I don't want to 'lump you in', it's more just that seeing where people can go when they logically start to extend their liberal theological arguments makes me think I should be rather stalwart in disagreeing with all manifestations of such arguments.
-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Does God exist? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
phatchance
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 88
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Maybe if you book burning capitalist neocon bastards weren't so prejudiced and biased you could see the shining light in my arguments. I pity you. You scumbags of the earth, maybe you should learn to put forth an argument with some validty, rather than just attacking my person.
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Obvious troll is...phatchance said:
phatchance
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 88
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
To point form my argument.
1. You are all capitalist neocon scumbags.
2. There are valid scientific arguments for an initial creator, on a universal scale, whilst I don't purport to possess the ability to provide evidence for the nature of such a creator, I have put forth a fairly clean argument for the necessitation of such a figure, given the mechanisms by which determinism operates. e.g. if the mouse trap is closed, something had to have entered the mouse trap.
Whilst I don't believe this is, in any way, conclusive proof for a traditional, human imaged God, I believe that it does make an interesting case for the existence of a 'God'. Should such a universal creator exist, then 'potentially' the universe is a construct, and within that framework a traditional, or non-traditional God figure is an acceptable possibility.
If the multiworld theory is accurate and all universal possibilities are manifested, and if we allow for the possibility (given the uncertainty present, and our complete inability to prove or disprove the existence of such a being) then I see it as fundamentally wrong to criticise others over a concept such a faith, given the very parameters upon which it exists require its uncertainty.
3. To further this point, evaluating a concept such a faith, which rests on non-scientific boundaries (the exemptions of Natural physical laws within the bible, Q'uran etc. are demonstrative of this fact) through the framework of natural, scientific methodology, is a flawed process and counter intuitive. It would be like using a geiger counter to measure decibels.
4. You are all communist pigs.
5. My central criticisms are levelled at those people attempting to argue against the existence of God, my reason for these criticisms are that I believe it is morally wrong to do so. I perceive religion (the purist concept) as a positive force in the world, and attempting to nullify or weaken the foundations upon which it are built (particularly given my previous arguments) has a negative impact on society.
Let's say that you do see religion as a human construct, the fundamental values upon which it is built, are positive. Do you agree, or disagree with this assertion? Contemporary law is a manifestation of biblical law (the 10 commandments etc.) and without the super-moral influence of religion, I would argue it would have been impossible for contemporary society to develop. Without effective or fair legal systems in place, the only long arm of the law was the long arm of God. The idea of a supernatural force passing judgement outside of the law, for callous actions, is an algorithm that increases positivity on a global scale.
Therefore attempting to subvert the foundations of religious belief is a fundamentally negative action. Discourse and argument about religion, whilst protected by our democratic liberties, given the unsolvable nature of the debate, I believe is as bad as promoting racism or any of the other unnecessary evils in the world.
6. I also see the rationale and reasoning behind many peoples 2 cents in this thread, as reflective of the biased, bigoted, nature of contemporary Australian society. Where we can no longer judge people for their ethnicity, it has now become politically correct to throw stones at people for their religious beliefs, something many of you have argued you are born into.
Since the jury is out on whether individuals are born homosexual, or make a lifestyle choice, are you any better than those who discriminate against people for their sexuality? Would you see it as acceptable to argue about why individuals should not be gay? If you do see this as ok, then I believe you prove my point about this thread being an expression of deep seeded prejudice.
I understand that this point is not applicable to every individual in the thread, but I think as a general trend this is like stoning the e runts.
7. My personal philosophical/moral beliefs and nihilistic, pseudo-scientific-religious views are not really up for debate here, I do have some strange beliefs but they're borne of some spiritually enlightening moments in my life, and they're rooted in positivity and human morality, the main reason I defend religion.
8. You are all fence sitting centrist neocons.
1. You are all capitalist neocon scumbags.
2. There are valid scientific arguments for an initial creator, on a universal scale, whilst I don't purport to possess the ability to provide evidence for the nature of such a creator, I have put forth a fairly clean argument for the necessitation of such a figure, given the mechanisms by which determinism operates. e.g. if the mouse trap is closed, something had to have entered the mouse trap.
Whilst I don't believe this is, in any way, conclusive proof for a traditional, human imaged God, I believe that it does make an interesting case for the existence of a 'God'. Should such a universal creator exist, then 'potentially' the universe is a construct, and within that framework a traditional, or non-traditional God figure is an acceptable possibility.
If the multiworld theory is accurate and all universal possibilities are manifested, and if we allow for the possibility (given the uncertainty present, and our complete inability to prove or disprove the existence of such a being) then I see it as fundamentally wrong to criticise others over a concept such a faith, given the very parameters upon which it exists require its uncertainty.
3. To further this point, evaluating a concept such a faith, which rests on non-scientific boundaries (the exemptions of Natural physical laws within the bible, Q'uran etc. are demonstrative of this fact) through the framework of natural, scientific methodology, is a flawed process and counter intuitive. It would be like using a geiger counter to measure decibels.
4. You are all communist pigs.
5. My central criticisms are levelled at those people attempting to argue against the existence of God, my reason for these criticisms are that I believe it is morally wrong to do so. I perceive religion (the purist concept) as a positive force in the world, and attempting to nullify or weaken the foundations upon which it are built (particularly given my previous arguments) has a negative impact on society.
Let's say that you do see religion as a human construct, the fundamental values upon which it is built, are positive. Do you agree, or disagree with this assertion? Contemporary law is a manifestation of biblical law (the 10 commandments etc.) and without the super-moral influence of religion, I would argue it would have been impossible for contemporary society to develop. Without effective or fair legal systems in place, the only long arm of the law was the long arm of God. The idea of a supernatural force passing judgement outside of the law, for callous actions, is an algorithm that increases positivity on a global scale.
Therefore attempting to subvert the foundations of religious belief is a fundamentally negative action. Discourse and argument about religion, whilst protected by our democratic liberties, given the unsolvable nature of the debate, I believe is as bad as promoting racism or any of the other unnecessary evils in the world.
6. I also see the rationale and reasoning behind many peoples 2 cents in this thread, as reflective of the biased, bigoted, nature of contemporary Australian society. Where we can no longer judge people for their ethnicity, it has now become politically correct to throw stones at people for their religious beliefs, something many of you have argued you are born into.
Since the jury is out on whether individuals are born homosexual, or make a lifestyle choice, are you any better than those who discriminate against people for their sexuality? Would you see it as acceptable to argue about why individuals should not be gay? If you do see this as ok, then I believe you prove my point about this thread being an expression of deep seeded prejudice.
I understand that this point is not applicable to every individual in the thread, but I think as a general trend this is like stoning the e runts.
7. My personal philosophical/moral beliefs and nihilistic, pseudo-scientific-religious views are not really up for debate here, I do have some strange beliefs but they're borne of some spiritually enlightening moments in my life, and they're rooted in positivity and human morality, the main reason I defend religion.
8. You are all fence sitting centrist neocons.
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Axiomatic Proofphatchance said:
CASE 1
A singularity, or single point, is a zero point. It represents nonexistence. Let us, however, assume that if we take several of these points, we will be able to move them around and interlink or unlink them.
CASE 2
From CASE 1, we take several points, placing them in series. This series can be travelled through. A line is formed. This is the first level of existence.
CASE 3
From CASE 2, we take a line, and, with a single point from CASE 1, divide it in two.
CASE 4
From CASE 2, we create a line segment: that is, a line extending between two points.
CASE 5
From CASE 3, the two halves extend outwards from the halving point in two diametrically opposed directions. From CASE 4, the line segment, from its two ends, extends inwards in two diametrically opposed directions. There is a harmonic correlation between the two sets of diametrically opposed directions. This correlation stands as a fundamental property of the first level of existence. It exists within this first level, and what it forms is a principle of static, equal opposites.
For more information on cases 1-5, see article
Principle of Opposites
CASE 6
From CASE 2, we take a line, and introduce rotation. The first level of existence is violated. The rotation requires a flat plane that it can occupy. Being one step beyond the first level of existence, the flat plane thus is the second level.
CASE 7
From CASE 6, we take a flat plane, and from CASE 2, four line segments that form a square.
CASE 8
From CASE 6, we take a flat plane, and from CASE 2, two perpendicular lines that divide the plane into four quadrants.
CASE 9
From CASE 7, we observe that the square has four right-angles (one for each corner), and from CASE 8, that the four quadrants similarly encompass four right-angles (one each). There is a harmonic correlation between these two sets of four right-angles. (We refer to this harmonicity as the "4-corner-quadrant division".) It is a unique harmonicity, unique to the second level of existence. It is thus fundamental to this level, and the supreme geometrical formation of this level.
CASE 10
From CASE 9, the 4-corner-quadrant division exists within the second level of existence. From CASE 6, this second level is derived from extension of the first, and must therefore include within it the first. From CASE 5, the principle of static linear opposites is inherent to existence's first level. This principle must therefore be included within the second level. We include it by separating the four quadrants into two groups of two adjoining quadrants, these two groups being separated by a single terminator line. With the square's corners oriented on the lines between the quadrants, the two corners on the terminator line become the minor corners—that is, the ones that represent the transition between the extremes. But the corners at the extremes of the duality are the major corners—they, however, are aligned with the direction of the duality.
For more information on cases 6-10, see article
4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe
CASE 11
To represent rotation, we take, from CASE 5, a static linear duality, and from CASE 9, a 4-corner-quadrant division. The axis of rotation is a line, and is thus represented with the linear duality. But the flat plane of rotation, however, conforms to the 4-corner-quadrant division. The axis, perpendicular to the plane of rotation, transcends the flat second level of existence, and in doing so takes the next step beyond. To the third level of existence then pertains rotation; rotation of any body with volume.
CASE 12
From CASE 11, the static duality, parallel to the rotational axis, and limited to the extremes of the North and South poles, is correspondingly limited to the area located between two rotational planes, each pole intersecting with one of the planes. (We appellate these planes the "Top" and "Bottom", interchangeably.) The 4-corner square around the equator is projected between the poles, thus displaying that the cyclicality exists at all latitudes. The result is a dilated Cube that surrounds some sort of body, gravitational or otherwise: for instance, in the case of Earth, the cube would intersect at the poles, and at four points on the equator. Now when the body's rotation slows to zero, its rotational dilation also approaches zero, and the dilated Cube correspondingly approaches one that is perfect and undilated.
For more information on cases 11-12, see article
Cube Representation
CASE 13
From CASE 10, we obtain a 4-corner-quadrant division, with corners as follows: primary major, opposite major, minor, and minor. We apply this division to a rotating body. The corners mentioned exist at a single point in time; or, that is to say, a period of zero time. Their existence is therefore limited to space, and they are rendered "space corners".
CASE 14
From CASE 13, we take the rotating body and observe one full rotation thereof. Considering the points located initially at the space corners, we find that each of these points rotates through the other three space corners, before then returning to its own initial position. This all occurs during a period of time, a fact which designates these moving points to be "time corners". Four space corners for each of these four time corners amounts to 16 spacetime configurations. Each time corner experiences a cycle of four space corners: thus, in one full rotation, there are four simultaneous cycles.
For more information on cases 13-14, see article
4/16 Rotation Principle
CASE 15
We consider any level of existence: a line (CASE 2), a plane (CASE 6), or a volumetric space (CASE 11). This level of existence cannot be finite with boundaries, otherwise it would arbitrarily preclude its own extension.
CASE 16
We consider any level of existence: a line (CASE 2), a plane (CASE 6), or a volumetric space (CASE 11). This space cannot be infinite, otherwise it would be absolutely immeasurable and therefore nonexistent.
CASE 17
We consider CASE 15 and CASE 16. Through the process of deduction, we conclude a necessary solution of foldback: although finite, the given level of existence folds completely back upon itself, meaning that if it is extended, it merely overlaps itself.
CASE 18
Considering space, as it exists in the universe, we apply, from CASE 17, the solution of foldback. We prove that space, necessarily, is an interconnected expanse.
CASE 19
Considering time, as it exists in the universe, we apply, from CASE 17, the solution of foldback. We prove that time, necessarily, is completely cyclical.
For more information on cases 15-19, see article
The Rational Belief
CASE 20
We take a point from CASE 1. We take two lines, from CASE 2. We designate one of the lines linear space, and the other linear time. We set the point, or particle in motion along them—this means that the point begins to travel rectilinearly in space, while likewise experiencing linear time. In doing so, it links together the linear space and linear time. Within this linked geometry, the particle's speed cannot accelerate outwards to a limit, otherwise it would arbitrarily preclude its own extension.
CASE 21
From CASE 16, infinity is disproven. This means that the particle described in CASE 20 cannot accelerate infinitely. That is to say, it must have a finite maximum speed.
CASE 22
From CASE 20 and CASE 21, although an arbitrary outward boundary cannot be imposed, there must be a finite limit corresponding to a maximum speed: by process of elimination, this finite limitation must be inward—one that is decelerated towards. Such an inward limitation finds a non-arbitrary position upon the zero-point, which, from CASE 5, is a necessary feature of the first level of existence. Since speed entails movement through space, the particle's experience of linear space cannot be assigned a value of zero: therefore, by process of elimination, it must be its experience of linear time that is zero. Therefore, when travelling at its maximum speed (lightspeed), a particle experiences zero linear time: this is a foldback solution, given that max-speed particles, regardless of spatial direction, all converge upon zero linear time.
CASE 23
From CASE 22, we take two particles travelling at lightspeed: one moving left, the other moving right. At velocities in between these two, the zero-time boundary is moved away from. At the point halfway between the two max velocities, a stationary particle will experience full linear time: also, zero linear space, being that it is not moving spatially at all. So, stationary particles experience max linear time and zero linear space; while max-speed particles experience zero linear time and max linear space. This demonstrates the relativistic link between linear space and linear time.
CASE 24
From CASE 14, we obtain 4 space corners, which exist within a 4-corner-quadrant division in a flat plane of space. From CASE 11, such 4-corner-quadrant divisions are geometrically linked to an rotational axis of linear space: this linear space axis being obtained from CASE 23. So, a 4/16 rotation exists between linear, static opposites. This setup constitutes the third level of existence.
CASE 25
From CASE 14, we obtain 4 time corners, to which we apply the same logic as was applied to the space corners in CASE 24. (A linear time axis is obtained from CASE 23.) We find that Time occupies the third level of existence. Were it linear, it would pertain to the first level (CASE 2); but, from CASE 11, the third level of existence pertains to the Cube. Therefore, Time is Cubic, not linear.
CASE 26
From CASE 24 and CASE 25, we obtain two instances of the third level of existence: one for space, one for time. The space instance includes an axis of linear space, while the time instance includes an axis of linear time. From CASE 23, linear space and linear time are linked. Space and time are thus linked together, and transcend the third level of existence and enter the fourth: or, that is to say, the fourth corner perspective dimension. This final link completes the universe's full geometry.
CASE 27
Although, from CASE 26, the universe's full geometry is found to involve static opposites from the first level (CASE 2), we observe, observe, that it also entails rotation. Rotation, from CASE 6, transcends the first level of existence and enters the second. The second is therefore superordinate to the first, and the 4 corners—which, from CASE 9, are inherent to the second level—are likewise superordinate to the 2 static opposites. 4 is superior to 2; and, static opposites and 4-corner-quadrant divisions are all that exist within the universe's geometry; being that nothing else is included that could be superior to 4, we conclude that 4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe.
For more information on cases 20-27, see article
Time is Cubic, not Linear
Epistemological Proof
CASE 28
(Cubic Law of Truth)
Truth is consistency. If a concept is consistent with reality, then it is true.
CASE 29
(Cubic Law of Rationality)
From CASE 28, to find truth, we must analyse disparate elements to find consistency between them. This process is known as rationality.
CASE 30
(Cubic Law of Untruth)
From CASE 28, truth is consistency; anything with indeterminable truth value is considered to lack consistency and therefore to lack truth. From CASE 29, rationality aims towards consistency; as such, anything that is untrue or that lacks consistency is considered to impede rationality. It impedes reason, and thus begets nihilism. Rationality requires that Occam's Razor be employed, and that all untruths be rejected.
×X×X× WARNING! Point of caution: Dr. Gene Ray informed me of the existence of a diabolic misuse of Occam's Razor, whereby religious zealots employ this Razor in order to claim that "God did it" is the simplest explanation of the universe. Do not be deceived! Religious beliefs involving deities are actually IN VIOLATION of Occam's Razor, as will be seen from the CubicAO Religion article. Religious beliefs are rejected by Occam's Razor, not favoured by it. ×X×X×
CASE 31
(Cubic Law of Falsity)
From CASE 28, truth, being consistency, is directly contravened by anything that is inconsistent. Inconsistencies are therefore synonymous with falsities. Inconsistencies are to be considered false, not true.
CASE 32
From CASE 29, rationality leads to truth. From CASE 30, untruth leads away from truth. From CASE 31, falsity is opposed to truth, which suggests that it is falsity to which untruth would lead; indeed, the nihilism of untruth creates a meaningless state in which it would be valid to believe falsities. But rationality, in begetting truth, would, in turn, lead away from falsities. Based on all of this, a 4-corner cubic cycle (CASE 14) is formed: Rationality-Truth-Untruth-Falsity and back to Rationality. This demonstrates that CASE 28, CASE 29, CASE 30 and CASE 31 are themselves Cubic laws. It proves that epistemology rests on a Cubic basis.
For more information on cases 28-32, see article
Cubic Logic
Scientific Proof
CASE 33
From empirical inference, Earth is a rotating body. Its rotation is associated with the cycle known as a "day". Linking it with the concept described in CASE 14, Earth's corners are sunrise, midday, sunset and midnight; and, when Earth rotates, it experiences a corresponding total of four simultaneous cycles. Thus, in one full rotation of Earth, there are four simultaneous days.
For more information on case 33, see article
4/16 Rotation Principle
CASE 34
From empirical inference, there exists chaos. Chaos is an underlying randomness that resides throughout the universe.
CASE 35
From CASE 26, the universe's geometry is Cubic. Within the universe, chaos, from CASE 34, creates random configurations. A configuration will have an increased chance of survival if it can utilise the Cubic geometry to its advantage: to do this, it must possess Cubic properties. Thus, through Cubic selection, there is likely to be a prevalence of configurations that exhibit Cubic properties.
CASE 36
From CASE 35, chaos creates different configurations, and it creates some that have Cubic properties: after being selected by Time Cube, chaos creates variations on them, after which more Cubic selections will be made. This process allows an increase in the complexity and efficiency of the systems that are created. And at each stage, there is a likelihood that systems satisfying the Cubic rules in new and better ways will prevail: this evolutionary tendency is known as the Will to Power.
CASE 37
We take two examples of any level of existence—a line (CASE 2), a plane (CASE 6), or a volumetric space (CASE 11)—with one being bigger than the other. From CASE 36, we allow Cubic configurations to evolve and fully occupy these spaces. The resultant configurations will be of different sizes, but they will both display Cubic parameters. A harmonic will therefore exist between them.
For more information on cases 34-37, see article
Chaos and Evolution
CASE 38
From CASE 34, we take chaos. We use it to randomly combine various levels of existence—these being lines (CASE 2), planes (CASE 6), and volumetric spaces (CASE 11). In doing so, we create states of existence.
CASE 39
From CASE 38, we reason that in order to have been created, each state of existence must have a probability of its own existence. Owing to the disproof of infinity from CASE 16, this probability cannot be infinitely small or large.
CASE 40
Owing to the disproof of infinity (CASE 16), the possible states of existence (CASE 38) must be finite in number.
CASE 41
Given that, from CASE 39, each state of existence is probable, and that from CASE 40, the total number of states is limited, we deduce that in progressing through different states, we will inevitably experience a recurring cycle through the full set of states. This confirms the necessity of foldback, proven previously in CASE 17.
For more information on cases 38-41, see article
The Rational Belief
CASE 42
From empirical inference, there are positive and negative electric charges. They are both formed from a neutral energy particle, and have also the capacity to annihilate each other, thus recreating a neutral energy particle.
CASE 43
From CASE 42, electric charges encompass principles of opposites (CASE 2): that is, they are opposite to each other, and they experience opposite processes whereby they split from energy and annihilate to energy.
CASE 44
From empirical inference, light, energy and matter particles exist as transverse waves. They experience a circular oscillation perpendicular to a linear axis.
CASE 45
From CASE 44, light, energy and matter particles experience 4/16 rotations (CASE 14). Additionally, these occur within wavelengths limited to rectilinear line segments. These line segments have two opposite ends that form a principle of opposites (CASE 2). As such, the aforementioned 4/16 rotations are found to exist between static opposites; this state of existence conforms to the third level of existence (CASE 24). Light, energy and matter particles are hence found to possess Cubic geometry.
For more information on cases 42-45, see article
Energy and Matter
CASE 46
From empirical inference, humans, animals and plants have a lifespan that occurs between their birth and their death; also, to allow their species to survive, they normally procreate during this lifespan; and, since the beginning of their life is occupied by growth and the end by senescence, procreation's place is in the middle.
CASE 47
From CASE 10, we take a 4-corner-quadrant division, with a primary and opposite major corner and with two minor corners. Taking the organism lifespan from CASE 46, we map it onto the 4-corner-quadrant division. Birth and death, being codependent, and being the defining points of the lifespan, both reside on the primary corner; procreation or parenthood locates itself on the opposite corner, being that it is the reversal of the situation at birth (i.e. at birth an individual is themselves a baby created by parents; at parenthood the individual is a parent who has contributed to creating the baby). The minor corners are delineated by the onset of puberty and the onset of the majority of deteriorative ageing. There is a 4-corner cycle of Baby, Child, Parent, Grandparent. At any one point in this cycle, an individual can only occupy one of these corners, or one of the quadrants between them.
CASE 48
From empirical inference, there is a cycle of death and rebirth. An organism is born, lives, and dies; then, its remains are decomposed into a low-level form, and are recycled into a newly born organism.
CASE 49
From CASE 10, we take a 4-corner-quadrant division, with a primary and opposite major corner and with two minor corners. Taking the cycle of death and rebirth from CASE 48, we map it onto the 4-corner-quadrant division. The major corners are rebirth and death; they are separated from each other by the organism's lifespan and the recycling process. The minor corners are the point of the organism's greatest strength and the point where the dead material has been reduced to its lowest level. Overall, it's a 4-corner cycle: Birth, Point of Maximum Growth, Death, Decay.
For more information on cases 46-49, see article
Cycles and Systems
CASE 50
From empirical inference, animals and plants have well-defined vertical limits. Also, when an animal turns to move in different horizontal directions (it can only move in one at a time), it experiences rotation around a central vertical axis; a plant, however, having a circular horizontal shape, is considered to simultaneously be oriented in all horizontal directions. Thus, the vertical limits of an animal or plant individual are found to be linked with that individual's rotational axis.
CASE 51
Linking CASE 50 with CASE 12, we find that the vertical limits of animals and plants represent the Cubic parameters of the "Top" and "Bottom". We find that in concordance with CASE 12, these vertical limits exist on a rotational axis.
CASE 52
From empirical inference, a sagittal plane divides an animal's body into two bilateral halves. The halves are symmetrical to each other.
CASE 53
Linking CASE 52 with CASE 12, a horizontal 4-quadrant division is applied to the animals. The primary corners are the front and behind, located on the sagittal bilateral-symmetry plane; while the minor corners are the left and right sides, positioned perpendicularly outwards from the sagittal plane.
CASE 54
Extending CASE 53, different parts of the body have their own localised 4-quadrant division. So for instance, the human head is divided into quadrants that exist between the nose, the two ears and the back of the head. But the face is oriented solely in the forwards direction, and therefore occupies only one of the four corners.
For more information on cases 50-54, see article
Cubiform and Pyramidal Life
CASE 55
From empirical inference, there are beneficent and maleficent emotions.
CASE 56
From empirical inference, there are active and passive emotions.
CASE 57
Combining CASE 55 and CASE 56, four emotional configurations are formed. These are: active beneficent, passive beneficent, active maleficent and passive maleficent.
CASE 58
From empirical inference: between any two of the four emotional states from CASE 57, a transition is able to occur.
CASE 59
Each of the emotional states from CASE 57 is to be represented with a vertex. Each of the transitions from CASE 58 is to be represented by joining two vertices with an edge. From Occam's razor (CASE 30), the vertices and edges are to be considered defaultly equanimous, and shall thus be separated out equally in space. Achieving this through the selection of four of the eight vertices of a Cube (the Cube being obtained from CASE 12), we form a tetrahedron. We thus prove that emotions are tetrahedral, and connected to the Cube.
CASE 60
From CASE 59, the emotion tetrahedron occupies four of the Cube's eight vertices, leaving the others unoccupied. From CASE 5, a principle of opposites is applied to create an additional tetrahedron, one that's diametrically opposed to the first. This second tetrahedron's vertices are found to align with the Cube's four previously unoccupied vertices. Thus containing two opposed tetrahedra, the Cube encompasses an emotional principle of opposites.
For more information on cases 55-60, see article
Emotion Tetrahedron
CASE 61
From empirical inference, monotheistic religions define God as an omniscient and omnipotent human self.
CASE 62
From CASE 27, the universe's fundamental geometry includes a 4-corner principle as its supreme geometrical form. To be omniscient and omnipotent, a being would have to simultaneously occupy all four of those corners.
CASE 63
From CASE 54, a self has only a 1-corner face on a 4-corner head. From CASE 33, an individual, residing on Earth or any other planet, can't simultaneously occupy any more than one of the planet's time-corners. From CASE 47, an individual can only occupy one corner of the life-cycle at a time. All of these prove that a self, or individual, occupies only one of four corners—that is to say, the self is 1-corner.
CASE 64
From CASE 62, an omniscient omnipotent being would occupy 4 corners. From CASE 63, a self occupies only 1 corner. From CASE 61, God is defined as a self (1-corner), but is also defined as omniscient and omnipotent (4-corners). This logical contradiction proves that God does not exist.
Ha!
phatchance
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 88
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Good argument style Slidey. I'll make it really easy for you.
On what grounds do you argue the universe isn't deterministic?
On what grounds do you argue the universe isn't deterministic?
phatchance
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 88
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Good argument, however, I don't believe this applies under unification theory? If all points in the universe are relative then God could occupy all spaces and possess both 1 corner and 4 corners.Captain Gh3y said:
Also as a quick edit I didn't *actually* argue for the concept of God as a humanistic reflection of an Omnipotent being, however, once again, this framework is utilising scientific and empirial evidence to debate the existence of a super-natural (non empirically limited) being.
Last edited:
phatchance
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2004
- Messages
- 88
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
I don't believe in reading unless it's electronic, it's the byproduct of liberal conservatives pushing shallow communist agendas through the media.Malfoy said:
If you weren't so busy beating your wife you'd realise we aren't.phatchance said:
I don't think you'll ever prove it's necessary for there to be a creator, it's quite possible that beyond our universe there is another which has always existed with different physical laws and it began our universe... so I suppose it's the creator of our universe, but still I think you have in mind something more final.
Not really, when I argue against God I'm not arguing against the proposition that the universe began with some sort of creative force... That doesn't seem to be God to me, if it's good to you good on you.
It's no more an acceptable possibility if the universe was created by some sort of a force (whatever made the singularity) or if it wasn't. The God Hypothesis never becomes any more or less justifiable, you are always appealing for something beyond our ability to understand.
All universal possibilities might not include a god, I wouldn't allow for that possibility, I think even if MWI is correct there would still be some overarching laws fundamental to all universes merely because that is all that is possible in reality.
I don't use science to disprove God, I use science to disprove the positive claims by theists of God's interactions in our world, showing those to be untrue - But as far as disproving the concept of God, I keep it fairly philosophical.
I see truth as something fundamentally important to human morality, if it is not then I ask would you be willing to hook yourself into a machine which created for you an artificial reality that is much 'happier' than this one? Also I'd like to point out that it is extremely weak to argue against something because you don't like what it leads to, either God exists or he doesn't, even if it's a terrible reality we're left with because he doesn't that doesn't particularly matter.
Not all of them are positive, many of them appear to be negative... for the most part though I just see religion as acting as a cultural filter, different cultures utilise the text to reinforce their various cultural views at various times.
Oh really? Where is thou shalt have no false idols etc? It's a manifestation of common morality which existed before it was codified in the bible (we have evolutionary explanations for things such as empathy) and in many cases was already codified in other earlier texts.
Well our contemporary society would definately be somewhat different, but our morals would have been basically the same (as they are whether you believe in hinduism or christianity).
The legal systems which were based on "Gods law" were highly flawed and usually ended up being at the whim of a bunch of priests claiming they had the authority of god... these days our laws are at least, in theory, grounded in the collective morality of the people.
But a) You haven't even begun to show that it leads to 'something bad' and b) discussing/arguing about issues of race isn't to 'promote' racism and shouldn't be equated as such, nor should atheism be equated with racism... Atheism does not hate on any group of human individuals and is merely the absense of a belief in a god.
Throw stones? Look how many stones you throw around, calling people 'bigots' and such... I think you have weak reasoning for your own beliefs and it shows when you instead resort to attacking us personally. It doesn't matter how bigotted, racist, hatefilled I am - are my arguments about religion justified?
I don't discriminate against theists, I argue against them... Belief in God is much more like a deep-rooted political position reinforced by behaviour than it is (afaik) anything in our genes. Nevertheless, this is an interesting topic of conversation, but I feel rather moot when I rarely have a theist respond to me by saying 'It's not a decision I made, it's in my genes".
Of course not.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Help, my brain is exploding from the sheer amout of contradictions inherent in this argument. OH SHI-phatchance said:
Slidey
But pieces of what?
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 6,600
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Determinism is defined by a causally linked unbroken chain of prior events; you can trace a line from event a to event z. There is no branching. Newtonian mechanics satisfies such a requirement. Quantum mechanics, the superset of Newtonian mechanics, does not. It is a framework of statistical determination, and follows a tree-like path of event possibilities. It is always possible to trace backwards from child node to parent node, but never deterministically possible to trace forwards.phatchance said:
In simple terms, a deterministic relation is of the form: if A causes B, then A must necessarily be followed by B.
However, for the universe we have: if A probabilistically causes B, then A increases the probability of B occurring.
The latter is certainly a good approximation of the former for high probabilities, and indeed the former is a subset of the latter. But you would do well to remember they are distinct concepts.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
I need to meet KFunk and have him asplain philosphy, because my disappointing lack of knowledge (or rather, misunderstanding of the topic) thereof is beginning to be a handicap! 
emytaylor164
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,736
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
I am amazed at how quickly this page gets posts i think it has 10 since i logged off last night