Does/Can Logic prove/disprove God?

[Messenger]

Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

Status(t1) <> Status(t2)
Somehow you think that the function's parameter is responsible for the change. It isn't.

I did not say that the function parameter do the change, we map reality as a function and when a (real) factor change we change (or select) another value for the parameter
If you don't agree, bring a scientific proof or at least a reference to backup your ridiculous claim?

Inside our Universe we observe Causality,

Nope we don't.

Read the reference?

We're not even sure there is such a thing as 'outside our universe'

Irrelevant, iff it is there, we are not sure if our natural laws applies or not

You cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect
For example if I'll refer to events with another frame called MyCoffe which is the number of coffee cups I take
For example I'm writing this post on MyCoffe 2 i.e. after drinking 2 cups of coffee
Then your post will be at 3
If I drink coffee more often or less, it does not affect my post or your post at all

[bowmore]

Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

Then please show the cause of quantum level events.

Status(t1) <> Status(t2)
Somehow you think that the function's parameter is responsible for the change. It isn't.

I did not say that the function parameter do the change, we map reality as a function and when a (real) factor change we change (or select) another value for the parameter
If you don't agree, bring a scientific proof or at least a reference to backup your ridiculous claim?

The claim that "Status(t1) <> Status(t2)" ?

Simple observation of reality teaches you that status changes constantly.

Inside our Universe we observe Causality,

Nope we don't.

Read the reference?

Yes. It explains what causality is (although I already knew what it was).
It doesn't claim it to be true though. It even points out :

Whereas David Hume argued that causes are inferred from non-causal observations, Immanuel Kant claimed that people have innate assumptions about causes.

Which is what I've been trying to tell you when I referred to Hume earlier.

We're not even sure there is such a thing as 'outside our universe'

Irrelevant, iff it is there, we are not sure if our natural laws applies or not

Such as the law of causation you assert to be valid within our universe?

You cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect

Only if you assume the need for an 'affector'.

For example if I'll refer to events with another frame called MyCoffe which is the number of coffee cups I take
For example I'm writing this post on MyCoffe 2 i.e. after drinking 2 cups of coffee
Then your post will be at 3
If I drink coffee more often or less, it does not affect my post or your post at all

All you've shown is that MyCoffe at time t1 (your post) can have a different status at time t2 (my post).
Hence MyCoffe(t1) <> Mycoffe(t2)
even though time did not affect the status.

[Messenger]

Then please show the cause of quantum level events.

It is not only one, there are many some we know some we don't
This means that we can not predict with certainity if we apply event e1,e2 that the outcome will be R1
Because there are en, em that we don't know, we can only predict with a probability that the outcome will be R1
Read in QM the part labeled Relativity and quantum mechanics
Actually all QM science is based on the ability to reproduce causes of events (but they are still not very accurate in doing that)

Simple observation of reality teaches you that status changes constantly.

Thanks for bringing this example and simple observations also teaches you that there is a cause
Not only that we can repeat the cause (in most cases) to reproduce the results

Whereas David Hume argued that causes are inferred from non-causal observations, Immanuel Kant claimed that people have innate assumptions about causes.

I already disproved that

Such as the law of causation you assert to be valid within our universe?

You did not bring an example yet?

All you've shown is that MyCoffe at time t1 (your post) can have a different status at time t2 (my post).
Hence MyCoffe(t1) <> Mycoffe(t2)
even though time did not affect the status.

MyCoffee is not the event it is the ref.
The even is writing my post or yours (at this context you must forget about time and use only Coffee   )

[bowmore]

It is not only one, there are many some we know some we don't

If we don't know the cause, how can we assert there is one? Until such causes can be shown to exist, we can regard these events as uncaused.

Read in QM the part labeled Relativity and quantum mechanics

In general relativity it is postulated that information cannot travel faster than light, or it would give rise to causal paradoxes.
The one experiment laid out in the section you quoted in QM seemed to contradict this assertion from GR, which is why

he did not accept the more philosophical consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality

It was later proved that the experiments relating to the EPR paradox did not actually transfer information faster than light, hence preserving causality in general relativity.

Simple observation of reality teaches you that status changes constantly.

Thanks for bringing this example and simple observations also teaches you that there is a cause
Not only that we can repeat the cause (in most cases) to reproduce the results

I must reject this, since you have not been able to show conclusively that all quantum events are caused.

Whereas David Hume argued that causes are inferred from non-causal observations, Immanuel Kant claimed that people have innate assumptions about causes.

I already disproved that

No you just claimed Hume didn't have anything to say on the subject.

Such as the law of causation you assert to be valid within our universe?

You did not bring an example yet?

You're dodging my objection. Even if there were a law of causality wthin our universe, it needn't necessarily apply outside of it.

All you've shown is that MyCoffe at time t1 (your post) can have a different status at time t2 (my post).
Hence MyCoffe(t1) <> Mycoffe(t2)
even though time did not affect the status.

MyCoffee is not the event it is the ref.
The even is writing my post or yours (at this context you must forget about time and use only Coffee   )

Still we can only conclude that MyCoffe(yourPost) <> MyCoffe(myPost).

Finally I notice you didn't address

You cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect

Only if you assume the need for an 'affector'.

Which is my basic logical refutation of your logical proof. If you are unable or unwilling to fix this, I'll not spend any more time on you, and conclude you cannot logically prove or disprove god.

[Messenger]

If we don't know the cause, how can we assert there is one? Until such causes can be shown to exist, we can regard these events as uncaused.

We can prove a cause but we can not specify it fully
You have a problem in this issue (regarding God or any other)
For example if we put a matter in higher temperature, we can observe quantum changes but we can not reproduce the same resutls with the same change in temperature
So we can prove that temperature do "changes" but as there are other uncontrolled factors (on the Q level) we can reproduce the exact results
There are big difference between proving the existence of something and knowing details about it

It was later proved that the experiments relating to the EPR paradox did not actually transfer information faster than light, hence preserving causality in general relativity.

So do you agree the causality is preserved, thanks for clearing this matter  

You're dodging my objection. Even if there were a law of causality wthin our universe, it needn't necessarily apply outside of it.

Yes, I agree with that, as causality is a universal law (i.e. observed in the universe) it does not necessarily work outside
Just the existence of a doer applies as it is logic

Still we can only conclude that MyCoffe(yourPost) <> MyCoffe(myPost).

Not necessarily as they could happen at the same cup
which means that the reference frame does not affect events by itself

Finally I notice you didn't address

You cannot arrive at E(t1) = E(t2) without assuming that.

It is a fact as time does not affect

Only if you assume the need for an 'affector'.

Which is my basic logical refutation of your logical proof. If you are unable or unwilling to fix this, I'll not spend any more time on you, and conclude you cannot logically prove or disprove god.[/quote]I did not assume any effectors, I proved that by contradictions
i.e. nothing change until you make a change

[bowmore]

It was later proved that the experiments relating to the EPR paradox did not actually transfer information faster than light, hence preserving causality in general relativity.

So do you agree the causality is preserved, thanks for clearing this matter  

Fine. We can then move on with your argument, with a law of causality in effect within the universe, as a premise.

You're dodging my objection. Even if there were a law of causality wthin our universe, it needn't necessarily apply outside of it.

Yes, I agree with that, as causality is a universal law (i.e. observed in the universe) it does not necessarily work outside
Just the existence of a doer applies as it is logic

You have not been able to establish that last bit.

Still we can only conclude that MyCoffe(yourPost) <> MyCoffe(myPost).

Not necessarily as they could happen at the same cup
which means that the reference frame does not affect events by itself

I've never claimed the reference frame affects anything. (why do you keep returning to this?)
All the reference frame does is allow us to note there was in fact a change.

I did not assume any effectors, I proved that by contradictions
i.e. nothing change until you make a change

I have amply shown that your logical argument that tried to establish that is circular.

[Messenger]

Fine. We can then move on with your argument, with a law of causality in effect within the universe, as a premise.

Yes, this is the next step
If we agree that every effect has a doer, then we need only to prove that the Universe is not eternal
If it is not eternal them something must created it, or initiated it or made it as it is (in its beginning)

I have amply shown that your logical argument that tried to establish that is circular.

Your answer was: that math or Boolean algebra does not represent reality
So how I can communicate with your if you ignore the result of all human intelligence  

[PipeBox]

OK, forgive me for jumping right in, I haven't read a whole lot of this thread but meh, I can do that while I'm waiting for replies.

Yes, this is the next step
If we agree that every effect has a doer, then we need only to prove that the Universe is not eternal
If it is not eternal them something must created it, or initiated it or [strike:1q04p4fr]made it as it is (in its beginning)[/strike:1q04p4fr] (created it)

False dichotomy, probably begging the question (I'd actually have to go back and read, but you know if you're begging it . . .), and it's going to lead to a case of special pleading if you throw a creator into the mix to solve the problem.  The false dichotomy exists in that even I can name at least one more possibility, that being that some yet-undiscovered anthropic law demands that something exist, period, and for the moment, we're it, that existing thing.  I don't believe this is the case at all, it's actually laughable, but no more so than "God did it."  If any gods did do it, then they too are part of the cause/effect system, meaning to ask them not to require their own cause is special pleading.
 

So how I can communicate with your if you ignore the result of all human intelligence  

Without going back to address the logic, I will say that no logic one liner is going to disprove any gods (they are quite easy to isolate from reality) or prove them, as far better men have thought on these things for far longer and to no avail.  Not saying information exchange isn't beneficial, but this is probably one of the only areas in which it is unproductive as both sides struggle desperately for a stalemate which they consider a win.

[SSY]

Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

Thought I would jump in here, quantum effects have no causes, they are completley random, Bell's theorem rules out the possability of hidden variables that could be causing quantum effects.

[Recusant]

Since this seems an interlude in which non-participants in this dialog have chosen to add comments, I will join them.   I've read all the posts previous to this, and have gotten a few chuckles.  

I'm certainly no logician.  I have however, been able to discern what seem to be problems with some of Messenger's logic, which should not happen if I'm reading the work of a true logician.  He seems to believe that he will eventually be able to prove the existence of gods using logic.  Good luck with that; the only way to do it seems to depend on starting with premises that only  those who already subscribe to a religious belief system will agree with.  It's quite possible a non-logician such as myself  might make the mistake of agreeing with some of those premises, but probably not all of them.  Either way, I'm not part of this interesting discussion, but appreciate it, none the less. I thank the participants.
 
A side note:  It's my understanding that current Big Bang theory says that the universe started as a singularity; in other words, in the quantum realm.  <~~My lousy 2¢

[bowmore]

Quantum level events. So no, not every thing has a cause.

Even Quantum level events have causes, it is only science is still limited to know how to deal with each Quantum separately, so it deals with it (approximately) as a flow or a stochastic process

Thought I would jump in here, quantum effects have no causes, they are completley random, Bell's theorem rules out the possability of hidden variables that could be causing quantum effects.

Thank you! (for educating me a little)

[bowmore]

Fine. We can then move on with your argument, with a law of causality in effect within the universe, as a premise.

Yes, this is the next step
If we agree that every effect has a doer, then we need only to prove that the Universe is not eternal
If it is not eternal them something must created it, or initiated it or made it as it is (in its beginning)

Please define : universe.

I have amply shown that your logical argument that tried to establish that is circular.

Your answer was: that math or Boolean algebra does not represent reality
So how I can communicate with your if you ignore the result of all human intelligence  

So you actually don't read my posts, then. Or do you intentionally misrepresent my objection?

I'm sorry, but this actually made me reconsider.

I'll reject the premise that nothing comes from nothing/everything needs a cause, until you've been able to 1: understand my objection, 2: fix your argument accordingly.

[Messenger]

Please define : universe.

Every thing that science can know/prove to exist

I'll reject the premise that nothing comes from nothing/everything needs a cause, until you've been able to 1: understand my objection, 2: fix your argument accordingly

Maybe I don't understand what do you mean
But I proved that, your objection was "Mathematics does not depict reality"
Then sorry my proof is not for you, my proof is for people who accept logic and can use mathematics to depict realty and even logical imaginations as well

[Sophus]

Every thing that science can know/prove to exist

(Buzzer) Wrong. That's not even how science defines it. Why does everyone assume our universe is the only thing in existence?

[Messenger]

Every thing that science can know/prove to exist

(Buzzer) Wrong. That's not even how science defines it. Why does everyone assume our universe is the only thing in existence?

This is my definition, not what science agree on

Inside my proof, I can refer to things my way, as long as it is consistent, there is no problem
If you don't like it, I can change my proof to refer to it as U1 instead of the Universe U

And thanks about that comment, I don't assume that the Universe is the only thing in existence, I'll prove that it isn't

E=U+G  (i.e. Existence = The Observed Universe + an arbitrary variable I'll call it G for now)
I'll prove that G must exist (it does not have to be God)
Then I'll prove that G must be God