Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

There is great underlying logic to life. People gradually deteriorate and grow old. It is gradual because the mechanisms for life are powerful in some ways, and attempt to keep us alive. As the mechanisms themselves deteriorate, we gradually fall apart (I'm not talking about people who get hit by a Mack truck.).

The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?

Well, first you have to start with everything. (.)

There is congruence and in-congruence within everything. Rational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all real numbers") is begotten of congruence. Irrational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all imaginary numbers") is begotten of incongruence.




We aren't discussing the paradoxical (elements "of the set of all imaginary numbers"), but that rationally intelligible.

A classification, within limakasidian entropism, is a "subset of the set of all real numbers." (Note, again, only that rationally intelligible is being discussed.) When one speaks to "alive" and "dead" they are actually speaking to membership within certain subsets.


Speaking, then to death, one "dies" (ceases to be element of certain subsets of the rationally intelligible) because that was only a subset of it and the whole of them are.




What, then, does one gain by acquiring entropy within the mind?

Acquiring such entropy, such possible states of existing, it spans the assorted congruities that also had one's mind know that (that multitude of differences is entropy of existence).


As there is every congruence, there is every mind in every way. (Indeed, there is every thing in every way.)


How is this known?

An absolute tendency to become less orderly would not only generate itself but everything, Congruence (and, thus, incongruence) would be an inevitable consequence of every thing being. It is known, by change within one's own mind that there is a tendency to become less orderly, and one such tendency absolute is the most genuine embodiment of that.


What of restraint upon the genuineness of that?

Any such constraint would, itself, have to hail from a tendency to become less orderly for one would then have the "natural kind" and constraint upon its manifestation.


"Natural kind?"

Indeed, Aristotle (as all others) spoke truth! There is the natural kind, absolute tendency to become less orderly, and there are manifestations of that, every thing.


How have all others spoken truth?

Everything is by infinite congruence within an infinite number of things.





Infinite Congruence

Imagine cutting a tree into ten million slices. Should you position those slices in their original arrangement, you'll have what appears to be a tree. That's what like reality is like, except with an infinite amount of infinite varieties of "slices" (they're not actually portions of anything, save within congruence).


In-congruence

Should you position those slices in a wholly arbitrary order that does not correspond to the original, you would have an absurdity that would likely make you noxious. That is a more polite "subset of the set of all imaginary numbers" (your ¹/₀, if you will), for the individual slices themselves make sense.

We aren't moving from the past, through the present, to the future. We are actually moving in the exact opposite direction.

Numbers, sets, and subsets are only a language that we use to attempt to interpret reality. We live reality. Or do we?

[username18333]

There is great underlying logic to life. People gradually deteriorate and grow old. It is gradual because the mechanisms for life are powerful in some ways, and attempt to keep us alive. As the mechanisms themselves deteriorate, we gradually fall apart (I'm not talking about people who get hit by a Mack truck.).

The question I ask here is, do we die because we fall apart? Or is death really a way to depart this life when it would be too painful to keep on living? What if we kept on living past the time when we normally should die because of weakness. What if we simply didn't die? Is death a gift, built into nature?

Well, first you have to start with everything. (.)

There is congruence and in-congruence within everything. Rational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all real numbers") is begotten of congruence. Irrational intelligibility (think: "being an element of the set of all imaginary numbers") is begotten of incongruence.




We aren't discussing the paradoxical (elements "of the set of all imaginary numbers"), but that rationally intelligible.

A classification, within limakasidian entropism, is a "subset of the set of all real numbers." (Note, again, only that rationally intelligible is being discussed.) When one speaks to "alive" and "dead" they are actually speaking to membership within certain subsets.


Speaking, then to death, one "dies" (ceases to be element of certain subsets of the rationally intelligible) because that was only a subset of it and the whole of them are.




What, then, does one gain by acquiring entropy within the mind?

Acquiring such entropy, such possible states of existing, it spans the assorted congruities that also had one's mind know that (that multitude of differences is entropy of existence).


As there is every congruence, there is every mind in every way. (Indeed, there is every thing in every way.)


How is this known?

An absolute tendency to become less orderly would not only generate itself but everything, Congruence (and, thus, incongruence) would be an inevitable consequence of every thing being. It is known, by change within one's own mind that there is a tendency to become less orderly, and one such tendency absolute is the most genuine embodiment of that.


What of restraint upon the genuineness of that?

Any such constraint would, itself, have to hail from a tendency to become less orderly for one would then have the "natural kind" and constraint upon its manifestation.


"Natural kind?"

Indeed, Aristotle (as all others) spoke truth! There is the natural kind, absolute tendency to become less orderly, and there are manifestations of that, every thing.


How have all others spoken truth?

Everything is by infinite congruence within an infinite number of things.





Infinite Congruence

Imagine cutting a tree into ten million slices. Should you position those slices in their original arrangement, you'll have what appears to be a tree. That's what like reality is like, except with an infinite amount of infinite varieties of "slices" (they're not actually portions of anything, save within congruence).


