Does/Can Logic prove/disprove God?

[Messenger]

That is how my proof will work

I'm more interested in how you'll make your proof for "nothing comes from nothing" work.

You haven't addressed any of the issues I pointed out with it.

I'll think in a way, but any way we can say that it is a proof for people who believe that "Nothing comes from nothing"

[bowmore]

That is how my proof will work

I'm more interested in how you'll make your proof for "nothing comes from nothing" work.

You haven't addressed any of the issues I pointed out with it.

I'll think in a way, but any way we can say that it is a proof for people who believe that "Nothing comes from nothing"

That didn't make sense.

[Messenger]

As we accepted that X <> not X
then Existence <> non existence
Existence(T) <> no existence(T)

and Existence(T) <> no existence(T+t)  as t goes to zero

So for something to exist at any time T+t, another existence must exist at T
Which means "Nothing comes from nothing"

 

[bowmore]

As we accepted that X <> not X
then Existence <> non existence
Existence(T) <> no existence(T)

and Existence(T) <> no existence(T+t)  as t goes to zero

So for something to exist at any time T+t, another existence must exist at T
Which means "Nothing comes from nothing"

the formulation "as t goes to zero" presupposes that existence(x) is a continuous function around T, and that you can calculate a limit for it. Considering that the possible values of this function would be {true, false} that is not very likely.

Apart from the fact that you now start mingling calculus terminology into boolean algebra, it still seems you just presuppose that which you want to prove. All you've done is dress up "Nothing comes from nothing" as the assumption that existence(x) is continuous around T.

In other words : this argument is circulus in demonstrando.

[Messenger]

As we accepted that X <> not X
then Existence <> non existence
Existence(T) <> no existence(T)

and Existence(T) <> no existence(T+t)  as t goes to zero

So for something to exist at any time T+t, another existence must exist at T
Which means "Nothing comes from nothing"

the formulation "as t goes to zero" presupposes that existence(x) is a continuous function around T, and that you can calculate a limit for it. Considering that the possible values of this function would be {true, false} that is not very likely.

Apart from the fact that you now start mingling calculus terminology into boolean algebra, it still seems you just presuppose that which you want to prove. All you've done is dress up "Nothing comes from nothing" as the assumption that existence(x) is continuous around T.

In other words : this argument is circulus in demonstrando.

Existence is our perception to it at time t
being true or false means it is continuous or not
So there is no difference between being continuous or be true or false over time

Yes, I know that I did not start the proof yet, this is the 2 facts that I'll use in the proof
1-Contradictions does not exist  x <> not x
2-Nothing comes from nothing

[bowmore]

Existence is our perception to it at time t

This definition is circular.

being true or false means it is continuous or not

This does not logically follow.

So there is no difference between being continuous or be true or false over time

If it is not continuous then "Nothing comes from nothing" cannot be inferred from "existence(T) <> not existence(T)".

Yes, I know that I did not start the proof yet, this is the 2 facts that I'll use in the proof
1-Contradictions does not exist  x <> not x
2-Nothing comes from nothing

The first is an axiom, not a fact.
The second is a premise, not a fact, as it's truth hasn't been established.

[Messenger]

Existence is our perception to it at time t

This definition is circular.

Then define  your own "Existence"?

being true or false means it is continuous or not

This does not logically follow.

No, it is
Continuous means it applies (evaluate) over time
If we assume that it can evaluate to false then it is continuous

Yes, I know that I did not start the proof yet, this is the 2 facts that I'll use in the proof
1-Contradictions does not exist  x <> not x
2-Nothing comes from nothing

The first is an axiom, not a fact.

Agreed

The second is a premise, not a fact, as it's truth hasn't been established.

See above?

[bowmore]

being true or false means it is continuous or not

This does not logically follow.

No, it is
Continuous means it applies (evaluate) over time
If we assume that it can evaluate to false then it is continuous

That's not the meaning of continuous I'm talking about.

Let me perhaps explain what I mean a bit more clearly. (I'll abbreviate Existence(t) to E(t))

You posit that E(t) <> not E(t + dt) where dt is very small.
In other words that
E(t) = E(t + dt)

Yet there is no justification for this assertion. The truth of a statement can change over very short periods of time.
Take for instance "The sun is in the zenith" it may be true at time t, but false at time t+dt. You have not shown that this cannot be the case for E(t), you have merely assumed it. Which is why I said you just assumed what you set out to show.

The second is a premise, not a fact, as it's truth hasn't been established.

See above?

Perhaps you understand my objection better now.

[Messenger]

You posit that E(t) <> not E(t + dt) where dt is very small.
In other words that
E(t) = E(t + dt)

Yet there is no justification for this assertion. The truth of a statement can change over very short periods of time.

That is the point when you said over very short period of time
take a less time than you just said, it won't change (As you said)
This is the concept of limits as t goes to Zero

The change needs a cause

[bowmore]

You posit that E(t) <> not E(t + dt) where dt is very small.
In other words that
E(t) = E(t + dt)

Yet there is no justification for this assertion. The truth of a statement can change over very short periods of time.

That is the point when you said over very short period of time
take a less time than you just said, it won't change (As you said)
This is the concept of limits as t goes to Zero

Then at the very best you've shown that the limit of E(x) for x approaching t is E(t),
but not that E(t) = E(t+dt)

I'll give another example to show what I mean : Take this statement "x = 5".
It is true for x = 5, but for every x+dx it is false when dx is very small but not zero.
Any change in x, no matter how small, will result in the statement being false.

The change needs a cause

This is a total non sequitur. A cause and how it relates to change is not even defined properly.
You could just as well have said : The change needs a towel.

But what's worse is that your first step is to try and prove that change cannot occur, to then conclude that changes need causes.
But if changes need causes, and changes cannot occur, than nothing is caused.
At any rate you're trying to prove things which contradict observation.

[Messenger]

Then at the very best you've shown that the limit of E(x) for x approaching t is E(t),
but not that E(t) = E(t+dt)

I'll give another example to show what I mean : Take this statement "x = 5".
It is true for x = 5, but for every x+dx it is false when dx is very small but not zero.
Any change in x, no matter how small, will result in the statement being false.

X=5 now and after small time t, till you change x
For example when you observe something, from that time till you know (inside your brain) what it is, it did not change

But what's worse is that your first step is to try and prove that change cannot occur, to then conclude that changes need causes.
But if changes need causes, and changes cannot occur, than nothing is caused.
At any rate you're trying to prove things which contradict observation.

Yes, changes can not occur (by itself), you just said that; any function f(X) can not change till you change x
Your problem is that you are mixing real objects with time
Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

[bowmore]

I'll give another example to show what I mean : Take this statement "x = 5".
It is true for x = 5, but for every x+dx it is false when dx is very small but not zero.
Any change in x, no matter how small, will result in the statement being false.

X=5 now and after small time t, till you change x
For example when you observe something, from that time till you know (inside your brain) what it is, it did not change

You don't get it do you. My "x=5" example isn't about time.

E(t) = "Something exists at time t" the variable here is time
"x = 5" the variable here isn't time, but a number.

I was merely pointing out that small changes in the variable can lead to a statement switching from true to false. No matter how small the change. So it is by no means a given that small changes in a time variable cannot have that same result. In fact "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is exactly such a statement, for which a change in the time variable, no matter how small can shift the statement from true to false or vice versa.

Therefore if you claim that sufficiently small changes in the time variable for E(t) will never result in such a shift you do so without proof. In other words you assume what you want to prove, that "nothing comes from nothing".

My conclusion is that "nothing comes from nothing" is an unproven premise, not a fact.

But what's worse is that your first step is to try and prove that change cannot occur, to then conclude that changes need causes.
But if changes need causes, and changes cannot occur, than nothing is caused.
At any rate you're trying to prove things which contradict observation.

Yes, changes can not occur (by itself),

Whoops! You did it again.
We observe that changes can occur. and you assume without proof that they cannot occur by themselves.

you just said that; any function f(X) can not change till you change x

Don't twist my words. Changing x does not change the function. Note that a function is merely a set, not something dynamic.
I continuously get the strong feeling that your knowledge of math and logic isn't what you claim it to be, I cannot otherwise explain why you misinterpret what I'm saying.

Your problem is that you are mixing real objects with time

I don't mix those. I'm merely pointing to the flaw in your argument : You assume what you set out to prove.

Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

This is all the more reason to assume that we cannot deduce facts about reality if we start from such a framework. Of course logic itself is also such a framework.

[Messenger]

You don't get it do you. My "x=5" example isn't about time..

So is existence
Existence at time t does not change when t changes by a very small amount
And as larger amounts consists of many small dt
t does not affect the function by itself
E(T)=E(T+t)

In fact "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is exactly such a statement, for which a change in the time variable, no matter how small can shift the statement from true to false or vice versa.

Yes, but the sun location changes due to other causes beside time
Can you bring just one example of a function that changes over time due to no other parameter?

Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

This is all the more reason to assume that we cannot deduce facts about reality if we start from such a framework. Of course logic itself is also such a framework

It is like inventing another frame of reference called zime
We can add z to any function (for example car weight over zime)
z does not affect the car weight by definition (so is time) because both are hypothetical parameters not real
Only real parameters can do the change (for example number of wheels, engine type, etc.)

[bowmore]

You don't get it do you. My "x=5" example isn't about time..

So is existence
Existence at time t does not change when t changes by a very small amount
And as larger amounts consists of many small dt
t does not affect the function by itself
E(T)=E(T+t)

I've bolded your assumption. You provide no proof for this.

In fact "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is exactly such a statement, for which a change in the time variable, no matter how small can shift the statement from true to false or vice versa.

Yes, but the sun location changes due to other causes beside time
Can you bring just one example of a function that changes over time due to no other parameter?

Note that in reality it's the Earth's location that changes.  
I've also not claimed that it is time that causes the change, merely that for different values for t the truth of "The sun is in the zenith at time t" is different, even if those different values for t are really close together.

I've given another example already.

Imagine a brick moving through space at a speed greater than zero m/s, without any forces acting upon it.

Since Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

Time is just a hypothetical frame of reference Existence <> F(t) because t is imaginary (We defined it)

This is all the more reason to assume that we cannot deduce facts about reality if we start from such a framework. Of course logic itself is also such a framework

It is like inventing another frame of reference called zime
We can add z to any function (for example car weight over zime)
z does not affect the car weight by definition (so is time) because both are hypothetical parameters not real
Only real parameters can do the change (for example number of wheels, engine type, etc.)

The difference being of course that logic and time as frameworks are backed by observations of real phenomena. Whereas 'zime' is just a figment of your imagination, and nothing more.
Observation tells us that changes do occur over time. Trying to prove they don't is futile, and if you'd succeed in doing so, you'd only establish that the framework you use to model reality is wrong.

[Messenger]

The difference being of course that logic and time as frameworks are backed by observations of real phenomena. Whereas 'zime' is just a figment of your imagination, and nothing more.

Logic is different than time
Logic is our definition of words or how to explain things
Time is just our invention as (my zime) time is not tangible and does not affect any thing, it is the opposite (we measure changes by time)

Observation tells us that changes do occur over time. Trying to prove they don't is futile, and if you'd succeed in doing so, you'd only establish that the framework you use to model reality is wrong.

Time is our observation, not observation leads to time

if everything is static, time does and can not exist or be observed at all
So we can conclude that time does not change any thing, i.e. f(t1) = f(t2) if no parameter (other than time) change
This parameter we call it "A cause"