# The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence



## Ringtone

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

*3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​


*Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.


----------



## BlindBoo

And I was hoping for some  math.


----------



## Hollie

I'm not clear how silly youtube videos are incontrovertible proof of anything other than an admission that you should limit your participation to the religion or conspiracy theory forums.


----------



## BULLDOG

Ringtone said:


> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​


How did you get David Letterman to pose for that picture in your second link?


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.


What caused gods to begin to exist?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

sealybobo said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​
> 
> 
> 
> *Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
> Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
Click to expand...






Yep!

Scientists say global warming exists
Planetologists understand global warming.
Therefore, all scientists are planetologists.

Logically valid until the premise and conclusion don't hold true

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## harmonica

there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''


----------



## Damaged Eagle

cnm said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
Click to expand...






What caused the universe to exist?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## cnm

Damaged Eagle said:


> What caused the universe to exist?


I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences. 

I don't see what's funny about that.


----------



## Ringtone

BlindBoo said:


> And I was hoping for some  math.



Let me know when you've digested the following, and, as it were, I'll get into the nuts and bolts of the mathematics.

Part XI.  Potential Infinities and Actual Infinities   

(Before exploring any of the links listed below, first read the entire contents of this post.)   

With Alex's amateurish apologetics annihilated, we now turn to the impossibility of actual infinities—the actual thrust of the second premise on which Alex never touches because he's either not aware of it or doesn't understand it.  However, Professor Wes Morriston does address it in his critique of Craig's defense of the Kalam:  http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf 

First, Craig's outline of the underlying syllogistic supports for the second premise of the Kalam:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4uOIvuQEq  

2.  The universe began to exist:   

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. 
2.11.  An actual infinite cannot exist.  
2.12.  An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.  
2.13.  Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.   

AND   

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. 
2.21.  A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.  
2.22.  The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.  
2.23.  Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.   

See discussion of the Craig-Morriston debate:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-on-the-kalam-argument#_ftn1 

See explications regarding God and actual infinities:  
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscience-and-actual-infinity 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-infinity 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hilbert-and-kalam 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-beginning-of-time 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity  

I need not belabor Craig's observations regarding Infinity.  One can read them for oneself as well as Morriston's bizarre reasoning on other matters, which my critique of Alex's lecture adequately blunts.  Morriston goes down a number of rabbit holes of his own as the principles of eternalism and sufficient causality embedded in the complex analytic axiom of the first premise of the Kalam elude him as well.  But I will discuss the essence of potential infinities and actual infinities as juxtaposed against the distinction between quantity and quality in brief, and then discuss the mathematical conceptualization of Infinity and the problems thereof in detail. 

I strongly recommend that one read the rest of this post and the mathematical treatment of Infinity in the following posts before delving into the Craig-Morriston debate and the other links listed in the above.  One can always return to this post after getting used to thinking about Infinity in mathematical terms, as this should significantly enhance one's understanding of Craig's observations.   

I teach a class on Christian apologetics and, relative to observations made by Craig and other Christian philosophers, get questions about Infinity all the time.  Most of the time my answers light up the questioner's eyes.  He gets it!   But on occasion I get back a puzzled look instead.  That's frustrating.  It occurred to me while delving into the Kalam in greater detail that the key to understanding Infinity is the mathematics of Infinity.  Craig's observations and those of others have never been a problem for me.  I understand them at a glance, but, then, I've studied the mathematics of Infinity.  Why it never before occurred to me to simply write a brief mathematical treatment on Infinity for my students is one of those brain farts of life.  Though I have since had to rewrite a portion of the treatment, the feedback from my students is very enthusiastic.  Mostly, they report that verbal explanations that used to leave them even more confused now make perfect sense to them.                

Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the impossibility of actual infinities.  How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities?  As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit.  There's never a point in time or being, outside of minds, when there isn't still more and more. . . .  Absurdity.  One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is.  From this we see that the impossibility of an actual infinity goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.   

A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually.  Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity.  The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers 0 and 1, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from 0 to ±∞ combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)!  Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities.  Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists in and of itself outside of minds either.  When we talk about a real number like ±1 as opposed to a surreal number like ±∞, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value.  The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.   

Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes.  When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways.  There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such.  God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things.  I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude).  God is the

Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.   

While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God could create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.     

But it's Morriston who's befuddled.       

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it.  God can't do that either.  Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible.  This is not a limit on God's power.  On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock could be so heavy that He couldn't lift it.  The moment the rock is too heavy for God to lift is the moment the rock's mass is finite and God lifts it.  Absurdity!  Such a rock couldn't exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms couldn't exist.  An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity.  The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.     

It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!     

In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature.  Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us.  For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself.

God = God.  God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously.       

How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy?  Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities.    Now onto the mathematical treatment of Infinity.


----------



## Ringtone

cnm said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
Click to expand...


So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?  Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term _sufficient cause_ and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Magic!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I was hoping for some  math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you've digested the following, and, as it were, I'll get into the nuts and bolts of the mathematics.
> 
> Part XI.  Potential Infinities and Actual Infinities
> 
> (Before exploring any of the links listed below, first read the entire contents of this post.)
> 
> With Alex's amateurish apologetics annihilated, we now turn to the impossibility of actual infinities—the actual thrust of the second premise on which Alex never touches because he's either not aware of it or doesn't understand it.  However, Professor Wes Morriston does address it in his critique of Craig's defense of the Kalam:  http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf
> 
> First, Craig's outline of the underlying syllogistic supports for the second premise of the Kalam:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4uOIvuQEq
> 
> 2.  The universe began to exist:
> 
> Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
> 2.11.  An actual infinite cannot exist.
> 2.12.  An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
> 2.13.  Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
> 
> AND
> 
> Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
> 2.21.  A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
> 2.22.  The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
> 2.23.  Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
> 
> See discussion of the Craig-Morriston debate:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-on-the-kalam-argument#_ftn1
> 
> See explications regarding God and actual infinities:
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscience-and-actual-infinity
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-infinity
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hilbert-and-kalam
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-beginning-of-time
> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity
> 
> I need not belabor Craig's observations regarding Infinity.  One can read them for oneself as well as Morriston's bizarre reasoning on other matters, which my critique of Alex's lecture adequately blunts.  Morriston goes down a number of rabbit holes of his own as the principles of eternalism and sufficient causality embedded in the complex analytic axiom of the first premise of the Kalam elude him as well.  But I will discuss the essence of potential infinities and actual infinities as juxtaposed against the distinction between quantity and quality in brief, and then discuss the mathematical conceptualization of Infinity and the problems thereof in detail.
> 
> I strongly recommend that one read the rest of this post and the mathematical treatment of Infinity in the following posts before delving into the Craig-Morriston debate and the other links listed in the above.  One can always return to this post after getting used to thinking about Infinity in mathematical terms, as this should significantly enhance one's understanding of Craig's observations.
> 
> I teach a class on Christian apologetics and, relative to observations made by Craig and other Christian philosophers, get questions about Infinity all the time.  Most of the time my answers light up the questioner's eyes.  He gets it!   But on occasion I get back a puzzled look instead.  That's frustrating.  It occurred to me while delving into the Kalam in greater detail that the key to understanding Infinity is the mathematics of Infinity.  Craig's observations and those of others have never been a problem for me.  I understand them at a glance, but, then, I've studied the mathematics of Infinity.  Why it never before occurred to me to simply write a brief mathematical treatment on Infinity for my students is one of those brain farts of life.  Though I have since had to rewrite a portion of the treatment, the feedback from my students is very enthusiastic.  Mostly, they report that verbal explanations that used to leave them even more confused now make perfect sense to them.
> 
> Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the impossibility of actual infinities.  How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities?  As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit.  There's never a point in time or being, outside of minds, when there isn't still more and more. . . .  Absurdity.  One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is.  From this we see that the impossibility of an actual infinity goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.
> 
> A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually.  Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity.  The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers 0 and 1, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from 0 to ±∞ combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)!  Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities.  Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists in and of itself outside of minds either.  When we talk about a real number like ±1 as opposed to a surreal number like ±∞, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value.  The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.
> 
> Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes.  When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways.  There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such.  God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things.  I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude).  God is the
> 
> Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.
> 
> While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God could create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.
> 
> But it's Morriston who's befuddled.
> 
> That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it.  God can't do that either.  Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible.  This is not a limit on God's power.  On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock could be so heavy that He couldn't lift it.  The moment the rock is too heavy for God to lift is the moment the rock's mass is finite and God lifts it.  Absurdity!  Such a rock couldn't exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms couldn't exist.  An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity.  The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.
> 
> It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!
> 
> In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature.  Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us.  For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself.
> 
> God = God.  God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously.
> 
> How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy?  Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities.    Now onto the mathematical treatment of Infinity.
Click to expand...

To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.


----------



## Ringtone

harmonica said:


> there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
> ..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''



Baby talk.  You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.


----------



## anotherlife

Most atheistic logic is founded on the claim that faith in existing God is a circular logic.  

What can be shown however that if we follow the chains of causes and effects, then every logic ever is circular


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> *Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
> Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.



Apples and oranges.  Anyone can construct a fallacious syllogism precisely because the fundamental principles of logic are universally understood.  Hence everybody knows what a sound syllogism looks like: 

1.  Socrates likes all flowers.
2.  Roses are flowers.
3.  Socrates likes roses. 


sealybobo said:


> Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.



Hogwash!

1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
2.  The physical world began to exist.

*And just like that, atheists stop believing that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true. *

LOL!  Suddenly like a dog _they go all squirrel!_ and imagine that the physical world just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness.


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> Most atheistic logic is founded on the claim that faith in existing God is a circular logic.
> 
> What can be shown however that if we follow the chains of causes and effects, then every logic ever is circular



All logic is circular?  How's that?


----------



## Ringtone

cnm said:


> I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences.
> 
> I don't see what's funny about that.



And just like that alang no longer holds that something has necessarily always existed.  LOL!


----------



## Ringtone

cnm said:


> What caused gods to begin to exist?


 
So you're ultimately implying that you don't exist.  Are you a figment of your own imagination?

_crickets chirping_


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​


Tired, useless, ontological tricks meant only for the faithy folks to soothe themselves. Does not belong in the science section.

Mods: please move to religion section or rubber room.


----------



## Ringtone

BULLDOG said:


> How did you get David Letterman to pose for that picture in your second link?



I told him there was a squirrel to be had.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Tired, useless, ontological tricks meant only for the faithy folks to soothe themselves. Does not belong in the science section.
> 
> Mods: please move to religion section or rubber room.



Nonsense!  Your ignorance and irrationality do not impinge on the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, useless, ontological tricks meant only for the faithy folks to soothe themselves. Does not belong in the science section.
> 
> Mods: please move to religion section or rubber room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Your ignorance and irrationality do not impinge on the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications.
Click to expand...

Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration #  eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration #  eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.



We both know you can't competently discuss the science and mathematics of the matter.

Whether *our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse:* the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.

