NF9. The formal proof that God created the first man and the first woman...
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

NF9. The formal proof that God created the first man and the first woman, completed with methods of mathematical logic

Formal scientific proofs are logical structures which were developed according to a system of very strict logical rules. They prove the truth of specific theorems. These proofs turn our believes into certainty. In the sense of their character they are equivalents of physical equations, only that instead of being formulated and transformed in the form of mathematical symbols, proofs are formulated from worded assertions. The development of formal proofs is extremely difficult and risky. This is because apart from the need to fulfil rigorous logical principles and also fulfil proving requirements, proofs additionally carry in themselves the authority of the proving person. So if they contain an error, and thus someone invalidates them in a rational (expert) manner, then this someone invalidates also the authority of the proving person. Therefore today such proofs are being developed only in some areas of human knowledge, such as mathematics or physics - where for a long time exists a large pool of basic proofs on which further proofs can be based. But there are areas of human knowledge, e.g. biology, astronomy, or religion, which so-far had none formal proofs. So these areas do NOT have initial pools of basic certainties, on which further proofs could be based. Therefore, these areas of human knowledge in fact are composites of assumptions and speculations, not reliable areas of science. Nothing is known for sure in them. Also in them officially are disseminated various outrageous, strange, erroneous, and separated from real life speculations of the type of the supposed "theory" of random ("natural") evolution, or the "theory" of pulsating universe and escaping galaxies, or wild claims of adherers of atheism, etc., etc. After all, everything that is claimed in these areas, according to local tradition does NOT require to be proved. The formulation of proofs is especially difficult for these areas. After all, people who are attracted to these areas, love chaos and wild speculations, thus do NOT wish anyone tries to introduce order and accountability to whatever they are claiming. The proof that I am going to present here belongs just to these areas.

In 2007, during my professorship at a university in South Korea, I had a special honor, and simultaneously a special responsibility, to develop, to publish, and to disseminate four formal proofs, each one of which is extremely important both, individually to each one of us, and collectively to the entire our civilization. One of these is the formal proof presented below for the creation by God the first couple of people, i.e. the first woman and the first man. This proof is a team member in four similar formal proofs. These four formal proofs include: (1) the proof for the existence of the "counter-world" (i.e. another world inhabited by God and by our souls) - which (the proof) is presented in subsection H1.1.4 from previous volume 4, (2) the formal proof for the existence of God - presented in subsection I3.3.4 from this volume, (3) the formal proof from this subsection, which proves the creation by God of the first woman and the first man - presented below, and (4) the formal proof that people have eternal souls - presented in subsection I5.2.1 from this volume. In the descriptions that follow a full version of the formal proof for the creation by God of the first couple of people is presented. But before I formulate this proof, a few more words of this introduction.
The formal scientific proof for the creation by God the first woman and the first man, was developed in initial days of October 2007, when I was on my professorship at a university in Southern Korea. This proof was carried out with methods of mathematical logic. It is based on the well-known assertion (fact) that in order a given species of creatures can multiply further all by themselves, they need to exist as at least two representatives of this species, namely - in case of people, as at least one woman and one man. (In case of other creatures, as at least one female and one male - e.g. one cow and one bull, one hen and one rooster, one sow (pig) and one hog, etc., etc.) The fact of this simultaneous creation by God as many as two creatures from each species, is so important that it is especially confirmed in the Bible - see the Genesis, 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." In turn the so-called "natural" (i.e. completely random) evolution, which is promoted by present science to explain the origins of humans, is only able to cause a rapid appearance of a single creature of new species, not two simultaneously. Thus, in case of people, this "natural-random evolution" could only cause the appearance of a single male, or a single female, not both simultaneously. (The probability that both would appear simultaneously and rapidly, combined with the speed of evolutionary changes in nature observed presently (which is indistinguishable from zero), is so low that it excludes any such appearance within the duration of existence of present universe.) In turn just a single individual would NOT be able to multiply further just by itself. So such a "natural evolution" in NO case could be able to give beginnings for new species of living creatures. So here it is, the entire formal proof for the creation by God the first woman and the first man, completed with the use of methods of mathematical logic:

Theorem:
"The first couple of the first woman and the first man were created by God."

