Physicist: This derivation isn’t particularly easy, but bear with me. It’s essentially a re-phrasing of a joint work by Descartes, Godel, and Hawking.
Beginning with the unitarity of quantum probability you find the non-vanishing deism coefficient manifest.
The set of neononontological logical absolutes is provably finite, whereas the set of Descartian, or singly self referencing (once recursive), logical postulates is substantially larger. For example, permitting God to create an object so big that he can’t move it, while simultaneously noting that (being all powerful) he can certainly move it, is a statement contained within the Descartian set, and outside of standard (mortal) logic. By necessity, the more all encompassing logic is infinitely larger.
Indeed, using a Cantorian decomposition on the larger set one can clearly see the smaller set made apparent. That is to say, the restrictions of mortal absolutes form a fractal “Chopra surface” on the larger set in “absolutes space”.
The quasimobius structure of absolutes space is established by the most basic mathematical inference. So, once a single point in the Descartian volume has been established, then the remainder of the set follows immediately by Godelian extension. But, keep in mind that the initial premise is based on quantum unitarity (which has been mathematically and experimentally proven), and as such, the projection hypothesis holds.
The “projection hypothesis”, an inescapable result of modern quantum theory, postulates that consciousness is an integral part of the structure of the universe. Moreover, according to Alan Sokal, a PhD physics professor from New York city, “…the distinction between observer and observed; the π of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.” (reference)
Therefore, by psuedodyadicism, the existence of any consciousness capable of comprehending an almighty or all-encompassing system, induces (technically: “projects”) a “pocket” into absolutes space, establishing an interior point, allowing for the divining of the existence of the whole of the set of Descartian absolutes. Obviously, this only strictly implies the existence of neoDescartian absolutes, but the paleoDescartian set follows immediately.
Obviously, the ratio of the q-measure of the higher postulates to the totality of absolutes space is the probability that those higher postulates hold in our universe. (This technique is common practice in most of the scientific community, but is almost unheard of in physics circles, which are mired in orthodoxy.)
But, having a higher dimensionality than the set of mortal absolutes (being circular, they have a dimension of 
Of course this only holds for our universe.
Building upon this work, we can recover a (countably) infinite set of gods.
Without loss of generality, assume a perfectly spherical god. By Banach-Tarski, with a finite number of translations a second god of equal volume can be generated. Given the isomorphism between our universe and the 2-category of cartesian clopen category categories, the axiom of choice holds.
I have a wonderful proof for the first proposition, which this comment box is too small to contain.
Gods, gods everywhere, and nothing left to think.
Wow, my life is changed forever! Thanks for this proof. Can’t wait to shove this in the face of my atheist friends!
I am most taken by the use of pseudodyadicism, and the invention of the Chopra Surface, which it necessarily implies. A great use of modal argumentation. I cannot conceive of a better use.
Of course there is a god and he wants us to know his thoughts.
haha great joke. you guys had me there for awhile
Predestination and forbearance almost contradict one another
Hi.
Uh? I do not know what to say here. Your entire post went right over my head!
I am a fervent believer in God. For me, it makes perfect evolutionary sense to believe in the Creator. Yet after reading this post, I am left dumbfounded; did you or did you not prove the existence of God?
What am I to do now?
Do I still go to church and say my Hail Mary?
Or do I only use Hail Mary when I play football?
There was something about pi in this post. Was it cherry or was it pecan? And what the hell does a pi have to do with God anyways?
Can you please rewrite this post using only words no greater than four letters so I can begin to understand what you are trying to say.
Thanks.
God bless. Or not?
Obviously!
The question of G-d moving the universe is interesting, but it begs two bigger questions of “Why would He want to?” and “To where would He move it?”
On the other hand, by some accounts, the universe is in an accelerating state of perpetual expansion, thus G-d is moving the universe in a manner of speaking, is He not?
