Proof of God via The Raven Paradox
 

Also known as Hempel’s Paradox, for the German logician who proposed it in the mid-1940s, the Raven Paradox begins with the apparently straightforward and entirely true statement that “all ravens are black.” This is matched by a “logically contrapositive” (i.e. negative and contradictory) statement that “everything that is not black is not a raven”—which, despite seeming like a fairly unnecessary point to make, is also true given that we know “all ravens are black.”

Hempel argues that whenever we see a black raven, this provides evidence to support the first statement. But by extension, whenever we see anything that is not black, like an apple, this too must be taken as evidence supporting the second statement—after all, an apple is not black, and nor is it a raven.

Hempel has proved that seeing an apple provides us with evidence, no matter how unrelated it may seem, that ravens are black.

We can take this further: seeing anything, say, item A, provides evidence for all other item, yet the evidence of item A is evidenced by the next thing we see – item B is not an apple – therefore A is an apple.

This means that the existence of everything is contingent upon the existence of everything else but not upon itself.

But wait! For Item A to be an apple it must have, among its identifiers, a unique identifier absent in all “non-Apples”. We will call this A’. It is the thing that makes it an Apple.

Everything that does not have A’ is not an apple.

If a new thing appears, then it must be accompanied by this unique identifier, without this identifier, no other item could refer to it in the negative -> No item that is not <insert unique identifier of X> is X” and thus the item would not have an identity and would not exist.

NB The Raven paradox applies to a unique identifier of a class – Ravens.

And this is the point: there is room in the universe for one thing whose “unique identifier” is that it does not have a unique identifier, as that condition is, itself, unique. It is also not a member of a class.

This means that the thing that cannot exist, can exist – but only one of them can exist but it cannot be described because of the absence of a unique identifier - and it is not part of a class.

There is not a “class of “Gods” we are agreed that, whatever else atheists might say, none of them say there is more than one “God”.

God is so magnificent that he cannot be described – He defies description. He is the unique Being that can exist without a unique identifier. And this is not unreasonable as within Him must be all possible identifiers, none of which are unique until he uses that identifier as a unique identifier for an object that is <insert unique identifier>.

We cannot say that if there is evidence, there is no evidence and the evidence is then that God must exist, and “that everything that is not indescribable is not God.”

This makes entire sense, as if you look at anything around you, you can say “That is not God” and, in the same way that “everything that is not black is not a raven” gives you evidence of Ravens (that nobody denies) the things that you look at give the evidence about God and if you look at enough things, the evidence is overwhelming.

Re: Proof of God via The Raven Paradox
 

Well said, Brother Bathfire. Once again, in plain American, you stated the irrefutable obvious fact and proof of God. Why the non-Christians refuse to accept the reality of incontestable data escapes me. I think it is just easier to take Gods Word® straight from the Bible than all the pointless time and effort non-believers do to deny His Perfection™.

Re: Proof of God via The Raven Paradox
 

Wow, Pastor Bathfire. A powerful piece of writing.

I am so grateful we have Pastors such as yourself here at Landover Baptist Church. We do not have to suffer religion lite like other churches.

Re: Proof of God via The Raven Paradox
 

So if I understand what you're saying, a universe devoid of the maximally undescribable entity contains less than the universe with it.



For the word "universe" to have meaning, it must stand in relationship to something else.



Since "universe" signifies all that conceivably may exist, which necessarily includes however many parallel realities there are even if they are imaginary and/or indescribable from our vantage point, the maximally undescribable entity must be the same for each cosmic vantage point whether at remote locations in the cosmos we observe or in some other cosmos altogether from which perspective we ourselves would be the imaginary and/or indescribable reality.



In that case, multiple disjunct bubbles would be less than multiple conjoined bubbles since the conjoining phenomenon would be something extra. Similarly, multiple conjoined bubbles themselves interspersed with other multiple conjoined bubbles results in multiple conjoining phenomena which.—.if I haven't misunderstood your model.—.renders those conjoining phenomena describable.



If they're describable then a portal opens to the maximally undescribable entity in paragraph one. Since its existence has results viz. the conjoining, the entity is not only undescribable but active.



I expect this is where atheists start raising topics like "albino ravens" but these are very easily refuted. If there were only one cosmos it would be synonymous with "universe" and the maximally undescribable entity could have only one effect. Creation.

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The next stage is not multiple multiverses, seriously turtles all the way down? but intricately unfurling creation where multidimensional surfaces become self aware. This is not only inexplicable but undescribable BECAUSE any description of the process itself needs to be explained. It is maximally undescribable, separate from the void yet expressed within it. And there can only ever be ONE maximally undescribable entity.

John 1:4-5 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.