In-congruence

Should you position those slices in a wholly arbitrary order that does not correspond to the original, you would have an absurdity that would likely make you noxious. That is a more polite "subset of the set of all imaginary numbers" (your ¹/₀, if you will), for the individual slices themselves make sense.

We aren't moving from the past, through the present, to the future. We are actually moving in the exact opposite direction.

Numbers, sets, and subsets are only a language that we use to attempt to interpret reality. We live reality. Or do we?

There is no constraint: every statement is true (even those asserting that none are).

[TheTribesman]

The level of bullshit masquerading as knowledge in this thread is astounding.

[BADecker]

The level of bullshit masquerading as knowledge in this thread is astounding.

Yes, and I am so happy that someone recognizes this fact, or is it a theory? 

[username18333]

I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.

Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/

Here's some food for thought.


Have a nice day.  

Have you not known? His malevolence is "love."

[BADecker]

I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.

Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/

Here's some food for thought.


Have a nice day.  

Have you not known? His malevolence is "love."

You're talking about the atheist, right?   

[dank]

I've been avoiding this thread mainly because, I strongly believe there wouldn't be any religious people left if you could reason with them about their faith. It isn't that they aren't capable of applying logic when they want to, since they seem to function in every aspect of society, it's just that they aren't willing to when it comes down to their faith. The reason for this is obvious - they simply have too much faith.

Here is a write up on the most common questions (with answers) directed towards atheists. This is more for the benefit of the atheists here that wish to continue debating with religious people, rather than any aspirations I may have of the religious people understanding and accepting it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/11/9-questions-not-to-ask-atheists-with-answers/

Here's some food for thought.


Have a nice day.  

Your logic confines you to a robotic state of mind of following a reactionary timeline indefinitely.

Regarding your picture, you have freewill.  God loves all, god is love.  You have freewill to channel ego, negativity and hatred. Without negativity to create this 3D reality of space and pain, how would you experience the universe other than a singular point of spaceless love and light?  And without positivity, how would space exist?  There would be no light.

It was never atheism vs theism, it was never science vs spirit.  It has always been science and spirit.  Put your faith in satan or god, it matters not.  Living in fear bounds you to a life of reaction while living at peace bounds you to freedom, as you create rather than react.  That's a choice you make with your freewill, so long as you can find it beneath the self doubt.

[BADecker]

Remember, God spoke the light into existence. But it doesn't say how He created the Heaven and Earth in the first place. Or does it?

[username18333]

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
Axiom 1 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel comments that "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995). Axioms 2, 3 and 4 can be summarized by saying that positive properties form a principal ultrafilter.
From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved:
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

An axiom is "an assumption taken to be true." What have you proved, arguing from assumptions?

[Decksperiment]

Completely lost the plot..

Now why tell me I have, if this entire thread has?

[BADecker]

Completely lost the plot..

Now why tell me I have, if this entire thread has?

Turn your life over to Jesus. He will save you with open arms.

[username18333]

Completely lost the plot..

Now why tell me I have, if this entire thread has?

I've leveraged hypothesis, not axiom.

[Zherit]

Lies all lies

[username18333]

Lies all lies

Forsooth, it's all reality as you refuse to know it.

[passsuai]

Remember god is with you

[Cortex7]

...As for technical difficulties, go for it, I DARE ya, big mouth. Show the world you can cause problems for me.. you'll need your fuckin paedo squad just for a ddos.. since virgin block everything else nowaday's..

Your just another DICK.

Only you will realise, the world will not notice as you are insignificant.

[BADecker]

...As for technical difficulties, go for it, I DARE ya, big mouth. Show the world you can cause problems for me.. you'll need your fuckin paedo squad just for a ddos.. since virgin block everything else nowaday's..

Your just another DICK.

C'mon, Decky. We're rootin' for you. Turn your life over to Jesus. He's the only one that can save you. Don't you want to be saved? Both Jesus and I recognize the greatness that is in you. Why are you throwing it all away? Come, and be saved.

[BADecker]

You joker atheists. Did you ever see a car accident that improved the vehicle? Did you ever see a plane crash that made the plane or the people better for it? Stuff only gets worse with accidents - mutations. It never gets better. Even if evolution existed for a moment somewhere, it would be destroyed almost immediately upon coming into being. And the odds are that it never existed in the first place, except in your deluded minds.

[BADecker]

You poor, deluded atheists. Who has so bewitched you that you think that there is no God? Your very being cries out to you that there MUST be a God. Why won't you simply accept Him and live?

[username18333]

You joker atheists. Did you ever see a car accident that improved the vehicle? Did you ever see a plane crash that made the plane or the people better for it? Stuff only gets worse with accidents - mutations. It never gets better. Even if evolution existed for a moment somewhere, it would be destroyed almost immediately upon coming into being. And the odds are that it never existed in the first place, except in your deluded minds.

"Destruction" is creation you don't like.