For Cris and all atheists,
Here is logical, irrefutable proof of God's existence :
http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/CTMU.html
QUOTE:
What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe. Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God (like the universe) a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual (syntactic) consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large. Thus, we have a new kind of theology called monopantheism, or even more descriptively, holopantheism. Second, God is indeed real, for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructively creative intelligence. Indeed, without a guiding entity whose self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure. Monopantheism is the logical, metatheological umbrella beneath which the great religions of mankind are (sometimes blindly) situated.
Why, if there exists a metareligion in which to establish the brotherhood of man through the unity of sentience, are men perpetually at each others' throats? Unfortunately, most human brains, which comprise a particular highly-evolved subset of the set of all reality-subsystems, do not fire in strict isomorphism to S much above the object level. Where we define one aspect of "intelligence" as the amount of global structure functionally represented by a given sÎS, brains of low intelligence are generally out of accord with the global syntax D(S). This limits their capacity to form true representations of S (global reality) by syntactic autology [d(S)àd(S)] and make rational ethical calculations. In this sense, the vast majority of men are "not good enough", intellectually speaking, to form rational worldviews and societies; they are deficient in education and intellect, albeit remediably so in many cases. This is why force has ruled in the world of man…why might has always made right, despite its marked tendency to violate the optimization of global utility derived by summing over the sentient agents of S with respect to space and time.
Now, in the course of employing deadly force to rule their fellows, the very worst element of humanity – the butchers, the violators, the ancestors of the "nobility", i.e. those of whom many modern leaders and politicians are merely slightly-chastened copies – began to consider ways of maintaining power. They lit on what passes today for religion, an authoritarian priesthood of which can be used to set the minds and actions of a populace for or against any given aspect of the political status quo. Others, jealous of the power thereby consolidated, began to use religion to gather their own "sheep", promising special entitlements to those who would join them…mutually conflicting promises now setting the promisees at each other’s throats.
But although religion was consistently employed for evil, several things bear notice. (1) The abuse of religion, and the God concept, has always been driven by human politics, and no one is justified in blaming the God concept, whether it is real or not, for the abuses committed by evil men in its name. Abusus non tollit usum. (2) A religion must provide at least emotional utility for its believers, and any religion that stands the test of time has obviously been doing so. (3) A credible religion must contain elements of truth and undecidability, but no elements that are verifiably false (for that could be used to overthrow the religion and its sponsors). So by design, religious beliefs generally cannot be refuted by rational or empirical means.
Does the reverse apply? Can a denial of God be refuted by rational or empirical means? The short answer is yes; the refutation follows the reasoning outlined above. That is, the above reasoning constitutes not just a logical framework for reality theory, but the outline of a logical proof of God's existence and the basis of a new "logical theology". The framework serves other useful purposes as well - e.g., the analysis of mind and consciousness - but we'll save that for another time.