Moreover, you can’t prove any postulate to be true; you only can prove a theory to be false if it is indeed falsifiable. Therefore, nothing can prove the existence of G-d because you cannot know infinity from a finite perspective and the G-d concept is not falsifiable. However, there is a way to demonstrate with geometry the process of intelligent design creating something from nothing; which is a contraction of the infinite to the finite as true nothingness is the infinite realm that exists beyond what is knowable. For example, the point identifies an exact location in space yet it has no dimensions and therefore has no physical existence. Consequently, if you touch a surface with the tip of a needle you are covering an infinite number of points. Yet every measurable physical structure is a conglomeration of lines connecting one zero dimensional point to another defining that which cannot be measured as the start of everything measurable. Therefore, the point is a geometric key to understanding the concept of G-d creating something from nothing.
Godel actually did formalize Anshelm’s ontological argument into modal logic. It’s a pretty neat brain-teaser.
I can’t tell whether this is a joke or not….
Nevermind, it’s a joke.
Nature is the unification of physics, ergo nature is god. The cosmos already contains 4 mystical, cosmic forces that need no help or propulsion by another force (a deity). A personal god is the creation of ancient man’s theoretical framework. Thousands of years ago when men created personal deities, they did so from ‘feelings’. Feelings proved them. But if feeling a deity proves his, hers, their, or its existence then that proves every other deity that man has proposed. Never forget or underestimate the placebo effect. We are infatuated believers because uncertainty breeds fear.
After a lifetime’s obsession I have finally managed to prove Sharkey’s Last Theorem (see first comment) using modern results from algebraic geometry. However it is very technical and weighed in at over 100 pages.
Still postulating theories about the outside from the inside. Pretty droll stuff there though.
Did no-one notice the date this was posted???
cathy, seems to me that most of the commentors got that it was a joke
I cant understand how I can get somthing from zero…. how iwill get something from nothing…. it is impossible… sother will be a creater..!
0 not eaqual to 1,2,3,……………..,a,b,c………anything….etc.
“a joint work by Descartes, Godel, and Hawking.” Perhaps they talked over instant messenger? lol
The moment you mentioned Chopra and Sakal was the moment I realized that this was just a joke. Well played, man! Well played.
Our total knowledge of the universe started after the big bang and ends at the edge of the universe. Before and after that, we have null. Space and time itself as we know them start and end the same thing. Imagine our 13.5 billion light year radius finite universe is the size of a grain of sand. That sand is part of a container infinitely larger than the Sahara desert. That’s how much data we are missing in proving or disproving the existence of a Supreme Architect. Currently we only have a grain of sand to base our formula. Outside our universe, time and space do not exist. Whatever entity that is out there has no beginning or end as we know it. They could be anywhere or nowhere at the same time. We don not have the evolved mind to comprehend it. The analogy of understanding what is out there (out of our universe) does not even come close to the analogy of a born blind man trying to understand what a color yellow is. Put those into equation and you will have either an infinite number of proofs that a Supreme Creator exist or undefined. Proving something does not exist is actually harder than proving something exist. The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence, and since we have a variable that could be infinite, we might as well be looking forever for evidences. Most often, people have failed to take into account the enormity of the undefined data.
there is God, whether you guys agree or not
You sure can not extrapolate for infinity from dah finite………jes stop being jocular and lets face dah factual fact
I am that I am ! ,said God Almighty
And lo! He ate he mighty spinach.
i spoke with the ancestors from 100,000 years ago and they said:
here on the African continent we have many gods, just pick the one you like and to hell with the rest!!!!
In the context of Quran (the Islamic Holy Book), there is one chapter in which God says
” 1. Say, “He is God, the One.
2. God, the Absolute.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is nothing comparable to Him.”
This is one of the smallest chapters of the Holy Book comprising of 4 verses. I suggest all the Physicists and even Mathematicians go through the Holy Quran. Quran has wide range of topics. The topics range from creation of the life from water to the formation of universe etc. God has only mentioned His attributes in the Quran. Some other verses of the Quran:
“190.In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, are signs for people of understanding.
191. Those who remember God while standing, and sitting, and on their sides; and they reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the earth: “Our Lord, You did not create this in vain, glory to You, so protect us from the punishment of the Fire.””Chapter 3, v.190
And many more…One reading suggested esp. for people of understanding.
