Proof of God

Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Proof of God

W = {w1, w2, ...}

Gx = x has God's attributes

w1 = the actual world

 

(1.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T))    Pr

(2.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T)) ⇒(∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    Pr

 

(3.)  (∃u)(∃z)(u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T)    Pr

(4.)  w1∈W    Pr

(5.)  (∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    1,2; MP

(6.)  (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T)    3,5; MP

(7.)  w1∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, w1)=T    6; EI, UI

(8.)  φ(Gp, w1)=T     4,7; MP

(9.)  (∃p)φ(Gp, w1)=T    8; EG


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
  W = {w1, w2, ...}Gx = x

 

 

W = {w1, w2, ...}

Gx = x has God's attributes

w1 = the actual world

 

(1.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T))    Pr

(2.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T)) ⇒(∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    Pr

(3.)  (∃u)(∃z)(u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T)    Pr

(4.)  w1∈W    Pr

(5.)  (∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    1,2; MP

(6.)  (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T)    3,5; MP

(7.)  w1∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, w1)=T    6; EI, UI

(8.)  φ(Gp, w1)=T     4,7; MP

(9.)  (∃p)φ(Gp, w1)=T    8; EG

 

 

EDIT:  Fixed space between 2nd and 3rd premises.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Wow, that is well, um hum,

Wow, that is well, um hum, what is the word I am looking for?

Gibberish!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Welcome back Mr. M.  Merry

Welcome back Mr. M.  Merry Christmas to you !

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote: (1.)

Quote:

 (1.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T))

Begs the question.  You can't start out to prove God by using x with god attributes in the first premise.  That's just silly. 

Stop being silly Mr. M. Smiling you can do better then this.  No matter how you word your OA it's still a silly question begging OA.  You big silly.

Note:  The word silly may be substituted with any word the reader may want.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Quote: (1.)

Ktulu wrote:

Quote:

 (1.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T))

Begs the question.  You can't start out to prove God by using x with god attributes in the first premise.  That's just silly. 

Stop being silly Mr. M. Smiling you can do better then this.  No matter how you word your OA it's still a silly question begging OA.  You big silly.

Note:  The word silly may be substituted with any word the reader may want.

 

Mr. M flunked predicate calculus.  Some of us are just not cut out to be philosophers.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:W =

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

W = {w1, w2, ...}

Gx = x has God's attributes

w1 = the actual world

 

(1.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T))    Pr

(2.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T)) ⇒(∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    Pr

 

(3.)  (∃u)(∃z)(u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T)    Pr

(4.)  w1∈W    Pr

(5.)  (∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    1,2; MP

(6.)  (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T)    3,5; MP

(7.)  w1∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, w1)=T    6; EI, UI

(8.)  φ(Gp, w1)=T     4,7; MP

(9.)  (∃p)φ(Gp, w1)=T    8; EG

Someone just shoot me in the face right now.   I mean really, why should I hold out on pretense?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol, Spencer_Bobson! That's

Lol, Spencer_Bobson! That's clever. 

Tell me why we shouldn't ban you again now?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson's argument

Spencer_Bobson's argument does seem rather similar to one made by Mr. Metaphysics...

The first time, if I remember correctly, he said he posted it because he wanted to show how stupid atheists are for not being able to understand it. However, this only succeeded in convincing many people on the board that he was a jerk and/or troll. Which, obviously, is not an effective argumentative strategy and is only likely to drive people further to the other side. The fact that he was banned certainly backs this up.

Now I, for one, am impressed by anyone that can actually understand that gibberish. But, the ability to understand it doesn't make you smarter or better than anyone else except in that very small area.

Spencer_Bobson, if you actually wish to discuss your logical argument for God with people on this board, then I suggest you first translate it into terms that most people can understand (unless most people on this board are actually well-versed in symbolic logic). Unless you can show me a quick way (less than 2 hours) to learn the basics of symbolic logic or just translate it yourself, I am going to completely ignore your argument. Something I imagine most people on this board have done already.

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
It always puzzles me when a

It always puzzles me when a Christian tries to prove God.  It would negate their own salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.”

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Watcher wrote:It always

Watcher wrote:

It always puzzles me when a Christian tries to prove God.  It would negate their own salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.”

 

Well, since we have discovered through Hubble a Red Nebula that clearly proves the existence of Allah.

WAIT WAIT WAIT.........

Um, or is it "in the beginning " proves the Jewish god? Furry can explain that science. "Gravity exists so therefor G-d I mean, God, is the Jewish god and he only real god".

Or since we are talking about Jesus, why cant you just let him have it both ways.

It is both faith and works, and goal post moving.

"Pay no attention to the myth behind the curtain"

Should I bother mentioning DNA to him and the fact it puts a damper of stories of magic babies?

So many ways for the believers to dodge they all make claims about invisible friends.

You could really get rich quick if most people fell for "I own the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and I can sell it to you" like they fall for invisible friend claims.

They all think they are in different boats but they are all on the Titanic of superstition. At least the Titanic had some life boats.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Lol,

butterbattle wrote:

Lol, Spencer_Bobson! That's clever. 

Tell me why we shouldn't ban you again now?

He's given me an excuse to bone up on Predicate Calculus again?

And here I thought I needed to spend the next few days reviewing the structural properties of concrete and aluminum.

("Aluminium" for Bob Spence ...)

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

W = {w1, w2, ...}

Gx = x has God's attributes

w1 = the actual world

(1.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T))    Pr

(2.)  (x)(Gx≡(y)(y∈W ⇒ φ(Gx, y)=T)) ⇒(∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    Pr

(3.)  (∃u)(∃z)(u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T)    Pr

(4.)  w1∈W    Pr

(5.)  (∃u)(∃z)((u∈W & φ(Gz, u)=T) ⇒ (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T))    1,2; MP

(6.)  (g)(∃p)(g∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, g)=T)    3,5; MP

(7.)  w1∈W ⇒ φ(Gp, w1)=T    6; EI, UI

(8.)  φ(Gp, w1)=T     4,7; MP

(9.)  (∃p)φ(Gp, w1)=T    8; EG

EDIT:  Fixed space between 2nd and 3rd premises.

Yes that does prove Vishnu but what do you have for the Aphrodite?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml