[ihr_list] Re: My facebook discussion
- From: Omer Abid <omerabid70@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: ihr_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 18:08:44 +0300
Thanks Zeshan. Thanks much for the very important clarification and the
distinction between ground of existence and existence itself.
Omer
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Zeshan Shahbaz <zshahbaz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eid Mubarak Omer! Hope you get better soon! For sure, and also we'll
> skype/conference call you in at our next meeting.
>
> //I like your prrof of God...It kind seems in a way a proof of Mulla Sadra
> regarding God being existence itself.//
>
> I just like to clarify that I never stated or concluded that God is
> existence but rather argued that God is the very cause/ground of (all)
> existence. You may refer to my short tract:
> http://optagon.page.tl/Concise-Proofs-of-God-and-Consciousness.htm
>
> Btw just to remind everyone on this email list -- to share with the IHR
> list email to ihr_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx , but if one wants to correspond
> directly with someone from this list then email the individual only, thanks!
>
> Peace,
>
>
> Zeshan Shahbaz
> IHR
> higherreasoning@xxxxxxxx
> http://instituteofhigherreasoning.page.tl/
> https://www.facebook.com/instituteofhigherreasoning
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Omer Abid
>
> Sent: 08/08/13 01:29 PM
>
> To: ihr_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Subject: [ihr_list] Re: My facebook discussion
>
> Salams Zeshan,
>
> Eid mubarak ....thanks much for sharing the exhange between you and Gener
> Kopf...
>
> It was a little deep for me but partly because I am recovering from a bad
> allergy (hay fever).
>
> I hope we can skype and you kindly break it down for me step by step....I
> like your prrof of God...It kind seems in a way a proof of Mulla Sadra
> regarding God being existence itself.
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Zeshan Shahbaz <zshahbaz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I thought I'd share a copy of an interesting discussion I had on an
>> atheist facebook page (
>> https://www.facebook.com/AtheistRepublic/posts/648970805129850?comment_id=7242314&offset=0&total_comments=26)
>> most specifically with Gene Kopf.
>> Below is the uncluttered copy of the discussion (
>> http://instituteofhigherreasoning.page.tl/Facebook-discussion-on-God.htm)
>> between me and Gene Kopf. This was triggered by, and concerning, my
>> tract::
>> http://optagon.page.tl/Concise-Proofs-of-God-and-Consciousness.htm Feel
>> free to comment!
>>
>> Copy of discussion:
>>
>> *Zeshan Shahbaz* posted to Atheist Republic
>> April 15 at 7:19pm
>>
>> http://optagon.page.tl/Concise-Proofs-of-God-and-Consciousness.htm
>>
>> *Zeshan Shahbaz* //By your logic, the 'prime mover' should also need a
>> mover right? Your argument falls flat right there.//
>>
>> It doesn’t seem you read my tract. There is no ‘special pleading’ as it
>> has been logically showed that the objectless plane of existence is
>> immovable, limitless, eternal, etc – so by its very nature it cannot be
>> moved to ‘be’ – while all things are moved to ‘be’ proceeding from the very
>> objectless plane of existence. This conclusion isn’t complicated.
>> April 15 at 7:31pm
>>
>> *Gene Kopf* Consciousness is information processing. Information
>> processing is entropic. Thus, consciousness cannot be eternal.
>>
>> The prime mover argument fails for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1) Time and space began with the Big Bang. Causation requires time, so
>> discussig causation before time and space is nonsensical.
>>
>> 2) Not everything has a cause. Quantum mechanics and nondeterministic
>> methods show this and even use this fact.
>>
>> 3) Sayingthat the cause has no cause shows something without a cause,
>> which invalidates the argument. This is the hazard of the fallacy of
>> special pleading.
>> April 15 at 9:03pm via mobile
>>
>> *Gene Kopf* Oh, immovable violates relativity, and limitless is
>> infinite, yet nothing has ever been shown to be infinite.
>>
>> What you're trying is an ontological argument, but ontological arguments
>> always fail because they use rationalization, which is a form of logic and
>> thus a form of mathematics. All mathematical models depend on the initial
>> axioms. In order for your axioms to be valid, you must testably and
>> predictively demonstrate that the axioms for your model (your assumptions)
>> are correct, which you have not done.
>>
>> Let me show you a counterexample ontological argument.
>>
>> 1) God is the source of everything.
>> 2) Nothing is the source of god.
>> 3) Therefore, God is the universal set.
>> 4) The universal set has been shown to be impossible.
>> 5) Therefore, God doesn't exist
>>
>> The flaw in both your arguments and the above arguuments is that the
>> assumptions (axioms) haven't been shown to be valid.
>> April 15 at 9:08pm via mobile
>>
>> *Zeshan Shahbaz* Gene Kopf,
>>
>> Thanks for responding.
>>
>> //1) God is the source of everything.
>>
>> 2) Nothing is the source of god.
>> 3) Therefore, God is the universal set.
>> 4) The universal set has been shown to be impossible.
>> 5) Therefore, God doesn't exist
>>
>> The flaw in both your arguments and the above arguuments is that the
>> assumptions (axioms) haven't been shown to be valid.//
>>
>> With the above example you are correct, the above axioms haven’t been
>> shown to be true – however with mine the premises are true. It is by way of
>> induction that we know something is moving anything (that is moving)
>> continuously. And it is by way of deduction we know that the prime mover is
>> the objectless plane. And again it is not special pleading as it has been
>> logically showed that the objectless plane of existence is immovable,
>> limitless, eternal, etc – so by its very nature it cannot be moved to ‘be’
>> – while all things are moved to ‘be’ proceeding from the very objectless
>> plane of existence. For a little more details you may also refer to my
>> video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U0D-gl8c0o
>>
>> Btw I am definitely not appealing to authority regarding the
>> arguments that I’ve outlined but I just like to mention that interestingly
>> enough Newton came to this same conclusion: "Space is an affection of a
>> being just as a being. No being exists or can exist which is not related to
>> space in some way. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere, and body
>> is in the space that it occupies; and whatever is neither everywhere nor
>> anywhere does not exist. And hence it follows that space is an emanative
>> effect of the first existing being, for if any being whatsoever is posited,
>> space is posited."
>> "Space is the Sensorium of God." [i.e. Space is the Mind of God] -Sir
>> Isaac Newton (Opticks)
>> April 16 at 4:31pm
>>
>> *Gene Kopf* <<It is by way of induction . . .>>
>> You cannot make a certain determination by inductive logic, sir. What is
>> your methodology to determine that your conclusions are valid. This is what
>> separates the scientific method from pure reasoning. In short, you must
>> have some empiricism.
>>
>> <<As it has been logically showed that the objectless plane of existence
>> is immovable, limitless, eternal, et cetera>>
>> You haven't demonstrated that your axioms are valid. Again, you haven't
>> addressed my criticisms, in addition to a few new ones.
>> 1) Nothing has ever been shown to be infinite (that is, limitless) in
>> reality. As a matter of fact, since infinity shows lack of bijectivity,
>> whenever one encounters infinities in a mathematical model of reality, it
>> means that the model has reached its limits.
>> 2) Eternal violates entropy - your being cannot think.
>> 3) Movement requires time, which began at the universe and again is
>> entropic.
>> 4) You have not demonstrated that the "objectless plane of existence"
>> exists in order to make to valid hypothesis.
>> 5) You're attempting to apply causation, yet causation both requires
>> spacetime, and not everything requires causation. For instance, we know
>> that at a quantum level, causation is not required.
>> 6) You have not shown that a causative system is sentient. Indeed, all
>> evdience we have is that consciousness requires a information processing
>> system, which requires time and entropy, as well as requiring a functional
>> matrix. In other words, destroy the brain, and consciousness ends. This
>> fits perfectly with all known neurological research.
>> 7) 6 leads to the problem of your plane being objectless - there is
>> nothing to arrange for informational states.
>> You have demonstrated the classic failure of assuming that something
>> outside of spacetime is infinite. Sphere is outside of a plane, but that
>> doesn't mean that the sphere is infinite. However, some of the qualities of
>> the 3D sphere are *undefined* in the 2D space. Please don't make the
>> egregious error of conflating infinite with undefined.
>>
>> In order to have a valid system, you must first show that the axioms you
>> are using for your logical deducation are applicable to the beginning of
>> everything.
>>
>> Quoting Newton is an appeal to false authority, as he was not qualified
>> to determine deities. He also wasn't aware of the interplay between matter,
>> energy, space, time, quantum mechanics and relativity. His system was
>> devised exclusively as a model which handled objects of low energy and
>> macroscopic size, as your rationalizations also follow. Indeed, your
>> argumetn for an immovable object shows that you ginore the principle of
>> relativity (even Galilean relativity!), because if you pick an immovable
>> object, all that I have to do is move relative to it to make it move.
>>
>> If you argue that relativity is invalid, you have a very large uphill
>> battle which I guarantee will fail.
>>
>> The difference between valid scientific theories and your hypothesis is
>> that theories have means to verify the conclusions, while you do not. You
>> have nothing more than armchair conjectures with ad hoc assumptions which
>> cannot be tested.
>> April 16 at 7:12pm via mobile
>>
>> *Zeshan Shahbaz* //In short, you must have some empiricism.//
>>
>> I guess this where our disagreement begins. Reason is basis of knowledge,
>> not the other way around. And what is science? Science is based on
>> observation and then rational inference from which facts are derived.
>>
>> //Nothing has ever been shown to be infinite (that is, limitless) in
>> reality.//
>>
>> By way of logic we know that for anything to exist there has to be a
>> ground/plane/realm for it. Actually for anything or everything to exist
>> (even Einstein’s space-time continuum) there has to be plane for it. Now
>> thinking of it abstractly, it is limitless – only a limitless realm is able
>> to contain any conceivable thing(s). It is logically shown, and of course
>> it cannot be physically shown. If it could be, then it is limited (limited
>> by the plane it is contained by) and hence not the First on or in which
>> everything is contingent.
>>
>> //Eternal violates entropy - your being cannot think.// //Movement
>> requires time, which began at the universe and again is entropic.//
>>
>> No, we’re, and every ‘thing’ else is its ‘thought’. Again, it’s not
>> complicated, and it’s not meant to be. You have the object-less reality,
>> and every thing else is its productive thought. The Object-less Reality
>> thinks hence time – time is a measurement that is dependent on this
>> realm/plane, as for anything to be measured there has to be a plane for it.
>>
>> //4) You have not demonstrated that the "objectless plane of existence"
>> exists in order to make to valid hypothesis.//
>>
>> I have demonstrated that. Why can’t you logically deduce that?
>>
>> //You're attempting to apply causation, yet causation both requires
>> spacetime, and not everything requires causation. For instance, we know
>> that at a quantum level, causation is not required.//
>>
>> This is simply a failure of not applying logical inference. Energy
>> flitting in and out of existence – what is preceding the energy flitting in
>> and out of existence?
>>
>> //destroy the brain, and consciousness ends. This fits perfectly with all
>> known neurological research.//
>>
>> I completely agree with you here. Did you read my short part on this in
>> my tract? I illustrated that there is a law operating (I also constructed a
>> diagram to help show how this works at the macro level).
>>
>> As you know, Reason is based on our understanding of cause and effect
>> relationships. Concerning existence, if you take this Reasoning (where I
>> hold is the basis of knowledge) to its logical conclusion you end up with
>> the very plane/ground of all that exists i.e. ultimate ground of every
>> single thing including all points of reference such as all real and
>> imagined dimensions. And again, even if one is of the view that we’re bound
>> by Einstein’s space-time continuum this continuum, logically, depends on an
>> object-less/matter-less plane to exist on or in (“Time and space and
>> gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” [Albert Einstein]).
>> April 16 at 8:52pm
>>
>> *Gene Kopf* <<I guess this is where our disagreement begins. Reason is
>> the basis of knowledge, not the other way around.>>
>>
>> Which knowledge? Synthetic knowledge? No - you have to demonstrate that
>> your initial axioms match with reality.
>>
>> The shining success of recent centuries is empiricsm - the testing of
>> conjecture against reality, then modifying our thoughts based upon the
>> feedback from reality. The success speaks for itself.
>>
>> Synthetic truth (and that is what you are claiming, unless you are going
>> down the road of Platonism) isnt about what anything thinks - it is about
>> reality.
>>
>> <<...there has to be a ground plane/realm for it Actually, for anything
>> to exist (even Einstine's space-time continuum), there has to be a plane
>> for it.>>
>> That sounds like extrinsic geometry. Differential geometry doesn't
>> require this. But still, let's continue to your next statement . . .
>>
>> <<only a limitless realm is able to contain any conievable things>>
>> Bullshit. That's a non-sequitor.
>>
>> <<it is logically shown, and cannot be physically shown>>
>> So you're saying that you have taken an arbitrary assumption and hold it
>> as truth. That's just a fanycy word for "faith" and admission of failure of
>> onus probandi. You've now entered the realm of conjecturing angels on
>> pinheads, which is where your medieval rationalization arose.
>>
>> <<No we're, and everything else, is it's thought.>>
>> An unsubstantiated assertion never demonstrated in reality and requiring
>> the suspension of demonstrated laws of information theory. Here you go
>> touting your opinion as fact.
>>
>> If eternity existed, a state of maximum entropy would be eventually
>> reached, which would mean that all mechanisms which could measure the
>> passage of time would fail due to total homegeniety.
>>
>> Do you realize why any thought is entropic? Do you realize why entropy
>> puts limits on time? Do you realize that there has never been a
>> demonstrated separation between entropy and time, partially because of the
>> clock mechanism paradox?
>>
>> Your language itself implies a circular logic going on - you discuss the
>> action of time to support time.
>>
>> <<I have demonstrated that. Why can't you logically deduce that?>>
>> You certainly have not. Indeed, you just admitted that you have no
>> testable, falsifiable or reproducible means to test your assumptions.
>>
>> <<It is simply a failure of not applying logical inference ... what is
>> preceding the enregy flitting in and out of existence>>
>> It's a silly statement as nonsensical as the length of the fourth side of
>> a triangle. Time are tied together and require each other. Without one, the
>> other cannot exist. So your question is meaningless.
>>
>> The correct procedure in following logical inference is to verify that
>> your inference matches up to reality. Oh, wait, you can't do that, by your
>> own admission.
>>
>> <<I completely agree with you...>>
>> Except that you don't, because you argue that there is an eternal
>> consciousness, for which you cannot demonstrate, which is exempt from this.
>> That's special pleading.
>> <<As you know, reason is based upon our understanding of cause and effect
>> relationships >> and we know that not everything has cause and effect
>> relationships--only probabilistic relationships. This really isn't a
>> problem, as non-deterministic algorithms are quite viable even on a
>> mathematical level.
>> <<if you take reasoning (which I hold to be the basis of knowledge)>>
>> Thus, your first premise is flawed, thank you. Even by making that
>> statement, you are endorsing a particular axiom as well as the axioms of
>> whichever set of logic you use (there is more than on type of logic). Your
>> justification? Oh yes, your belief. Sorry son, but that's not going to hold
>> much sway with me.
>> <<all real and imagined dimensions>>
>> Ah, the absurd assumption that every conjecture is true. In other words,
>> you wish to eschew onus probandi. With that in mind, let's stop abusing the
>> word "reason," shall we?
>>
>> Your little quote from Einstein only discusses the interplay of the
>> stress-energy tensor and the curvature of spacetime. Whether it plays upon
>> a deeper metric, you haven't demonstrated that the deeper metric is
>> infinite or that every possible combination must "exist."
>>
>> Thank you for playing. You've admitted that you cannot demonstrate that
>> your conjectures are true, that you wish us to take your assumptions as
>> default "truths" (that's both hubstristic and spookily solipsistic) and to
>> accept the demonstrated laws of reality, except when you don't like it
>> (which is the very essence of special pleading).
>> April 16 at 10:50pm via mobile
>>
>> *Gene Kopf* Oh, and if you believe in every possible combination, then
>> you believe in both the axioms which permit "God" and forbid "God." Oops
>> April 16 at 10:56pm via mobile
>>
>> *Zeshan Shahbaz* //Which knowledge? Synthetic knowledge?//
>>
>> Splitting of theory of knowledge is erroneous. For sure in the past there
>> were people incorrectly concluding on functions of natural physical
>> phenomena without actual experimentation – that’s a separate issue.
>>
>> //<<only a limitless realm is able to contain any conievable things>>
>> Bullshit. That's a non-sequitor.//
>>
>> It is not. I’ll elaborate – say the universe is contained by a space that
>> is not limitless, if it isn’t limitless then it must be limited by another.
>> If that other space is also not limitless then it is limited by another ad
>> infinitum. If this is the case then the universe would not have emerged in
>> the first place (from “nothing” as some physicists say [more on this below
>> in my further comments]). Logically, there has to be a stop point thus this
>> universe (or Einstein’s space-time continuum) existing on a limitless plane
>> (or at least stopping at a ‘limitless plane’ in the chain) is the
>> logical/practical conclusion.
>>
>> //<<No we're, and everything else, is it's thought.>>
>> An unsubstantiated assertion never demonstrated in reality and requiring
>> the suspension of demonstrated laws of information theory. Here you go
>> touting your opinion as fact.
>>
>> If eternity existed, a state of maximum entropy would be eventually
>> reached, which would mean that all mechanisms which could measure the
>> passage of time would fail due to total homegeniety.
>>
>> Do you realize why any thought is entropic? …//
>>
>> These are laws concerning the physical universe – the thought/production
>> is simply made to follow these certain laws. Read on.
>>
>> //<<It is simply a failure of not applying logical inference ... what is
>> preceding the enregy flitting in and out of existence>>
>> It's a silly statement as nonsensical as the length of the fourth side of
>> a triangle. Time are tied together and require each other. Without one, the
>> other cannot exist. So your question is meaningless.//
>>
>> It is not, even physicists acknowledge that empty space/void precedes it.
>> Conveniently, some physicists literally label this as “nothing” (from which
>> the universe has emerged) – while “nothing” is simply an absence of things
>> on or in empty space/void – practically speaking there is no such thing as
>> absolute zero or absolute nothingness. Thus the void/empty space is not
>> “nothing” but rather is “no thing” from which all (measurable) things
>> originate from.
>> April 17 at 7:55pm
>>
>> *Gene Kopf* <<splitting of theory of knowledge is is erroneous>>
>> Not at all. Analytic truths allow for conjectures which do not exist in
>> reality, or even self-contradictory results, all depending on initial
>> assumptions.
>>
>> You're touting your opinion as fact without justification again.
>> <<For sure in the past there were people incorreclty concluding of
>> naturaly physical phenomena without experimentation, but that's a separate
>> issue.>>
>> Pot--meet kettle. That's exactly what you've been trying.
>> <<let's say that the universe is contained by a space that is not
>> ocntinuous.>>
>> First error--you are applying extrincsic geometry. That's your first
>> error--differential geometry does not require an external space.
>> Next problem - even if you used the implciit forms of functions, all
>> arbitrary, abstract dimensions added are set to zero.
>>
>> You're making a very common mistake by freshmen students of manifolds and
>> differnetial geometry. Fortunately, we left that thinking behind a few
>> centuries ago.
>>
>> Again, infinity has never been shown to exist in the universe whatsoever.
>> It is striclty a theoretical construct. If you disagree, I await your
>> *valid evidenece for your positive assertion.*
>>
>> <<[entropy and thought] these are laws concerning the physical universe>>
>> And you have valid evidence of anything outside of the physical universe
>> and that your axioms are correct (including the axioms used for the system
>> of logic which you are using?). By definition, you don't.
>>
>> <<Even physicists acknowledge that empty space/void precedes it>>
>> Here you go conflating philosophical nothingness with physical
>> nothingness.
>>
>> Your whole line of discussion skips time/only mentions time, yet again
>> going down your Newtonian thought again.
>>
>> You're going down the road of special pleading by saying certain rules
>> apply while other rules don't, all based upon your demands. Essentially, if
>> anythign is too inconvenient, you simply argue that the rules don't apply,
>> but if you want, you can use other rules to demand that your view holds.
>> Well, guess what? The rules of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, upon
>> which the quantum rules of arisal from nothignness exist, are demonstrated
>> from PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS. Yet, you argue that physical observations don't
>> apply when I use them to apply to information theory, whose question you
>> never, ever answered.
>>
>> Really, the rules for information entropy simply arise from the
>> mathematical rules of multiplication by zero and division by zero. But you
>> didn't try to answer that--you simply did an armchair handwaiving which
>> said in way too many words, "this doesn't apply to me."
>>
>> Call me when you can apply the rules of onus probandi without special
>> pleading and touting your opinion as fact. Your Nobel Prize will await.
>> April 17 at 8:21pm via mobile
>>
>> *Zeshan Shahbaz* //<<splitting of theory of knowledge is is erroneous>>
>> Not at all. Analytic truths allow for conjectures which do not exist in
>> reality, or even self-contradictory results, all depending on initial
>> assumptions.//
>>
>> But that isn’t knowledge. Knowledge is factual information. What you’ve
>> described above does not fit this definition of knowledge.
>>
>> //<<For sure in the past there were people incorreclty concluding of
>> naturaly physical phenomena without experimentation, but that's a separate
>> issue.>>
>> Pot--meet kettle. That's exactly what you've been trying.//
>>
>> No. Still, these people weren’t negating the fact that things function to
>> ‘be’ what they are, this is the rational functioning of the universe (which
>> you also admit I assume) – the mistake that some of them made was
>> concluding on the details of the functioning without actually experimenting.
>>
>> //<<let's say that the universe is contained by a space that is not
>> ocntinuous.>>
>> First error--you are applying extrincsic geometry. That's your first
>> error--differential geometry does not require an external space.
>> Next problem - even if you used the implciit forms of functions, all
>> arbitrary, abstract dimensions added are set to zero.
>>
>> You're making a very common mistake by freshmen students of manifolds and
>> differnetial geometry. Fortunately, we left that thinking behind a few
>> centuries ago.
>>
>> Again, infinity has never been shown to exist in the universe whatsoever.
>> It is striclty a theoretical construct. If you disagree, I await your
>> *valid evidenece for your positive assertion.*//
>>
>> Of course infinity or eternity doesn’t exist in the physical universe
>> because it is made up of beginnings and ends (i.e. moving/changing at the
>> molecular level). By the way mathematics does not describe reality – in
>> terms of the universe it is a tool to calculate.
>>
>> //<<[entropy and thought] these are laws concerning the physical
>> universe>>
>> And you have valid evidence of anything outside of the physical universe
>> and that your axioms are correct (including the axioms used for the system
>> of logic which you are using?). By definition, you don't.
>>
>> <<Even physicists acknowledge that empty space/void precedes it>>
>> Here you go conflating philosophical nothingness with physical
>> nothingness.//
>>
>> Okay, kindly explain to me what physical nothingness is?
>>
>> Btw, I’ll reiterate it is not ‘special pleading’ because logically
>> nothing can precede objectless space and thus is immovable. Regarding
>> rules, of course everything abides by a rule, even the objectless Reality
>> from or on which the ‘physical’ existence emerges, and that is logic. I
>> don’t subscribe to that this agent can do anything illogical (i.e.
>> producing something that ‘can be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time).
>>
>> Again, to put this in a nutshell, Reason (understanding that something
>> moves or is always moving the moving thing) comes from observing the moving
>> universe – this line of reasoning points to the ‘space’ of existence, or
>> the very plane which contains every object.
>> April 18 at 7:28pm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Higher Reasoning
>>
>> Sent: 08/05/13 10:25 PM
>>
>> To: ihr_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Subject: [ihr_list] Next IHR Meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> Assalaam Alaikum!
>>
>>
>> You have been added to our email list as you expressed interest in the
>> projects of the IHR. E-mail to ihr_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx to post to the IHR
>> email list.
>>
>>
>> Below are the links (1-3) to the papers that we encourage you to review
>> for our discussion at our next meeting. Time and place of the next meeting
>> is to be announced.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>> Zeshan Shahbaz
>> IHR
>> higherreasoning@xxxxxxxx
>> http://instituteofhigherreasoning.page.tl/
>> https://www.facebook.com/instituteofhigherreasoning
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Reading material:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Go to http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/86 to view the
>> following IHR paper:
>>
>>
>> New Proofs for the Existence of God: Part I: The Sesamatic Proof
>> Mohammed Muslim
>>
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>>
>> The eternal Imaginer must exist. Without eternity and imagination,
>> nothing can come into being.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/120915254/God-For-Everyone
>>
>>
>> IHR’s M. Muslim’s book “God For Everyone”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/142
>>
>>
>> Concise Proofs of God & Consciousness
>>
>>
>> Zeshan Shahbaz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> For further reading:
>>
>>
>> http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/97
>>
>>
>> New Proofs for the Existence of God (Part II): The Cosmological
>> Applications of the Sesamatic Proof
>>
>>
>> Nadeem Haque, M. Muslim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/98
>>
>>
>> New Proofs for the Existence of God (Part III): The Teleogenical Proof
>>
>>
>> Nadeem Haque, Mehran Banaei
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
