Help With A Psuedo-Proof Please
- From: CoreyWhite@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Sep 2006 09:20:25 -0700
After talking with Sally I was inspired, and I wrote this first draft
of a proof God exists. It just flowed out of nowhere almost like he was
speaking with me.
But I'm just a human, and have to give Sally all the credit. So tell me
if you find any flaws, and lets hear from Sally to find out what she
thinks of this proof. It might need a little extra work on the formal
logic to actually prove the point. I will check into that myself. 8) 8)
8)
It is too easy to find contradictions in religion & discount the value
of the message. Free will is debatable but if I put a gun in your hand
and tell you to shoot someone, its your choice if you do it or not
right? And if I put a bottle of whisky in your hand and then tell you
to drink it, it would be a whole heck of a lot harder to say no if you
were an alchoholic. Even if on some level you wanted to quit drinking.
The same is true with god he is beyond reason, and all knowing. But
that doesn't mean he has to know absolutely everything. He just knows
so much more than you or I do, that he always knows what is best. In
the grand scheme of thing www.google.com doesn't have a whole googol,
(1 followed by a hundred zeroes), of webpages we can search through.
But we still call it Google.
God is all powerful and he is totally ethical. And skeptics have put
forward arguments against this idea, but if you read this I can
guarontee you will have a greater level of enlightenment even if you
feel skeptical of the afterlife. Even though god is all powerful, he is
still dependent on us and our free will for his plan to operate. And
even though he is totally ethical he has to leave some room for
justice.
The only perfect universe I can imagine, where there wouldn't be war or
suffering, would be one where we were all robots in a computer game.
But from Gods perspective there wouldn't be any point to that. So why
create a virtual reality, when he can create the real thing? And isn't
it obviously good that we have a world to begin with, and there isn't
an abysmal void of emptyness.
I would like to see James Randi create a universe without any evil. I
imagine it would look something like this...
void main {
int goodness = 0;
while(1){
goodness++;
}
return;
}
But I wouldn't call that a universe...
I don't think we are evil, and I don't think the universe is evil. It
isn't hard to define the quality of goodness as being intrinsically
inherent in all things within our universe. And then we only say that
as time progresses towards infinity this quality grows and grows!
To refute Randi's logic it is a simple matter of explaining the
fundemental laws of the universe, and understanding that life cannot
exist without them. So even though we have been created with ethical
flaws, we are perfect because God has made us. And he forgives us!
By Randi's logic a flower is flawed. But could God create a flower if
it didn't know how to respond to the earths gravity, and move its
petals towards the sun? A rose would smell just as sweet even if it was
a sinner.
And to a Buddhist heaven is Nirvana. Nirvana is the candle flame that
is extinguished, and simultaneously becomes one with everything and
nothing at all. The experience of death may always be debatable, but we
can be assured it is the absence of life. And nobody disagree that it
is eternal, or at least a very long time.
So who is to say if it is not heavenly to be dead? Especially if you
feel like life is so very evil.
Nirvana is not the same as heaven, but I see a clear comparison because
budhists also believe in dieties, as do the hindus. But they feel that
because life is full of such suffering, the gods themselves are flawed
and capable of dying and being reincarnated into one of the hells. They
say there is a transfinite cycle of reincarnation, from hell, to the
god realms. And every once and awhile, between ages and ages, buddhism
resurfaces and saves souls; taking them to the pure realms. Where they
live quietly to practice meditation, until they too become enlightened
and escape from Samsarah. Which isn't so much different than athiests
like you say the average persons experience of death may be like.
"For an atheist there is nothing upon death", I've heard them say. But
it is a contradiction in terms because the athiest no longer exists to
experience this nothingness.
Similarly according to buddhism the self no longer exists, and a person
cannot experience Nirvana with an ego. So when they say there is
nothing upon death, as athiests. They are making much less sense, than
a buddhist who only claims to re-unite with the true understanding of
the universe.
Nirvana is really just the experience of being enlightened, and you can
experience it while you are alive as easily as while you are dead. But
because life is temporary, and the nothingness of the afterlife is
eternal. You have to ask yourself which is the illusion? A nothingness
that I can never experience, or a temporary illusion of reality?
Both ideals of reality are flawed, and there exists a middle way to
understanding the afterlife. As they say, death is a permanent solution
to a temporay problem.
Look at it this way
self = experience
reality = truth
So the Self is the Experience of reality, which may not always be 100%
certain.
And without the self, there is only truth and not an experience of
reality.
And further we can say the self is truth, and is part of reality
because an experience always relates to some aspect of reality even if
its just a phantom.
So by that logic truth is experience.
And therefore when you no longer have a self, the absence of experience
is non-truth.
So the question we are asking then is: Is there any truth to
non-experience, and non-truth?
-
To compare it to something in mathematics it forms a tarski's
undefinability of truth theorem, a liar sentence, and you could compare
it to godels incompleteness theorem.
Either way it is something an athiest should question, before
automatically assuming that when their self dies, there is no longer
any experience to the truth of reality. And therefore for all eternity
truth and reality die for "them".
Here is how it looks in standard logic.
self = experience
reality = truth
self -> reality
reality <- self
self = truth
~self = ~experience
~self -> reality is false
reality <- ~self is false
So therefore
~self -> ~reality
~reality <- ~self
~self = ~reality
~self = ~false
Which is a contradiction, because by definition ~reality does not
exist.
reality = ~reality is false
truth = ~reality is false
truth = ~false is false
And we know that even though ~self ceases to exist reality and truth
still exist. So because:
~self = false
We know that
self = true will always exist.
energy cannot be created or destroyed.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Computability and logic
- Next by Date: Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem
- Previous by thread: Re: Computability and logic
- Next by thread: Quine The Afterlife
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
