God simply exists.

[Anonymous No.10648175]

The "universe" is a model of space and time, and "reality" is the universe as well as consciousness and abstraction, and mental faculties ie reality is the totality of everything conceivable. Reality can and must be mapped as an unaccountably infinite set x of information to itself through some function F(x) that defines it. The totality of everything conceivable, reality, in terms of information must be mapped to this set x of information or else it wouldn't be the set of information of all reality, leading to contradiction. Furthermore, F(x) must exist inside the set of all information. F(x) is therefore self generative, and must exist. we refer to F(x) as God.

Because this model articulates God as a function on the set of all information conceivable, this proves gods existence, unifies creationism and evolution into intelligent-teleological design, and even provides an intuition for the axiom of choice.

[Anonymous No.10648196]

rewrite your post syllogistically unless you prefer to argue with retards

[Anonymous No.10648206]

>>10648175
>>10648196
Its a rigorous theory to model the set of everything, not a syllogistic argument for gods existence. Teleological design and god are just aspects.

If you disagree, you have outted yourself as a brainlet.

[darkwalt No.10648243]

No God exists, God is what technically would be the first species and species usually comes in abundance (which is not what God means), or wouldn't be what is a governor of this universe in the present. So it's a common misinterpretation that one thing created us.

We more likely came from elemental nature of species which creates illusions that evolved in primitive nature.

[Anonymous No.10648260]

>>10648206
at the very least include a qt 2hu if you want anyone to care

[Anonymous No.10648267]

Aight folks, remember that there are true propositions that don't have proofs :--D

[Anonymous No.10648332]

>>10648175
>as well as consciousness and abstraction
No, that's wrong. Abstractions aren't part of reality, our behavior is. We pretend abstractions are real things for the sake of the different behaviors doing that leads to with games being a good example. The notion of chess isn't part of reality, but people and machines behaving around that notion as though it were a real thing is. Also information isn't an object, it's a measure derived from the number of possible configurations a system can be in.
>Reality can and must be mapped as an unaccountably infinite set
No, it's finite. If the space and material available are finite than the number of possible configurations they can be in are also finite. Wrongly treating information as a distinct material of its own instead of a measure derived from how many states a system can be in doesn't help regardless because there isn't an infinite amount of information.
>this proves gods existence
>intelligent-teleological design
Even if you weren't already wrong several times over, this is also wrong because there's no reason to assume what you're calling God would be intelligent. In fact there would be good reason to believe the opposite since every instance of intelligence we have as evidence only emerged after billions of years of evolutionary scaffolding allowed it to, making intelligence one of the least fundamental aspects of reality rather than one of the most fundamental. If it were available from the beginning than the complex multi-billion year invested physical substrate that allows it to work in reality would be completely pointless.

[Anonymous No.10648359]

>>10648175
>Look at apple
>Call it a unicorn
>Ha, I just porved unicorns exist
Why are theismcucks always so desperate to jump through semantic hoops just so they can accurately say the phrase "god exists"? Newsflash, what is generally thought of as god would be an intelligent agent who created the universe. Your argument contributes as little to the discussion about the existance of such a being as calling an apple a unicorn contributes to the discussion about wether unicorns are real. Slapping the label "god" onto something we already know to exist is just playing word games.
Your post is no better than faggots who say god is the universe or energy or the laws of physics or whatever else you want to arbitrarily call god. You can just aswell say your morning shit is god and therefor real. This argument is only used by disingenuous people or brainlets that don't know any better.

[Anonymous No.10648363]

bump

[Anonymous No.10648403]

>>10648332
I defined by notion of reality, it is everything conceivable even that the transcends space and time. You are describing the universe. The universe is a subset of reality.
>No, it's finite
Reality is infinite because any uncountable set articulated contains unaccountably many elements. The universe, which is the spacio temporal aspect of consciousness can be argued to be finite however.
>Even if you weren't already wrong several times over, this is also wrong because there's no reason to assume what you're calling God would be intelligent
Intelligence is defined as some knowledge accumulation and redirection over some information, literally the definition of a function.

>>10648359
Words are fundamentally cognitive maps to a phenomenological reality, and in turn are phenomenon themselves since we reside in reality. Any claim made with language is a theory therefore and cant be described meticulously without defining rigorous axioms like i have done. You are arguing that a genuine map of reality is incorrect or inconsistent because you dont like the people that believe a completely different abstract concept that happens to share the same name. let that sink in.

[Anonymous No.10648440]

>>10648359
>Why are theismcucks always so desperate to jump through semantic hoops just so they can accurately say the phrase "god exists"?
not really a theist, im giving a logical argument that their simply must be a self generative function of some sort that has seeded reality. Feel free to point out a contradiction
>what is generally thought of as god would be an intelligent agent who created the universe
That has nothing to do with my model, you shouldnt care what other people think
>Slapping the label "god" onto something we already know to exist is just playing word games.
well we have to call it something, why not call it what the first people who thought if this type of argument called it?

>making intelligence one of the least fundamental aspects of reality rather than one of the most fundamental
it is the absolute only requirement for reality, i have no idea how you got that one so wrong

[Anonymous No.10648463]

>>10648403
>>10648440
You're missing my point. God is generally understod to be an intelligent, omnipotent agent who created the universe. OP argues for something different that he just calls god.
Sure, you can call anything whatever you like, but using outlandish definitions for regular word is just playing word games.
Answer me this: If I insist on calling apples unicorns, then I can accurately say unicorns are real. But is it reasonable to make a thread called "unicorns simply exist" and present that as an argument?

[Anonymous No.10648480]

>>10648463
Im arguing for the god ascertained by someone like thomas aquinas, the traditional autocratic and logically rigorous god. not the god that they layman understands
> but using outlandish definitions for regular word is just playing word games.
Im not using outlandish definitions, everything i defined is perfectly reasonable.
>Answer me this: If I insist on calling apples unicorns, then I can accurately say unicorns are real. But is it reasonable to make a thread called "unicorns simply exist" and present that as an argument
Those phenomenon in reality already have words mapped to them, there is no contradiction to be had by switching those words. Saying there is no explanation for reality is a contradiction. by Defining God as the function that seeds reality in terms of sets and logic,you get a more updated version of a cosmological style.

[Anonymous No.10648483]

>>10648363
cringe

[Anonymous No.10648508]

>>10648332
>>10648359
>b-b-but you believe muh sky daddy!
everytime

[Anonymous No.10648522]

>>10648175
>unaccountably infinite set
Cringe. Learn basic math before posting bullshit like this.

[Anonymous No.10648524]

>>10648175
>everything that exists is the the same as everything that could exist. Therefore everything that could exist does and therefore God is an intelligent designer that exists.
Your argument without the obfuscation.

[Anonymous No.10648536]

>>10648522
autocorrect
>>10648524
nope, that completely misses my point of differentiating reality and universe.
Therefore everything that could exist does and therefore God is an intelligent designer that exists
that monumentally retarded

[Anonymous No.10648550]

>>10648536
>that completely misses my point of differentiating reality and universe.
you think there's a point there to be missed. you just don't realize you're equivocating the meaning of "exist", in part because you don't understand what an uncountably infinite set is

[Anonymous No.10648623]

>>10648480
>Make a thread called "unicorns simply exist"
>Write a few sentences detailing the existance of apples
>add "and that's what we call unicorns"
Are you telling me that is not retarded?

>by Defining God as the function that seeds reality in terms of sets and logic
Sure, and that is why you posted a bearded man with a halo. Stop equivocating.

[Anonymous No.10648627]

>>10648508
I never said he believed i sky daddy. I'm pointing out that he is repurposing the word used for sky daddy and pretends it has any relevance to the discusion surrounding him.

[Anonymous No.10648641]

>>10648175
>The "universe" is a model of space and time
Nope, try again.

[Anonymous No.10648645]

Shizo samefag thread
Sage, hide, and report.