I can’t stand it … here’s a scientific writer of my own ilk. My bavarcations have so often been misunderstood … blank uncomprehending stares greet my most profound and well-considered speculations. And here is a writer whose linguistic legerdemain totally eclipses mine. Thanks for a cosmic ray of laughter which has illuminated my rather arduous day. I now stand absolutely convinced that mathematics have at last proven the existence of God. And can sleep easy.
” there may be some sort of “organizing intelligence” (but take the bible OUT of the picture) how in your rational mind, do you come to the conclusion,looking at these results, that this “entity”, is paternalistic or judgemental ? ????????how????
I like the comment about all we have is a grain of sand, I think that’s almost comparable to the parable about the mustard seed, when Jesus told us that if we can only have that much faith well get by.
I find Avicenna’s proof to be one of the most compelling arguments I’ve come across:
Prior to the proof, attention must be given to Avicenna’s conception of modality (necessity, possibility, impossibility). Avicenna’s famous essence-existence distinction says: if you consider the essence (nature/definition of what it is) of something, i.e. a computer, the essence of your computer does not tell you that the computer must exist. You can throw your computer out of the window, and it will then cease to exist. However, it can exist, because it is working right now. This tells you that its essence is neutral with respect to existence. “It does not deserve to exist on its own merits,” but it is possible. Conversely, something like a square-circle or a triangle with 4 sides, its essence guarantees that it doesn’t exist, since simply by looking at its definition, you will see i.e. that a square-circle must be both square and round, which can not be the case. This is what Avicenna calls impossibility.
Necessity is explained in a similar manner. The essence of something necessary is an essence/definition which guarantees that a thing exists. The point of this essence-existence distinction is to show that there is such a Being that is a necessary being, and this is what he calls God.
Now, to explain the move from possibility to necessity: If we look at the computer again, the computer is a possible existent, which means that its essence doesn’t guarantee that it exists or doesn’t exist. The computer does, however, exist. To explain its existence we need a cause, which must be something outside of the computer. Now, those who made the computer (computer technicians) are not any better for us. We end up with a chain of causes, and each member of the chain is merely possible or contingent. The question becomes: could there be a world where everything in the world was caused by something else and that other thing was merely contingent? Avicenna’s answer is no!
You can’t have an infinite regress of causes. Avicenna says that the entire set of contingent existents is itself contingent. One may accuse him of the fallacy of composition, i.e. when someone accepts that every part of a clock is well-designed, it does not follow that the clock is well-designed. On the other hand, it’s true that some properties carry over from parts to wholes, e.g. from the fact that every part of a clock is a physical object, it follows that the clock itself is a physical object. So it seems to follow, in the same way that from the fact that each member of the set/chain of causes is contingent, the entire set is itself contingent.
Q:How did this set of contingent entities get there?
Avicenna says: It [the set] is a possible existent, which means that its essence neither prejudices us in favor of its existence or non-existence. So, it needs a cause for its existence, and its cause cannot be contingent. The cause must be necessary existent, which he calls God.
More info : http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/a/e/0/ae0c36acd9cbfef7/AdamsonMixSes.MP3?c_id=1779083&expiration=1399356739&hwt=52b5fb732742de84f6b77204c43d7144
Hahaha a perfect slap to the atheists who take the the support of Science to proof there is no God, now their Science is saying to them GOD IS THERE
When a person thinks “I do not perceive God with any of my 5 emotions, therefore He does not exist”, this is “direct” logic. If the person instead thinks “If I go to an empty land and see the statue of a famous person, and then I ask myself “Who made this statue”, then the answer is “An intelligent designer/engineer”. Then how come a human who is more real and more complicated than that statue comes into existance, an intelligent engineer must have designed him as well”, then this is indirect logic. And the main difference between direct and indirect logic is that direct logic always takes a person to the false whereas indirect logic always takes him to the truth.
Whether or not we accept Him, God exists. And He does not need our faith in Him. Some people ask “Why innocent babies are being killed at wars if there is a God or people suffer?”. The answer is “Because God wanted things to happen that way, good and evil are both from Him, like the case of creation of Hell and Satan, and Heaven and angels”. Good and evil are from God, but people just can not interpret facts.
I believe the author is already presuming a set that which is God Infinite it begs the question of whether God is ‘all-powerful’ or ‘all-encompassing’. This term bounce of each other because if it does involve our entire universe and the sum parts of all dimensions then yes “He” is “all powerful”.
But as the author posits God to be Infinite, like me. I believe we state in accordance in a general large observable range that God is “expanding” like our universe sort of like how a plant or even how life grows just like the universe is expanding. In this statement we may seem to say that God is “not all powerful” yet because He is Infinite in His dimensions that the set ‘expands’ along with the sum of His parts (Universes and Dimensions) but indeed if God is the sum of all of its parts then He will still be “all-powerful” and “all-encompassing” but simply has the extra feature of growth an expansion which must be implied when in accordance with a set of infinity because it posits “no end” but a continuous progression…
One apple is not just one apple it would not exist without God that makes it two the only thing that can exist in the singular is God the fact is clear and it has been taught to us for as long as humans have existed it has been right in front of our faces the whole timewe just never understood it the fact that know the number 1 exists proves there is one.
The physics is over my head but I personally subscribe to the chaos theory: there is more evidence for entropy in the universe. Likewise the earth is subject to randomness and decay (wars, disease, natural disasters, death). The Big Rip Theory is further evidence of decay as expansion will cause the universe to eventually fail.
If God created it, it would be friendly. Which makes me think this cannot be God’s (G-d) creation because if it was it would be perfect (free from decay).
Supposing the Bible is correct and God (G-d) created it all then I think the question that needs to be asked is, “What went wrong, when did it go wrong and how did it go wrong?”
At the same time there most definitely appears to be a creativity (beauty and order) to nature, yet randomness (chaos) by its definition should not be able to produce this state.
omg……..not even worth this comment we believe or we do not. each has his own interpretation that is right for them. Nothing else makes sense. When atheist, christians, muslims,etc realize this and accept it, the world will then be what it should be.
Just as described in Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott those of a higher dimension or being just can not be understood by those of a lesser dimension. So as a triangle can not conceive the nature of a pyramid, neither can man conceive the nature of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
Hah, April fools. Thanks for the postulation.
1 = INFINITY = GOD = 1 x 1 = 1
Ha ha!
Wow. Great post. Nice April fools’ prank. Once you mentioned the neononontological logical absolutes, I understood it was a prank. Obviously, people believed it because it appears completely legitimate: but only stems from the fact that they are misinformed and uneducated about the topics involved. With that said, I really want to thank you for the joke and congratulations for that talent. You are officially the best physicist that exists in the world.
With that said, I want to provide a serious proof that God cannot exist. If anyone has refutations, you are welcome to send them to me or to post them here. I have yet not been provided with one. Bear with me because this will be a long and perhaps mind-blowing and confusing post.
Before I begin with the formal proof, I need to clarify and state the theistic argument for God’s existence, and their description that they give to God:
1. God exists by virtue and necessity of God’s own nature (Teleological Argument).
2. Logic, Consciousness, and Moral, are not created by God, but instead they exist as a direct consequence of God’s existence; that is, they are intrinsic properties of God.
3. God is omnipotent, omniscient, transcendental, omni-benevolent, eternal, conscious.
4. God interferes and interacts with the universe and can communicate with conscious entities.
This proof will use some science, but the proof itself is not scientific as a whole: there is much logic involved on its own right. The way to disproving the conjecture of God’s existence includes two background arguments:
1. To proof that logic and its extensions are not and cannot be objective, but rather subjective, and therefore, not properties of God.
2. To dismiss the Teleological Argument as a logical fallacy.
The second part of the proof will stem as the direct consequence and implications of these two aforementioned.
1. THEISTIC ARGUMENT: Naturalism cannot account for objective reliable logic, and as a consequence, cannot account for objective standards morality, and cannot account for objective foundations of free will and consciousness. Therefore, the only way those can be accounted for is if we assume them to be properties of God. That requires that God exists. Thus, God must exist.
REJECTION: While that is true, this is worked off the assumption that logic and its extensions are objective in nature. Logic cannot be objective, and I can show this with a preliminary argument followed by a mathematical conjecture that prove this.
Logic as a discipline of philosophy, is concerned with truth, and achieving to know it by reasoning and conclusion. We can ask the following question: What is truth? If truth is objective, then this means that the correct answer to this question must be true regardless of the individual that answers it or asks it, and must be non-arbitrary. It must also not be a logical fallacy for obvious reasons. In other words, the answer must non-absurd, and therefore, it must be logical.
The answer that is provided by theists is that truth is the set of all ideas that correspond and are a direct consequence of the fundamental, tautological nature of God.
PROBLEM: this answer is a claim of truth itself. If the claim is logical, then the individual providing the answer is required to already know the definition of truth. Yet the question that this individual answered is asking for that very definition of truth. This means that the answer constitutes circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. Therefore, the answer is not valid. In fact, no answer is valid because any answer will also engage in circular reasoning. That leads to a dilemma: in order to answer the question, a definition of ‘truth’ must already exist. Definitions, by their own nature, need to be provided by consensus of population. Because that is a direct dependence upon a group of individuals, that means truth, as an idea, is subjective. Because truth is the foundation of logic and its underlying purpose, it follows that logic in general is subjective.
The concluding statement of that solution can be supported by the following mathematical conjecture:
-Let any idea I be directly linked to a set of data D that verifies the truth of this idea.
-Let the set of observers O be the individuals who observe and find D such that it allows to conclude the truth of I.
-The ability A of the set O to interpret D is a function of their experiences E and setting S.
-This proposes that no two different elements of the set O can have an A produced by the same coordinates (E,S). This is true because by the definition of individual, they cannot be the same individual. Because they are not the same, the fundamental differences that exist will have an operational impact on E, and the the other individuals, which are all unique, will have operational impact on S.
-Thus, no two individuals O_x and O_y will observe the same subset of D. They will observe subsets of the same set D, but the subsets themselves are different.
-In order for I to be a correct claim, by logic assumed, one must be able to interpret and observe all of D. Because no individual can observe all of D, and every subset of D is unique, this must mean that D is infinite.
-That D is infinite must mean that O must also be infinite because they are a relation one of the other.
-Furthermore, each individual can only observe a finite subset of D, because otherwise, a contradiction would be produced: by being to observe an infinite subset of D, one would by logical principle be able to observe all of D, which we already concluded to not be possible.
-The probability of I being correct can be taken as the size of the subset of D an individual O_n can observe divided by the size of D. Namely:
— /lim/ [m –> /inf/] D_s(O_n)/D. This expression will equal 0 whenever the limit is evaluated given the parameters stated previously.
-The probability of any I to be known with certainty with respect to truth is exactly 0. That is, it is impossible to know the truth of any I with certainty.
-That means knowing the truth of all I with certainty is impossible. No fact is certain.
-From that, it follows directly that the foundations and outcomes of logic cannot be known to be true for certain.
-If that is the case, then the axioms of logic are assumed as inductive statements.
-Therefore, they are subjective.
-Hence, logic and its general extensions, in their entirety, are subjective.
CONCLUSION: Logic and its general extensions of reasoning are subjective.
This is not the end of the formal argument. First, I need to address a counter argument that is often posed.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: “If all statements are subjective” is a true statement, then that must mean that the statement itself is subjective. That undermines the validity of the statement. For the statement to be valid, it must be an objective statement. If the statement is an objective statement, then it is self-refuting. Thus, the statement is absurd.
ADDRESS: The statement is indeed subjective by necessity of its content. However, being subjective does not undermine validity. A statement can still be true within the framework of principles on which it is based upon. The statement was concluded to be true assuming the principles of logic to be true as well. So, despite being a subjective statement, it is true, because logic is being assumed. Not assuming logic would not yield the statement to be true, and in the case that the statement was assumed to be true, it would either be arbitrary, or another different anomaly would rise. Therefore, the statement is neither self-refuting nor invalid. The case is rested. The formal first argument concludes here.
