Disproving Proofs for Existence of God

First of all, my intention is NOT to disprove god, but to falsify the alleged proofs for god's existence. God's non-existence follows due to the burden of proof on the shoulders of believers who have no hard proof whatsoever in the first place. The reasoning mentioned here are some logical arguments.

Legend:
F.A.: for all
EL.: element of
T.E.: there exists
s.t.: such that
!=:not equal to

Nothing can come from nothing, so the universe must come from something.
So, for any entity A, there must exist an entity B such that CreatedBy(B,A) is true. The above statement, then, reduces to:
F.A. A EL. {Entity} T.E. B EL. {Entity} s.t. CreatedBy(B,A) and B!=A; {Entity} is the set of entitites.

The problem is, this statement is inherently false. CreatedBy inherently assumes a hierarchy of Entity elements, in the form of a tree (like a family tree). By definition, every hierarchy (or tree) must have a root element that is the ancestor of all the other elements. Otherwise, the family of Entity elements may have circular connections, losing its primary property as a tree; i.e. grandparents that are also the children of their grandchildren. Thus, the creator may not be a member of the set Entity.

The objection to such an analysis may be raised on the grounds that there is a set A of ancestor entities for which the aforementioned logical statement does not hold. So it is presupposed that there already are creators (or one creator) when the statement is formed. In other words, the argument presupposes that it is true as a proof for its truth. So it is no argument at all. It is a tautology. It is x=x, and does not help finding the value of x at all.

An updated version of the argument would be:
for any entity A, there must exist an AncestorEntity B such that CreatedBy(B,A) is true.

or

F.A. A EL. {Entity} T.E. B EL. {AncestorEntity} s.t. CreatedBy(B,A)

Note that B!=A vanished; since AncestorEntity and Entity are disjoint sets by definition. So the presumption of its own truth value is more apparent. It presupposes that there are members of the universal set that are not members of Entity. The proof of the existence of these entities are missing, and there is a leap of faith towards the question "did god create everything" from the basic question "does god exist". God's (or gods') involvement with the events and entities around us is only a secondary question to the questioning of god's (or gods') existence. The answer of the former question is directly dependent on the latter.

Yet, the "plausibility" of god creating everything is used as an argument for the existence of god. It is only plausible if existence of god is plausible. Therefore, it gives no clues to whether god exists or not. It is doubly so for specific gods. A relevant example to this logic would be trying to justify Bible or Koran within itself, i.e. using the verses in the book. Such self-proving statements are not logically testable.

At this point, it is also important to note that some people do notice this, and yet continue believing and concurring that it is irrelevant to logical thinking. This is why it is called belief. This statement is only here because some people try to masquarade scientific approaches and present this as "proof" of religion. Such a thing does not exist. Either accept that you are compromising logic or stop compromising logic. There is no third option just to make you feel better without actually trying.

Love The Blog

Well, this blog thing is useful as it dawned on me. I can actually see what was written before! How miraculous!

Back in Turkey. Began my final year with eight courses. Heavy load, lot to think, little time. Considering an MA (hopefully somewhere in Western Europe), should find scholarships. Got to keep the GPA high for this; especially since my brilliant transcript from the UK isn't included in the CGPA for some reason. Eight courses is not quite the best way to do this, though.

Social life, well, not too bad actually. Lots of exchange students, some friendships, lost chances and bendy intentions (though they tend to bend the wrong way); not everything changed I guess. I wonder if this will go anywhere.

More coming...

Self Quote

Making humanitarian decisions based on nation- or capital-based politics is like practicing medicine according to the taste in cuisine. Not as bad as bad similes though.

Knot

I am feeling like a knot that is trying to undo itself. What kind of proper reasoning suggests you do nothing when you see a girl you like giving you signals, especially when you haven't had sex for months? My kind of reasoning I guess.

Although I am not the god of social life, I guess I had my share of fanciers. Even recently. Let me eliminate the ones that I don't like, not as rudeness, but as a fact. With the rest, no matter how wide and obvious the window they give me is, I always act like a twelve year old. Don't meet new people, if you do don't talk, if you do, run away immediately. I do this.

I'm not sure if it is the fear of rejection or fear of change or fear of losing me (who is, among many other good qualities, a wanker in the end). It's like I'm punishing myself by not enjoying this side of life. I hate imagining myself as an impotent and needy person, but I am now. My judgement is clouded, my body is in a weird state and I'm not as rational as I am used to being.

My neck hurts. More soon...

Double Comeback

So, I went to London.

It was profoundly entertaining. For the first time since I arrived, I found a bar I like (Walkabout by the Waterloo Bridge, close to Embankment tube station). Good music, excellent food, cheap drinks, and if only for this occasion, great people. It was some sort of a get together for a Turkish internet community. I was pretty hooked up on them when I was in Turkey; for certain periods of time they were almost my entire social life, not to mean they were small in extent or unsatisfactory. So anyway, I was surprised that the feeling was identical to those "golden times". We were all smiling our mouths off, dancing and drinking and chatting. People were laid back, relaxed and friendly. As a proof, the night ended at New Cross in one of those friends' dorm room, around 7 am. I'd just met the guy.

All in all, promises were made for another one of these meetings soon, in a week or two. We will see if this one sticks. I mean at least it feels right.

Self-Sabotage

One should be aware of her own tricks on herself. Sometimes our fear of disappointment leads us to a semi-conscious self-destruction, we ruin everything so that it will not look like our faults. I found out that I do it all the time; I do something in a lacking way or don't do it at all because I am afraid of failing. Sometimes I even devise nice coherent trains of thought to convince myself of the bullet-proof blame placing I have put together. It can be difficult to tell between a revelation and self-deception, and one should be watching for both.

Queer

Lesbian and gay studies, and the consequent "Queer Theory" is something that requires and deserves attention. Judith Butler is doubly remarkable. The whole thing should be studied with a not uncriticised awareness of Foucauldian perspectives of power and discourse. Delightful.

Comeback

Well, apparently it has been almost a year. Keeping a diary is something that we pick up quite young I suppose; I've never been a diary type of person. I fail to remember, and eventually fail to see the relevance of, individual events or local conclusions based on individual events. That's me.

Just to keep you up to speed, I'm in England now. I'm an exchange student in University of Essex, close to a miserable little town called Colchester. Colchester is a signifier, and in my case the definition, of the concept of miserable little town. Let me explain myself.

The town is not really ugly. Apparently it has a great deal of history (history as in old things' importance), and looks no different than any English town. People are busy, they pretend that they are living in a mini-London. The general suspense that lack of importance creates is remarkable.

University has been a good change in my life. It has not made me the super-social guy who has been offered scholarships but it has made me relatively more social. The fact that everybody is interesting to the extent that they are from different cultures than mine attracts my attention easily. These affections are plenty yet short-lived. Most of the time my relationship with a person is judged and packed and tucked away long before we go beyond small talk. It's not that I'm too judgmental, it's just that there are only so many remarkably original people even in my little global model of a university, once you are done being amused by the cultural diversity.

The amount and diversity of information accessible for me has increased many fold. I have lightning speed connection, I am in contact with many people from many places around the world that have (most of the time) acceptably many opinions. I am in my sponge mode again, but while that happens I (once again) seem to forget that I am not a by-stander or spectator to my life. I seem to enjoy doing that more and more.

More on that later. Actually, more on everything later. Gotta go and check my other blog.

Cheers.

On Love

I suddenly remembered that I have lived all these feelings about another girl long time ago, at the beginning of my puberty. I claimed that I fell in love.

Love. Right.

Well, apparently it takes 19 years to realize that love is not about other people, it is about us. Therefore, it is not love at all, in its commonly used romantic sense. It is far more narcissistic than we suspect.

This girl that I am having troubles with, I have the very same feelings towards her as what I felt back then. Now, I do not call it love. I call it being fond of, liking. Even after all these stuff, her image in my head did not change much. I did, however, come to realize that when I see her next time, the ideal in my head and the real girl will probably prove to be a mismatch.

I concluded that this thing we call love is not more about the other person than jerking off is. It is not about the person, it is about what that person represents in our minds. When things turn out to be fitting in our criteria, we are amused. Otherwise we are disappointed, we conclude that things did not work out.

And then there is sex. I know sex. You know sex. No explanation necessary at this point.

It is like an exam we give to the other person. The questions and answers are already determined, it is about how close the other person gets to our answers, and how tolerant we are to mistakes.

Me, I am not really all that tolerant.