God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Miscellaneous General
, , ,
121

No you haven’t, because it doesn’t happen anywhere in the argument.

What I think you’re trying to say is that the antecedent of (3) – the “If Cp” part – is false, and therefore, it is not the case that U. But that’s an atomic statement, not an assumption. If among the assumptions I presented, I had written “Cp,” then I would indeed be begging the question. But that assumption is not made.

Let me try to put this another way. I have a degree in philosophy, no matter how modest it may be. I know what it means to beg the question, and I know how to structure an argument. If you want to try to throw around terms like that, you’d better understand what they mean. Begging the question does not mean including a false atomic statement as the antecedent of a conditional statement. A conditional with a false antecedent is true. The argument I presented is logically rigorous in that it preserves truth: if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows as inescapable fact. The conclusion in the argument was “If Cp, then U.” If you accept the four assumptions, which you should because they’re entirely reasonable, then you cannot reasonably deny that conclusion. I absolutely promise you that steps 1-3 are truth-preserving.

What you seem to be trying to suggest is that the statement “If Cp, then U” is somehow problematic because of the inclusion of “Cp.” But if that’s what you’re doing, you may have committed your own logical fallacy, called “denying the antecedent.” The argument “If Cp, then U, but it is not the case that Cp; therefore, it is not the case that U” is fallacious.

[edit: I totally said “truth-functionally true” by mistake in my original posting…feel free to make fun of me]

122

I attended Logic 101 and understood the content. I reread his post and was unable to find an instance of begging the question. It isn’t as straight forward as you are making it sound. I think you simply made a mistake on this one.

123

I showed it to you. End of discussion.

124

Then you should read it again, and this time read it IN CONTEXT with this post:

125

Formal logic doesn’t need to be read in context. That’s the whole point. If done correctly, it infallibly preserves truth from start to finish. The argument I just presented does not beg the question and is truth-preserving. If I made a mistake in another post, I apologize, and substitute the formal argument in its place.

126

The Omega Point necessarily exists if the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are true. The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics–of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date (and so there exists no rational reason for thinking that the known laws of physics are incorrect)–and hence to reject empirical science.

Christian theology is preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Omega Point cosmology and due to existence having come into being a finite time in the past (i.e., creatio ex nihilo from the Big Bang singularity).

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time. So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-part structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

Those are all the physical properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology. As well, Christian theology has maintained that there is only one achieved (actually existing) infinity, and that infinity is God. The cosmological singularity of the Omega Point is an achieved infinity.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

127

'Tis no contradiction. General relativity proves that singularities must exist. Yet no possible physics whatsoever can apply to the singularity itself.

The reason is because once values have become infinite, it’s not possible to perform arithmetic on them. Or more precisely, it is possible to perform arithmetic on them, but one always gets back the same result: infinity. Hence, it’s not possible for any form of physics to describe what goes on in a singularity.

For the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that singularities exist according to the known laws of physics (in this case, general relativity), see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548.

128

Yes. Or rather, more precisely, God is man’s descendant. (And even more precisely, God is sapient species’ descendant, since the entire universe occupies more than the visible universe. Hence, in order to overcome event horizons in the process of forcing the universe’s collapse, sapient species must be evolved in roughly every Hubble volume, which is the size of the visible universe.)

But we are also the children of God, since the Omega Point is the fundamental mathematical entity, as everything that could logically exist is merely a subset of the Omega Point: i.e., everything that could logically exist will be perfectly emulated in the Omega Point. Hence, the Omega Point is the fundamental entity. Indeed, we exist there now, as contained in the Omega Point is an infinite number of levels of implementation. Hence, the proposition that we don’t exist within the Omega Point occupies a null set, i.e., it’s infinitely improbable, as the difference between any finite number (however large) and infinity is an infinite difference.

If we be children of God,[1] what do we grow up to be? Indeed, as children of God, what are we now, even yet before we’re fully grown?[2]

That all is to say, existence is merely mathematics working itself out. Existence exists because the mathematics allow for it. But the mathematics only work out (i.e., they are only consistent and complete) if an infinite number of axioms for the system exist (as Kurt Gödel proved). In short, you can’t get existence without infinity. In physical reality, the coupling constants are in effect the axioms of the system.

Or, to view it from a related angle, existence is a strange loop with an infinite number of steps between recursion.

So mankind are the children of God, and God is the child of mankind (mankind here in the sense of sapient species). No contradiction is contained therein, as it’s a perfectly self-consistent strange loop, just one with an infinite number of steps before relooping.

Notes:

  1. John 1:12; Romans 8:16,17; 8:21; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1,2; 3:10; 4:4; 5:2.
  2. For the answer, see John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
129

You’re misusing words, though. “Information” in physics is not the same thing as the knowledge the Christian God is supposed to possess. Similarly, “energy” and “power” in physics are not the kind of intentional, affective influence meant by “power” in the Christian account. I’ll grant you that the Spinozistic God is omnipresent in the sort of way that the Christian God is supposed to be, but that seems like it’s as far as the analogy can go without warping meanings.

To try to illustrate, the Bible depicts God intentionally parting the Red Sea. Does the “God” you are discussing have the capacity to intentionally perform such an act?

130

Actually, ultimately there is only one definition of the unit of information. Information’s logical unit is the bit. Regarding power and energy: the point here is that energy is the ability to effect change, and power is the rate at which that change can be effected. These concepts are perfectly consistent with traditional Christian theology.

And yes, God can perform that act. As I already said, we exist within the Omega Point. Anything that can be imagined can be performed by God. Whether or not God would do so is another matter. (Or rather, whether or not the particular society within the level of implementation under question would do so is another matter, since there will be infinitely many societies within the Omega Point.)

131

It does in this case in order to help him see the problem.

Your argument begs the question. I explained it. I don’t care if you wish to be intellectually dishonest and continue believing in some dual-realmist nonsense. I have no time for such tripe.

132

James, the knowledge supposedly possessed by God cannot be faithfully represented in terms of bits of information without switching from the language of action to the language of physical processes. The same is true of God’s supposed power. They’re simply different kinds of things.

I didn’t follow your response to my question about the Red Sea. The Christian God is held to be an agent who could ostensibly decide to part the Red Sea if He willed it. I’m not understanding what you mean by a “society” enacting God’s will. The Christian God is supposed to be able to – in a non-law-bound manner – cause the Red Sea to part without adhering to the laws of physics. No?

Knight, I think you’re changing the subject, aren’t you? The argument that you accused of begging the question does not invoke Kant at any point. Were you talking about a different argument when you said that I had begged the question? If so, could you show me what it was?

133

No.

“Knight, they could say, “I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe,” without begging the question.”

As I said: it still begs the question of existence apart from existence.

134

Okay, so to translate that statement into the form of the formal argument, I’ll have to add an atomic statement:

Mx: Individual x is me.

I’ll also have to slightly reword the original statement in a way that I don’t think changes the meaning substantially, but which fits it into the atomic statements I used to craft the formal argument:

“I, individual p, believe in system of beliefs a. If I hold a set of beliefs which provides a true account of the nature the universe, then God created the universe.”

The statement therefore translates as:

( Mp & Bpa) & ( If Cp, then U)

As we saw in step (3), the statement “If Cp, then U” follows from our four plausible assumptions. In the hypothetical example I cited, I take “Mp & Bpa” to be an uncontroversial assumption. So now the argument is fully contextualized, no? It still doesn’t beg the question, as far as I can see.

135

And yet U is a secondary premise upon which the primary premise relies and for which no proof has been offered. Begging. The. Question.

I’ve explained this before. Enough. End.

136

Oh. My. God (pun intended). The statement “U.” is never made at any point in the argument. You’re simply wrong! And not only are you wrong, but you’re being condescendingly wrong! I don’t think I’ve ever been this frustrated by a philosophical discussion! Pick a numbered assumption which you disagree with from the formal argument (or the new one that substitutes for A4 – A5: There exists an individual p such that (Mp & Bpa ). ), or pick a step in my logic which you believe to not be truth preserving. If you can’t, then you are BOUND BY THE RULES OF LOGIC to accept the conclusion.

If you continue to insist that I have begged the question WITHOUT DISPUTING THE PLAUSIBILITY OF ANY OF MY ASSUMPTIONS, then you will demonstrate nothing more than that you don’t understand how logic works, don’t understand what begging the question is, and aren’t fit to continue this conversation. If I can’t convince you of this very simple point, it will be unreasonable of me to try to convince you of a more complex point which actually does allow for some differing interpretation, and which cannot easily be formalized to settle a dispute.

Let me also point out this: The only way to get “U.” out of the formal argument I presented would be to assume “Cp.” But since the correctness of individual p’s beliefs are precisely what is at issue, making such an assumption would beg the question. WHICH IS WHY I DIDN’T INCLUDE IT AS AN ASSUMPTION! So not only do I not beg the question, but I have specifically designed my argument to avoid begging the question.

137

Yeah, it is.

Do you truly not grasp what begging the question means?

Are you seriously questioning the basic definition of begging the question, i.e. creating a secondary (sometimes unstated) premise upon which the primary premise relies and for which no evidence is shown, but merely assumed?

Do you not understand that for them to even say that god created the universe in the conditional requires that something exists apart from the universe, and that has yet to be shown?

How many more times must I repeat it for you until you finally get it? Oh wait–you’re one of those silly dual-realmers. So it’s futile for me to try, since you believe in some magical realm.

I’m done with you.

138

See my above post at position Dec 3 2008 1:23 PM for my answer to your first paragraph above. Saying that they’re “different kinds of things” is the logical fallacy of bare assertion, as well as nonsensical in itself, since you haven’t shown how anything else incongruent with those words could be meant by them.

And “No” is correct. God does not violate actual physical law. To suggest that He does is to say that God’s omniscience and omipotence are limited. God knew in the beginning what He wanted to achieve, and so He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal.

139

breathes in and out ten times

Show me where the statement “U.” is made in the argument, or which of the premises is built on assuming it.

140

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/god-proven-to-exist-according-to-mainline-physics/3704/133