Mathematical Proof of God

>>8684679
>ontological proof

Possibility of such is destroyed by Kant.

Existence is not a predicate.

>>8684679
>let time travel exist
>let there be a time machine that can change the past
>everything one person does with a time machine can be undone by another time machine
>peopel fight about who gets to say what history was, constantly changing it
>people who have time machines die of old age
>next generation does the same thing
>next generation does the same thing
>Who gets to make final decision on what history was?
>Have to take the limit of the back forth changes at infinity
>A person can't exist at infinity because there will always have been a finite number of generations of people
>God gets to say what history was

File: 300px-World_line.svg.png (42KB, 300x306px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x306px

>>8684702
>>let time travel exist
>>let there be a time machine that can change the past
Illogical. Only one thing can be at a given point in spacetime.

File: delta3.png (16KB, 620x335px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 620x335px

>>8684722

That is true when you use real numbers to describe points in the gravitational manifold, but when you use hyperreal numbers to describe them, there are an infinite number of hyperreal points at each real valued point.

>Use the hyperreal channel to define the phase of the point.

Also, you are ignoring the path that appears in the Cauchy integral integral formula which could, in theory connect the future light cone to the past light cone in a causal way.

The single valuedness of points isn't even a good argument against history-changing time travel because even with real-valued points there are infinitely more points in the universe than an observer can travel through in a lifetime, and the maximum amount of information that can be collected by an observer is limited by that small, but still infinite number of points that he passes through while in the universe.

Note that the cauchy integral formula has absolutely appropriate to GR even though it is normally reserved for complex analysis, because the Lorentzian signature of the metric is obtained by defining distance in the t direction as imaginary

>x^0 = ict

>>8684762
Caucy integral formula tells you how to compute f(Z) so just set Z to be the origin where the past and future light cones always come together at the location of the observer no matter how the observer moves around

File: blank.png (243KB, 573x425px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 573x425px

>>8684762
If you do that to explain >>8684702 then what he is doing is still not "time travel." Only one set of hyperreals would be at each point, so:
>everything one person does with a time machine can be undone by another time machine
still doesn't make any sense

File: Lemmings-BoxScan.jpg (40KB, 320x371px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 320x371px

>>8684772

>let there be time travel

It's a lemma. it makes perfect sense.

>>8684679
Once again, never forget that this proof (as all proofs) relies on its axioms being accepted.

File: index.png (25KB, 720x232px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 720x232px

>>8684788
obviously

>>8684762

>""""hyper""""" """""""""""""""reals""""""""""""""""""""

you guys are just making jokes at this point.

File: HQTx0i8.jpg (520KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 1920x1080px

Too bad a being that possesses all positive properties (such as omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness) can't exist

>>>/his/

>>8684679
>for each property φ, either φ or its negation ¬φ must be positive, but not both

this is the shittiest fucking axiom i've ever heard of, i'd sooner use its inverse as an axiom

>>8685001
It's just the law of excluded middle man.

>>8685007
that's not the part I have a problem with, it's the idea of EVERY property having a "sign" value that's absurd

why the fuck would "eats sandwiches on Thursdays" have anything positive or negative about it? why is a dichotomy like passion v restraint forced to hold only one over the other in all circumstances?

File: smug whore.jpg (219KB, 560x577px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 560x577px

>>8684679
>let the girl that possesses all positive properties be considered "best girl"
>existence is a positive property
>therefore a best girl must exist

Wow it's fucking nothing

File: blankfull.png (541KB, 600x908px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 600x908px

>>8685012
>why the fuck would "eats sandwiches on Thursdays" have anything positive or negative about it?
It's negation would be "didn't eat sandwiches on Thursday."

>>8685012
Calm down, it's just a truth value. Either you eat a sandwich on Thursdays, or you don't.

>>8685024
that's logical negation. i don't deny that "true" and "false" exist, but "good" and "bad" aren't so natural as to be in fucking axioms.

File: vector40.gif (13KB, 617x395px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 617x395px

>>8685012
If you make 'right' positive, then 'left' is negative.

That's how vectors work.

File: 3650584-satan-editorial.jpg (1MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1200px

>>8684679

Since the initial assignment of "positive" and "negative" is arbitrary, I guess this would also logically lead to the existence of the Devil.

>>8685067
No, because negations of negations would cancel. So, a negation of a negation just describes the original property.

Wouldn't mundane objects that have only one positive property be "God"s?

>>8684679
>2017
>accepting modal logic wankery

File: godel-all.png (287KB, 824x2664px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 824x2664px

Reminder that the proof has been debunked

>>8685394
this
modal logic was a mistake, especially modal predicate logic

File: NOTFINE.jpg (260KB, 1280x728px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1280x728px

>>8685136
But, something with all negative properties wouldn't exist.

>>8684694
But necessary existence is.

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.