists "outside" our Universe, if indeed there is even an outside.
If time does not exist outside our universe then all your arguments / points etc break down.
To try and understand what is not within our universe is meaningless.
To apply the property of "time" to anything not within our Universe is nothing but an assumption that is open for debate - but never open to evidence.
(Q) said:
If you want to show that Physics is the right science for reality, then prove that "matter" exists independently from the senses. It is easy for me to logically state that everything is in the mind because it is impossible to be conscious of something "outside" my consciousness.
Things can never be "shown" to exist apart from the senses, so they are sensations.
Physics consists of observing visible effects, so it can never find the causes, since everything that is visible must be caused by something. They try to "observe" the cause (the observer) by going deeper and deeper in matter, but the cause cannot be observed, that's why particles at atomic level starts to behave like the mind. The cause is in the present, but presence has no duration, so it cannot be seen.
If you want to show that Physics is the right science for reality, then prove that "matter" exists independently from the senses. It is easy for me to logically state that everything is in the mind because it is impossible to be conscious of something "outside" my consciousness.
Indulge your fantasies? Why not.
The univere has existed and will continue to exist long after you're gone. It doesn't exist simply because you exist.
Things can never be "shown" to exist apart from the senses, so they are sensations.
See above explanation.
Physics consists of observing visible effects, so it can never find the causes, since everything that is visible must be caused by something.
How can you have the audacity to comment on something you know nothing about?
The cause is in the present, but presence has no duration, so it cannot be seen.
Mindless drivel.
Indulge your fantasies? Why not.
The univere has existed and will continue to exist long after you're gone. It doesn't exist simply because you exist.
Things can never be "shown" to exist apart from the senses, so they are sensations.
See above explanation.
Physics consists of observing visible effects, so it can never find the causes, since everything that is visible must be caused by something.
How can you have the audacity to comment on something you know nothing about?
The cause is in the present, but presence has no duration, so it cannot be seen.
Mindless drivel.
C
charles cure
Guest
Sarkus said:
Time doesn't even exist inside our universe, it is an invention of the human mind. It is a system of categorizing and ordering events and experiences in a way that is possible for a person to understand within the paramaters of what humans can comprehend.
(Q) said:
I didn't say MY mind, MY senses, I said THE (our) mind and senses. There is a sense of "I am" in all of us, not just in "c7ityi_"
But because you can't answer my question, you have to twist my words to defend yourself so that you can remain what you are. It is mental repulsion. If you would accept everything, you could not remain conscious of a personality. It is natural that humans want to prevent the annihilation of the personality.
Let's take it from the beginning:
Can you "show" that there is a real "outside" apart from the senses? Can you be conscious of something outside your consciousness?
To separate the observed system from the system of observation is to put an end to all logic, and to prevent the understanding of the universe in a coherent way. We cannot understand the universe unless we include it, unless it is a part of us. This is completely true because Logic is by definition the identifying link between two elements: the universe can only be logical if it's the same nature as man's mind.
If I am conscious of something, it is proof that it is part of my consciousness. So, all apparent material reality is spiritual. And this goes without saying, because everything we call matter is a sensation: of resistance, of impenetrability, of density, of inertia; and this sensation is purely mental. Nothing, ever, has been able to prove the existence of the most minute morsel of matter. We've known this ever since HERMES Trismegistos ("the universe is mental"), and long before, and it has been confirmed by many philosophers, like DESCARTES.But physicists are not yet ready to accept anything that calls into question the very foundations of their science.
Your defensive attitude has blinded you. What is it that you don't understand?
Theoretically, everything can always be divided into smaller and smaller parts. There is no indivisible "particle". What does the world consist of if everything can always be divided? Only the "presence" is something that does not consist of two points. It does not consist of a past and future, it does not consist of something physical.
Can you "show" that there is a real "outside" apart from the senses? Can you be conscious of something outside your consciousness?
WTF are you talking about? What do you mean by "outside?" You're talking gibberish.
If I am conscious of something, it is proof that it is part of my consciousness. So, all apparent material reality is spiritual. And this goes without saying, because everything we call matter is a sensation: of resistance, of impenetrability, of density, of inertia; and this sensation is purely mental. Nothing, ever, has been able to prove the existence of the most minute morsel of matter.
Delusional claptrap.
But physicists are not yet ready to accept anything that calls into question the very foundations of their science.
Balderdash. You haven't got a clue.
What is it that you don't understand?
Your raving lunacy.
Only the "presence" is something that does not consist of two points. It does not consist of a past and future, it does not consist of something physical.
Wake up from your daydream.
You're completely lost in delusional fantasies.
We've known this ever since HERMES Trismegistos ("the universe is mental"), and long before, and it has been confirmed by many philosophers, like DESCARTES.
Get a brain, philosophy is not science. You are totally whacked out.
WTF are you talking about? What do you mean by "outside?" You're talking gibberish.
If I am conscious of something, it is proof that it is part of my consciousness. So, all apparent material reality is spiritual. And this goes without saying, because everything we call matter is a sensation: of resistance, of impenetrability, of density, of inertia; and this sensation is purely mental. Nothing, ever, has been able to prove the existence of the most minute morsel of matter.
Delusional claptrap.
But physicists are not yet ready to accept anything that calls into question the very foundations of their science.
Balderdash. You haven't got a clue.
What is it that you don't understand?
Your raving lunacy.
Only the "presence" is something that does not consist of two points. It does not consist of a past and future, it does not consist of something physical.
Wake up from your daydream.
You're completely lost in delusional fantasies.
We've known this ever since HERMES Trismegistos ("the universe is mental"), and long before, and it has been confirmed by many philosophers, like DESCARTES.
Get a brain, philosophy is not science. You are totally whacked out.
C
charles cure
Guest
c7ityi_ said:
if i'm not mistaken, Hermes Trismegistos was a self proclaimed sorcerer. He was responsible for the Corpus Hermeticum? yeah, although he was undeniably thrice great, i've never really been able to take him seriously.