The formal proof for the existence of God accomplished with methods of mathematical logic (PDE JP)

9 views
Skip to first unread message

janp...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 10:19:52 PM9/26/07
to
Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
does exist". It is not the only proof that proves the existence of
God. But it is the shortest, the most sure, it cannot be undermined
(it was already discussed in internet in a different language), and it
is based on the "genetic code" about which everyone knows. Of course,
the "internet terrorists" about which I wrote on the thread
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee2d9d8e837/ecabc492dd893a64#ecabc492dd893a64
for sure are going to attack this proof. After all, they attack
everything that is moral and progressive. However, even with their
experience in "throwing dirt" they will be unable to prove that "white
is black". So all they can do is to throw a lot of dirt at this proof
and at myself. But they will NOT be able to undermine this proof. It
is impossible to undermine it, because the existence of God is fact,
and no evil force can hide it from us. So please read this short proof
provided below. But before I show it, firstly a few words of usual
introduction.

In the second semester of 2007 by some strange act of God I was
granted the privilege of giving a series of
lectures from the mathematical logic on a Korean University (for
details see my autobiographical web page
"pajak_jan_uk.htm"(. A "by product" of these lectures was that to
three previous versions of the formal proof for the existence of God
completed before with the use of physical methods, I could add another
version of the formal scientific proof for the existence of God which
this time is completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic.
Because this proof is short, I am quoting it below for the use of
these readers who would like to get familiar with it, or wish to check
the validity of it. However, I would still encourage to reach for
further information regarding it, which is provided in subsection
I3.3.4 from volume 5 of the newest monograph [1/5] (currently still in
process of writing). The base propositions of the above proof for the
existence of God stem from so-called "genetic codes", the more
extensive description of which is provided on the web page about
evolution. So here it is, the formal proof for the existence of God
completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic:

Theorem:
"God does exist".
Basis propositions:
(1) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
beings.
(2) The creation of a single "language of genetic
programming" which would be capable to program and to express with
genetic codes all attributes for the huge number and variety of living
creatures that populate the Earth, required the work of either
superior being of a supernatural knowledge, power, and efficiency of
God, or a multitude of unanimously cooperating with each other human-
like intelligent beings of capabilities and efficiencies similar to
these of humans. The fact that attributes of countless living
creatures which populate the Earth were programmed and expressed with
the use of a single and always the same, coherent "language of genetic
programming", completely eliminates the possibility that genetic codes
of creatures from the Earth were programmed by a large number of
unanimously cooperating with each other human-like creatures of
capabilities and efficiency similar to human.
(Explanation complementing this set 2 of premises: The
history of development of languages and codes proves, that the large
crowd of human-like creatures, which use a language or a code, NEVER
is able to unanimously cooperate with each other, therefore with the
elapse of time such a crowd always gradually introduces numerous
variants to the grammar, vocabulary, structure, etc., of the language
that it uses. Therefore a large crowd of human-like beings which would
work on the development of life, similarly like a purely random
evolution, would either eliminate completely the use of genetic codes,
or in case of continuation of the use of such codes, it would
gradually introduce completely different structures and contents of
these codes for each species of living creatures.)
(3) God does NOT exist, or does exist. The use by God of a
single and always the same coherent "language of genetic programming"
for all creatures that populate the Earth eliminates completely the
possibility that God does NOT exist.
Proof:
(1) The first basis proposition is to be transformed with
the use of tautological form of the method known under the name of
"hypothetical syllogism". This form can be written as [(p =>q) && (q
=> r)] => [p => r], in which the assertion "p" says "genetic code
displays all attributes of intelligent codes", while the assertion "q"
says "according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are
versions of languages", in turn the assertion "r" states "all
languages are formed by intelligent beings". The transformation of
these propositions implies the conclusion that "the genetic code was
formed by an intelligent being".
(2) Accepting this previous conclusion for an assertion in
the next phase of inference, and using the method of "disjunctive
syllogism", the tautological form of which can be written as: [(p ||
q) && !p] => q, we obtain a next conclusion which states that "a
single, coherent 'language of genetic programming' which appears in a
huge number of creatures that populate the Earth must be formed by a
single superior being with a supernatural knowledge, power, and
efficiency of God".
(3) The last couple of propositions allows us to derive the
final conclusion with method called the "disjunctive syllogism", the
tautological form of which can be written as: [(p || q) && !p] => q.
In this form the assertion "p" says "God does NOT exist", while
assertion "q" states "God does exist". Thus the final conclusion
states "God does exist"!
Conclusion:
The above inference chain unambiguously and conclusively
proves the truth of the theorem that "God does exist".

For the use of these readers who are NOT familiar with the
notation that is applied in the above proof, I would like to explain
that symbols "p", "q", and "r" mark subsequent "assertions" utilized
in this proof as logical variables. In turn symbols "&&", "||", and
"=>" mark logical operators "and", "inclusive or", and
"implies" (if ... => then ...").

It is also worth to mention about the validity of the above
proof. Because this proof utilizes exclusively tautological forms of
subsequent methods, it remains valid for all values of variables it
uses. Thus practically it is errorproof. If someone would like to
undermine it, he or she would need to undermine first the validity of
mathematical logic. In turn this logic is a foundation for countless
mathematical proofs which with a large success were used by the
effective and precise discipline of mathematics. Thus, since so strong
proof for the existence of God finally we were able to develop, it is
worth to check now whether we live according to this proof. After all,
the faith in God to-date is replaced by it with the reliable knowledge
and certainty of the existence of God.

The proving procedure presented above was also utilized in one
more proof that is quite important for each one of us. Namely it
allowed to formally prove that the counter-world does exist. (The term
"counter-world" is a scientific name assigned to a world that is
separate from our physical world, in which God lives, and which
religions, and also folklore, calls "another world".) A formal
scientific proof for the existence of counter-world completed with the
use of methods of mathematical logic, is presented in item #D3 of a
separate web page about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity - named
"dipolar_gravity.htm". It was also presented on this discussion group
- e.g. see
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b9be872ac3/2d70a1621314beb6#2d70a1621314beb6
The most comprehensive presentation of it, however, is contained in
subsection H1.1.4 from volume 4 of the newest monograph the free
copies of which can be downloaded from addresses provided e.g. at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b9be872ac3/2d70a1621314beb6#2d70a1621314beb6

The proof that "God does exist" is also published in item #B3 of
following web pages:
http://energy.atspace.org/god.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/god.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/god.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/god.htm
http://god.pandela.com/god.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/god.htm
http://mozajski.atwebpages.com/god.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/god.htm
http://one.fsphost.com/parasitism/god.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/god.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/god.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/god.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/god.htm

Please notice that it is easier to understanding the above proof, if
one understand better the "genetic code". In turn the "genetic code"
is explained comprehensively on the separate web pages named
"evolution.htm" - which you should be able to view, if the name of
"evolution.htm" is exchanged for the name "god.htm" in any address
listed above.

With totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak (Prof. Dr Eng.)

P.S. Because many people seek my discussion threads for the
informative values, novelty, honesty, morality, peacefulness, and
truth - from now on, to allow find these threads easier, I am adding
the symbol (PDE JP) at the end of their title.

Al

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 10:38:15 PM9/26/07
to
On Sep 27, 12:19 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist". It is not the only proof that proves the existence of
> God. But it is the shortest, the most sure, it cannot be undermined
> (it was already discussed in internet in a different language), and it
> is based on the "genetic code" about which everyone knows.

If I talk fast enough, people stop listening to the words.
But god is faith, and without faith, god is nothing. So by prooving
god exists, surely he/she is now nothing.

The premise that languages are created only by design is so clearly
false to anyone who speaks English it's hard to conceive of people
holding that belief. I do understand that many other languages may be
more designoid than English, but it's still argument from lack of
negative evidence. ie BS.

And while I'm at it, formal proof is pretty much a term reserved for
mathematics, and always hinges on axioms that should be stated first.

One axiom I'm working on is that you're a nut.

geo...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 10:40:53 PM9/26/07
to
On 27 Sep, 03:19, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist". It is not the only proof that proves the existence of
> God. But it is the shortest, the most sure, it cannot be undermined
> (it was already discussed in internet in a different language), and it
> is based on the "genetic code" about which everyone knows. Of course,
> the "internet terrorists" about which I wrote on the threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee...
> - e.g. seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b...

> The most comprehensive presentation of it, however, is contained in
> subsection H1.1.4 from volume 4 of the newest monograph the free
> copies of which can be downloaded from addresses provided e.g. athttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/9d...

>
> The proof that "God does exist" is also published in item #B3 of
> following web pages:http://energy.atspace.org/god.htmhttp://evidence.ueuo.com/god.htmhttp://evil.thefreehost.biz/god.htmhttp://fruit.sitesled.com/god.htmhttp://god.pandela.com/god.htmhttp://karma.freewebpages.org/god.htmhttp://mozajski.atwebpages.com/god.htmhttp://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/god.htmhttp://one.fsphost.com/parasitism/god.htmhttp://parasitism.about.tc/god.htmhttp://parasitism.xphost.org/god.htmhttp://rubik.hits.io/god.htmhttp://wszewilki.greatnow.com/god.htm

>
> Please notice that it is easier to understanding the above proof, if
> one understand better the "genetic code". In turn the "genetic code"
> is explained comprehensively on the separate web pages named
> "evolution.htm" - which you should be able to view, if the name of
> "evolution.htm" is exchanged for the name "god.htm" in any address
> listed above.
>
> With totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak (Prof. Dr Eng.)
>
> P.S. Because many people seek my discussion threads for the
> informative values, novelty, honesty, morality, peacefulness, and
> truth - from now on, to allow find these threads easier, I am adding
> the symbol (PDE JP) at the end of their title.

Well, this is better than our current cream of creationist crap, but
it's still crap.

1) The status of the genetic code as language is deniable, but you'll
have to explain what you mean by language (the word has a formal
definition in math). In any case, you have simply asserted that only
intelligence creates language, without any evidence (it's the same as
Dembski claiming that only intelligence causes complexity, and he
couldn't show this either).

2) You still can't jump from a super-intelligence to God, because
aliens still fit the bill, and in any case, that intelligence is
involved at all depends on your flawed premise (1). But it's cute to
see the one-code-equals-one-designer argument. Why couldn't a
committee all have agreed to write in the same code? Why couldn't God
have created the code, but got a committee to write with it? That's
how we do it on Earth.

3) That's a tautology.

This whole argument smells of a popular fallacy, but me not being a
whizz with logic yet (but oddly, still able to whip the bottoms of
most creationists at it), I'm not sure which.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 10:43:48 PM9/26/07
to
On Sep 26, 9:19 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:

Have you run this past George Hammond yet? If not, you are wasting
your time here. He's the only one who could possibly comprehend your
work.

The two of you are obviously destined to revolutionize both science
and religion. In fact, you will undoubtedly, the pair of you, make
talk.origins obsolete in one fell swoop.

That would clearly show them.

<snip stuff far, far too advanced and true to be understood on these
ngs>

Lee Oswald Ving

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 10:42:38 PM9/26/07
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote in news:1190859592.241356.172660@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> P.S. Because many people seek my discussion threads for the
> informative values, novelty, honesty, morality, peacefulness, and
> truth - from now on, to allow find these threads easier, I am adding
> the symbol (PDE JP) at the end of their title.

Odd way of saying "making killfiling easier," but, hey - thanks. It's a
rare quality in a net.loon.

Jeckyl

unread,
Sep 26, 2007, 10:46:26 PM9/26/07
to

<janp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190859592.2...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist".

This should be hillarious

> It is not the only proof that proves the existence of
> God.

Odd .. there has not been one that is acutally valid before

> But it is the shortest, the most sure, it cannot be undermined
> (it was already discussed in internet in a different language), and it
> is based on the "genetic code" about which everyone knows.

Oh yes .. we all learn to recite it off -by-heart in kindergarten

> Of course,
> the "internet terrorists" about which I wrote on the thread

You mean people who can see nonsense as what it is

Of course .. it will be cahllenged .. If it is vali it will withstand
challenges and if not it will be refuted. If you truly belief it is a valid
proof, you have nothing to worry about

[snip more waffling about how wonderful the proof is]

> In the second semester of 2007 by some strange act of God I was

[snip fanasy story that is irrelvant to any proof]


> Theorem:
> "God does exist".
> Basis propositions:
> (1) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
> codes and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
> are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
> beings.

Well you've made some huge baseless assumptions there. If the proof depends
on that, then it fails unless you can support that proposition

> (2) The creation of a single "language of genetic
> programming" which would be capable to program and to express with
> genetic codes all attributes for the huge number and variety of living
> creatures that populate the Earth, required the work of either
> superior being of a supernatural knowledge, power, and efficiency of
> God, or a multitude of unanimously cooperating with each other human-
> like intelligent beings of capabilities and efficiencies similar to
> these of humans.

More wild assumption about what you THINK it might require

[snip waffle]

> (3) God does NOT exist, or does exist.

Fine

> The use by God of a
> single and always the same coherent "language of genetic programming"
> for all creatures that populate the Earth eliminates completely the
> possibility that God does NOT exist.

Umm .. no, it doesn't

> Proof:
> (1) The first basis proposition is to be transformed with
> the use of tautological form of the method known under the name of
> "hypothetical syllogism". This form can be written as [(p =>q) && (q
> => r)] => [p => r],

Basic logic, yes

> in which the assertion "p" says "genetic code
> displays all attributes of intelligent codes",

Proof of that required

> while the assertion "q"
> says "according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are
> versions of languages",

You'd need to cite that 'theory' and also show evidence that that theory is
valid

> in turn the assertion "r" states "all
> languages are formed by intelligent beings".

Proof of that required

> The transformation of
> these propositions implies the conclusion that "the genetic code was
> formed by an intelligent being".

Only it p, q and r are proven true .. you've just assumed they are and left
it at that

> (2) Accepting this previous conclusion for an assertion in
> the next phase of inference, and using the method of "disjunctive
> syllogism", the tautological form of which can be written as: [(p ||
> q) && !p] => q, we obtain a next conclusion which states that "a
> single, coherent 'language of genetic programming' which appears in a
> huge number of creatures that populate the Earth must be formed by a
> single superior being with a supernatural knowledge, power, and
> efficiency of God".
> (3) The last couple of propositions allows us to derive the
> final conclusion with method called the "disjunctive syllogism", the
> tautological form of which can be written as: [(p || q) && !p] => q.
> In this form the assertion "p" says "God does NOT exist", while
> assertion "q" states "God does exist". Thus the final conclusion
> states "God does exist"!
> Conclusion:
> The above inference chain unambiguously and conclusively
> proves the truth of the theorem that "God does exist".

No .. it doesn't

[snip trying to look intelligent by quoting basic laws of logic]

[snip a sad attempt to say that the only possible was your proof is wrong is
if logic is wrong .. ignoring competley that your unsupported assumtions are
what is wrong]

> The proving procedure presented above was also utilized in one
> more proof that is quite important for each one of us. Namely it
> allowed to formally prove that the counter-world does exist. (The term
> "counter-world" is a scientific name assigned to a world that is
> separate from our physical world, in which God lives, and which
> religions, and also folklore, calls "another world".) A formal
> scientific proof for the existence of counter-world completed with the
> use of methods of mathematical logic, is presented in item #D3 of a
> separate web page about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity - named
> "dipolar_gravity.htm". It was also presented on this discussion group
> - e.g. see

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b9be872ac3/2d70a1621314beb6#2d70a1621314beb6That proof used glaringly incorrect assumptions[snip more crap]> the symbol (PDE JP) at the end of their title.Good .. we'll know when to be on the lookout for more crap

Immortalist

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 12:16:01 AM9/27/07
to
On Sep 26, 7:19 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist". It is not the only proof that proves the existence of
> God. But it is the shortest, the most sure, it cannot be undermined
> (it was already discussed in internet in a different language), and it
> is based on the "genetic code" about which everyone knows. Of course,
> the "internet terrorists" about which I wrote on the threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/f43b7ee...

> for sure are going to attack this proof. After all, they attack
> everything that is moral and progressive. However, even with their
> experience in "throwing dirt" they will be unable to prove that "white
> is black". So all they can do is to throw a lot of dirt at this proof
> and at myself. But they will NOT be able to undermine this proof. It
> is impossible to undermine it, because the existence of God is fact,
> and no evil force can hide it from us. So please read this short proof
> provided below. But before I show it, firstly a few words of usual
> introduction.
>

Is the proof part of a theory and is it falsifiable like other
theories in science?

http://www.answers.com/topic/falsifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Kermit

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 1:04:56 AM9/27/07
to
On Sep 26, 7:19 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist".

<snip>

> completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic:
>
> Theorem:
> "God does exist".
> Basis propositions:
> (1) "Genetic code displays all attributes of intelligent
> codes

Really? Cites, please.

> and according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes
> are versions of languages. All languages are formed by intelligent
> beings.

I'm sorry; I missed where you established that.