Before I continue, I must warn that the argument has implications that may be very surprising and astonishing, and after analysis of these implications, the reader may be prompted to return to the assumption that logic is objective once the problem of reliability is posed. Namely, I will show the answer to the question, “how can logic be, in foundation, reliable, if it is not objective? In other words, given that logic is objective, what justification is there to assume logic over any other form of reasoning?”
Logic is tautological, meaning that it is self-evident. It stems as common sense. Our intuition tells us these statements are true. Although they are based upon our own senses, there is no reason to assume they are false. To assume they are false is equally subjective, and, in terms of tautological probability (not mathematical probability or statistical probability), it is not very acceptable to do so. Besides, given that logic as we know it has allowed for human survival, it supports the fact that it is most probably true, and external evidence that we hold outside of logic support logic. Because the external standards that humans create in compromise allow for logic to work. The point is that we choose logic above all other reasoning systems because is the best system out of all of them. It is more convenient and more simple. We can admit that we can define arithmetic rules to be true, such that 2+1=4 was a true statement, or define arithmetic rules such that division by zero was indeed defined, as in the case of wheel algebra, which can actually, in multiple situations, be applied to reality, to the extent to which there is no authentic basis to claim that these are wrong other than for the fact that they are uncommon. Notwithstanding, it is important to see that using such other systems will give rise to things such as x – x =/ (not equal) 0, but instead, x – x = 0x^2, given that 0x=/0, because division is a unary operator and not binary. These things are counter-intuitive, so nobody assumes them as true regardless of their possibility to be true. As that observation stands, no person would regard any reasoning form other than logic to be true. That is why logic should be assumed. That justifies assuming logic despite being subjective; it makes logic quite reliable. The problem of reliability with subjective logic is solved.
This first argument is meaningful to the proof because it has direct consequences. Let us acknowledge those before proceeding:
-Given that logic and truth are not objective, these are not intrinsic properties of God. If they were, they would be objective by definition. Objective means that they are independent of the individual, they are properties of objects or entities. Subjective means they are subject to personal interpretation.
-By that premise, it follows that moral is not absolute, but relative, and does not correspond to be a property of God either.
That previous conclusion is important to keep in mind because in the latter part of the proof, it will be important.
2. THEISTIC ARGUMENT: Natural laws of the physical world must come from somewhere, since there is something rather than nothing. Because naturalism itself requires these natural laws, there must be an external supernatural realm that is the first cause of the universe. The only entity that can meet this necessary requirement is God. Therefore, God must exist. Thus, God exists.
REJECTION: Our fellow Oci Abi provided the same argument with similar phrasing. All the different phrasings of the same argument are known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument asks the question: What is the cause of the universe? Then, this argument shows that God, with the properties and description as given by theists, can be the only correct answer to the question. That proceeds to show that God exists because the universe must come from somewhere; namely, it has a cause. Oci Abi’s phrasing of the argument is just one of many, but the very essence of the argument itself is answering that question to show God exists as a direct consequence of the answer. The rejection of this argument is to show that the argument is invalid because it is a logical fallacy.
The Teleological Argument is a logical fallacy because its very basis, the question, “What is it that caused the universe to come into existence?” is an illogical question, an absurd idea, a logical fallacy. To understand why, we need to look at the assumptions underlying the question. First, theists assume the universe exists — who would not? Second, they assume the universe is not eternal. Which is an ambiguous concept, because although the age of the universe is a finite number, calculated to be 13.798 thousand of million years old, it is a number infinitely many times as big as nothingness, no age, which is what we presume to exist outside of the universe. So to argue that the universe is eternal is just as plausible as assuming the contrary. Often times, this is avoided by instead assuming the universe began at some point. What this means is that the universe once did not exist, and then came into existence. It means once there was nothing, and then once there was something. Third, theists assume that there must be a cause to this change of nothingness to somethingness. The question above attempts to figure out what is that cause. While the second statement is problematic on its own, because there is no certainty that the universe began, and it may not make sense to say that it did, anomalies can be resolved with some pretty unsatisfying results that theists have to deal with separately. Nonetheless, is this last third assumption which creates the fallacy itself. It assumes the universe has a cause.
THE PROBLEM: It does not make sense to say that the universe has a cause. The universe cannot have a cause because the concept of cause with regards to the universe itself is absurd and meaningless. Let me clarify. The assumption applies the principle of causality to the universe. The principle of causality states that the cause must precede the effect. God is the cause, and the universe is the effect. The problem lies on the preceding. To precede something must mean that there is a before and that before exists. However, there is no before. Time is a coordinate of the Euclidean of the four dimensional continuous fabric of the universe, also known as space time curve. Time only exists inside the universe. It does not make sense to speak about there being something preceding the universe because that places that something on a timeline that exists outside the universe. But we know time does not exist outside the universe. And if it did, then there would still be something, which is a contradiction because theists assume there was nothing. Contemplate this example: assume smart life exists in an exoplanet with no star, no sun. Would it make sense for this smart being to ask: is cancer caused by sunlight? No. The answer is absurd because sunlight does not exist. To say sunlight does not cause cancer is wrong. To say it causes cancer is also wrong. The question itself is wrong. When you ask absurd questions, there exists no correct answers. Sunlight does not exist in this planet, so obviously, the question is illogical, meaningless. Similarly, time does not exist outside of the universe. If time does not exist outside the universe, then the principle of causality cannot be applied to the universe. The principle of causality exists because the universe exists, so you cannot use it to explain the existence of the universe because in order to do so, that would already require the universe to exist, which is the contradiction I mentioned earlier. For that reason, pre-universal causality does not exist. If pre-universal causality does not exist, then the universe is not required to have a cause to come into existence. It could literally do it on its own in the most random way possible, because there is no principle that prevents it from doing it. Once the universe exists, then the principle of causality exists, so then things can no longer come into existence uncaused, yet the universe itself can come into existence uncaused. Because the universe can come into existence uncaused, the third assumption is invalid as it is arbitrary. Because the third assumption is the reason of the question, the question itself is a logical fallacy, and it is absurd. Therefore, the teleological argument is a logical fallacy. Thus, theists have no argument to support the existence of God.
It cannot stop here, however. That theists do not have any arguments to support God’s existence does not mean God cannot and does not exist. This is why it is important to acknowledge the direct consequences of the arguments stated. Those consequences are the basic premises to construct the deductive argument that will ultimate proof God does not exist. This second argument has the consequence that:
-If God exists, then God cannot be the cause of the universe. God could not precede the universe’s existence to create it because that idea is inherently absurd.
Now comes the deductive argument. This is the second part of the proof. You will now understand why I provided the earlier two arguments. The basic premises:
-Assume God exists.
-Logic and its general extensions (including morality) are subjective and caused to exist by social construction of conscious individuals.
-God cannot create the universe because that either requires him to precede its existence, which is absurd, or to create the universe while or after it exists, which is a contradiction.
Based off of those, we can assert that:
1. God is not omniscient, because knowledge is a social construct that exists within the universe. This is supported by our second premise.
2. God is not omnibenevolent because the previous conclusion includes morality.
3. God is not transcendent because for an entity to be transcendent, one must not be able to make logical conclusions about this entity. To conclude that God is transcendent is equivalent to stating that we cannot make conclusions about God. However, concluding that is a logical conclusion about God in itself, so it is self refuting. Therefore, God cannot be transcendent.
4. Because God is unable to create the universe, God is not omnipotent. Also, omnipotence requires omniscience, which we already concluded God does not have.
Moreover, it is important to conclude that God is being assumed to be a conscious being and to use logic. However, if logic is a phenomenon of the universe itself, then:
5. God did not create logic, nor any system of reasoning for that fact. Because logic and all other forms of reason only exist inside the universe, God does not have logic or either of them.
Free will is a consequence of reasoning. If God has no reasoning, then:
6. God has no free will. God is an automaton.
Those premises and assertions have already disproven the second and fourth attributes that theists give to God. Namely, logic, consciousness, and morals do not come from God at all, and God cannot interact freely or communicate with humans because it is an automaton and has no free will, no consciousness, and no reasoning.
The first attribute is not yet disproven, and from the third attribute, only eternal is yet to be disproven. Both can be disproven using the third premise combined with the third assertion:
7. Because God is not transcendent, God can be bound to natural laws of some kind. Because God is unable to create the universe and/or precede its existence, God must exist with the universe. They exists in parallel.
8. Both imply God’s existence is framed by the Euclidean continuum of coordinate fabric of spatial time curvature (space-time).
9. Because God exists under those conditions, God must be subject to the principle of causality as a direct consequence.
10. That is in direct contradiction with the first attribute, which states that God exists by virtue and necessity of God’s own nature. God must be caused too since God must exist within the universe. The first attribute is disproven.
11. Because God does not exist by necessity and virtue of God’s own nature, God cannot be eternal. The third and final attribute is disproven.
Because none of the attributes that are given to God are true, that means that God is not actually God, since those are the attributes for God to be considered authentically God. This is not only a contradiction, but is in direct opposition to the logical principle of identity, which states that any A must be exactly equal to A.
12. This anomaly rises from assuming that God exists in the very first premise.
13. To eliminate the anomaly, the contrary must be assumed.
14. The contrary is that God does not exist.
15. Therefore, God does not exist.
FINAL CONCLUSION: God does not and cannot exist.
That formally concludes this proof.
I think god has the final answer on this. He states “I am who I am”
I, as we know, mathematically represents numbers that are imaginary, therefore god is imaginary.
The bible says God gave humans free will. The bible also says God is omniscient. This is inconsistent.
If someone does something the bible says they did so because they chose to but it also says they did it because God knew they would if someone does something and was always guaranteed to do it they didn’t choose to.
TO
ALL THE READERS(SENIORS/JUNIORS),
[SUBJECT:ALMIGHTY DOES NOT EXIST PROOF]
DEAR SIR/MADAM,
I am just a student of class 9….and i am stating my idea with the help of DEMORGAN;S LAW. Let-
we say ALMIGHTY to create a stone(or rock) which is unbreakable.If he is ALMIGHTY, then he can create it.
case 1:
If he doesnot create it, we conclude:HE IS NOT ALMIGHTY.(ALMIGHTY DOES NOT EXIST)
case 2.
If he can create it..
next moment we will say him to break the unbreakable stone.
case 2.1
if he breaks the stone then HE IS NOT ALMIGHTY(AS THE STONE IS BREAKABLE AND IF HE IS ALMIGHTY HE WILL CREATE AN UNBREAKABLE STONE BUT IT IS BROKEN)
THUS IT PROVES HE IS NOT ALMIGHTY.
T0 ESCAPE THIS : THERE IS ONLY 1 POSSIBLE SOLUTION
i.e HE HAS TO PROVE THAT BREAKING=NON BREAKING which is impossible. THUS IT STATES ALMIGHTY DOES NOT EXIST.
THANKING YOU,
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
SAYAN NANDY
G. Godel did not attempt to do so however, as he purposely limited his proof to the issue of existence, rather than uniqueness.
Can more than one God exist simultaneously? I think not. Given that a God would occupy absoluteness and eternal space, whatever that might be, how can more than one Being occupy the same areas in this immaterial realm? Also, this God would have a will and a purpose. Two or more Gods might have contradictory wills and purposes, whose would be supreme and priority?
I think therefore I am and IT is.
Love, beauty, and absurdity (as the author has presented) are outside the realm of electrons, protons, photons , gravity, muddacluckers, and black holes and must therefore be from a Higher Power. And if are $miling or cringing you prove my Point. 🙂
In his long rambling post (not unlike the original post) Angel says:
March 22, 2016 at 11:58 pm -“God cannot create the universe because that either requires him to precede its existence, which is absurd, or to create the universe while or after it exists, which is a contradiction”. I link absurdity with love and beauty as experiences that are subjective and not explainable nor governed by the “chemical-physical laws of nature”. Most theists and Christians have no problem believing in a God before the beginning of our universe – before the Big Bang – than I have in believing that you, Angel, existed before your post or that Mr. Ford existed before the Model T. In fact it would be absurd to believe that neither you nor Mr. Ford existed before your creations.
This is referred to as tzimtzum in Kabbalah which means that God created space within himself to make room so to speak for creation.