Re logical existence of God

[hitch0403]

Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love

Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.

Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.

Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.

[falcon9]

Just read some of that briefly and see the question of why did he God create.Bible says God is love...He created outta love
Also the part of God knowing past and present.If he chooses to do so.
Christendom <Babylon the great,empire of false religeon put doctrine going to hell after death>Bible says man goes back to dust,his thoughts perish at death.EX:Told Adam back to dust you will go.EX:Jesus said Lazarus was asleep.Lazarus was resurrected never spoke of heavenly bliss or firey hell.

Before you put garbage up like that know what ur speaking about.You put up all of mans BS and doctrines.

Are you babbling in general to no one or, babbling specifically to a strawman?

There has been no "logical" evidence of the "existence of g-d" presented.  There's a reason for that; can you guess what it is?

[queenofnines]

The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.

[falcon9]

The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.

I concur.  There's a qualitive difference between 'rational' and 'rationale', (hence the "e").

[Abrupt]

The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.

Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.

If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed" (if such could be pondered).  The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).  I am speaking to you with pure logic here, mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss).  For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.

What I present here is not a conundrum or brain teaser, it is a simple fact of mathematics and physics.  Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.

[falcon9]

Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.

No, our existence is improbable, (not illogical), and yet here we are - against the odds.  Sometimes, longshots occur yet, there is no logically-valid reason to attribute this to some hypothetically supernatural egregore.

If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' ...

That premise is speculative and not strictly logical whereas the hypothetical existence of any supernatural egregores is "imaginary" without valid supportive evidence.

The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).  

No, that syllogism is not logically-valid since it's conclusion, (" ... if we have an infinite anchor point ..."), is conditional, not mandatory.

I am speaking to you with pure logic here ...

No, you're attempting to conflate a mathematical term, ("imaginary", as in "imaginary numbers"), with 'existence'.  That's a false parallel/strawman argument; mathematics is used as a tool to partially describe aspects of existence; there is no indepent evidence that it is "existence" itself.

... mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss).

Are you seriously trying to justify a mathematical existence for a supernatural egregore of your preference, (or for all such supernatural egregores)?
  

For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.

Speaking of physics, (or more specifically, astrophysics); the 'usual' mathematical restrictions of the "universe" don't apply within the event horizons of black holes/singularities within that same 'universe'.  Therefore, the 'universe' is not a closed set, (finite), due to the distinct mathematics pertaining to singularities, (and "white holes").

Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.

Would that be a different sort of fool than the one who "... by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science - or any honest intellectual inquiry", (quote from Stephen J. Gould in reference to freligious fundamentalists)?

[sigmapi1501]

So that means a guy was magically born, walked on water, got murdered, came back to life, then 100 years after  his death, proclaimed the son of God?

I'm willing to concede a possibility of a God but not a certainty of a homophobic, zombie carpenter.

[sigmapi1501]

Our existence is the square root of negative one?

[alaric99x]

The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.

Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.

If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed" (if such could be pondered).  The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).  I am speaking to you with pure logic here, mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss).  For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.

What I present here is not a conundrum or brain teaser, it is a simple fact of mathematics and physics.  Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.

I hope to be one of the first, if not the first, to congratulate you on your bizarre and entertaining interpretation of logical argument.  You're a classical half-idiot, you're able to articulate your points in a clear and sensible manner (your intelligent side) but your points entirely defy logic and display a superb example of your entirely confused understanding of the nature of the universe we live in and the nature of our existence.  I congratulate you for feebly trying to explain nonsensical and childishly improbable beliefs in a (usually) articulate manner, in contrast to some of the other idiots who need to learn a new language, English.  May your own beloved and personal god bless you and keep you (sarcasm was intended).

[queenofnines]

Our existence is illogical on every count

Illogical was the correct word in my instance, but it's not in this one. Anthropic principle and yadda, yadda.

If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed"

How do you figure that? Our longevity has nothing to do with the universe's. Something is not "imaginary" just because it is fleeting (dead pets and grandmas can attest to this). Just because on a grand scale it makes no difference whether you existed at all does not mean you didn't actually exist at one point in time.

we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence

No it doesn't! We have placed an age on this universe, the current one. That by no means discounts previous universes or multiple universes.

[falcon9]

So that means a guy was magically born, walked on water, got murdered, came back to life, then 100 years after  his death, proclaimed the son of God?

That's pretty much it, in a literal 'nutshell'.

I'm willing to concede a possibility of a God but not a certainty of a homophobic, zombie carpenter.