Basis propositions
(1) Speaking just theoretically, every new species of living creatures, including humans, could be initiated either by the appearance of just one such a new creature, or by the appearance of a couple of new creatures. The fact that practically all species of living creatures that populate the Earth are able to multiply further by themselves only when there exists simultaneously a couple of them, means a male and a female, eliminates completely the possibility that at the very beginning could appear just a single such a new creature, instead of the required couple, e.g. just one person instead of a couple of people which included a man and a woman - capable of further multiplying just by themselves.
(2) The simultaneous appearance of a couple of people, i.e. the first male and the first female, could either happen in a rapid manner, i.e. this couple of new people appeared rapidly in its final form which differed significantly from the nearest creatures that are related to it, or in the smooth manner, i.e. this couple was shaped gradually over a significant period of time, from other creatures that are related to it. The fact that scientists neither are able to find any evidence for the existence of intermediate forms between humans and other creatures which could be close relatives of humans, or that in present times the science was unable to find even a single example of a full cycle of such a smooth transformation of one species of creatures into another species of creatures, eliminates completely the possibility of a smooth evolution of humans and proves conclusively that the first couple of humans appeared on the Earth in a "rapid manner" - i.e. rapidly and without any intermediate forms.
(3) The first couple of people, means the first female and the first male, either evolved randomly ("naturally"), or this couple was created by God. The fact that the first couple of people appeared rapidly eliminates completely the possibility that the people originate from a random ("natural") evolution.
(Explanation complementing this 3rd set of premises: if the appearance of the first couple of people, means the first woman and the first man, and also the appearance of the first couple of any other living creatures, originates from a "natural" (random) evolution, then it would display the presence of a whole range of attributes, which in spite of intense searches the human science was unable to locate. For example, a) it would leave traces in the form of a whole array of the intermediate forms between the starting species and the finishing species - while such traces are absent on the Earth NOT only for human beings but also for all other species of living creatures. b) Similar natural processes would need to also occur in a continuous manner at present - thus scientists would be able to find many other examples when in recent times such an evolution of one species into another species actually takes place - and they would be able to document these examples in their complete cycles of transformations. But the science is unable to indicate even a single example of such a full cycle of transformations of one species into another species. Furthermore c) such a smooth evolution would need to have some effective propelling mechanisms. But apart from wild speculations which are NOT supported by any evidence, human science is unable to prove the existence of such an effective mechanism that propels a random evolution, nor indicate an example (and a proof) that this mechanism in fact does work in nature.)
Proof:
(1) The first basis proposition is to be transformed with the use of tautological

form of the method known under the name of "disjunctive syllogism". This form can be written as [(p || q) && !p] => q, in which the assertion "p" says "every new species of living creatures, including humans, are initiated by the appearance of just one such a new creature", while the assertion "q" says "every new species of living creatures, including humans, are initiated by the appearance of a couple of such new creatures", in turn the assertion "r" states "the fact that practically all species of living creatures that populate the Earth are able to multiply further by themselves only when there exists simultaneously a couple of them, means a male and a female, eliminates completely the possibility that first could appear just a single such new creature, instead of the entire couple, e.g. just one person instead of a couple of people that included a man and a woman - capable of further multiplying just by themselves". The transformation of these propositions leads to the conclusion that "the humans were initiated by the simultaneous appearance of a couple of people that included a man and a woman - capable of further multiplying just by themselves".
(2) Accepting this previous conclusion for an assertion in the next phase of inference, and using the method of "disjunctive syllogism", the tautological form of which can be written as: [(p || q) && !p] => q, we obtain a next conclusion which states that "the first couple of people appeared on the Earth in a "rapid manner" - i.e. rapidly and without any intermediate forms."
(3) The last couple of propositions allows us to derive the final conclusion also with the method called the "disjunctive syllogism", the tautological form of which can be written as: [(p || q) && !p] => q. In this form the assertion "p" says "the first couple of people, i.e. the first woman and the first man, evolved randomly ("naturally")", while assertion "q" states "the first couple of people was created by God". Thus the final conclusion states "the first couple of people, i.e. the first woman and the first man, was created by God"!
Conclusion:
The above inference chain unambiguously and conclusively proves the truth of

the theorem that "the first couple of people, i.e. the first woman and the first man, was created by God".

***

For the use of these readers who are NOT familiar with the notation that is applied in