> (2) The creation of a single "language of genetic
> programming" which would be capable to program and to express with
> genetic codes all attributes for the huge number and variety of living
> creatures that populate the Earth, required the work of either
> superior being of a supernatural knowledge, power, and efficiency of
> God, or a multitude of unanimously cooperating with each other human-
> like intelligent beings of capabilities and efficiencies similar to
> these of humans.

Or a mindless natural process which produces the so-called language.

> The fact that attributes of countless living
> creatures which populate the Earth were programmed and expressed with
> the use of a single and always the same, coherent "language of genetic
> programming",

Coherent? Can you say kludgy hack?

>completely eliminates the possibility that genetic codes
> of creatures from the Earth were programmed by a large number of
> unanimously cooperating with each other human-like creatures of
> capabilities and efficiency similar to human.

What predictions does this hypothesis meet? Does it explain
deactivated genes for producing vitamin C in humans, or teeth in
chickens?

> (Explanation complementing this set 2 of premises: The
> history of development of languages and codes proves, that the large
> crowd of human-like creatures, which use a language or a code, NEVER
> is able to unanimously cooperate with each other, therefore with the
> elapse of time such a crowd always gradually introduces numerous
> variants to the grammar, vocabulary, structure, etc., of the language
> that it uses.

Yes. It's almost as though a natural process is at work, similar to
that which produced the genetic code seen in living organisms.

> Therefore a large crowd of human-like beings which would
> work on the development of life, similarly like a purely random
> evolution, would either eliminate completely the use of genetic codes,
> or in case of continuation of the use of such codes, it would
> gradually introduce completely different structures and contents of
> these codes for each species of living creatures.)

Well, we'd certainly clean it up a bit. Perhaps we're the Beta
version?

> (3) God does NOT exist, or does exist. The use by God of a
> single and always the same coherent "language of genetic programming"
> for all creatures that populate the Earth eliminates completely the
> possibility that God does NOT exist.

It's not really a programming language, altho it sometimes helps to
think of it as such. It's just complicated molecules, doing the
chemistry that all atoms do when they hug and rub noses. Would you
expect chemistry to change from species to species?

> Proof:
> (1) The first basis proposition is to be transformed with
> the use of tautological form of the method known under the name of
> "hypothetical syllogism". This form can be written as [(p =>q) && (q
> => r)] => [p => r], in which the assertion "p" says "genetic code
> displays all attributes of intelligent codes",

Not yet established.

> while the assertion "q"
> says "according to the Shannon's Theory of Communication all codes are
> versions of languages",

Not yet established that this applies here.

> in turn the assertion "r" states "all
> languages are formed by intelligent beings".

Please define "language" in such a way that genomes are included, then
justify this assertion.

> The transformation of
> these propositions implies the conclusion that "the genetic code was
> formed by an intelligent being".

As a computer scientist, are you familiar with the term GIGO?

> (2) Accepting this previous conclusion for an assertion in
> the next phase of inference, and using the method of "disjunctive
> syllogism", the tautological form of which can be written as: [(p ||
> q) && !p] => q, we obtain a next conclusion which states that "a
> single, coherent 'language of genetic programming' which appears in a
> huge number of creatures that populate the Earth must be formed by a
> single superior being with a supernatural knowledge, power, and
> efficiency of God".

Does your website explain why he made it look like a natural process,
over a four billion-year span?

> (3) The last couple of propositions allows us to derive the
> final conclusion with method called the "disjunctive syllogism", the
> tautological form of which can be written as: [(p || q) && !p] => q.
> In this form the assertion "p" says "God does NOT exist", while
> assertion "q" states "God does exist". Thus the final conclusion
> states "God does exist"!

The premisses are not yet established. The conclusion is premature.

> Conclusion:
> The above inference chain unambiguously and conclusively
> proves the truth of the theorem that "God does exist".

Ummm... No; it doesn't.
It is bad logic, bad math, and bad science.

>
> For the use of these readers who are NOT familiar with the
> notation that is applied in the above proof, I would like to explain
> that symbols "p", "q", and "r" mark subsequent "assertions" utilized
> in this proof as logical variables. In turn symbols "&&", "||", and
> "=>" mark logical operators "and", "inclusive or", and
> "implies" (if ... => then ...").
>
> It is also worth to mention about the validity of the above
> proof. Because this proof utilizes exclusively tautological forms of
> subsequent methods, it remains valid for all values of variables it
> uses. Thus practically it is errorproof. If someone would like to
> undermine it, he or she would need to undermine first the validity of
> mathematical logic.

Or if they were really devious, ask you to establish the truth of your
several very dubious assertions with whcih you kick off this exercise
in foolishness.

> In turn this logic is a foundation for countless
> mathematical proofs which with a large success were used by the
> effective and precise discipline of mathematics. Thus, since so strong
> proof for the existence of God finally we were able to develop, it is
> worth to check now whether we live according to this proof. After all,
> the faith in God to-date is replaced by it with the reliable knowledge
> and certainty of the existence of God.

No. But it does reinforce my observation that the God-obsessed
frequently dismiss reality.

>
> The proving procedure presented above was also utilized in one
> more proof that is quite important for each one of us. Namely it
> allowed to formally prove that the counter-world does exist. (The term
> "counter-world" is a scientific name assigned to a world that is
> separate from our physical world, in which God lives, and which
> religions, and also folklore, calls "another world".) A formal
> scientific proof for the existence of counter-world completed with the
> use of methods of mathematical logic, is presented in item #D3 of a
> separate web page about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity - named
> "dipolar_gravity.htm". It was also presented on this discussion group

> - e.g. seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b...


> The most comprehensive presentation of it, however, is contained in
> subsection H1.1.4 from volume 4 of the newest monograph the free

> copies of which can be downloaded from addresses provided e.g. athttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/9d...


>
> The proof that "God does exist" is also published in item #B3 of

> following web pages:http://energy.atspace.org/god.htmhttp://evidence.ueuo.com/god.htmhttp://evil.thefreehost.biz/god.htmhttp://fruit.sitesled.com/god.htmhttp://god.pandela.com/god.htmhttp://karma.freewebpages.org/god.htmhttp://mozajski.atwebpages.com/god.htmhttp://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/god.htmhttp://one.fsphost.com/parasitism/god.htmhttp://parasitism.about.tc/god.htmhttp://parasitism.xphost.org/god.htmhttp://rubik.hits.io/god.htmhttp://wszewilki.greatnow.com/god.htm


>
> Please notice that it is easier to understanding the above proof, if
> one understand better the "genetic code". In turn the "genetic code"
> is explained comprehensively on the separate web pages named
> "evolution.htm" - which you should be able to view, if the name of
> "evolution.htm" is exchanged for the name "god.htm" in any address
> listed above.
>
> With totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak (Prof. Dr Eng.)
>
> P.S. Because many people seek my discussion threads for the
> informative values,

You make unjustified assertions. Where is the information? If it were
*real information, you would be able to make predictions with it. You
know, like *scientists do.

> novelty,

Granted.

> honesty,

I have never been able to decide whether people who deceive themselves
are honest.

> morality,

I do not believe that folks who actively reject reality in order to
satisfy their emotional needs. That sort of thinking can lead to the
transmission of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, resistant strains of TB,
environmental damage, aggressive wars, missed medical treatments for
life-threatening diseases, etc. So no, I do not believe that folks who
deny reality for emotional reasons are ultimately being moral.

> peacefulness,

Try gardening.

Uncle Al

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 1:22:42 PM9/27/07
to
janp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist".
[snip crap]

God does not exist - Spanish Inquisition, Black Plague, Easter Island,
Turkish Armenian genocide, Hitler's camps, Japan in Manchukuo,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia's gulags, China's Great Leap Forward,
Cambodian Khmer Rouge, US prison system.

Google Images
"Stanley Miller" 1650 hits

You are no Tommy Aquinas.

Hindus have 30 crores of gods - 300 million deities. How big is your
proof? Does it include the Olde Religion, Native American animism,
and Scientology? What about the Antarctic Tolte and their gods of
heat and cold?

While you are making a public ass of yourself, rationalize the
religions of the following Antarctic aboriginee tribes (population in
parentheses)

Marti (1000) Feorran (1200) Quyuk ( 750) Faran (1000)
Jalel (1500) Heron ( 850) Zvar (1250) Ko (unknown)
Hereri (1300) Anhol (1100) Akwa ( 850) Aliante (unknown)
Dheod ( 900) Simle (1000) Mau ( 300) Idisa (unknown)

Now, on to New Guinea with more than 1000 tabulated religions. You
look them up. Uncle Al is going to sit on a porcelain goddess and
make sacrifice thereunto.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Greg G.

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 2:47:37 PM9/27/07
to
On Sep 26, 10:19 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
snippage

I had a more detailed rebuttal, but the intelligent design of
keyboard/mouse pad configuration of my Sony makes it too
easy to change the focus of the cursor unintentionally
causing the whole thing to disappear. Arrgh!


>
> It is also worth to mention about the validity of the above
> proof. Because this proof utilizes exclusively tautological forms of
> subsequent methods, it remains valid for all values of variables it
> uses. Thus practically it is errorproof. If someone would like to
> undermine it, he or she would need to undermine first the validity of
> mathematical logic.

In the first proposition, you use the term "intelligent beings" when
you
mean "human beings" exclusively. This allows equivocation with the
term. When you maintain the meaning as "human beings" your
conclusion is forced to be that human beings created the genetic code
and God is human.

Also, it could be said that intelligent codes have the attributes of
natural
codes, which makes this argument a case for God being unnecessary.

> In turn this logic is a foundation for countless
> mathematical proofs which with a large success were used by the
> effective and precise discipline of mathematics. Thus, since so strong
> proof for the existence of God finally we were able to develop, it is
> worth to check now whether we live according to this proof.

You live according to a proof based on equivocation?

> After all,
> the faith in God to-date is replaced by it with the reliable knowledge
> and certainty of the existence of God.

Nope. Your second proposition is better evidence for descent from a
common ancestor for all life on earth. If every species had its own
genetic code, it would be evidence for an imaginative creator.


>
> The proving procedure presented above was also utilized in one
> more proof that is quite important for each one of us. Namely it
> allowed to formally prove that the counter-world does exist. (The term
> "counter-world" is a scientific name assigned to a world that is
> separate from our physical world, in which God lives, and which
> religions, and also folklore, calls "another world".) A formal
> scientific proof for the existence of counter-world completed with the
> use of methods of mathematical logic, is presented in item #D3 of a
> separate web page about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity - named
> "dipolar_gravity.htm". It was also presented on this discussion group

> - e.g. seehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/9d7e62b...


> The most comprehensive presentation of it, however, is contained in
> subsection H1.1.4 from volume 4 of the newest monograph the free

> copies of which can be downloaded from addresses provided e.g. athttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/9d...

Which fallacy is this proof based upon?


>
> The proof that "God does exist" is also published in item #B3 of

> following web pages:http://energy.atspace.org/god.htmhttp://evidence.ueuo.com/god.htmhttp://evil.thefreehost.biz/god.htmhttp://fruit.sitesled.com/god.htmhttp://god.pandela.com/god.htmhttp://karma.freewebpages.org/god.htmhttp://mozajski.atwebpages.com/god.htmhttp://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/god.htmhttp://one.fsphost.com/parasitism/god.htmhttp://parasitism.about.tc/god.htmhttp://parasitism.xphost.org/god.htmhttp://rubik.hits.io/god.htmhttp://wszewilki.greatnow.com/god.htm


>
> Please notice that it is easier to understanding the above proof, if
> one understand better the "genetic code". In turn the "genetic code"
> is explained comprehensively on the separate web pages named
> "evolution.htm" - which you should be able to view, if the name of
> "evolution.htm" is exchanged for the name "god.htm" in any address
> listed above.
>
> With totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak (Prof. Dr Eng.)
>
> P.S. Because many people seek my discussion threads for the
> informative values, novelty, honesty, morality, peacefulness, and
> truth - from now on, to allow find these threads easier, I am adding
> the symbol (PDE JP) at the end of their title.

--
Greg G.

Tongue: A variety of meat, rarely served because it clearly crosses
the
line between a cut of beef and a piece of dead cow.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 2:45:55 PM9/27/07
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:19:52 -0700, janpajak wrote:

> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist".

Great! And I can prove that poison ivy does exist. Now that God's
existence is proven, God deserves as much veneration as poison ivy does.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering


Jim Lovejoy

unread,
Sep 27, 2007, 11:14:51 PM9/27/07
to
Al <alw...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
news:1190860695....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

By me that's not an axiom. I'd say that was a conclusion based on the
evidence.

YMMV

Desertphile

unread,
Sep 29, 2007, 11:32:10 AM9/29/07
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:19:52 -0700, janp...@gmail.com wrote:

> Here it is, "the father of all proofs". It formally proves that "God
> does exist". It is not the only proof that proves the existence of

Appears mental.

--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages