How valid is this Proof as it is offered by Epsilon=One?

Question

Here at this site physicsmathforums(dot)com (link below) is a writting by Epsilon=One that claims to be a "Proof of God"

http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=319&postcount=1

My Questions are,
#1) How much of the information on this page is actually relevant to proving what is asserted-claimed as proven?

#2) Do you think that the Avatar/psudeo-author proved what they claim to have proven?

This is costing me Five points so please it is a long (Boring) read so venture at your own risk, and answer only if you bother to read all of it.

Thanks

NaturalBornKieler · Accepted Answer

Indeed, a boring read.

Anyway, when I remove the mumbo-jumbo all it seems to say is that there must be a creator because there is creation. This is circular reasoning. There is no creation, therefore there is no need for a creator. Case closed.

Julian · Answer

sounds like suchness. 

Basically calling god something else (reality, oneness), etc, and trying to prove that exists, then saying a correlation that oneness=god, so if I can prove oneness exists, I can prove god exists. It makes sense, the real question is, "who the hell can understand it?"

Anonym · Answer

I did read (skim) all of it, and it's pseudophilosophical tripe. It's more semantics than anything.

How valid is this Proof as it is offered by Epsilon=One?

3 Antworten