Really?  According to the faith-based religious beliefs of catholics, those are essentially the same hypothetical egregore "trinity", (a concept the xtians directly-stole from the prior pagan Egyptian beliefs in triad-neteru - 3 god/desses - except the xtians made 'em all "male" mythological entities to make it look like a different, misogynistic fabrication).

[Abrupt]

Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.

No, our existence is improbable, (not illogical), and yet here we are - against the odds.  Sometimes, longshots occur yet, there is no logically-valid reason to attribute this to some hypothetically supernatural egregore.

There is no longshot possible within an empty set, and thus there is no probability of an event occurring.

The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).  

No, that syllogism is not logically-valid since it's conclusion, (" ... if we have an infinite anchor point ..."), is conditional, not mandatory.

It is perfectly logical.  If our time space is not infinite, then nothing within it could persist outside its scope -- ergo when that scope ceases so does all within and because of information loss none of it would have ever existed.  There would be no "well it used to exist" as that time space has been removed from the equation.  The paradox is removed if there is an external reference as information loss no longer becomes a factor.

I am speaking to you with pure logic here ...

No, you're attempting to conflate a mathematical term, ("imaginary", as in "imaginary numbers"), with 'existence'.  That's a false parallel/strawman argument; mathematics is used as a tool to partially describe aspects of existence; there is no indepent evidence that it is "existence" itself.

It is not a strawman as it isn't subject to an attack.  If you wish to try and claim it to be a false parallel you are most welcome to give it the old college try.  I will give you a hint to get you started, using relativity, solve for c when under effect of an entropy sink and you will see the relation to existence in the measure of light that is revealed. 

... mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss).

Are you seriously trying to justify a mathematical existence for a supernatural egregore of your preference, (or for all such supernatural egregores)?

No, I am not trying to justify anything specific here (the interpretation or alternate explanations/theories are open -- but I did allude to an example that would qualify and I denoted it with a 'for instance'.  Your own prejudice and limitation has blinded you to what I posited.  Since you are confused you should reread what I posted.

 

For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.

Speaking of physics, (or more specifically, astrophysics); the 'usual' mathematical restrictions of the "universe" don't apply within the event horizons of black holes/singularities within that same 'universe'.  Therefore, the 'universe' is not a closed set, (finite), due to the distinct mathematics pertaining to singularities, (and "white holes").

That is exactly what is being calculated on here.  Singularities are not a continuation of space time, and in fact they might well be considered an end.

Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.

Would that be a different sort of fool than the one who "... by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science - or any honest intellectual inquiry", (quote from Stephen J. Gould in reference to freligious fundamentalists)?

Yes it would be different than the sort of fool you point out in your scripture that you are presenting here.

[Abrupt]

Our existence is the square root of negative one?

I didn't say it was 'i' I said it would be imaginary and that could extend to any product/quotient of 'i' and even that would be a volatile description.

[Abrupt]

The existence of any sort of god is illogical on multiple counts. If you disagree, you fail to discern what logic really is.

Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.

If our existence is finite (as is implied) and the universe's existence is finite then our existence is 'imaginary' and it would be true to say that in such a place our state would eventually become "never existed" (if such could be pondered).  The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).  I am speaking to you with pure logic here, mathematics (including imaginary numbers and limits) and physics (relations of time space with the universe and information loss).  For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.

What I present here is not a conundrum or brain teaser, it is a simple fact of mathematics and physics.  Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.

I hope to be one of the first, if not the first, to congratulate you on your bizarre and entertaining interpretation of logical argument.  You're a classical half-idiot, you're able to articulate your points in a clear and sensible manner (your intelligent side) but your points entirely defy logic and display a superb example of your entirely confused understanding of the nature of the universe we live in and the nature of our existence.  I congratulate you for feebly trying to explain nonsensical and childishly improbable beliefs in a (usually) articulate manner, in contrast to some of the other idiots who need to learn a new language, English.  May your own beloved and personal god bless you and keep you (sarcasm was intended).

Would such reasoning as yours, then, make you a complete-idiot?  Why would I pose such a query to you -- well, the reason is that you were prejudicial in what you comprehended when you read my post.  I was particularly deliberate in the method of my posting and instead of reading my allusion to a plausible conditional as the convenient 'such as' qualifier that it was you instead read it discriminatorily.  I think you should go back to your previous spell checking of posters and then you can graduate to grammar checking or comprehension depending upon your perceived affinity.

[falcon9]

Our existence is illogical on every count, and if you disagree with that you fail to discern what logic really is -- and yet here we are.

No, our existence is improbable, (not illogical), and yet here we are - against the odds.  Sometimes, longshots occur yet, there is no logically-valid reason to attribute this to some hypothetically supernatural egregore.

There is no longshot possible within an empty set, and thus there is no probability of an event occurring.

The empty set claim is unsupported by evidence.  It's a theory, (and not even your theory).

The only way we cannot have an imaginary existence in a finite duration universe is if we have an infinite anchor point (such as is represented by a 'soul', e.g.).  

No, that syllogism is not logically-valid since it's conclusion, (" ... if we have an infinite anchor point ..."), is conditional, not mandatory.

It is perfectly logical.  If our time space is not infinite, then nothing within it could persist outside its scope -- ergo when that scope ceases so does all within and because of information loss none of it would have ever existed.  

Such an "if" premise is implausible since it makes a two-part a priori assumption which is unsubstantiated.  The conclusion which follows from that invalid assumption is itself, invalid because it does not logically follow from a false/unsubstantiated premise, (which, in turn, means that your claim that "it is perfectly logical" is invalidated as a false claim).

There would be no "well it used to exist" as that time space has been removed from the equation.  The paradox is removed if there is an external reference as information loss no longer becomes a factor.

Presenting some 'null jargon' doesn't advance your "proofs" an iota.  The assumptions made regarding "space-time do not mathematically-apply to 'supra-existing' universe(s), (e.g., those "parallel" or, alternately-configured 'dimensions' which exist "outside of" so-called normal, (4D), space-time.  There's no paradox when this universe is mathematically-considered to be a subset of a larger set, (rather than an "empty set").

I am speaking to you with pure logic here ...

No, you're attempting to conflate a mathematical term, ("imaginary", as in "imaginary numbers"), with 'existence'.  That's a false parallel/strawman argument; mathematics is used as a tool to partially describe aspects of existence; there is no indepent evidence that it is "existence" itself.

It is not a strawman as it isn't subject to an attack.

That's not accurate; by conflating a mathematical term, ("imaginary"), with the colloquial, ("not real/tangibly-extant"), you are presenting a tangential strawman argument to draw attacks, rather than have your invalid premise(s) attacked.  I'm merely pointing out that the attempt failed because either way, it was caught in a enfilade.  

If you wish to try and claim it to be a false parallel you are most welcome to give it the old college try.  I will give you a hint to get you started, using relativity, solve for c when under effect of an entropy sink and you will see the relation to existence in the measure of light that is revealed.  

I've haven't done differential or tensor field equations in years however, I am familar with the Einstein-Rosen bridge equations.  Go look them up, if you are not.

I am not trying to justify anything specific here (the interpretation or alternate explanations/theories are open -- but I did allude to an example that would qualify and I denoted it with a 'for instance'.

That must have been an implied "for instance" since there is no such overt designation.  Regardless, you imply lots of things which are dubious and therefore, disregarded as non sequiturs.

Your own prejudice and limitation has blinded you to what I posited.  Since you are confused you should reread what I posted.

Nice try projecting your own inherent blind religious faith onto me; the only trouble with that is, I'm not a religious fundie, nor am I easily "confused" by one unless they descend into an opaque morass of irrationality, (which is a rhetorical condition for xtians, admittedly).
 

For those that might wish to inject thoughts on the possibility of an infinite universe you must consider the basic implications of what physics tells us and that we have placed an age upon the universe and such dispels any pretense of an infinite existence, regardless of what extends beyond -- at best it can only be considered 'imaginary' in terms of mathematics.

Speaking of physics, (or more specifically, astrophysics); the 'usual' mathematical restrictions of the "universe" don't apply within the event horizons of black holes/singularities within that same 'universe'.  Therefore, the 'universe' is not a closed set, (finite), due to the distinct mathematics pertaining to singularities, (and "white holes").

That is exactly what is being calculated on here.  Singularities are not a continuation of space time, and in fact they might well be considered an end.

Singularities are 'overlapping sets' since they are able to interact via their event horizons which physical objects in this universe while extending a different sort of influence 'outside' of this 4D space-time continium.

Those of you that profess to understand and know so much and comprehend what is real and isn't or what is logical or illogical had better consider what sort of a fool decides what the answer is without even understanding the problem.

Would that be a different sort of fool than the one who "... by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science - or any honest intellectual inquiry", (quote from Stephen J. Gould in reference to freligious fundamentalists)?

Yes it would be different than the sort of fool you point out in your scripture that you are presenting here.

I'm not the fool relying upon dubious religious "scripture" here; you xtians are.