How to prove God's existence the way it's supposed to Part 1

In this YouTube clip that is only 1 minute and 23 seconds long some special yet simple and easy to understand information is revealed about yourself and then it is possible to figure out more special yet simple and easy to understand information by yourself about somebody else.

Those who find the clip with only 11 slides a bit too fast get them nice and slow here.
This post will have slides 1 to 8 and the next 9 to 11.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0001.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0002.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0003.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0004.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0005.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0006.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0007.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0008.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0009.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0010.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0011.jpg

I was expecting to get Rick Roll’d.

This was worse.

Before i’m gonna start a topic with the title ‘How to prove God’s existence the way it’s supposed to Part 2’ i’m gonna put a link here that sets the tone right and is not about Rick Rolling and worse than Rick Rolling but that’s because the link is related to those who do not even need to google the following search: i’m worse at what i do best and for this gift i feel blessed

It’s a bit feeble.

The only feeble thing that’s gonna happen in this topic is that many are going to want to prove that the conclusion in slide 11 is wrong but will lack the logic to do so.
And i don’t need to know more than that in this Part 1 topic. After all, saying that something is wrong or feeble in itself is not enough to make the one who is so called wrong or feeble actually believe that he or she is wrong or feeble.

To summarize the video in a couple of sentences:
[LIST]
*]You’ve presented the hypothesis that “life” exists within the space between matter.
*]You intend to “prove” this hypothesis in a future video.
[/LIST]

Honestly I expect this to be challenging to demonstrate, but have at it.

A bucket needs an “empty part” to be a bucket.
Thus we cannot find bucketness in the “full part” of the bucket.

Conclusion: The bucketness is in the “empty part”.

Now I wonder why we bother with material (plastic or metal) to build buckets. The empty part in the middle should suffice to carry something around.

I have already proven with 11 slides (the first two are not part of the proof) that life inside a living body takes place in the empty space(s) of the body or that life comes in the form of empty space.
Logic says that it is impossible to believe that but it does remain simple logic that has proven it. You can always try to write down from which slide they no longer make sense.

The next step will be about something atheists hold dear so i’ll give a hint.
Atheists do not believe in an almighty lifeform because that is only going to lead to an almighty lifeform who is going to hurt all his creations because nobody will be able to bring this almighty evil lifeform to justice.

They are therefore content in believing that a human being only lives once and that’s it.
But what do they really believe then?
That the life in a human being (which is proven to come in the form of empty space(s)) would be the only thing that isn’t nothing in this reality to become nothing that is going to remain that way forever. But then there must be a reason why other things in this reality that aren’t nothing, like tables and chairs and you name it, never suddenly become nothing to remain that way forever. .

Well, it’s asserted. Unless I missed something I don’t think it was supported by any evidence. I did have an interesting time imagining what an organism would be like if I removed the space from between it’s molecules. I thought about some type of compactor or compressor. After compressing an animal I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be alive any more, though there would be space between it’s molecules. Perhaps if we could get it compressed down to a quantum singularity then we can remove about all the space. But in either case I think we can all agree at that point the life has been “squeezed out” of the organism.

Also it’s hard to refer to the slides by number. The only way to identify slide X is to rewatch the video and start counting the slides. Perhaps my counting is off, but I couldn’t identify which slide was #11. I only counted about 9 slides.

I’m using the flipping transition as the boundary between slides. Perhaps the boundaries in PowerPoint, Keynote, or what ever software tool you used are different than what I am seeing.

I’m not one for stating that there are any limits to what one may believe. Were I to do so there’s a pretty good chance some one would believe something outside the constraints I defined and demonstrate my thoughts to be untrue!

ok.

Ah, just like those people that don’t believe in the sun because if they believed in it they would get hot or sunburned. But let’s not concentrate on the absence of belief to much, the topic is a bit verboten in this forums. Don’t want to get the thread locked.

Since you are showing some real intrest in what i’ve written, logical and scientific intrest, i’ll walk you through the slides in the easiest way possible.
The first two were not that important so we’ll restart with slides 3 and 4 and 5;
If you disagree then please reply why and if you agree then please reply with an agreement so that we can continue with the next slides until they are all done.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0003.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0004.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61247851/Egyptian%20Reggae%20Jpg/page0005.jpg

Hi Neverberndead,

I’m going to assume for the sake of discussion that this is intended to be serious, I rather strongly suspect that there is some form of joke going on here. But I’ll play along for now, even if only to see what the punchline is.

So to review.

Question 1.

Is it possible to find life in a body with no empty spaces in it? - No

Fair enough, all things are made up of mostly empty space if you measure their content by volume (with the exception of certain bodies such as neutron stars which are essentially a a solid block of neutrons).

Conclusion 1.*

All living things have spaces in them.

Accepted for the purpose of the argument but does not actually follow from question 1. (it’s always theoretically possible, though unlikely, that other beings are alive elsewhere in the universe which don’t have any spaces in their body).

Names

The empty part - the group of every empty space in a living body which has at least one empty space in it.

The full part -The group of everything in the living body which does not belong to the empty part or everything that hasn’t got an empty space in it.*

Odd terminology and I fear likely to be misleading. After all if you take the “spaces” out of an atom, you no longer have an atom. But that doesn’t mean that you can do away with the neutrons, protons, and electrons and still have an atom either. You need both.*

In the same way that if you take all the empty spaces out of a house you just have a pile of bricks. That doesn’t mean that you can build a house out of empty space.

Question 2.

Can the full part in itself be a living body? *- No

Well, true in a way. In that if you removed the spaces you wouldn’t have a living body.*

However, you have missed out question 2b. “can the empty part in itself be a living body” - No because the empty part isn’t a body at all.*

Conclusion 2

In a living body you cannot find life in the full part.*

If you hadn’t missed question 2b you would also have added to this conclusion “or the empty part”. Which would have prevented you making the next error in question 3.

Question 3.

Do we have to localise life to the empty part. - yes.

Incorrect.

Essentially what you have tried to do here is apply reductionism selectively to eliminate one set while selectively ignoring the other.

If you hadn’t forgotten question 2b then the other alternative would have become apparent and question 3 would have become*

“therefore are both “empty” and “full” parts of a living body required to make it a living body - yes”*

And you would have correctly identified that a living body must be made up of matter arranged into an appropriate configuration (which includes quite a lot of “empty space”.

Yes, but the neutron itself has an internal structure that consistly mostly of “empty space”. Of course that space is filled with gluons and virtual particles, as is the “empty space” anywhere else filled with photons and virtual particles.

I’ll take your word for it. I’m afraid my knowledge of internal structures at this level is limited. My understanding was that at this scale you’re in quantum theory so the distinction between whether or not a particular point contains “mass” is only answerable as a probability waveform. So the distinction effectively loses its meaning.

But as I say, my knowledge is very much at a layman level so more than happy to be corrected.

The terminology is not odd and you are misleading by immediately talking about ‘taking empty space out of empty space’ while the only thing you can do with empty space to get to something different at that empty location is to replace it with its opposite.
One cannot make more empty that which is completely empty.
And so your whole further attempt to try and convince me that it is possible, to take empty spaces out of something, even with a house and bricks, to have a result in a sum of the places in that something that are the non taken out non empty spaces plus the taken out empty spaces that are now not ‘non taken out non empty spaces’ and not empty spaces but a third option that you didn’t even define as the different third option, can’t be done because i know that there is no third option. Because one cannot make more empty that which is completely empty.

And so i will rewrite all the steps one more time.

Is it possible to find life in a body with no empty spaces in it? - No

Fair enough, all things are made up of mostly empty space if you measure their content by volume (with the exception of certain bodies such as neutron stars which are essentially a a solid block of neutrons).

Conclusion 1.*

All living things have spaces in them.

Accepted for the purpose of the argument but does not actually follow from question 1. (It’s always theoretically possible, though unlikely, that other beings are alive elsewhere in the universe which don’t have any spaces in their body).

If you were to go bit further with this you’d know that it is impossible to define life in a body like that with logic.
My example of a statue of yourself that somebody made proves that. It looks like yourself, is harder than yourself but you know that it is not alive. And a statue is of molecular structure that still has empty spaces in it. If you could look at a statue of yourself that hasn’t got a single empty space in it you would be looking at something as heavy and hard as a black-hole and immediately be sucked into it. But let’s assume the impossible for a minute and make it able to walk around it and look at it in a museum. Then you know by definition that there isn’t life possible in that statue because life is movement with variations in the thinking and movement with variations in the thinking can’t be done inside a body that is completely filled because that is in its most hard and solid state. If a body like that were to be alive and were to think it would only have one solid thought continuously but that is the equivalent of a flat-line on a monitor in a hospital were somebody just died.
And so the first conclusion that if you want to define life inside a body with logic (or not by means of the impossible like inside the alien somewhere in the universe) you won’t be able to do that inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space in it. It makes the first conclusion that a living body has at least one empty space in it when following the rules of logic and not those of the impossible an absolute fact.

And so thus far logic has still been treated with logic.

That conclusion was used to give two names of two areas inside the living body.

The empty part is the group of every empty space inside a living body that has at least one empty space in it.
The full part is the group of everything inside the body that does not belong to the empty part or everything else that hasn’t got a single empty space in it.

The terminology is everything but misleading.
The first name comes directly from the first conclusion and is the correct name for an area inside a living body and the second name is just the correct name for all other areas in a living body so that the two together are all the areas inside a living body.
Meaning that if one claims that you cannot use correct terminology because correct terminology is misleading, one claims wrong.

And so thus far logic has still been treated with logic and two correct logical names can be worked out further with logic.

Can the full part in itself be a living body?

This is the question that made you write down that I’m wrong believing that I can make conclusions based upon a thing by itself while it never is by itself in reality. In a previous post I have already written down how you put words in my mouth. That I seem to be someone who uses third options to prove something while there aren’t third options.

But the question is also correct an logical. It relates to the second correct name.
A question is asked about a certain area. About a possibility inside that area. And correct conclusion 1 or absolute fact 1 immediately steps in to give us the answer.
It is a correct question about the possibility of life inside an area that hasn’t got a single empty space inside and correct conclusion one says that there is no life possible in an area like that.

And so thus far logic has still been treated with logic.

The next step was the second conclusion and is also a correct conclusion. It turns the correct answer to the previous question into a fact.

In a living body with the full and the empty part it is impossible to find life in the full part.

And so thus far logic has still been treated with logic.

The next step was also a correct and logical question. It relates to the previous correct conclusion and to the first correct name.
Then do we by definition have to localise life in the empty part?
The answer to this question comes in the form of simple deduction.
There is life inside a living body that is the sum of two correct names or areas and life can never be possible in the area called the full part.
Simple deduction tells us that life then has to be localised in the only other remaining area or inside the empty part.

And thus so far logic has still been treated with logic.

But the people with an eye for detail have seen that the title of this topic is called Part 1.

Because what does logic learn us when it came to the conclusion that life takes place inside the empty space(s) of a living body.
That life is the logical equivalent of emptiness yet it is at the same time something different from nothingness or emptiness.
Logic learned us that it goes over itself to make an impossibility possible. And it is a very good one to start with in this Part 1.

Ok, I’m afraid you may have rather missed the point of what I wrote. Firstly, as far as I’m aware I never said anything about taking the empty spaces out of empty spaces. I said about taking the empty spaces out of other things. Ie taking all the “empty spaces” (rooms) out of a house. And how that would leave you with a pile as opposed to a house.*

This was intended to show why considering the “full” and “empty” parts of a living thing, or an atom, or a house, or anything else for that matter makes little sense. Because the “empty” part of x (whatever x is) is integral to it being x. *

But to be clear that isn’t why your argument fails. So please don’t worry about it too much.*

As I explained it fails because you have attempted to selectively apply reductionism. If you applied reductionism to both “empty” and “full” parts then you wouldn’t have reached your erroneous conclusion.*

Not that reductionism is terribly effective anyway. After all, apply reductionism to a plane and looking at any single component ask if that is that is the part that enables it to fly across the Atlantic. In each and every case the answer will be “no” so that means that the part that does the flying across the atlantic must be the “empty parts” in the plane right?

Wrong, the ability to fly long distances is an “emergent property” from many different components working as a single machine.

Same thing applies with living things.

Which brings me back to your theory about the qualities of parts and what they say about the qualities of the sum of the parts.
Your theory is based upon the ‘two can do more than one’ saying.
You use that theory to prove i’m wrong but you’re not aware of the exceptions to your theory.
For example, if you have two cups filled with sugar you can say that the sugar in cup 1 is sweet and that the sugar in cup 2 is also sweet. Now if you pour both cups in a bigger one according to your theory it is not a certainty that the sugar in this bigger cup is sweet while it actually is. Or how sometimes there’s now difference between looking at the quality of a sum and looking at the qualities of the parts.

In simple terms: You already agreed that life is not possible in a body that hasn’t got a single empty space in it.
You say that it’s useless that i talk about two correct parts inside a living body because it’s all about the sum of those two parts.
But it remains a fact that life is impossible inside the full part because you agreed that life is not possible inside a body that hasn’t got a single empty space inside.
You are willing to agree with that fact but you say that it doesn’t matter because it’s all about what the sum of the two parts say and not what the parts say about themselves on their own.

But when you are willing to admit that life can’t be inside the full part you are only willing to do so because it’s the adding of the empty part to it that makes a new part called the sum that has the logical, and unrelated to subparts, quality that life can be going on inside of it.
Or how you are willing to admit that adding an empty part makes the new bigger part able to have life inside it. Or how an empty part or emptiness is the bringer of life to the mix while emptiness can only bring to a mix that what the word means.
But if you are more comfortable with the endconclusion that emptiness itself is the bringer of life i can find that okay because that mixes so well with the conclusion that life has to be found inside the empty part to conclude that logic goes over itself and makes an impossibility possible and that it is a good one to start with in this Part 1 topic.

Like with the sugar exception a dead part plus a dead part results as sum in a bigger but also dead part. That means that whenever you find a dead part inside a living body you have only the option left to go look and find the life in one of the other parts. Because when the sum of dead parts results in a bigger but also dead part there needs to be ‘a living part’ in a sum of parts with dead parts in that sum to result in a sum that was about a body with life inside of it.
And that still makes everything i wrote correct and logical and you are always able to read it all again here.

Just spotted a typo in the previous post.
Or how sometimes there’s now difference between looking at the quality of a sum and looking at the qualities of the parts.
That’s got to be:
Or how sometimes there’s no difference between looking at the quality of a sum and looking at the qualities of the parts.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.