Paradise Café Discussions A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

http://mysiddhi.freehostia.com/spiritual...etric.html

I have been working on this thesis for several years... and I have reached the level of absolute truth. By this I mean there is an actual process of reasoning which is absolutely true; it is called logical tautology. Here I have founded such method in geometric order to formulate the work.

The result is an extremely deep understanding of God's nature that could take library's of books to fully explain. It is an absolute proof of God's existence that is not based on contingency nor interpretation nor conjecture.

I do not appeal to scriptures or even show you the scriptures that agree with the thesis. But there are many... and I am willing to show some to anyone that has a question on a particular aspect of the thesis.

Howdy "HumbleGod"! I took a look at your work. You sure must admire Mars Turner a whole lot. OR, -- maybe you ARE Mars Turner?!?

Not only myself, but many others here have seen his rodeo more than once.

'Nuff said by me. ... iso...

Intense love always flowing from you as usual?

(Micah 6:8) . . .He has told you, O earthling man, what is good. And what is Jehovah asking back from you but to exercise justice and to love kindness and to be modest in walking with your God?

sw

Wow , I'll be honest, physics and me do not get along. I love it, I even gave up band for it to try to grasp a concept of it, but it makes my head go spinny spin spin. Though the philosophy of it seems sound enough, and very well written I think you'll probably get along well with our thinkingman if he catches wind of your threads Seems right up his alley.

Logic is fun. But one of the first rules of logic is that it can say nothing about truth, it can only speak to the validity of the argument and you are still left with garbage in - garbage out.

First you said there was only one definition, that of God. Then you claim that T1 is a definitional truth. But T1 bears some scrutiny.

(T1) Nothing is nonexistence. - Something is existence.

If I can show that nothing is something, T1 falls apart.

Costello: I have an empty jar.
Abbott: It isn't empty, there is air in it.
C: Well lets take all the air out.
A: You still have gamma particles and physics thingies passing through.
C: Are they passing through continuously?
A: No just from time to time.
C: OK We bury the jar in the center of the earth and we wait for a time when no physics thingies are passing through. What's in the jar?
A: Nothing.
C: So Nothing exists in the jar.
A: Yes.
C: So nothing is a something because nothing is non-existence.
A: So something is in the jar?
C: Yes nothing.
A: There's nothing in the jar so there's something there? What's the something in the jar?
C: Nothing.
A: But you said it was something.
C. Yes.
A: And what is it that exists in the jar?
C: Nothing.
A: Who's on first?

;-)

(P1) Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

I think the real question is, "Can God make a rock so strong He cannot break it."

And the answer is that He did, then the rock broke itself.

;-)

Is that so? What rule of logic are you referring too?

Logical tautologies are not validities!

Logical tautologies are isomorphic to empirical facts. FYI it is impossible to empirically disprove a logical tautology.

The problem of induction negates your effort to disprove the logical tautology.

How do you know there is not something in that empty jar that you simply cannot detect or measure as of yet?

You don't know... therefore you cannot prove your point. Your case rests on the premise of non measurement and the assumption of being able to measure all things measurable... which is simply a prior false.

Beyond your logical troubles... empirically your position is non factual because there is something called the Zero-Point Energy... which contributes 1/2 hbar omega in EVERY SINGLE POINT in space.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Hi Hum

Re: "in EVERY SINGLE POINT in space."

And how, might I ask, would you describe "space"? Would that be sumthing like, lack of sumething or maybe even, nuthingness?

gogh

Given that the Zero-Point Energy is in every single point in space I would be forced to describe space as the aether, a something.

It lacks nothing... it is infinite! It is not a nothingness... it is an everythingness... all things come from and are sustained by the Zero-Point Energy.

Re: "it is an everythingness"

So nothing can be more than "everythingness", therefore everything less than "everthingness" is sumthingness, correct?

nothing does not exist... so it cannot be anything or more than anything as it has no relation to that which exists

Re: "nothing does not exist"

everything cannot be sumething

therefore nuthing has to exist so that sumething can be compared to.

without sumething to compare to , everything would be sumething; and that would be boring, imo.

...

everything is something... logic and your boredom are not correlated lol

a tea cup is something

a frog is something

now, a frog in a tea cup would be something! lol

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines logic as "the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference." If the Axioms, tautologies, and premises are false, so may be the conclusions.
If the foundations of the argument are not sound the reasoning may be valid but the conclusion untrue.

You have a premise that your statement is a tautology. It has yet to be proven to be such, and since I make the claim that it is invalid and have demonstrated that 'nothing' does exist even if it is just an abstract idea, then the burden of proof false to you to prove that the subject of abstract ideas have no existence. I do not rely upon measurement to show that there is nothing in the jar. The fact that I can talk about nothing and you can understand it, means that something exists that we refer to as nothing. If it truly does not exist, then stop talking about it ;-)

Only if they are true logical tautologies. If make the claim that a=A and b=B is a tautology, then I must demonstrate that it in fact includes all cases. This in and of itself is an impossibility since you must claim to be omniscient to know that there is not a case that violates your claimed tautology. So a claimed tautology can only be known to be true for your scope of knowledge. Logic cannot discover anything outside of itself, it can only play with known entities and within known parameters.

You base your pure logic on the current physics theory? Bad praxis.

You also presume that the current physics model is TRUTH. This is an a-priori assumption. What if the aether is a hyperdense crystal and the principle particles are discontinuities within the crystal. Then in fact, everything (but the aether) would be made out of nothing.

This model places all the properties of all things into the aether as geometries and properties of the crystal, and you get a truly unified field equation.

It is a dangerous thing to assert scientific fact in a logical debate since scientific fact is a moving target.