Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

Since I now have time to write a nice, high-quality blog post about nonpoint energy field theory, let’s take a look at it. You can find the logical “proof” here.

If A is only T, K and O
and if B is only T, K and O
Then A is B.
No, the logical proof is using properties T, K and O. So, we will reword it:
If A has properties T, K, and O
and if B has properties T, K and O
Then A is B
Now the fallacy is glaring. Imagine the following example:
If apple A is red
and if apple B is red
Then apple A is apple B
As you can tell, the problem exists when there are two red apples. They are clearly not the same apple just because they are red.
And further, because this “proof” uses god, it looks more like:
If god has properties T, K, O, A, and B
and if the 0th has properties T, K, and O,
Then god is the 0th dimension
In this example, I thought of A and B as answering prayers and preforming miracles respectively. Of course, you could always define away the problem by saying god doesn’t do those things but that is just another ad hoc explanation.
To further reject that possible ad hoc explanation, why call it god. Even if you fixed the fallacy, there is no reason to call the universe god when we already call the universe “the universe.”
I see no way out now. Nonpoint energy theory is dead in the water.

So much like myself

See a newer (and better) version of this article here: Re: Nonpoint energy field theory

I recently read a blog post “proving god” and partook in a very interesting Twitter debate about the logical proof presented by this person. Now I am sure this post will be ripped apart by the philosphical wizards that they are, but there are some logical objections I would like to make clear.

But before I get to that, I would like to explain that this person, @schicagos, is much like myself, or a post version of myself, who believed in pantheism. I once believed pantheism

Pantheism is the belief that everything is god. But why call it god? The argument was made that when you define god as “all knowing, all powerful, and all present” that you can prove his existence.

And yes, the logical proof given was a really redundant way of proving that what exists truly does exists and then assigning the label god to it. That is not productive at all.

I could call my water bottle god (sure, it isn’t all present or anything) and remove the additional definition of god but that would be excessive. We can already call the water bottle a water bottle.

This guy went out of his way to redefine everything to mean god. Having been here before, it seems to be out of denial that there is no god.

I’m sorry if my ideas are getting jumbled here, but it is hard to debate and blog at the same time. But in effort to keep this coherent, here are some of the points that have made that haven’t been properly addressed.

  • If this “god” can know things as was asserted and it knows this because it is in the state of what it knows, then a pen knows about itself because it is in its own state.
  • Why call everything god if we already call everything “everything”?
You know it is wrong when
  • It was asserted that rocks know things
  • 7 people are attacking the claim
  • The person defending the claim starts to repeat himself
  • The person defending the claim doesn’t know why to call it god
  • You just need to believe in it so it is true for you. (Kind of wondering why all the work was put into a logical proof if faith is required)

Further points will be addressed via edit or in the comments.