Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Vigilantys

"A=a" proves the existence of God

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

God- the creator of the Universe and of all its laws, necessarily possessing, among whatever other qualities- the qualities of energy, matter, life, intellect and consciousness.

It has been said that it is the modern day scientists that will prove, beyond shadow of a doubt, the existence of “God” and that it is the scientific method that is “divine”. Such an idea appears rather farfetched today, now that man has gone to the Moon and all…

However, if we consider one of the origins of scientific thought, the great Aristotelian “A=a”, we can clearly observe the mathematical manifestation of the prime concept in physics: cause and effect. We can also conclude, if we prove that “A=a”, that the magic concept of “A=O”, or that a “nothing” could be moving, causing, inventing or creating a “something” – is not possible. Thus, at this point in man’s history, it is safe to argue that the plethora of ways which science has used to gradually prove the phenomenon of cause and effect makes that concept “observed” and therefore, from the standpoint of the scientific method, beyond the shadow of a doubt. So strongly is the concept ingrained in sciences, that if it were rendered untrue, it would render all science invalid.

As such, consider how science perceives the very existence of energy and of forces and of existence as a whole. Science argues that a “nothing” or vacuum fluctuations etc…, are the cause of energy and of the forces that guide it and consequently all other that exists. The argument is that energy and the forces, or the non-matter, then formed matter. Further, matter, or the non-life, has begotten life. And then animal life, or the unconscious, has begotten man, who is conscious and intelligent.

It is interesting to observe then, how the modern scientist assumes that cause and effect violates the concept of “God” perceiving God as the conceptual “0”, or the immaterial nothing, and hence that it would violate the very axiom of cause and effect and that of God being the origin of all existence.

One could argue, on behalf of science, that since energy is matter and matter is life and life is man and the fact of the observed progression, or evolution, from energy to matter to Man is subjective and does not indicate a greater value gained from a lesser value then it is, in fact, a “something” that is causing the other “something”. It is however a tough sell to argue that no greater value is gained from vacuum fluctuations to a conscious man but that is not the crux of my argument. There’s greater and obvious flaw in the stated origin of energy and therefore of matter, life, and Man. It is implied in mathematic calculations in physics that as the state of absolute zero receded the fist spec of energy (later to cause the Big Bang) formed. Also, mathematics implies the existence of two very hypothetical concepts of a 0 and of a true random value to be valid. So is this not the very contradiction of sciences own fundamental axiom, that A cannot equal 0, that less cannot be more, that “nothing” cannot beget “something” and the basic philosophic argument as to the non-existence of God?

The law of causality, or cause and effect, cannot be argued for it can be observed in all things. However, if one truly examines the claim of science, its ideas on its own origins and of origins of all existence, it is the origins of magic, of hocus-pocus manifestation, of an “A=0” that modern science describes. On the other hand, the claim that “God” operates on those very mystic basis seems unfounded since there surely is no evidence to man of how “God” would accomplish anything.

Thus, at this point, I will make a claim that that which has begotten a reality where a conscious and intelligent man could exist must, by virtue of cause and effect possess the very same qualities of energy, matter, life, consciousness and intellect. These may or may not be the sole qualities of the origins of our reality but are those that presently matter to us. Therefore, if the single, original entity did posses among other things consciousness and intellect it is fair to state that Man`s modern monotheistic concept of God is valid.

Disclaimer:

The above is not written to validate or to invalidate any form of morality or religion as the reality of existence of God is surely independent of Man’s politics. It is also fair to note that the above idea of God is a logical extrapolation done throughout all religions beginning with Animism on through Polytheism and to Monotheism. It is easily seen that Animism invalidated itself as worship of that which is inferior to Man. Polytheism invalidates itself through the inevitable and illogical struggle between “Gods”, best observed in Greek Mythology, and the contradictory laws they set which are never observed in nature. Monotheism, which was arrived at through the reasoning of Zoroaster and, biblically, that of Abraham has partially invalidated itself due to the preached dichotomy of spirit and body, mainly for political reasons. However none of that invalidates the existence of a single God.

Edited by Vigilantys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is implied in mathematic calculations in physics that as the state of absolute zero receded the fist spec of energy (later to cause the Big Bang) formed. Also, mathematics implies the existence of two very hypothetical concepts of a 0 and of a true random value to be valid.

What mathematical calculations imply that? Describe it, and prove it, or I'll just reply that mathematics implies that you're a fish, and that's that: since you don't understand all math that's ever been formulated, good luck proving the opposite.

However, if one truly examines the claim of science, its ideas on its own origins and of origins of all existence, it is the origins of magic, of hocus-pocus manifestation, of an “A=0” that modern science describes.

No idea what science you're talking about. Tell me, and then I'll decide whether it's modern science, and what is it exactly that it means or claims.

I really don't need you telling me that you read some unspecified scientific theory, concluded that it's wrong, and therefor God is real. That's not an argument, it's a sermon. We don't preach, we argue, so name the specific scientific theory you're talking about, before you go on a long winded speech about what it's supposed to imply or claim, in your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a horrible OP.

Just to pick one of the more fundamental errors, the correct statement is "A is A" not "A equals A". The reflexive implication of an equals sign is that when reasoning mathematically:

If A=B then B=A

But in logic:

If all S is P, it is not necessarily the case that all P is S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What mathematical calculations imply that? Describe it, and prove it, or I'll just reply that mathematics implies that you're a fish, and that's that: since you don't understand all math that's ever been formulated, good luck proving the opposite.

No idea what science you're talking about. Tell me, and then I'll decide whether it's modern science, and what is it exactly that it means or claims.

I really don't need you telling me that you read some unspecified scientific theory, concluded that it's wrong, and therefor God is real. That's not an argument, it's a sermon. We don't preach, we argue, so name the specific scientific theory you're talking about, before you go on a long winded speech about what it's supposed to imply or claim, in your mind.

First and foremost I do not understand why I would need to regurgitate the words of some great authority here for you to take me seriously. That seems to go against the very essence of Objectivism. Second, if you do not know that every algebraic formula inherently implies a zero... fine, but surely you must have seen a number line at least once before. Why I need to state that on this board is completely beyond me and is very disappointing. Third, if for some ungodly reason (pardon the pun) you do need someone else's theory to be present in my writing then you must have noticed such words as "Big" and "Bang"... Look these two up on Wikipedia if you need to.

However that is not the point of my thesis. The point is that cause and effect implies an equivalent or greater amount of energy required to cause an effect and to state it in even more basic terms (I thought I was as basic as possible) the existence of intellect and consciousness imply that and equivalent but most likely a far greater intellect and consciousness are required for human intellect and consciousness to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a horrible OP.

Just to pick one of the more fundamental errors, the correct statement is "A is A" not "A equals A". The reflexive implication of an equals sign is that when reasoning mathematically:

If A=B then B=A

But in logic:

If all S is P, it is not necessarily the case that all P is S.

I don't think you understood... I'll attempt one more time... The process in the Universe is not "creation" but synthesis of that which already exists. One of the axioms is that you cannot gain a greater value from a lesser value and before anything can be synthesized the potential for that must already exists. For intellect to exist, just as with any form of energy where it must be derived from other forms of energy usually in greater quantity, intellect and consciousness must form from existing consciousness and intellect and they cannot magically manifest into being from the absence thereof. Mathematic formulation of A is A in A=a portrays cause and effect in its simplest most effective terms in my opinion... But at least your comments made more sense then the previous one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "prosess" of God. For there to be such, you would noeed a process to exist that is outside of nature that regulates or controls nature, this is "supernaturalism" Otherwise nature and the universe are self-contained and self-sufficient and God serves no purpose other than to calm the ignorant or superstitious.

Beyond that, you cannot "prove" that God exists. You cannot prove that anything exists. You demonstrate it by physical means by either direct sensory contact or by transduction instrument. You would need a deiscope.

By that proecess, there will never be a philosophical proof of the existence of anything. Therefore not proof by discursive logic. That is not the job of philosophy.

However, "God" does "work" in a psychological sense in that I can use it to model some processes. This is because of the fact that as our knowledge of the universe has grown, the abstract "god" has been modified to reflect that and in many ways "Good" spoofs the universe or nature. Look at how the Big Bang was validated.

I can see an argument for A=A in that this is the Law of Identity which must equal or subsume all identities (One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to bind them). It could also be argued that this is supported by the Law of Non-contradiction since for A not to = A in the same respect at the same time is a contradiction and A must be ither itself and allof itself or there is no identity, only a similarity to a greater or lesser degeree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, if you do not know that every algebraic formula inherently implies a zero... fine, but surely you must have seen a number line at least once before.

Here's your original claim:

if one truly examines the claim of science... it is the origins of magic, of hocus-pocus manifestation, of an “A=0” that modern science describes.

So again, what in science (not math, but natural science, the study of the Universe- if you don't know the difference look it up), claims that "A=0", meaning something can dissapear, or come out of nothing.

Does the third Law of Thermodynamics, which states tht a system cannot be cooled to absolute zero claim that? Does the Law of Conservation of Energy, which claims that in a closed system energy is constant? Or do they both contradict it?

The Big Bang Theory is not proven, or considered proven by scientists, but even so, where does it claim that energy was created at the time of the Big Bang? That something came out of nothing, or that something else vanished into nothing? I have never seen or heard such a claim, so yes, if you want me to even consider your existence for another second on this board, you're gonna have to name it, and your source.

However that is not the point of my thesis. The point is that cause and effect implies an equivalent or greater amount of energy required to cause an effect and to state it in even more basic terms (I thought I was as basic as possible) the existence of intellect and consciousness imply that and equivalent but most likely a far greater intellect and consciousness are required for human intellect and consciousness to exist.

The moon implies you're a fish.

There, now the case for you being a fish is about as well argumented and about as easy to disprove as the case for a greater intellect being required to create a lesser intellect.

The theory of evolution, which proves that humans evolved from lesser "intellects", which in turn evolved from chemical reactions (all without the presence of any traceless greater intellect), proves that you're wrong, just as the fact that you can type proves that you're not a fish. You don't have a thesis, you have a false statement, and a bunch of unrelated nonsense above it.

Also, your little "cause and effect"/energy theory seems to have misplaced some of the energy required to create "effects". What happened to it, did some of that greater ammount of energy vanish when it caused its effects? Energy transforms, it doesn't dissapear. You never need greater ammount of energy to create an effect, than the energy which is created. It is constant.

The only thing science claims is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. Mass can transform into energy, and energy into mass, becasue mass is a manifestation of energy. Where does science claim, as you do, that energy (or matter) dissapears, because of "cause and effect"?

P.S. If you honestly believe others should be able to understand everything you wrote in your OP, that's a sign of mental illness.

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A is A" is a statement saying that a thing is itself, it doesn't say anything about where it came from or what created it. When it comes to causality, Objectivism states that causality (action) stems from a thing being what it is -- it doesn't say that a thing must be created by something else, let alone something greater than itself. And there is no such thing as creation ex nihilo; modern science has a lot of mistaken and even irrational views that space or a vacuum is absolutely nothing. There is no nothing; reality is a full plenum, so even if particles can arise from a vacuum (which they claim) it doesn't mean that it came from nothing. Furthermore, while equations can be reduced to a far simpler form, they don't reduce to 0=0, they reduce to 1=1 (if you divide one side by the other side). What you may be thinking of is that if you have something at rest, say a stick of dynamite, and you explode it, the momentums of the exploded pieces add up to zero, but that doesn't mean there is nothing there, it's just the conservation of momentum. If you want to say that something greater than man made it possible for man to come into existence, then that something greater is reality or existence, not God (in any form). Man's intelligence and knowledge is self-created -- he has free will and must engage his own mind by his own volition in order to know something. Spirit or consciousness is not a type of stuff, it is one's awareness of existence, so it is not as if something non-material (i.e. god) had to put some type of non-material type of stuff into your body for you to have a human mind; you have a human mind because you are human, not because some supernatural being made you that way -- you were born human, which is a natural process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of that rigmarole, and you'd still be perfectly stumped by Epicurus' Riddle.

If God has no part of morality, then he is useless, since it means he is completely irrelevant to the human experience- morality is vital for man's proper survival. And there is nothing less deserving of existence than a useless God. Except, perhaps, the idea of God (mystical/magical superpower) in general.

Edited by kainscalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see:

The Moon is the Moon.

The Moon is not the Sun

The Moon is not nothing

Therefore God exists.

No, I can't say that made any sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "prosess" of God. For there to be such, you would noeed a process to exist that is outside of nature that regulates or controls nature, this is "supernaturalism" Otherwise nature and the universe are self-contained and self-sufficient and God serves no purpose other than to calm the ignorant or superstitious.

I agree. God serves no purpose other than in psychological sense (as you mentioned later) and being the origin... a faze, long past. However the logical deduction of a god to exist offers further implications for morality, philosophy and historical value of religion. Morality is imposed upon us by reality in the need to coexist and progress but philosophically, if god exists, then morality precedes reality.

Beyond that, you cannot "prove" that God exists. You cannot prove that anything exists. You demonstrate it by physical means by either direct sensory contact or by transduction instrument. You would need a deiscope.

I personally hold deductive logic in greater esteem than you do but I see your point. However I think we can trace back, logically, to the point where the origin of reality possesses intellect and consciousness. This has no practical purpose that I can see outright but adds a philosophical dimension and another vector for reasoning and what is philosophy but a way to think?

By that proecess, there will never be a philosophical proof of the existence of anything. Therefore not proof by discursive logic. That is not the job of philosophy.

However, "God" does "work" in a psychological sense in that I can use it to model some processes. This is because of the fact that as our knowledge of the universe has grown, the abstract "god" has been modified to reflect that and in many ways "Good" spoofs the universe or nature. Look at how the Big Bang was validated.

Agreed again, God is a psychological comfort point however if philosophy would integrate god than in my opinion the implications of such a philosophy would be universal as opposed to selecting a way of thinking based on ones ambitions in life. After all, Mother Teresa was clearly an altruist but she was hardly Ellsworth Toohey.

I can see an argument for A=A in that this is the Law of Identity which must equal or subsume all identities (One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to bind them). It could also be argued that this is supported by the Law of Non-contradiction since for A not to = A in the same respect at the same time is a contradiction and A must be ither itself and allof itself or there is no identity, only a similarity to a greater or lesser degeree

A=a is the first, original mathematical formula stated by Aristotle as formulation of a concept that is monumental to all further reasoning. Most feel some of the things that Ayn Rand formulates but she chisels them out in stone and by her own admission her philosophy originates from the concept that what IS, IS and that observed reality need not be doubted. A=a is a mathematical manifestation of that and obviously I suggest that that one of the "As" is God or A=God=a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vigilantys:

Grames already pointed out your logical errors, but going further, I think the major issue is your assumption (!) that cause and effect applies at the singularity (the first instant of the Big Bang) the same way it applies later in the universe. Cause and effect imply a linear concept of time (special relativity complicates this but doesn't undermine it), but since there was no time before the first instant, causality runs into trouble there.

Of course, the "first cause" argument probably has been refuted more thoroughly than I just did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For intellect to exist, just as with any form of energy where it must be derived from other forms of energy usually in greater quantity, intellect and consciousness must form from existing consciousness and intellect and they cannot magically manifest into being from the absence thereof.

So what greater intellect created god, and what still greater intellect created the god of god and what exponentially greater intellect created the god of god's god? I could go on and on but it would still all be nonsense, after all... Garbage in, garbage out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a new board rule? Any topics that try to prove the existence of a god must offer at least a microscopic piece of evidence. Think of the electrons and photons that would be saved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A=a is the first, original mathematical formula stated by Aristotle as formulation of a concept that is monumental to all further reasoning. Most feel some of the things that Ayn Rand formulates but she chisels them out in stone and by her own admission her philosophy originates from the concept that what IS, IS and that observed reality need not be doubted. A=a is a mathematical manifestation of that and obviously I suggest that that one of the "As" is God or A=God=a.

Honestly, you make no sense. I tried to read your first post, it simply makes no sense. SOMEthing can't be NOthing. On top of that, you didn't even attempt to prove that "creating the laws of the universe" is possible. Actually, forget the argument. You really just arbitrarily combined science, philosophy and math. Just because you know some algebra and manipulated something that looks LIKE an equation doesn't mean you actually proved anything.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about a new board rule? Any topics that try to prove the existence of a god must offer at least a microscopic piece of evidence. Think of the electrons and photons that would be saved!

How about they post in one of the many other threads that have already been started on this subject so that those of us bored with the same ol', same ol' can recognize which topics to skip? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about they post in one of the many other threads that have already been started on this subject so that those of us bored with the same ol', same ol' can recognize which topics to skip? :lol:

But then we'd save neither electrons nor photons. Do you want to have to watch dimmer TV and movies once photons begin to run short? have you any idea the loss of stratospheric ozon that would result from atenuated lightning strikes because we were so cavalier about using up electrons? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: I know, I know...we've got to conserve our precious natural resources!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"A is A" is a statement saying that a thing is itself, it doesn't say anything about where it came from or what created it. When it comes to causality, Objectivism states that causality (action) stems from a thing being what it is -- it doesn't say that a thing must be created by something else, let alone something greater than itself. And there is no such thing as creation ex nihilo; modern science has a lot of mistaken and even irrational views that space or a vacuum is absolutely nothing. There is no nothing; reality is a full plenum, so even if particles can arise from a vacuum (which they claim) it doesn't mean that it came from nothing. Furthermore, while equations can be reduced to a far simpler form, they don't reduce to 0=0, they reduce to 1=1 (if you divide one side by the other side). What you may be thinking of is that if you have something at rest, say a stick of dynamite, and you explode it, the momentums of the exploded pieces add up to zero, but that doesn't mean there is nothing there, it's just the conservation of momentum. If you want to say that something greater than man made it possible for man to come into existence, then that something greater is reality or existence, not God (in any form). Man's intelligence and knowledge is self-created -- he has free will and must engage his own mind by his own volition in order to know something. Spirit or consciousness is not a type of stuff, it is one's awareness of existence, so it is not as if something non-material (i.e. god) had to put some type of non-material type of stuff into your body for you to have a human mind; you have a human mind because you are human, not because some supernatural being made you that way -- you were born human, which is a natural process.

A very interesting response, if nothing else, I enjoyed reading... A=a; A-a=0.

You are right, or I agree, about there never being an absolute zero and truly empty space... radiation is always present. But Big Bang does imply a "nothing" as a speck of energy could not have existed ad infinitum and then exploded all of the sudden, it came from vacuum fluctuations as grade 11 physics states. I do not believe in the theory of evolution (at least in the Darwinist sense) but that does not mean I am a creationist that believes there's a divide between the soul (and therefore the religious concept of one) and the body. However the concept of consciousness is something I think (a hence try to deduce) is intrinsic to existence as a whole. I am not convinced it could have evolved (among other things there's too great a gap between us and everything else that exists) and a universal consciousness does appear more logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: I know, I know...we've got to conserve our precious natural resources!

Huh... It just struck me that the only thing it seems that is not considered a natural resource are human beings... Folks, we're in a world of hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So again, what in science (not math, but natural science, the study of the Universe- if you don't know the difference look it up), claims that "A=0", meaning something can dissapear, or come out of nothing.

Does the third Law of Thermodynamics, which states tht a system cannot be cooled to absolute zero claim that? Does the Law of Conservation of Energy, which claims that in a closed system energy is constant? Or do they both contradict it?

The Big Bang Theory is not proven, or considered proven by scientists, but even so, where does it claim that energy was created at the time of the Big Bang? That something came out of nothing, or that something else vanished into nothing? I have never seen or heard such a claim, so yes, if you want me to even consider your existence for another second on this board, you're gonna have to name it, and your source.

There is no proof of any kind in the scientific world for any kind of a beginning to the Universe or whatever, they have claims... theories, but that doesn't mean I cannot refer to the Big Bang as the dominant modern theory in regards to creation and then refute it. Now you really need to familiarize yourself with the Big Bang theory, you seem to know Newtonian physics (I suppose you reject Relativity altogether considering your attitude towards the Big Bang). But please read carefully I am not speaking about the Big Bang itself but the primal amount of energy that caused the Big Bang which is claimed to have come from vacuum fluctuations.

The moon implies you're a fish.

There, now the case for you being a fish is about as well argumented and about as easy to disprove as the case for a greater intellect being required to create a lesser intellect.

The theory of evolution, which proves that humans evolved from lesser "intellects", which in turn evolved from chemical reactions (all without the presence of any traceless greater intellect), proves that you're wrong, just as the fact that you can type proves that you're not a fish. You don't have a thesis, you have a false statement, and a bunch of unrelated nonsense above it.

What is it with you on and on about the moon and the fish, some personal occultist fascination thing? And excuse me but when has the theory (note the working word here- "theory") of evolution has been proven? You argue my right to use the Big Bang theory as an argument and then here comes the irrefutable theory of evolution...

Also, your little "cause and effect"/energy theory seems to have misplaced some of the energy required to create "effects". What happened to it, did some of that greater ammount of energy vanish when it caused its effects? Energy transforms, it doesn't dissapear. You never need greater ammount of energy to create an effect, than the energy which is created. It is constant.

The only thing science claims is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. Mass can transform into energy, and energy into mass, becasue mass is a manifestation of energy. Where does science claim, as you do, that energy (or matter) dissapears, because of "cause and effect"?

P.S. If you honestly believe others should be able to understand everything you wrote in your OP, that's a sign of mental illness.

Where did I state that energy disappeared? Like WTF!!? If you cannot understand what I say do not respond but why put words into my mouth and then insult me as though I said them? I said

The point is that cause and effect implies an equivalent or greater amount of energy required to cause an effect
If you need to melt a piece of steel some energy will be lost as heat energy while you achieve the effect of melting... etc. You don't know this? Yes, energy cannot be created or destroyed; you did go to grade 7... I am glad, but Big Bang was in grade eleven, did you skip that? Snapping at random people for saying things you do not understand is a mental illness and that is a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...