the above proof, I would like to explain that symbols "p", "q", and "r" mark subsequent "assertions" utilized in this proof as logical variables. In turn symbols "!", "&&", "||", and "=>" mark logical operators "not", "and", "inclusive or", and "implies" (if ... => then ...").
It is also worth to mention about the validity of the above proof. Because this proof utilizes exclusively tautological forms of subsequent methods, it remains valid for all values of variables it uses. Thus practically it is error-proof. If someone would like to undermine it, he or she would need to undermine first the validity of mathematical logic. In turn this logic is a foundation for countless mathematical proofs which with a large success were used by the effective and precise discipline of mathematics. Thus, since so strong proof for the creation by God of the first couple of humans, means the first woman and the first man (and also for the creation by God first couples of all other living creatures) we finally were able to develop, it introduces for us huge implications. Because of the existence of this proof, and also three further proofs mentioned at the beginning of this item, it becomes really important that everyone of us verifies his or hers attitude towards God, other world, moral life, etc., etc. After all, without the verifying this attitude, we may inflict ourselves the biggest harm that one is able to inflict himself or herself.
Especially vital in the above proof is that it is a component of several formal proofs, similar by methods used but different by evidence that they utilize, that coexist in this monograph. These proofs include, as mentioned earlier: (1) the formal proof for the existence of the "counter-world" (this "counter-world" is actually another world existing parallel to our "physical world" and filled with the continually moving substance called "counter-matter" that displays attributes of liquid computer hardware) - which (the proof) is presented in subsection H1.1.4 from volume 4 of this monograph (and in item #D3 of the web page named "Dipolar Gravity"), (2) the formal proof for the existence of God - presented in subsection I3.3.4 from volume 5 of this monograph (and in item #G2 of the web page "God Proof"), (3) the formal proof from this subsection, which proves the creation by God of the first woman and the first man - presented above (and repeated in item #B8 of the web page "Evolution"), (4) the formal proof that people have eternal souls - presented in subsection I5.2.1 from volume 5 of this monograph (and also in item #C1.1 of the web page named "nirvana.htm"), (5) the formal proof that "DNA are most simple forms of natural computers which control the passage through time of cells in which these DNA reside, while this control of the passage of cells through time they accomplish by a sequential running of software 'programs of life and fate' contained in memories of these DNA" – presented in subsection M1.6 from volume 11 of this monograph (and also in item #D7 of the web page "Immortality"), as well as (6) the formal proof that God authorized the Bible - presented in subsection M7.1 from volume 11 of this monograph (and also in item #B1 of the web page named "Bible"). These scientific proofs in fact formulate the foundation stones for the entirely new scientific discipline about another world, God, act of creation, soul, etc. In order to illustratively realize here to the reader the weight of the appearance of as many as four such proofs simultaneously, it would be good to compare ourselves to old time Maoris that inhabited New Zealand and that had no idea of the existence of farm animals, such as horses or cows. (Before first Europeans arrived to New Zealand, these islands were inhabited mainly by birds and by lizards.) So when these Maoris saw the first horse, probably they suspected that it is just a mirage or a freak of nature. When they saw two horses, they started to be puzzled and convinced that some new quality is just entering their lives. When they saw three horses, they could be absolutely sure that horses do exist and that they need to take notice of them. In turn when they saw four horses, they needed to revise completely their view of the world that surrounded them. (By the way, now Maoris are biggest appreciators of horses and they cannot live without these animals.)
A shocking results gives also the comparison of arguments of so-called "evolutionists" with so-called "creationists", in the light of the above proof (and also in the light of other formal proofs discussed here). The evolutionists generate in science so loud noise, as if all evidence was in their hands. In the result of this noise, and also hysteria that these noise created in human science, amongst present scientists almost no-one has the courage to admit that he or she is a "creationist". However, if one carefully examines the supposed "evidence" which stands behind this noise, then it turns out that it is just this proverbial noise of "empty pots that make the most of noise". This is because the evolutionists actually have no even a single documented case of so-called "missing link" - means the intermediate evolutionary form of any amongst millions of species of creatures that inhabit the Earth in the process of changing into another species. And we are talking here not only about the "missing link" for human beings, but also the missing links for horses, cows, dogs, etc. After all, amongst these millions creatures which populate the Earth the human science is unable to indicate the "missing link" to any of them. This means that the pool of evidence in disposal of evolutionists is actually equal to zero. Evolutionists also do not have documented even a single case of seeing a full cycle of changes of one species into another species on the Earth. Means that also the principle of the development of new species which is promoted by them is wrong, as it has no precedence in a real life. Finally evolutionists still are unable to indicate a mechanism that would propel the random evolution. They speculate that supposedly in nature is working the principle of the "survival of fittest", but still again the empirical evidence eliminates this survival as a mechanism that propels the evolution. After all, there are known cases when the oldest animals survived in the unchanged form until today. A well-known example of just such oldest animal that exists on the Earth until today are trilobites which I saw myself (with my own eyes) as they are sold today on fish markets of Malaysia as so-called "king's crabs". So how the "survival of the fittest" could be a propelling mechanism of the evolution, when it allows to survive until today even these oldest animals in spite of "most modern competition" and in spite that they represent the most primitive living organisms.
On the other hand creationists have on their side the sea of evidence and confirmations. For example, the scientific theory called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity has proven formally that God does exists, and even indicated the space (i.e. a separate world scientifically called the "counter-world") in which God resides far from the reach of our prowling eyes. Thus creationists have the intelligent creator. The same theory indicated also the mechanisms that propels the creation (i.e. the need of this intelligent God to develop and to improve the universe). Finally this theory indicated also the specific examples of evidence which confirms the act of creation taking place. This means that acts of creation are confirmed practically by everything.
At this point I would like to appeal to other lecturers of logic. Namely, I propose to take notice of the lack of meaning, motivation, and the absence of engagement in examples of proofs presented in textbooks of logic - as an example consider the textbook proof "modus ponens" of the kind, quote: "Samson is strong", and "If Samson is strong, then it will take a woman to do him in." We can conclude "It will take a woman to do Samson in." (End of quote.) So instead we use in our lectures such examples deprived of actuality and sense, I would rather suggest to use for example of proofs e.g. the proof explained above, or other proofs indicated in this item. After all, these proofs are to inspire students to thinking and to searches for truth, give more sense to their lives, will be agreeable with indications of our conscience, and in a non-imposing manner are going to add our own contribution to the fight for the prevalence of truth.

=> NG.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste