/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6261240]

Found this on /x/. I can't find any flaws in it since I don't know much about the laws of the universe or whatever, which is what I think this board is knowledgeable about.

[Anonymous No.6261245]

>the universe is an entity

[Anonymous No.6261242]

>>6261240
>Found this on /x/

That's basically all the flaws you need to know of.

[Anonymous No.6261252]

>>6261240
>can
>can
>can

[Anonymous No.6261258]

Isn't this essentially pantheism?

[Anonymous No.6261261]

>logistical

[Anonymous No.6261263]

>>6261240
It's good to know I can logically dismiss this without providing clause, because I am the universe.

[Anonymous No.6261266]

>>6261242

[Anonymous No.6261269]

>>6261240
Really really stupid.

[Anonymous No.6261274]

Take a set A, call it everything if you want, now take the powerset of A, and call it B. B has a strictly larger cardinality than A. A does not contain B. A is not actually everything.

[Anonymous No.6261275]

>>6261266
But that's not a strawman, it's just an outright dismissal based on the source. It's like asking if something you've read on Timecube is correct.

[Anonymous No.6261277]

>>6261274
I think its more like
A = x, y, z
B = x, y, z
A=B

[Anonymous No.6261280]

>>6261275
But we're all just people on a japanese cartoon imageboard.

[Anonymous No.6261285]

>>6261240
>If the attributes i've assigned to god exist and only god possesses them, then god exists
How is an assumption proof?

[Anonymous No.6261290]

>>6261277
If you neglect the axiom of regularity, you get a non-well-founded set theory and you can't construct a consistent cumulative hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.6261289]

>>6261240
It's Godel proof of exactly 0 or 1 God. (Multiple Gods being completely illogical)

[Anonymous No.6261296]

1/2

Haven't you guys ever taken intro to logic? Fuck.

1)
-makes a claim to knowing, without specifying how one thing "knows" another
-assumes there is some part of the universe which knows everything

2)
-assumes that the universe can be neatly divided into parts

3)
-assumes that that "doing" is a possible action of parts of the universe

4)
-relies on conformity to a judeo-christian model of god written in religious texts

To explain the issues here:
1) You might as well imagine that there is a text written on an ancient cave wall with all possible knowledge of the human world just waiting to be discovered. Is this cave wall omniscient? Or if a small rock feels gravitational pulls from all particles in the universe, is it really omniscient? Is it self aware? Does it know why it exists? And how would the writer of this argument know that such a rock existed, if it did?
2) If parts of the universe are distinct (i.e. earth is distinct from the sun), then the "whole" is really just a collection of distinct parts (in the same way that sand isn't a blob of jello, it's a bunch of grains). In this light, how can "god" be a single substance, rather than just a collection of parts? It's either that, or there are no parts at all, but one big thing. But if it were all one big somehow changing indivisible substance.. now you've opened up a can of worms for all sorts of metaphysical problems. You can do your own research on this one.
3) Assumes all actions agree the parts mentioned in (2) and that all changes or processes are transitive. For example, a particle may not self propagate, but something must cause that particle to propagate. Now you run into the first mover argument, how did all change start? Essentially you either say you're ignorant and blame the whole thing on god (see theistic philosophy arguments here, Aquinas & Malebranche) in which case how can you say anything positive about something you don't even understand (god), which is, I'll say it, fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.6261302]

>>6261296
2/2

3) Cont'd
or you admit to something coming from nothing (the first motion), which most will agree is a metaphysical contradiction. Furthermore, the strongest criticisms of this point you'll find from the same objection I made to (2), that you have to admit to parts if you want any sort of causal interaction. However, if you do that, you have a fragmented view of god.

4)
God must be XYZ properties, and if anything has XYZ properties, it must be God. Said the bible. Said I don't give a shit, and go die in a hole like you deserve for being the ignorant piece of shit you are if you think this source of authority bears any weight.

We really need a philosophy board for this shit.

[Anonymous No.6261320]

Conclusion: Universe is God.
Before Conclusion: a bunch of semantics and drivel that is supposed to be "logical"
And of course biggest flaw: not realizing you are limited in your assumptions and prepositions because of your human common sense and language.
To picture what I mean by this, imagine a mathematical equation, that is hard to translate into normal language without taking some meaning out of it.
The universe, God, or w/e you might think of isn't obliged to have to follow your reasoning skills.

Go lern 2 science.

[Anonymous No.6261322]

>>6261320
The picture also even says "logistical proof". When it comes to reality, logic is not enough to determine truth, you need experiment to test the logic.
Watch Feynman's lectures on physics, especially the last lecture for discovering new laws.

[Anonymous No.6261328]

>>6261320
Not OP, but the same criticism you're using against him applies to your very objection.

[Anonymous No.6261330]

>>6261328
I'm just explaining how the scientific method works and that pure "logic" is not enough to make conclusions. << This is empirically demonstrable.

So please be more specific on how it applies to my very objection when the scientific method has been proven to work.

[Anonymous No.6261334]

>>6261330
Haha okay, let's iron out what you're trying to say here.

1) God isn't empirically verifiable like things which the scientific method verifies in the physical world (if this is what you mean by "conclusions") - of course, but OP's argument doesn't rest on a posteriori arguments, but a priori arguments. In other words, his argument doesn't rely on matters of fact, which this would assume it does.
OR
2) No a prior (as opposed to physical, matters of fact) conclusions can be drawn from pure logic due to the philosophical difficulties thereof (i.e. limits of human understanding and comprehension), which of course would apply to the scientific method as well.

[Anonymous No.6261339]

>>6261240
What would happen if you put a sun made of ice into a sun made of fire ( like the sun ) ?

[Anonymous No.6261373]

>>6261261
this

>Logistical: of or pertaining to logistics
>Logistics: the branch of military science and operations dealing with the procurement, supply, and maintenance of equipment, with the movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel, with the provision of facilities and services, and with related matters.

This is a fucking military supply and operation proof.

there is no worse type of proof out there.

[Anonymous No.6261382]

>>6261373

[Anonymous No.6261380]

>>6261240
Can the universe know?
Can the universe fuck your mom while you cut off your dick in this very moment?

[Anonymous No.6261381]

>>6261240
This is a complete non-sequitor. The whole argument is based on a clusterfuck of ambiguous assumptions and semantics. There is no flaw to find; the whole thing is a flaw.

[Anonymous No.6261389]

>>6261240
the simplest rebuttal is that we already have a name for the universe, and it's "universe," not "god."

[Anonymous No.6261407]

>>6261285
>>6261290
>>6261296
>>6261302
It's a theory if thought experiments can count as evidence.

Literally all that's missing is proof of the knowing of everything (probability / and defined by other theories) as each part is only a necessary aspect where applicable

[Anonymous No.6261412]

>>6261240
>can do anything
Show me a planet-sized rabbit

[Anonymous No.6261442]

>>6261412
Show me a rabbit-sized planet.

[Anonymous No.6261724]

>>6261380
yes, it can

[Anonymous No.6261757]

>>6261442
They exist in staggering quantities, we just don't call them planets, but asteroids or meteorites.

[Anonymous No.6261760]

>>6261280
If all you visit is the retarded boards, then yes, and in that case you should return there, and never return here.

[Anonymous No.6261806]

>>6261442
They exist and they're called rocks.

[Anonymous No.6261817]

>>6261240
Can the universe create something outside of the universe or something bigger? Omnipotence and omniscient imply self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.6261836]

Show me proof that the universe is omniscient and not just a collection of expanding gases and refuse hurtling toward heat death.

[Anonymous No.6261859]

>>6261240
>If I define those things in this way
>and if I define that by those things I defined in that way then some other things must exist in this other way
>then based on those definitions I created god must exist

[Anonymous No.6261866]

>Found this on /x/. I can't find any flaws in it
Well you browse /x/ you are obviously retarded, that explains why you can't see the fault in that.

[Anonymous No.6261878]

>>6261240

Oh wow, a virtually MEANINGLESS God that doesn't impart ethics, morals, nor an answer to "what we should strive for".

Fucking theists and their retardation. Not even fucking once on a black sunday in hell with green eggs and ham.

[Anonymous No.6262016]

>>6261878

But I have seen demonic activity and I have been blackmailed by people into accepting satan, how can you explain that?

Please, do not suggest fantasy diseases that I do not have, if you think I am hallucinating ,we go run tests and see if I have enough brain damage to warrant hallucinations, but do not dare suggest that there is one roleplay fantasy dungeons and dragons psychiatric disease on me, at least not while you ask for proof of other things

[Anonymous No.6262025]

>>6261240
I'm a theist and even I'm not gonna deal with that nonsense

[Anonymous No.6264559]

I'm a logistician and this a very convincing proof.

[Anonymous No.6264568]

>>6261245
by definition, it is

[Anonymous No.6264572]

>>6261240
meh, people rarely talk about some sort of new age-y thing like this when they speak about god
most of the time they speak of the judeo christian god, and most of the time they imagine him as a bearded dude of their race
also, the universe has not be proven to be cognizant, to claim the universe knows anything requires to first proof it is cognizant
also, being omnipotent is being able to do ANYTHING, this including things the very laws of the universe prohibit such as spontaneous generation of matter through means which cannot be measure or determined in any way
the omnipresent way is tricky, i guess you could have that, unless there are alternate universes in which case an omnipresent god would be present in all universes

[Anonymous No.6264600]

You define god as being able to do all these things while the universe is all these things, so the proof implies god can be the universe, it doesn't have to. But the proof also states that if god is real then it must be the universe, clearly contradicting itself.

[Anonymous No.6264698]

>>6261240
>Everything that is, was, or will be known, is known by part of the Universe.
The second "is" makes this sentence incorrect. Also, this is not the same as knowing everything; merely knowing everything that will be known. This is like saying man in omniscient because he knows everything that will ever be known (within the assumption that man is the only intelligent entity). Furthermore, a collective cannot necessarily be considered to know a thing because the parts do. I know my PIN, but the company I work for can't reasonably be considered to know it.
>Every place that is, was, or will exist, is part of the Universe
Correct. The Universe is trivially omnipresent.
>Everything that has ever been done, is being done, or will be done, is done by part of the Universe.
Again, this is not the same as being capable of anything. The Universe cannot draw a square circle, or violate the laws of thermodynamics. It is therefore not omnipotent.
>The Universe is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, therefore, the Universe IS God.
This statement is not supported by the premises. You have at best demonstrated the tautology that everywhere is everywhere.

[Anonymous No.6266328]

He failed to prove omnipotence.

[Anonymous No.6266385]

>>6261240
first off, this assumes that everything possible in the universe can happen in the universe, this may not be the case. The universe could very well end up being acyclic and non-infinite, which would entail that the universe would not be capable of doing everything.

Also, the very concept of an omniscient god creates problems

Omniscience implies that god has a store information on possible states and state transitions of the universe.

How do we know that we aren't one of these series of state transitions? IE that we are simply knowledge about what could be, instead of what actually is.

Omniscience also implies that god has a store of information on possible states and state transitions of all possible evil. Does this not make god evil?