We cannot *scientifically* preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" (*Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete*).​
This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).


----------



## Damaged Eagle

cnm said:


> I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences.
> 
> I don't see what's funny about that.








Maybe it's the same reason that God exists.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration #  eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know you can't competently discuss the science and mathematics of the matter.
> 
> Whether *our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse:* the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.
> 
> We cannot *scientifically* preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!
> 
> Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.
> 
> In scientific terms:
> 
> Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" (*Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete*).​
> This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.
> 
> Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:
> 
> It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).
Click to expand...

Boring ontological nonsense. Fun philosophy. For about 30 seconds of a sophomore philosophy class. Then...zzzzzzz


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration #  eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know you can't competently discuss the science and mathematics of the matter.
> 
> Whether *our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse:* the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.
> 
> We cannot *scientifically* preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!
> 
> Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.
> 
> In scientific terms:
> 
> Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" (*Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete*).​
> This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.
> 
> Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:
> 
> It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).
Click to expand...

Odd that you whine about mathematics but present no mathematics in support of your gods.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?


Oh. I didn't realise I wasn't supposed to take your points literally. My bad.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ultimately implying that you don't exist.  Are you a figment of your own imagination?
> 
> _crickets chirping_
Click to expand...

Did gods not begin to exist?


----------



## Ringtone

Damaged Eagle said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences.
> 
> I don't see what's funny about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 453666
> 
> Maybe it's the same reason that God exists.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


_Zoon _ Right over their heads, Eagle.  It's like talking to children.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> _Zoon _ Right over their heads, Eagle


No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...


----------



## Ringtone

cnm said:


> What caused gods to begin to exist?





Ringtone said:


> So you're ultimately implying that you don't exist.  Are you a figment of your own imagination?
> 
> _crickets chirping_





cnm said:


> Did gods not begin to exist?


Does something exist or not?  Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?  That's what you're unwittingly implying.  If that's your belief, fine.  You lose.  You're a lunatic.  See my signature below regarding magic.  Have a nice day.  End of discussion. 

I'm asking these questions to help you think for yourself for once in you unexamined life.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...



What are you talking about?  The OP is free to read for yourself.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?


I've already said I don't know. It's your OP, I'm asking you. You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.

Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?


----------



## fncceo

Godel, Liebniz, and (originally) St Anselm (1033 to 1109) have made the same ontological argument as proof of the existence of G-d.  

I prefer Oolon Colluphid's Ontological Proof of the Non-Existence of G-d

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says *God*, "for *proof* denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." ... It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​


Let's assume everything you wrote is 100% true, is there any demonstrable connection between this creator and the God of the Bible?


----------



## harmonica

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
> ..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby talk.  You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.
Click to expand...

no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot 
hahahahahahahahah


----------



## BULLDOG

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
> ..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby talk.  You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.
Click to expand...


Wow. Somebody got a new Thesaurus for Christmas.


----------



## Hollie

The OP being a William Lane Craig groupie simply shuffles the Craig arguments to propose his version of the gods.

The fallacies of the Kalam argument are really quite apparent, especially as the argument exempts the gods from the very premise of the argument; everything has a cause, but... but... but... but not my gods. The claimed lack of cause for the gods suggests that there is an allowance for other exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or that allow for other hypotheses such as a universe without the needs for various gods as the cause.

It is an inescapable conclusion that a cause precedes an event. To arbitrarily exclude the gods from causation with nothing more than, “..._because I say so_” is pointless and time wasting. Proposing a religious / philosophical presentation that involves matters of science means the religious perspective invites scientific criteria of review. Astronomy does not provide support for notions of astrology any more than biology is a scientific basis for supernatural creation.

I would like to see the OP present the “_*Kalam Theory of Biology*_” because we’re still waiting for the ID Creationer “_*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*_” with no indication either are coming anytime soon.


----------



## sealybobo

Damaged Eagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​
> 
> 
> 
> *Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
> Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 453563
> 
> Yep!
> 
> Scientists say global warming exists
> Planetologists understand global warming.
> Therefore, all scientists are planetologists.
> 
> Logically valid until the premise and conclusion don't hold true
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Your premise is true. What happens then?

Science says global warming exists
planetologists understand global warming
Global warming is real


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
> Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  Anyone can construct a fallacious syllogism precisely because the fundamental principles of logic are universally understood.  Hence everybody knows what a sound syllogism looks like:
> 
> 1.  Socrates likes all flowers.
> 2.  Roses are flowers.
> 3.  Socrates likes roses.
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash!
> 
> 1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
> 2.  The physical world began to exist.
> 
> *And just like that, atheists stop believing that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true. *
> 
> LOL!  Suddenly like a dog _they go all squirrel!_ and imagine that the physical world just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness.
Click to expand...

Ok, who created the creator then? You want me to accept that your god character gets to defy all logic, fact, science and reason. And gets to break all the rules.

If what you are telling me doesn't pass the scientific method then I throw it out.


----------



## Moonglow

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
> ..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby talk.  You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.
Click to expand...

Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?


----------



## Moonglow

sealybobo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​
> 
> 
> 
> *Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
> Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 453563
> 
> Yep!
> 
> Scientists say global warming exists
> Planetologists understand global warming.
> Therefore, all scientists are planetologists.
> 
> Logically valid until the premise and conclusion don't hold true
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your premise is true. What happens then?
> 
> Science says global warming exists
> planetologists understand global warming
> Global warming is real
Click to expand...

And is a proven occurrence.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tired, useless, ontological tricks meant only for the faithy folks to soothe themselves. Does not belong in the science section.
> 
> Mods: please move to religion section or rubber room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  Your ignorance and irrationality do not impinge on the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self soothing word salad. Just reiteration #  eleventy zillion of a person of weak faith trying to convince himself in public that the iron aged fairy tales are real.
Click to expand...

He’s on his way to atheism. Right now it’s bothering him that god is not scientifically provable.


----------



## sealybobo

Moonglow said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​
> 
> 
> 
> *Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
> Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 453563
> 
> Yep!
> 
> Scientists say global warming exists
> Planetologists understand global warming.
> Therefore, all scientists are planetologists.
> 
> Logically valid until the premise and conclusion don't hold true
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your premise is true. What happens then?
> 
> Science says global warming exists
> planetologists understand global warming
> Global warming is real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And is a proven occurrence.
Click to expand...

Observable


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.



What, precisely, are you saying here, Hollie, and why is cnm giving you a thumbs up for this incoherency? Are you saying that God should be able to do the absurd or impossible?


----------



## cnm

fncceo said:


> Godel, Liebniz, and (originally) St Anselm (1033 to 1109) have made the same ontological argument as proof of the existence of G-d.
> 
> I prefer Oolon Colluphid's Ontological Proof of the Non-Existence of G-d
> 
> "I refuse to prove that I exist," says *God*, "for *proof* denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." ... It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."


Resistance was futile.


----------



## james bond

Moonglow said:


> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?



0 + 0 = 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.

I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.


----------



## Moonglow

james bond said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
Click to expand...

Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Observable



Hilbert's hotel room argument squashed the singularity argument or did you not observe that?


----------



## james bond

Moonglow said:


> Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.



C'mon both Georges Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble showed an expanding and accelerating universe.


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> Ok, who created the creator then?



The creator was always there timeless and spaceless from the first video.


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?





cnm said:


> I've already said I don't know.





Ringtone said:


> Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical.  Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what _ontological nothingness_ means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?





cnm said:


> It's your OP, I'm asking you.





Ringtone said:


> Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?





cnm said:


> You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.





Ringtone said:


> Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?





Ringtone said:


> Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?





Ringtone said:


> I didn't run away from anything in the first place.  Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?
> 
> As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation:  I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity_—_i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating.  That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place.  In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!
> 
> Or, stated another way:
> 
> Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!
> 
> I ask you once again:
> 
> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?​​It's a yes/no question.


----------



## Ringtone

fncceo said:


> Godel, Liebniz, and (originally) St Anselm (1033 to 1109) have made the same ontological argument as proof of the existence of G-d.
> 
> I prefer Oolon Colluphid's Ontological Proof of the Non-Existence of G-d
> 
> "I refuse to prove that I exist," says *God*, "for *proof* denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." ... It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."



Respectfully, Godel, Liebniz and Anselm's are ontological arguments proper that proceed from the essence of the idea of God itself, while Kalam's is a cosmological argument predicated on the first principles of ontology (the metaphysics of material being in general) and proceeds from sufficient causation.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Let's assume everything you wrote is 100% true, is there any demonstrable connection between this creator and the God of the Bible?



Well, that goes to an entirely different discussion, doesn't it?


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> Baby talk.  You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.





BULLDOG said:


> Wow. Somebody got a new Thesaurus for Christmas.



Actually, it looks like somebody learned some new words.  Stick around and I'll teach you some more, but keep you're dictionary handy as, unlike those with adult vocabularies, you'll have to look them up.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> Ok, who created the creator then? You want me to accept that your god character gets to defy all logic, fact, science and reason. And gets to break all the rules.
> 
> If what you are telling me doesn't pass the scientific method then I throw it out.


Baby talk.  Something exists rather than nothing, dummy.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science tell us that something has always existed.

The first premise:  That which *begins to exist* must have a cause of its existence.

Are you really that stupid or are you prevaricating?


----------



## Ringtone

harmonica said:


> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah


You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.


----------



## harmonica

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except you imbecility.
Click to expand...


hahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around


----------



## harmonica

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except you imbecility.
Click to expand...

so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> He’s on his way to atheism. Right now it’s bothering him that god is not scientifically provable.


Yep. When he says he believes in god, he is lying to himself out loud. That's what these dog and pony shows are. Same for Bond and his pride parades. Ding, too.

Thus these silly attempts to trick people into wrangling woth regressive arguments. Example forthcoming.


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> Baby talk.  You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.





Moonglow said:


> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?



Can you tell me, precisely, what _that_ and _it_ are, you know, the things you wish to see in an equation or you wish to see quantified?


----------



## Ringtone

harmonica said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite
Click to expand...


You insult and mock.  I tell the truth, hypocrite.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Motion is impossible. Zeno successfully argued this with a regressive argument. Argue against his regressive argument. And i don't mean, show me something in motion to contradict his conclusions. I mean, argue against the argument by undermining its premises or showing its logic to be invalid. It cannot be done. That is the poison of a regressive argument. For any counterargument you present, i will just direct you the the next turtle down. And so on and so forth, forever. The fraud OP is saying this failure to counter his regressive arguments shows God exists. Nothing more. He is an amateur putting window dressing and 50-cent words on a regressive turd. It's no different than claiming the failure to counter Zeno's paradox of motion with argument demonstrates conclusively that motion is impossible. It's a charlatan's trick that is older than dirt.


----------



## harmonica

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insult and mock.  I tell the truth, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

..and you haven't proved there is a god
hahahahhahahahahahahah


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep. When he says he believes in god, he is lying to himself out loud. That's what these dog and pony shows are. Same for Bond and his pride parades. Ding, too.
> 
> Thus these silly attempts to trick people into wrangling woth regressive arguments. Example forthcoming.


Imbecile Alert!  The troll with no longer be fed.  Ignore.


----------



## Ringtone

harmonica said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insult and mock.  I tell the truth, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..and you haven't proved there is a god
> hahahahhahahahahahahah
Click to expand...


Imbecile Alert!  The troll will no longer be fed.  Ignore.


----------



## harmonica

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insult and mock.  I tell the truth, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..and you haven't proved there is a god
> hahahahhahahahahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imbecile Alert!  The troll will no longer be fed.  Ignore.
Click to expand...

and still, no proof


----------



## Ringtone

Ringtone said:


> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?





cnm said:


> I've already said I don't know.





Ringtone said:


> Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical.  Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what _ontological nothingness_ means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?





cnm said:


> It's your OP, I'm asking you.





Ringtone said:


> Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?





cnm said:


> You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.





Ringtone said:


> Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?





Ringtone said:


> Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?


I didn't run away from anything in the first place.  Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?

As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation:  I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity_—_i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating.  That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place.  In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.

Moving on. . . .

An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!

Or, stated another way:

Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!

I ask you once again:

Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?

It's a yes/no question.


----------



## harmonica

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already said I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical.  Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what _ontological nothingness_ means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's your OP, I'm asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't run away from anything in the first place.  Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?
> 
> As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation:  I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity_—_i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating.  That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place.  In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!
> 
> Or, stated another way:
> 
> Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!
> 
> I ask you once again:
> 
> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?
> 
> It's a yes/no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

theists are the ones who believe in idiotic magic--you believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'''--like a Star Trek energizer 
hahahahhahahahahahahah


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, precisely, are you saying here, Hollie, and why is cnm giving you a thumbs up for this incoherency? Are you saying that God should be able to do the absurd or impossible?
Click to expand...

You should take the time to proofread what you write or what Craig writes. It is the hyper-religious who are claiming that their gods do the absurd, (absurd in terms of the contingent reality most of us live in). The term ‘impossible” doesn’t provide for much equivocation so I must leave it the supernaturalists to describe what their gods can and cannot do. I would suggest, however, that before describing the various attributes and limitations of your gods, you might want to make a rational case for those supernatural gods.

The comments above are intended to be applicable in, for example, philosophy or theology. They are not applicable in a scientific disvussion because science can only proceed on the basis of rationality as it pertains to the universe and on the basis of evidence. If the Gods can do anything at any time in any way they like, then science becomes impossible <—— there’s that pesky adjective again. Science proceeds within the constraints of reason and rationality as opposed to your presuppositions that angels dance on the heads of pins and absurdities are to be believed because that’s how the supernatural operates. 

ID’iot creationers assume that “belief” is evidence of their God's irrational, unnatural actions - the Flood, supernatural creation of species, a young earth, etc. as literal events.  In doing so, by trying to treat these absurdities, empirically inadequate and completely unsupported notions as worthy of reasoned debate, they must assume the role of the person with the “kick me” note taped to his back.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
> hahahahahahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You insult and mock.  I tell the truth, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

“Twoofs” of religious extremists tend to derive from alternate realities.


----------



## Ringtone

Moonglow said:


> Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.



Nonsense!  In the cosmological terms of science, _contract_ and _implode_ mean the same thing, and it has been shown that a cyclically inflating universe, which is what you're apparently alluding to, cannot be past eternal either:   *Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete.*

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​
Indeed, cyclically inflating models have been proposed against the imperatives of logic and mathematics for decades, and have been scientifically falsified, one after the other, for decades, before the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem.

Also see:  The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Universe began to exist!

And I don't know what James is talking about, as 0 + 0 = 0, not infinity; and nothing + nothing _does_ equal nothing.  There's no _should_ about it.  Further, _Creatio ex nihilo_ (Latin for _creation out of nothing_) is a theological term of art that means _creation out of no priorly existing substance_, not _creation_ _out of an ontological nothingness_.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> *Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *




False!  The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not proceed from the presupposition of God's existence at all.  It proceeds from the first principles of ontology and sufficient causation.

That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.​The Universe began to exist.​The Universe has a cause of its existence.​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.The Universe began to exist.The Universe has a cause of its existence.


This is called, "pure garbage". That's the proper term. Unfalsifiable premises, circular begging, self insistence.


----------



## cnm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is called, "pure garbage". That's the proper term. Unfalsifiable premises, circular begging, self insistence.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> You should take the time to proofread what you write. . . .



I'll give you one last chance to be civil and sensible.

Are you saying, then, that you did in fact know what I meant to say but instead of simply pointing that out, you made a big deal out of nothing? or are saying that God _should_ be able to do the impossible?

I went back and read the origin excerpt from my article and agree that the observation I made is poorly expressed.  Thank you for pointing that out.

Revision:

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it.  God can't do that either.  Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible.  This is not a limit on God's power.  On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms could possibly exist in the first place.​
Better?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

cnm said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is called, "pure garbage". That's the proper term. Unfalsifiable premises, circular begging, self insistence.
Click to expand...

Anyone can play.

That which never began does not have a cause.
The universe never began.
Thus the universe has no cause.

Or

That which makes rainbow ice cream in the 6th dimension must also make Volkswagens in the 8th dimension.
Rainbow unicorns make rainbow ice cream in the 6th dimension.
Therefore, rainbow unicorns make Volkswagens in the 8th dimension.


----------



## BULLDOG

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby talk.  You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Somebody got a new Thesaurus for Christmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it looks like somebody learned some new words.  Stick around and I'll teach you some more, but keep you're dictionary handy as, unlike those with adult vocabularies, you'll have to look them up.
Click to expand...


The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible. Seems like you prefer to put on aires over effective communication.  It's a common mistake among those who have recently gained only. a small amount knowledge.  Take a speaking course. It will help keep you from sounding like an insufferable ass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BULLDOG said:


> The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible.


The purpose of Ringtone's regressive parlor tricks is to beguile, obfuscate, and to create perpetual uncertainty. The bait and switch in the cheap parlor trick is switching "we don't know" with "therefore, god". Interestingly and ironically enough, and probably unbeknownst to our charlatan OP, these arguments were all created by people trying to defeat their own powers of reason in order to believe in a magical sky daddy. So this entire thread concept is merely an exercise, where the guy on the ledge is begging someone to give him a reason not to jump, knowing already he is going to jump regardless.


----------



## BULLDOG

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible.
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of Ringtone's regressive parlor tricks is to beguile, obfuscate, and to create perpetual uncertainty. The bait and switch in the cheap parlor trick is switching "we don't know" with "therefore, god". Interestingly and ironically enough, and probably unbeknownst to our charlatan OP, these arguments were all created by people trying to defeat their own powers of reason in order to believe in a magical sky daddy. So this entire thread concept is merely an exercise, where the guy on the ledge is begging someone to give him a reason not to jump, knowing already he is going to jump regardless.
Click to expand...


True, but in the cause of brevity, I'll just say he's a goofy idiot.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should take the time to proofread what you write. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you one last chance to be civil and sensible.
> 
> Are you saying, then, that you did in fact know what I meant to say but instead of simply pointing that out, you made a big deal out of nothing? or are saying that God _should_ be able to do the impossible?
> 
> I went back and read the origin excerpt from my article and agree that the observation I made is poorly expressed.  Thank you for pointing that out.
> 
> Revision:
> 
> That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it.  God can't do that either.  Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible.  This is not a limit on God's power.  On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms could possibly exist in the first place.​
> Better?
Click to expand...

I’ll give you one last chance to present a coherent argument.

In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods. You are attempting to argue from a position that is untenable in terms of any standard of debate. Ask yourself which worldview fits with empirical, day-to-day events of existence: "The naturally occurring universe is extant and was induced via laws and processes we can understand. Basic laws are never violated: a living entity dies, it stays dead. The laws of nature operate in this solar system as they appear to work as far back in time as we can see."

OR,

"The core of existence are supreme beings who create laws and then violates them per their whims. The dead don't necessarily stay dead, in fact, they will conclusively all rise again (Etc.)".

Honest debate is not being violated here by me-- I readily acknowledge the entities you assert are unknowable and beyond human perception and understanding. Given those three qualifications (among numerous others), I accept that what you assert does not exist (until such time as you offer your case for their existence). The attributes of the gods in terms of perceiving them externally are precisely the same as that of nothingness. We both agree completely on these characteristic issues, and the only bone of contention is our conclusions. You conclude that the gods being indistinguishable from nothingness supports their existence, and I conclude it defines their lack of same.

Existence becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation, doesn't it? No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it seems to be playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.

Why couldn’t the gods create a rock so heavy they couldn’t lift it or microwave a burrito so hot they couldn’t eat it? You are putting limitations on the gods and I find no indication that you are the final arbiter of what the gods can and cannot do. Nothing about omnipotence would necessarily preclude the gods from the rock or burrito scenario above, unless of course, your omniscience is a counter to my claim.


----------



## Ringtone

BULLDOG said:


> The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible. Seems like you prefer to put on aires over effective communication.  It's a common mistake among those who have recently gained only. a small amount knowledge.  Take a speaking course. It will help keep you from sounding like an insufferable ass.



_Yawn_

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the contents of the OP, not your stunted vocabulary, intellectual bigotry, ignorance, hysterics, vapors, baby talk, disingenuousness, dissembling, bruised ego, petty insults, hypocrisy, arrogance, rudeness, let alone your insufferable snobbery. 

So stop putting on airs, sunshine. 

Have you an argument of substance that begins by demonstrating that you objectively and accurately grasp the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the ramifications thereof, or not?


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheistic logic is founded on the claim that faith in existing God is a circular logic.
> 
> What can be shown however that if we follow the chains of causes and effects, then every logic ever is circular
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All logic is circular?  How's that?
Click to expand...


No matter what aspect you take and no matter what approach you choose, all logic about everything is circular.  You can pick anything.  Then reason for its causes.  Then pick one of those, and reason for the cause of that.  And so on.  Eventually you arrive that the original thing that you picked is the reason for for your latest reason in the chain of reasons.

For example, time is circular.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

anotherlife said:


> For example, time is circular.


It is? I am curious to hear this one.


----------



## anotherlife

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, time is circular.
> 
> 
> 
> It is? I am curious to hear this one.
Click to expand...


You can look it up on Google plus the philosophy forum had it a few times too. 

I am not a philosophy studeny, but it is also taught at philosophy classes.  

If I remember correctly, it goes like this. 

You determine your future as per your expectations in your past.  But your past is only visible reality to you in terms of what you expect in the future. 

For example if you are a chicken you run from the fox.  Your past determines your future, even though you have not ever been eaten.  

I am more interested in the mathematical aspects of this.  Yes, every quantum mechanical equation, as well as the Maxwell electromagnetism equations function unchanged, no matter what function you put in for its time variable. 

Furthermore, if you write out the equations of quantum electro dynamic in terms of relativistic factors, then the time variable falls out on both sides of the equation.  So it all is really nothing but a bunch of competing and coexisting set of copies of the same thing.  

In fact, modern mathematics proves that St Thomas Aquinas was right about the fundamental nature if all logic, most notably the idea of time.  But that is not new either, Jesus and Pontius Pilate discuss this too.


----------



## Ringtone

Further, _Creatio ex nihilo_ (Latin for _creation out of nothing_) is a theological term of art that means _creation out of no priorly existing substance_, not _creation_ _out of an ontological nothingness_.

Edit post #73:  the above should read _creation out of no priorly existing *material *substance. . . ._


----------



## Hollie

Religious arguments really don't belong in the Science and Technology Forum.  Religious arguments don't fit well with any of the defining criteria for Science and Technology. There's not much about supernaturalism which is focused on the observable Universe and the consequent, definable characteristics.  Miracles, supernaturalism, philosophical / religious arguments are not generally considered "testable" or "scientific."


----------



## justinacolmena

Ringtone said:


> *3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.


The word "exist" is Latin for something that "is" or it "comes out" or "becomes evident."

In Finnish it is said «tulee olemaan» that something "comes into being."

In Swedish there is a very similar expression for the existence or more literally the cause of something's existence «det kommer åstad» — literally “it comes to town” or “comes into place” as one might say “falls into place” in English.


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> No matter what aspect you take and no matter what approach you choose, all logic about everything is circular.  You can pick anything.  Then reason for its causes.  Then pick one of those, and reason for the cause of that.  And so on.  Eventually you arrive that the original thing that you picked is the reason for for your latest reason in the chain of reasons.
> 
> For example, time is circular.



I still don't follow why you're saying logic is circular, and, given entropy, how is time circular?  Causation is sequentially linear as well, in spite of the fact that the emergence of the causal conditions for any given effect and the effect thereof occur simultaneously.  In any event, I read you other post and sounds like you are onto something interesting.  Let me hear more.


----------



## Ringtone

justinacolmena said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> The word "exist" is Latin for something that "is" or it "comes out" or "becomes evident."
> 
> In Finnish it is said «tulee olemaan» that something "comes into being."
> 
> In Swedish there is a very similar expression for the existence or more literally the cause of something's existence «det kommer åstad» — literally “it comes to town” or “comes into place” as one might say “falls into place” in English.
Click to expand...


I thought the words for _exist_ in Latin were _esse_ or _existo_.


----------



## Kilroy2

Science and math can determine the existence of God. If science is still evolving how could it determine that? Science is only what is known at some point in time.  Science and math is nothing more than cause and effect. If the effect or cause  is not known then it is speculated as to what the effect or cause will be. Of course this invites errors, beliefs and disagreements. 

God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is. 

If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with  me?


----------



## justinacolmena

Ringtone said:


> I thought the words for _exist_ in Latin were _esse_ or _existo_.


Sure. The same words have a lot of different endings and conjugations.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods.



If by _gods_ you mean _God the Creator_, see OP. Thanks.  As for your notion that God should be able to do the impossible, that's crazy talk.


----------



## Ringtone

Kilroy2 said:


> *Science and math can determine the existence of God.* If science is still evolving how could it determine that? Science is only what is known at some point in time.  Science and math is nothing more than cause and effect. If the effect or cause  is not known then it is speculated as to what the effect or cause will be. Of course this invites errors, beliefs and disagreements.
> 
> God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is.
> 
> If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with  me?



I'm not sure what you're saying in the emboldened sentence.  Shouldn't that read _can't_ or should the sentence end with a question mark?

One can know that God exists and what His fundamental attributes are from the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.  See OP above.  One cannot fully know God or His will sans revelation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

anotherlife said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, time is circular.
> 
> 
> 
> It is? I am curious to hear this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can look it up on Google plus the philosophy forum had it a few times too.
> 
> I am not a philosophy studeny, but it is also taught at philosophy classes.
> 
> If I remember correctly, it goes like this.
> 
> You determine your future as per your expectations in your past.  But your past is only visible reality to you in terms of what you expect in the future.
> 
> For example if you are a chicken you run from the fox.  Your past determines your future, even though you have not ever been eaten.
> 
> I am more interested in the mathematical aspects of this.  Yes, every quantum mechanical equation, as well as the Maxwell electromagnetism equations function unchanged, no matter what function you put in for its time variable.
> 
> Furthermore, if you write out the equations of quantum electro dynamic in terms of relativistic factors, then the time variable falls out on both sides of the equation.  So it all is really nothing but a bunch of competing and coexisting set of copies of the same thing.
> 
> In fact, modern mathematics proves that St Thomas Aquinas was right about the fundamental nature if all logic, most notably the idea of time.  But that is not new either, Jesus and Pontius Pilate discuss this too.
Click to expand...

Excellent, thank you. I have also read about quantum mechanical experiments that show the future affects the past. Mind blowing stuff. 

Aquinas still understood that logic was a tool, but premises are more subjective than numbers in mathematics. 1+2=3 is objectively true, always. "Something cannot come from nothing" is not. Sonwhile Aquinas did love his arguments, even he acknowledged they were not "proof", even though he viewed them as emergent from the creation as he did mathematics. I would say he was right on both counts, right up to when he then insisted design.


----------



## justinacolmena

Kilroy2 said:


> God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is.











						Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:30 - King James Version
					

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.




					www.biblegateway.com
				





Kilroy2 said:


> If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with me?







__





						MARK 1:24 KJV Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy...
					

Mark 1:24 KJV: Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.




					www.kingjamesbibleonline.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

justinacolmena said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God can only be know if he appears before you and proves that it is God. Yet God is only what we thing that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 24:30 - King James Version
> 
> 
> And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.biblegateway.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God was to appear before me, my first question would be "What do you want with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MARK 1:24 KJV Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy...
> 
> 
> Mark 1:24 KJV: Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
Click to expand...

God wants me to just be a good person and not worry about him. That's my god. If he exists at all.


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what aspect you take and no matter what approach you choose, all logic about everything is circular.  You can pick anything.  Then reason for its causes.  Then pick one of those, and reason for the cause of that.  And so on.  Eventually you arrive that the original thing that you picked is the reason for for your latest reason in the chain of reasons.
> 
> For example, time is circular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't follow why you're saying logic is circular, and, given entropy, how is time circular?  Causation is sequentially linear as well, in spite of the fact that the emergence of the causal conditions for any given effect and the effect thereof occur simultaneously.  In any event, I read you other post and sounds like you are onto something interesting.  Let me hear more.
Click to expand...


I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.

Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.

By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:

dS/dn = A*S

and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:

S(n) = exp(A*n)

The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.

So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).

Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.

S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)

And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.

To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:

accuracy * time = Planck constant 

Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js

This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.

So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?  Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term _sufficient cause_ and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Magic!
Click to expand...


Then you can't answer his simple question.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The OP is free to read for yourself.
Click to expand...


The reason why I ignored the OP itself is because I have seen all the religious pap for over 40 years now, there is little left for me not to know anymore.

Religion runs on faith, that is all you have.


----------



## Sunsettommy

james bond said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
Click to expand...


No evidence then, but faith got you conned deeply.


----------



## anotherlife

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example, time is circular.
> 
> 
> 
> It is? I am curious to hear this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can look it up on Google plus the philosophy forum had it a few times too.
> 
> I am not a philosophy studeny, but it is also taught at philosophy classes.
> 
> If I remember correctly, it goes like this.
> 
> You determine your future as per your expectations in your past.  But your past is only visible reality to you in terms of what you expect in the future.
> 
> For example if you are a chicken you run from the fox.  Your past determines your future, even though you have not ever been eaten.
> 
> I am more interested in the mathematical aspects of this.  Yes, every quantum mechanical equation, as well as the Maxwell electromagnetism equations function unchanged, no matter what function you put in for its time variable.
> 
> Furthermore, if you write out the equations of quantum electro dynamic in terms of relativistic factors, then the time variable falls out on both sides of the equation.  So it all is really nothing but a bunch of competing and coexisting set of copies of the same thing.
> 
> In fact, modern mathematics proves that St Thomas Aquinas was right about the fundamental nature if all logic, most notably the idea of time.  But that is not new either, Jesus and Pontius Pilate discuss this too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent, thank you. I have also read about quantum mechanical experiments that show the future affects the past. Mind blowing stuff.
> 
> Aquinas still understood that logic was a tool, but premises are more subjective than numbers in mathematics. 1+2=3 is objectively true, always. "Something cannot come from nothing" is not. Sonwhile Aquinas did love his arguments, even he acknowledged they were not "proof", even though he viewed them as emergent from the creation as he did mathematics. I would say he was right on both counts, right up to when he then insisted design.
Click to expand...


Yes St Thomas Aquinas is absolutely amazing.  800 years before quantum mechanic, he could deduct that time is just a bunch of copies of an original, and that since we can tell copies away from each other, it all is just a measure of corruption.  Absolutely amazing.  

I do have to stand with him about the question of design too, because it is valid to ask about the first mover.  In a world locked into an energy conservation principle, there can be no first mover, so no motion and no time, no corruption.  Therefore A creator must exist which then can be corrupted.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already said I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical.  Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what _ontological nothingness_ means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's your OP, I'm asking you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't run away from anything in the first place.  Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?
> 
> As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation:  I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity_—_i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating.  That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place.  In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.
> 
> Moving on. . . .
> 
> An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!
> 
> Or, stated another way:
> 
> Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!
> 
> I ask you once again:
> 
> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?
> 
> It's a yes/no question.
Click to expand...


You still have nothing beyond the level of faith to offer.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Further, _Creatio ex nihilo_ (Latin for _creation out of nothing_) is a theological term of art that means _creation out of no priorly existing substance_, not _creation_ _out of an ontological nothingness_.
> 
> Edit post #73:  the above should read _creation out of no priorly existing *material *substance. . . ._



_creation out of nothing_  is still NOTHING!

Faith is all you have.....


----------



## justinacolmena

Bible Gateway passage: Génesis 1:1-3 - Reina-Valera Antigua
					

EN el principio crió Dios los cielos y la tierra. Y la tierra estaba desordenada y vacía, y las tinieblas estaban sobre la haz del abismo, y el Espíritu de Dios se movía sobre la haz de las aguas. Y dijo Dios: Sea la luz: y fué la luz.




					www.biblegateway.com
				



No sooner did darkness fall on the primordial Sabbath and it became permissible to work but God came into existence to perform His almighty labors.

The evening went by and it was morning and the whole day was spent but God continued working six days straight, until the the morning dew began to fall on the Sabbath, when God perfected His work and rested.


----------



## Sunsettommy

justinacolmena said:


> Bible Gateway passage: Génesis 1:1-3 - Reina-Valera Antigua
> 
> 
> EN el principio crió Dios los cielos y la tierra. Y la tierra estaba desordenada y vacía, y las tinieblas estaban sobre la haz del abismo, y el Espíritu de Dios se movía sobre la haz de las aguas. Y dijo Dios: Sea la luz: y fué la luz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.biblegateway.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sooner did darkness fall on the primordial Sabbath and it became permissible to work but God came into existence to perform His almighty labors.
> 
> The evening went by and it was morning and the whole day was spent but God continued working six days straight, until the the morning dew began to fall on the Sabbath, when God perfected His work and rested.



That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> ...
> 
> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​



What was the 'Cause" of 'gods' existence?
​​


> *The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:*
> *3. The universe has a cause of its existence.*​*3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.*​*3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.....*[/B]​


​*Your damn right it's your own formulation..*​*IT'S GIBBERISH.*​​*The universe is 'impersonal.' 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% impersonal and it's material existence governed by the property's of physics, not the Gospels.*​*Just an accident or two we don't understand ... YET... but not proof of god.*​​*OH NO, It's couched in philosophical trash, but still 'God of the Gaps' you beaten clown.*​​*You're a transparent Religious FREAK parading around with the IDENTICAL argument in every thread/OP.*​​*An illogical god-BORE rationalizing/Philosophizing is Not Evidence of god. (In your case Haysoos), like most of the FREAKS here.*​​​*`*​​​


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume everything you wrote is 100% true, is there any demonstrable connection between this creator and the God of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that goes to an entirely different discussion, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

True I guess, but it does render this topic academic.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by _gods_ you mean _God the Creator_, see OP. Thanks.  As for your notion that God should be able to do the impossible, that's crazy talk.
Click to expand...

It is your contention that there are some creator gods but you fail to indicate which of the various claims to gods you refer to.  

As to your gods being limited in some ways, can you describe their limits and are there other, competing gods who do not share the limits of your gods.


----------



## Hollie

Sunsettommy said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you amateur. It's just that nobody wants to tangle up with you and go down the rabbit hole of your regressive, ontological pap. Maybe find you a youngin' that wants to spend 5 hours watching you move the goalposts and show him every turtle all the way down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The OP is free to read for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason why I ignored the OP itself is because I have seen all the religious pap for over 40 years now, there is little left for me not to know anymore.
> 
> Religion runs on faith, that is all you have.
Click to expand...

Its a tactic of the ID creationists such as the OP to put their religious propaganda in Science and Technology forums in the hope of giving their propaganda credibility as something other than faith based apologetics. 

The ''Kalam'' theological Cul de sac gave William Lane Craig his 15 minutes of fame but like all the versions of religious arguments, supernatural cosmology cannot survive the challenge of scientific review.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Sunsettommy said:


> That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.



Volumes have been written contradicting your atheist faith. Thousands of volumes.

I refer you to:

_*The Case for Faith *_by Lee Strobel
*The Case for Christ *by Lee Strobel
_*The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict *_by Josh McDowell
*The Devil's Delusion* by David Berlinski 
_*Rare Earth*_ by Ward and Brownlee
_*Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn (Former militant atheist)
There is that same putrid stench of militarist propaganda which reeks from the pages of New Atheist script, and is immediately familiar to anyone who has read the work of Herr Josef Goebbels, constituting little more than a host of lavishly morbid anecdotes and caricatures of religion punctuated here and there with traces of puerile logic.

Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.”

Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide.

_*The Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day (Former militant atheist)

The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist.

Studies have shown that those without religion have life expectancies seven years shorter than the average churchgoer, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol and be depressed or obese, and they are much less likely to marry or have children.

-------------------------------------------


*Your atheist beliefs are demonstrably unhealthy, physically and mentally, and yet you insist otherwise, to your own eternal detriment. Pride is the original sin.  It is your downfall.  I am nothing.   It's not about me, but you atheists always try to make it about the individual(s) trying to teach you what you refuse to consider much less learn.   You're smarter, you're better, you're more moral, you're more scientific. You're better than God and so you don't need God (you think, you preach).- ChemEngineer*


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Volumes have been written contradicting your atheist faith. Thousands of volumes.
> 
> I refer you to:
> 
> _*The Case for Faith *_by Lee Strobel
> *The Case for Christ *by Lee Strobel
> _*The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict *_by Josh McDowell
> *The Devil's Delusion* by David Berlinski
> _*Rare Earth*_ by Ward and Brownlee
> _*Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn (Former militant atheist)
> There is that same putrid stench of militarist propaganda which reeks from the pages of New Atheist script, and is immediately familiar to anyone who has read the work of Herr Josef Goebbels, constituting little more than a host of lavishly morbid anecdotes and caricatures of religion punctuated here and there with traces of puerile logic.
> 
> Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.”
> 
> Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide.
> 
> _*The Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day (Former militant atheist)
> 
> The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist.
> 
> Studies have shown that those without religion have life expectancies seven years shorter than the average churchgoer, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol and be depressed or obese, and they are much less likely to marry or have children.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> *Your atheist beliefs are demonstrably unhealthy, physically and mentally, and yet you insist otherwise, to your own eternal detriment. Pride is the original sin.  It is your downfall.  I am nothing.   It's not about me, but you atheists always try to make it about the individual(s) trying to teach you what you refuse to consider much less learn.   You're smarter, you're better, you're more moral, you're more scientific. You're better than God and so you don't need God (you think, you preach).- ChemEngineer*
Click to expand...


*"You're smarter, you're better, you're more moral, you're more scientific.''

Thanks. *

*In the categories of enraged, self-hating, defeatist and slovenly, you religious extremists have a definite advantage**. *


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Volumes have been written contradicting your atheist faith. Thousands of volumes.
> 
> I refer you to:
> 
> _*The Case for Faith *_by Lee Strobel
> *The Case for Christ *by Lee Strobel
> _*The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict *_by Josh McDowell
> *The Devil's Delusion* by David Berlinski
> _*Rare Earth*_ by Ward and Brownlee
> _*Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn (Former militant atheist)
> There is that same putrid stench of militarist propaganda which reeks from the pages of New Atheist script, and is immediately familiar to anyone who has read the work of Herr Josef Goebbels, constituting little more than a host of lavishly morbid anecdotes and caricatures of religion punctuated here and there with traces of puerile logic.
> 
> Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.”
> 
> Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide.
> 
> _*The Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day (Former militant atheist)
> 
> The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist.
> 
> Studies have shown that those without religion have life expectancies seven years shorter than the average churchgoer, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol and be depressed or obese, and they are much less likely to marry or have children.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> *Your atheist beliefs are demonstrably unhealthy, physically and mentally, and yet you insist otherwise, to your own eternal detriment. Pride is the original sin.  It is your downfall.  I am nothing.   It's not about me, but you atheists always try to make it about the individual(s) trying to teach you what you refuse to consider much less learn.   You're smarter, you're better, you're more moral, you're more scientific. You're better than God and so you don't need God (you think, you preach).- ChemEngineer*
Click to expand...






__





						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Strobel 

Lee Strobel is a popular Christian apologetics speaker, creationist, newspaper writer, intelligent design panderer, former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune television host (“Faith under Fire”), and author of several books, all with titles starting with “The case for …”. In his publications and interviews Strobel’s approach is to claim to assume the role of an investigative reporter but take anything that agrees with his position at face value (regardless of how vague, foggy, or unsupported it is; examples here and here). His tactic against people he disagrees with is to take a quote out of context and use it to erect a strawman. Note that his point is not to argue that faith is compatible with science - he does indeed perceive a conflict between science and religion; fortunately, his armchair arguments for God are supposedly good enough to refute the parts of science he doesn't fancy.

So for instance his collection “The Case for A Creator” (mild critique of some of it here), which was supposed to have an unbiased, critical approach to the question of whether there is, you know, a designer, contained one rant against evolution by Discotute fellow Jonathan Wells, a discussion of the relationship between science and religion (and abiogenesis) by Discotute fellow Stephen Meyer, a discussion of the Big Bang and the cosmological argument by William Lane Craig, Robin Collins using the anthropic principle to argue for design, Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richards using Rare Earth to argue for design, Michael Behe discussing irreducible complexity, and J.P. Moreland arguing that out-of-body experiences near death is good evidence for dualism (seriously). You see where this is going – to make the scientific case for the Creator, use the hardcore science denialists. Some of the “The case for …” books also exist in kids’ versions (“The case for a Creator for kids”), which is also entirely expectable for these people, whose goal is not truth but converting as many people as possible.

You can find balanced assessment of The Case for Christ here; of The Case for Easter here; of The Case for Faith here; and of the Case for a Creator here.

Strobel’s own arguments against evolutionary theory are mostly based on ignorance and distortion, for instance “Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process” [no, it isn’t], and “Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator.” It is followed by “700 scientists of impeccable credentials signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement. Believing in evolution requires a leap of fatih. This isn't faith versus science it's science versus science.” Right.

As with so many of these people, Strobel claims to be a former atheist who was converted by the gaps in and failures of science.

*Diagnosis: One of the central figures of the Dishonest Apologists movement. He is enormously influential (example: Oklahoma legislator Josh Brecheen used Strobel’s rant in defense of introducing creationism in Oklahoma schools), and one of the most dangerous threats to science alive in the US.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

anotherlife said:


> I do have to stand with him about the question of design too, because it is valid to ask about the first mover.


Sure, but that is philosophy. It is not a testable, scientific idea. And don't trick yourself into thinking you have found some sort of objective, forcing argument for a god. Really you have subjectively chosen a long form way of authoritatively saying, "There is a god." You agree to subjective premises from the start which are, themselves, carefully chosen specifically for the success of the argument.. So the first mover argument is no more compelling than saying, "I think strawberries taste good." Well...good for you. Let's not try to turn "strawberries taste good" into a philosophical treatise in order to try to sneak it by as some sort of forcing argument or objective truth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

I say it is possible that something CAN come from nothing without help from magical gods.

I also say it is possible the universe has no beginning.

Good luck ruling out any of that. In a universe wher either of these statements are true, these ontological and regressive arguments become unsound and worthless, as their premises are false.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?  Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term _sufficient cause_ and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Magic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can't answer his simple question.
Click to expand...


The question is absurd.  God did not begin to exist.  Read the OP.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> God did not begin to exist


I say he did. Same for the other gods.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, who created the creator then? You want me to accept that your god character gets to defy all logic, fact, science and reason. And gets to break all the rules.
> 
> If what you are telling me doesn't pass the scientific method then I throw it out.
> 
> 
> 
> Baby talk.  Something exists rather than nothing, dummy.  The imperatives of logic, mathematics and science tell us that something has always existed.
> 
> The first premise:  That which *begins to exist* must have a cause of its existence.
> 
> Are you really that stupid or are you prevaricating?
Click to expand...

I guarantee you the answer to the things you believe we know Is we don’t know.

Has your theory made it through consensus among the scientific community yet?


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, precisely, are you saying here, Hollie, and why is cnm giving you a thumbs up for this incoherency? Are you saying that God should be able to do the absurd or impossible?
Click to expand...

Why not? You claim god can do the absurd and impossible.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
Click to expand...

There was something before the big bang true. But why a god?


----------



## Moonglow

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was something before the big bang true. But why a god?
Click to expand...

With Semitic overtones.


----------



## sealybobo

Moonglow said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.
Click to expand...

If there is a god this isn’t his only universe and we certainly aren’t his only children.


----------



## sealybobo

Moonglow said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was something before the big bang true. But why a god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With Semitic overtones.
Click to expand...

Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god. The war against zeus and apollo.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Observable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilbert's hotel room argument squashed the singularity argument or did you not observe that?
Click to expand...

How? Sum it up.


----------



## sealybobo

james bond said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon both Georges Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble showed an expanding and accelerating universe.
Click to expand...

For now. Doesn’t mean it will forever.


----------



## Moonglow

sealybobo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was something before the big bang true. But why a god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With Semitic overtones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god. The war against zeus and apollo.
Click to expand...

About the time they stopped doing animal sacrifices.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.


Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?  Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term _sufficient cause_ and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Magic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can't answer his simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is absurd.  God did not begin to exist.  Read the OP.
Click to expand...

Humans evolved in the last 200,000 years after a 13 billion year process.

The bible says god poofed all land creatures into existence. In 7 days. And people today still follow this ancient religion. Every error can be explained away. And religions evolve. Today gays can marry and blacks can marry whites. Some Christians even believe in evolution. They don’t take the Bible’s literally. Cherry pickers. Every bs story was just an allegory except jesus story. That really happened.

Do Christians claim jews are liars? Because they were there and say Jesus was no messiah. Did not happen. They’re still waiting


----------



## Moonglow

sealybobo said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?  Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term _sufficient cause_ and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Magic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can't answer his simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is absurd.  God did not begin to exist.  Read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans evolved in the last 200,000 years after a 13 billion year process.
> 
> The bible says god poofed all land creatures into existence. In 7 days. And people today still follow this ancient religion. Every error can be explained away. And religions evolve. Today gays can marry and blacks can marry whites. Some Christians even believe in evolution. They don’t take the Bible’s literally. Cherry pickers. Every bs story was just an allegory except jesus story. That really happened.
> 
> Do Christians claim jews are liars? Because they were there and say Jesus was no messiah. Did not happen. They’re still waiting
Click to expand...

It is just like how the Egyptian Egyptologist claim there is no record of the Hebrews being slaves and of the event in the Bible where Moses and God intervened for their liberation.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.
Click to expand...

Imagine where we would be today if instead of Christianity we pushed truth logic science and reason.

No wars

We’d be mining Mars not our precious planet

No poverty. Only lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich, really rich, really really rich, really really really rich, etc. Same as now just no poverty.

There would be no man made global warming

Abortions would be rare because people can afford to have kids. But still abortion would be legal.

Less poverty means less crime so crime would be rare.

Everyone could afford to retire at age 65

No one would die or be bankrupt because they didn’t have insurance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine where we would be today if instead of Christianity we pushed truth logic science and reason.
> 
> No wars
> 
> We’d be mining Mars not our precious planet
> 
> No poverty. Only lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich, really rich, really really rich, really really really rich, etc. Same as now just no poverty.
> 
> There would be no man made global warming
> 
> Abortions would be rare because people can afford to have kids. But still abortion would be legal.
> 
> Less poverty means less crime so crime would be rare.
> 
> Everyone could afford to retire at age 65
> 
> No one would die or be bankrupt because they didn’t have insurance.
Click to expand...

Instead we have Presidents invading Muslim countries because "god said so".


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is a god this isn’t his only universe and we certainly aren’t his only children.
Click to expand...


That does not follow at all.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine where we would be today if instead of Christianity we pushed truth logic science and reason.
> 
> No wars
> 
> We’d be mining Mars not our precious planet
> 
> No poverty. Only lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich, really rich, really really rich, really really really rich, etc. Same as now just no poverty.
> 
> There would be no man made global warming
> 
> Abortions would be rare because people can afford to have kids. But still abortion would be legal.
> 
> Less poverty means less crime so crime would be rare.
> 
> Everyone could afford to retire at age 65
> 
> No one would die or be bankrupt because they didn’t have insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead we have Presidents invading Muslim countries because "god said so".
Click to expand...

Yes bush said god told him to invade Iraq.

Lets not forget he was just as bad as trump. So will the next republican be just as bad. They’ll try to portray him as better but he will still be told what to do by ALEC and the Heritage foundation.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is a god this isn’t his only universe and we certainly aren’t his only children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not follow at all.
Click to expand...

Stop putting god in your tiny little box. You’re like a tardigrade that can’t see outside his drop of water.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine where we would be today if instead of Christianity we pushed truth logic science and reason.
> 
> No wars
> 
> We’d be mining Mars not our precious planet
> 
> No poverty. Only lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich, really rich, really really rich, really really really rich, etc. Same as now just no poverty.
> 
> There would be no man made global warming
> 
> Abortions would be rare because people can afford to have kids. But still abortion would be legal.
> 
> Less poverty means less crime so crime would be rare.
> 
> Everyone could afford to retire at age 65
> 
> No one would die or be bankrupt because they didn’t have insurance.
Click to expand...


Your historical ignorance is showing.  You better zip that up.  Christians devised the scientific method.


----------



## sealybobo

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine where we would be today if instead of Christianity we pushed truth logic science and reason.
> 
> No wars
> 
> We’d be mining Mars not our precious planet
> 
> No poverty. Only lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich, really rich, really really rich, really really really rich, etc. Same as now just no poverty.
> 
> There would be no man made global warming
> 
> Abortions would be rare because people can afford to have kids. But still abortion would be legal.
> 
> Less poverty means less crime so crime would be rare.
> 
> Everyone could afford to retire at age 65
> 
> No one would die or be bankrupt because they didn’t have insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your historical ignorance is showing.  You better zip that up.  Christians devised the scientific method.
Click to expand...

I think Socrates did 300 years bc.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> I think Socrates did 300 years bc.


Correct. And the Christians destroyed his work and legacy for over 1000 years. It was once we experienced secular enlightenment did we again discover the value of the scientific method. We literally began adhering to the method again IN SPITE OF Christianity. Mankind had to dig out from under the pall of magical religious horseshit that held him back for 1500 years in order to begin the modern era of scientific advancement.

We have reached the point where Ringtone the fraud is now just making stuff up. He does this because, when others have to do the exercise of sorting out his made up lies and debunking them, they don't actually get to make any of their own points. It's the Alamo tactic for frauds who have nothing else to offer, after their overblown, amateurish arguments are all diminished. He will keep doing this. Just watch. Then people will get tired of sifting through the steaming piles he pinches off and bow out. Then, he declares victory.

Rinse, repeat.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Socrates did 300 years bc.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. And the Christians destroyed his work and legacy for over 1000 years. It was once we experienced secular enlightenment did we again discover the value of the scientific method. We literally began adhering to the method again IN SPITE OF Christianity. Mankind had to dig out from under the pall of magical religious horseshit that held him back for 1500 years in order to begin the modern era of scientific advancement.
> 
> We have reached the point where Ringtone the fraud is now just making stuff up. He does this because, when others have to do the exercise of sorting out his made up lies and debunking them, they don't actually get to make any of their own points. It's the Alamo tactic for frauds who have nothing else to offer, after their overblown, amateurish arguments are all diminished. He will keep doing this. Just watch. Then people will get tired of sifting through the steaming piles he pinches off and bow out. Then, he declares victory.
> 
> Rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...

Christians cherry picked science. If it was science that comes up with cures, they accept and even take credit for that science.  But if the science proves evolution or anything else that contradicts the Bible, they ignore that stuff.

Reminds me of Christians who owned slaves in the 1800s. They said blacks weren’t humans. What science told them that? Because scientifically, they are just like us whites, asians, Arabs, blonde Scandinavians, etc. yet Christians back then believed what the Bible said. Didn’t it call blacks beasts or something like that?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> The question is absurd.  God did not begin to exist.  Read the OP.



I have to say the ID creationer ".._. because I say so_'', argument has such merit. How could anyone disagree?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Socrates did 300 years bc.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. And the Christians destroyed his work and legacy for over 1000 years. It was once we experienced secular enlightenment did we again discover the value of the scientific method. We literally began adhering to the method again IN SPITE OF Christianity. Mankind had to dig out from under the pall of magical religious horseshit that held him back for 1500 years in order to begin the modern era of scientific advancement.
> 
> We have reached the point where Ringtone the fraud is now just making stuff up. He does this because, when others have to do the exercise of sorting out his made up lies and debunking them, they don't actually get to make any of their own points. It's the Alamo tactic for frauds who have nothing else to offer, after their overblown, amateurish arguments are all diminished. He will keep doing this. Just watch. Then people will get tired of sifting through the steaming piles he pinches off and bow out. Then, he declares victory.
> 
> Rinse, repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christians cherry picked science. If it was science that comes up with cures, they accept and even take credit for that science.  But if the science proves evolution or anything else that contradicts the Bible, they ignore that stuff.
> 
> Reminds me of Christians who owned slaves in the 1800s. They said blacks weren’t humans. What science told them that? Because scientifically, they are just like us whites, asians, Arabs, blonde Scandinavians, etc. yet Christians back then believed what the Bible said. Didn’t it call blacks beasts or something like that?
Click to expand...

The entire Tower of Babel story is a justification for racism. It is literally the reason the fairy tale was invented. People were using the Bible to argue against interracial mixing in the 60s. They literally were saying God told them not to serve negroes in their stores. And, maybe even worse, claiming this belief should be respected by law because they believe it.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Ringtone said:


> Your historical ignorance is showing (sealybobo).  You better zip that up.  Christians devised the scientific method.



You are wasting your time.
"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible

Proverbs 9:8 *Do not rebuke a mocker*, or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> If there is a god this isn’t his only universe and we certainly aren’t his only children.





Ringtone said:


> That does not follow at all.





sealybobo said:


> Stop putting god in your tiny little box. You’re like a tardigrade that can’t see outside his drop of water.


Your assertion, in and of itself, dummy, doesn't necessarily follow from your premise.  Stop cramming God into your puerile (i.e., _childish_ for Bulldog) logic.  Further, you obviously didn't read my earlier post.  The only narrow-minded, intellectual tardigrades around here are you atheists.  I've forgotten more about the pertinent science and the potentialites thereof than the likes of you will ever know:

Whether *our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse:* the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.​​*We cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!*​​Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.​​In scientific terms:​​Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (*Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete*).​​This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.​​Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:​​It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine where we would be today if instead of Christianity we pushed truth logic science and reason.
> 
> No wars
> 
> We’d be mining Mars not our precious planet
> 
> No poverty. Only lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich, really rich, really really rich, really really really rich, etc. Same as now just no poverty.
> 
> There would be no man made global warming
> 
> Abortions would be rare because people can afford to have kids. But still abortion would be legal.
> 
> Less poverty means less crime so crime would be rare.
> 
> Everyone could afford to retire at age 65
> 
> No one would die or be bankrupt because they didn’t have insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your historical ignorance is showing.  You better zip that up.  Christians devised the scientific method.
Click to expand...

It was a Christian mob that destroyed the Library of Alexandria, literally setting back human development. 

The Christian Church held back humanity for 800 years during the Dark Ages.

I guess we're lucky you fine folks have given up burning people at the stake.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a god this isn’t his only universe and we certainly aren’t his only children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not follow at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop putting god in your tiny little box. You’re like a tardigrade that can’t see outside his drop of water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your assertion, in and of itself, dummy, doesn't necessarily follow from your premise.  Stop cramming God into your puerile (i.e., _childish_ for Bulldog) logic.  Further, you obviously didn't read my earlier post.  The only narrow-minded, intellectual tardigrades around here are you atheists.  I've forgotten more about the pertinent science and the potentialites thereof than the likes of you will ever know:
> 
> Whether *our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, one large spacetime continuum, albeit, with localized areas of activity, one in a cyclical series of universes, or a multiverse:* the cosmological configuration at large cannot be past eternal.​​*We cannot scientifically preclude the former potentialities in bold, but we can logically, mathematically and scientifically preclude the possibility that the latter is past eternal!*​​Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite.​​In scientific terms:​​Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition _H av > 0_ holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics [i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, _reach_ the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" (*Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete*).​​This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.​​Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:​​It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (_Many World in One_; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​
Click to expand...

Admitting you have forgotten so much about the science you apparently never learned (did you study at the Benny Hinn madrassah?) doesn't help your argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> I guess we're lucky you fine folks have given up burning people at the stake.


They didn't "give it up". They were forced to abandon it, once better, secular ideas like scientific enlightenment and classical liberalism came along. Once again (and this is the theme for the last 2000 years), we progressed past those bad ideas not just in spite of religion, but in the face of strong, active opposition from religious people acting on their religion.

And the only reason they don't do it now is that they benefit from the gift of being born in a more enlightened age. Did the Bible change over time? Nope. Same Bible, but better culture.  The culture they were born into changed, thanks to secular ideas. They can literally thank the abandonment of their religion for the current, better state of affairs. But they won't.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine the time when the preachers of the world decided to end the notion there was more than one god.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, those assholes also decided to put an end to Hellenistic and Socratic thought, ushering in the dark ages. The Muslims saw that and thought, "That seems nice!", and followed suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imagine where we would be today if instead of Christianity we pushed truth logic science and reason.
> 
> No wars
> 
> We’d be mining Mars not our precious planet
> 
> No poverty. Only lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, rich, really rich, really really rich, really really really rich, etc. Same as now just no poverty.
> 
> There would be no man made global warming
> 
> Abortions would be rare because people can afford to have kids. But still abortion would be legal.
> 
> Less poverty means less crime so crime would be rare.
> 
> Everyone could afford to retire at age 65
> 
> No one would die or be bankrupt because they didn’t have insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your historical ignorance is showing.  You better zip that up.  Christians devised the scientific method.
Click to expand...


Actually is was the MUSLIMS who devised the Scientific Method while the Christians were enjoying the dark ages of their own making.


----------



## anotherlife

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have to stand with him about the question of design too, because it is valid to ask about the first mover.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but that is philosophy. It is not a testable, scientific idea. And don't trick yourself into thinking you have found some sort of objective, forcing argument for a god. Really you have subjectively chosen a long form way of authoritatively saying, "There is a god." You agree to subjective premises from the start which are, themselves, carefully chosen specifically for the success of the argument.. So the first mover argument is no more compelling than saying, "I think strawberries taste good." Well...good for you. Let's not try to turn "strawberries taste good" into a philosophical treatise in order to try to sneak it by as some sort of forcing argument or objective truth.
Click to expand...



Ok so we can revisit the definition of God.  What is God?  

Let's begin with the point that whatever you can control yourself, alone, you don't need God fir, so once you decide that you expect strawberries to taste good, then you have already excluded the necessity to have a God.  

However you didn't consider how many factors that are external to your senses and expectation can define how the strawberries should taste, in addition to your expectation.  One of those factors can as well be God.  Also the devil.  And these additional factors run on you without your knowledge and control.  

Mathematucally, since this thread is about mathematical theolg, you are facing the fundamental fact that all creation is in pairs manifesting as a basic unit of 3 and not 2, as per God.  (See Pythagoras theory.)  But as soon as that is established, it is corrupted by the devil.  (See orthogonality.)  
For example this is why you can invent any pattern of a map with any shapes of countries, you need only always exactly 4 colors to color each country on it such that the same color doesn't exist on both sides of any border.  

The existence of God is thereby declared by Pythagoras and by the possibility of orthogonality.  

Without these, your logic example of the strawberries hold true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

anotherlife said:


> Ok so we can revisit the definition of God. What is God?


You can stop right there. Not interested. I say the definition of god is a football sized chunk of ice cream that plays the bagpipes. And all your definitions are wrong. The end.

You guys really aren't getting this. Of course you like the game, when you can rig it by taking your subjective desires and assuming them as objectively true premises (and demanding others do the same). Anyone can do that. See?:

*Ice cream must be made by someone.

God is ice cream.

Therefore someone else made God.*

I win!


----------



## Ringtone

sealybobo said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh?  Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term _sufficient cause_ and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness.  Magic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you can't answer his simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is absurd.  God did not begin to exist.  Read the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Humans evolved in the last 200,000 years after a 13 billion year process.
> 
> The bible says god poofed all land creatures into existence. In 7 days. And people today still follow this ancient religion. Every error can be explained away. And religions evolve. Today gays can marry and blacks can marry whites. Some Christians even believe in evolution. They don’t take the Bible’s literally. Cherry pickers. Every bs story was just an allegory except jesus story. That really happened.
> 
> Do Christians claim jews are liars? Because they were there and say Jesus was no messiah. Did not happen. They’re still waiting
Click to expand...


That's six days, not seven days, of creation to you heathen, and a _literal_ reading of the biblical text does not assert that the six days of creation are consecutive, 24-hours days at all.  Further, the text does not specify the age of the Earth, let alone that of the Universe.  The presumptuous, pre-scientific hermeneutics of Usherianism and the biblical text are not the same thing.  The rest of your post is off topic, and I'm still waiting on an answer to this question:

Is it  your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?  Magic?​
It's a yes/no question.

_crickets chirping  _


----------



## ChemEngineer

*Science of the Bible*​


As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.

Before citing the First Sentence in the First Book of the Holy Bible, let me give a good definition of modern science from the Bible:

*I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*

Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.

*Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*

The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.

In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.


Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.

So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.


*Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*

Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.

*Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*

The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.

*Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*

One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.


*Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*

Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.

*Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *

We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist

If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.

*Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....



John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*

The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.

In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.

I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:

"Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies

Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.



* Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*

Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.

*Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*

With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.

"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman

* Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*

The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”

Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.

*Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.*

Knowledge is not wisdom. Countless men and women throughout history have been filled with knowledge, while doing foolish and evil things which destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of others.

*Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*

How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.

*Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*

The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."

*Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.

NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”



Astronomy Picture of the Day

How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?

*Psalms 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.*

For centuries, astronomers have studied planets and stars, which have spoken eloquent volumes of knowledge and even mathematics. Sir Isaac Newton invented the calculus in order to understand elliptical orbits of planets. No less a scientist than Carl Sagan said, “Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still.” (*Cosmos*, page 93) When a person of faith expresses amazement, they are ridiculed for expressing “The Argument From Incredulity.” When agnostic Sagan expresses the very same “argument,”other non-believers never ever ridicule or mock it. Such hypocrisy is unscientific and unintelligent.

* Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*

Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish

Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*


Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.


Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.


Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.

The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.

Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.

Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.


In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.

Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.

The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.

*Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*

Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.

*Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*

“To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.

*Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*

The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.

*Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*

Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.

How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)


Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.


*Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.

Galatians 6:26 Let us not be desirous of vainglory, provoking one another, envying one another.*

Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter. Atheism is an essential component of socialism and communism, as is envying one another. The vainglory of atheists is prominent in their claims of intellectual and moral superiority. They claim that Christians are only good to get to heaven, while the atheists themselves are good just because off their sanctimonious egos. The Christian knows that we are all sinners, saved only by Grace.

*Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*

Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.

*Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*

Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?

*Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;

Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*

Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.

Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.

* Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*

Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.

Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.

*John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*


The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?



*I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*

Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.

*Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*


This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net


*Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*


Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.


*Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*


Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."


*John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*

Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.

*Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*

Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.

The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.

Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.

Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.


* Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.


First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.


Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.

But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.


** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.


Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.


Additional reading: Science and the Bible


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?


A stupidly formatted, loaded question, but exactly what one would expect from a mind addled by faith. People of faith think assertions attain value based on whether or not they are BELIEVED. Rational people consider whether or not they are POSSIBLE. This is the intellectual poison that is faith, in action. It is a mental handicap that binds the mind from the start.

The correct question that is devoid of the intellectual fraud of faithy goofiness is this:

*Is it POSSIBLE that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?*

The correct answer is: We don't know. Therefore, maybe yes, maybe no.

This superior intellectual process (and its abandonment of authoritative intellectual regimes that value belief over inquiry) is why we are having this discussion on quantum mechanical devices instead of by carrier pigeon. And it is also why we are not in danger of being executed, if the wrong priest reads our messages.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A stupidly formatted, loaded question, but exactly what one would expect from a mind addled by faith. People of faith think assertions attain value based on whether or not they are BELIEVED.


 
A "mind" such as that of physicist Max Planck, Nobel Laureate:  *“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is the quality which the scientists cannot dispense with”.*


“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how.  The only possible answers are religious.  I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” – Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate

“When I began my career as a cosmologist… I was a convinced atheist.  I never imagined that I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true        …. straightforward deductions of the laws of physics… I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” – Frank Tipler, professor of mathematical physics


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> Actually is was the MUSLIMS who devised the Scientific Method while the Christians were enjoying the dark ages of their own making.



The modern scientific method comprehensively incorporates Aristotelian empiricism and Arabic experientialism per the unification of the inductive-deductive continuum.   While Aristotle is credited for apprehending the duality of scientific reasoning, it was left to Robert Grosseteste to expound the synthesis of the two methods of knowledge (logic and experience) relative to deciphering the discrete constituents of empirical phenomena.  From there Roger Bacon expounded the unification relative to his cyclically repetitious methodology of observation, hypothesis experimentation and verification.  From that point on, the West left the the Islamic world in the dust.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ChemEngineer said:


> A "mind" such as that of physicist Max Planck, Nobel Laureate: *“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is the quality which the scientists cannot dispense with”.*


A man you only ever heard of because of his completely secular accomplishments. All of his accomplishments of note stem from setting aside magical horseshit and faith, for a time, in favor of reason and evidence-based thought. Had he not done this, he would be just another anonymous religious goober in the dustbin of history, with nothing but the zillionth authoritative, magical interpretation of recycled, plagiarized, iron-age fairy tales to show for his life's work. Thanks for basically making my point for me.  The fact that you did so on a quantum mechanical device that relies completely on Planck's secular life's work really drives it home. Will you be assisting me all day?


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> *Science of the Bible*​
> 
> 
> As a chemical engineer, I understand, and subscribe to the tenets of the scientific method. If anything has given me an appreciation for the Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies* which make life possible, it is the objectivity engendered by my scientific background, coupled with common sense so often lacking in many well educated people. How anti-intellectual it is of the godless Left to denigrate Christians, often maliciously so. Calling Christians “fundies” and “believers in a flat earth” seems to give many people the perverse notion that they are erudite, and can consign Christians to the backwaters of ignorance. Just as Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in His Temple, so too is it my intention to overturn the tables of the intolerant Left with these personally written observations correlating science with its Creator.
> 
> Before citing the First Sentence in the First Book of the Holy Bible, let me give a good definition of modern science from the Bible:
> 
> *I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> *Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.*
> 
> The Holy Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. In 1924, Edwin Hubble proved that the spiral nebula in the constellation Andromeda was a separate island universe, apart from the Milky Way. This extended the size and scale of our universe by many orders of magnitude. Then, after hearing Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Georges Lemaître, an ordained Catholic priest, proposed the “primeval atom” in 1927 – in other words, the creation of the universe. This breathtaking advancement in scientific thinking came not from a pontificating atheist, claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction over truth and science, but rather from a devoted follower of the Creator of heaven and earth. Contrary to their pretensions, atheists do not possess the only key to discovery and knowledge.
> 
> In 1929, Fred Hubble discovered the Red Shift, eliminating any doubt that Lemaitre was right and Einstein wrong. Einstein had said to Lemaître , "your mathematics is correct but your physics is abominable." This phenomenon, Red Shift, shows that some galaxies are moving away from us at greater speeds than others, and that such velocities are proportional to their distance. This gave strong corroboration to the Big Bang theory of creation. The residual heat predicted in 1927 by Lemaître, and derisively dismissed by Albert Einstein, was later confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who in 1965 discovered the residual background radiation which is a remnant of the Big Bang. Penzias and Wilson of course received the Nobel Prize for their discovery, which was accidental. The penning of Genesis 1:1 was not.
> 
> 
> Prior to Lemaître’s radical proposal, scientists believed that the universe was eternal, that it had always been as we see it today. An inherent aspect of the Steady State Universe is the assumption that matter is continuously being created, somewhere, somehow. This passed for science, until it was disproved in the 1965 Astrophysical Journal.
> 
> So we see Twentieth Century confirmation of the profoundly deep science originally expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first book of the Bible, and scientifically advanced centuries later by a Catholic priest (A “Fundie”), before anyone else.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
> 
> Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.*
> 
> Modern chemistry could not have begun before 1802, when John Dalton formally provided experimental evidence that matter is composed of discrete atoms. Everything before this was mere speculation – guesswork. Nevertheless, it is clearly stated in Genesis that man is “formed of the dust of the ground”, which is to say, the same elements of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, iron, nitrogen, etc, that we find in . . . dust of the ground, minerals.
> 
> *Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air;*
> 
> The same elements which form humans also form animals everywhere. However, there is no Biblical reference to “a living soul” with respect to animals. Nor do animals have the capacity to worship and appreciate the spirituality and hope that is one of the premier hallmarks of mankind, and our supreme bequest.
> 
> *Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.*
> 
> One would think that as a result of the disciplines and analyses and benefits of human enlightenment, mankind should have been able to eliminate corruption and violence so prevalent thousands of years ago. Today, we have tools of production and health and social enlightenment unimaginable when the book of Genesis was written. But the earth today is still full of corruption and violence. Cornucopias of goods and services have not satisfied mankind’s lust for more, nor have psychologists and sociologists resolved the complex issues that lead people into destructive behavior. With burgeoning prison populations, and monstrous acts of evil on the increase worldwide, there seems little hope that corruption and violence will ever be eradicated.
> 
> 
> *Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.*
> 
> Although the North American Continent was unknown when the Bible was written, paleontologists confirm that the interior of North America was once covered by shallow seas. Fossil evidence from distant parts of the globe that were unknown to inhabitants of ancient Israel lends scientific confirmation to the Noachian Flood described in the most ancient book of science known to man, the Holy Bible. I do not pretend to know the length of the six "days" of creation. However it is abundantly clear to me that the Elegance of Everything and the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis1 and the Anthropic Principle2 are eternally inexplicable by any exclusively naturalistic method. To those with eyes, God’s Hand is clearly visible everywhere one looks.
> 
> *Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. *
> 
> We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested. – *Flourish*, by Martin Seligman, psychologist
> 
> If you want to be happy, do good, be kind, give.
> 
> *Exodus 3:14 I am hath sent me unto you.....
> 
> 
> 
> John 9:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.*
> 
> The naturalistic, if you will, “scientific” approach to explaining how man and energy and matter and space originated is to examine what is observable, and formulate hypotheses and theories based on observation and reason. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy and information at the Moment of Creation, the Singularity, and obviously no experiment can examine, much less confirm any hypothesis of what first happened to lead to us and everything we see.
> 
> In contrast, God defies scientific explanation because He is outside its purview. If miracles were scientifically explicable, they would not be miracles. After all, God created the physical realm that is the subject of scientific inquiry and we are still desperately trying to understand that aspect of His handiwork. Had mere mortals written where God came from without divine inspiration, they surely could not have presented such an elegant explanation as “I am” – an explanation that suffices even two thousand years later. Where did God come from? "I am." The universe is not eternal, but God is.
> 
> I have only a vague notion of how my computer works as I type this on it. Although I don’t know how it works, I do know that it is real and that it operates in a marvelous, almost magical way. I don’t need to understand things to believe in and use them. And how much more marvelous is my brain and yours than these primitive computers, not one of which designed, much less built itself.
> 
> “Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley
> 
> Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them (people); for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (non-believers) are without excuse:
> 
> "Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order." – Paul Davies
> 
> Some of leading scientists whose work was motivated by their faith were: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
> 
> 
> 
> * Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.*
> 
> Has anyone the slightest doubt as to how “empty” the North Pole is? Nobody living in the Middle East could possibly have visited “the north” so as to confirm what was then being written. These immutable scientific truths – two here in a single sentence - were far too coincidental to be attributable to luck. No, they were divinely inspired, as were so many things in the Bible. The earth truly hangs “upon nothing”, as confirmed by countless photographs from satellites and space stations, not to mention men on the moon, and the north is indeed an “empty place” by any measure.
> 
> *Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?*
> 
> With all our wisdom, and all our science, and all our research, “who can understand” anything today. Ultimate scientific answers continue to elude us everywhere one looks, from the submicroscopic to the supermacroscopic ! The pretense is that all this magnificent science that we see and study arose from nothing, based solely on megatime and megauniverses. Insuperable statistical impossibilities are explained away with clever wordplay and nebulous theories – anything at all to deny the Hand of the Creator so evident to casual observers, of all educational backgrounds, and all nationalities, and all times. That is, except for those who will not see.
> 
> "The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder." - Ralph W. Sockman
> 
> * Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.*
> 
> The molten iron core of the earth was inconceivable because it was not discoverable when this passage was written. “Under (earth) it is turned up as it were fire.”
> 
> Ah, some may say, “But there were volcanoes even then.” True enough. But are not volcanoes both isolated and rare, and not so much “under” the earth as above it? The molten core of the earth accords far better with this passage. Their scientific agreement is not coincidental, but rather Divinely inspired and guided.
> 
> *Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.*
> 
> Knowledge is not wisdom. Countless men and women throughout history have been filled with knowledge, while doing foolish and evil things which destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of others.
> 
> *Job 38:1,2 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said
> 
> Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?*
> 
> How often one hears words uttered without knowledge by pretenders of science and enlightenment. "The universe is a free lunch." (Physicist Michio Kaku) The Lord does not take foolishness lightly. Neither should we.
> 
> *Job 38:24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?*
> 
> The most learned scientist of antiquity could not have imagined the depth of this question. When light is "parted" by a diffraction grating, it can be shown to act both as particles as well as waves. These combinations of properties are difficult to understand much less explain. And the prodigious amounts of energy transmitted by solar radiation does indeed scatter the wind upon the earth as it heats different substances at different rates. Job could not have offered an adequate answer to the question, along the lines of: "Discrete photons of light travel together as a wave until parted into disparate visible components by striking and reflecting from solid objects into our eyes, while other wavelengths give up their energy as they are absorbed by solids and water. Temperature differentials established by ambient sunlight striking dissimilar surfaces create 'the east wind' so described."
> 
> *Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork*.
> 
> NASA maintains a website which is updated daily. Its purpose, however unintended, is to “declare the glory of God” and to “show his handiwork.”
> 
> 
> 
> Astronomy Picture of the Day
> 
> How remarkable that so repetitive and well known a phenomenon as sunset can delight people of all ages, and all times, and all civilizations. How much more delightful are the glories and handiworks seen in national parks and sightseeing attractions worldwide, so many of which could scarcely have been known by the Bible’s authors. Nor had the first telescope been invented 2000 years ago. How is it that the more deeply we have seen, the more handiwork we have seen? How is it?
> 
> *Psalms 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.*
> 
> For centuries, astronomers have studied planets and stars, which have spoken eloquent volumes of knowledge and even mathematics. Sir Isaac Newton invented the calculus in order to understand elliptical orbits of planets. No less a scientist than Carl Sagan said, “Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still.” (*Cosmos*, page 93) When a person of faith expresses amazement, they are ridiculed for expressing “The Argument From Incredulity.” When agnostic Sagan expresses the very same “argument,”other non-believers never ever ridicule or mock it. Such hypocrisy is unscientific and unintelligent.
> 
> * Psalms 118:24 This is the day the Lord hath made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.*
> 
> Twenty-first century medicine confirms the benefits of joyfulness for both our mental health as well as our physical health. "We scientists have found that doing a kindness produces the single most reliable momentary increase in well-being of any exercise we have tested." – Martin Seligman, psychologist, in his book, *Flourish
> 
> Psalms 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.*
> 
> 
> Mankind is indeed “fearfully and wonderfully made.” The sophistication of our construction begins at the atomic level with atoms that are one part in 1017 nucleus and the rest empty space. Then consider our DNA, which is 45 trillion times more compact and efficient at data storage than today’s sophisticated computer microchips.
> 
> 
> Our brains have the memory capacity of 100 billion megabytes, which far exceeds anything conceivably necessary from a “selection” point of view.
> 
> 
> Our optic nerves transmit information at 4 gigabaud, which is 71,000 times faster than a dial up modem, and 1,000 times faster than an ultra-high speed T-1 line for a computer.
> 
> The human eye sees in exquisite detail, over about 13 orders of magnitude of light intensity. Although the eye is often said to be flawed in its design by Darwinists and atheists, I would very much like to see them replace a human eye with something better which they have designed and built from lab reagents.
> 
> Our ears hear over 13 orders of magnitude in sound intensity. Even more amazing, the ears perform a Fourier Analysis. In other words, our eardrums receive a single wave function at the eardrum. Then they break down this single wave function into its constituent sounds. For example, at a concert, your ears hear drums, brass, violins, solo arias, and the person behind you coughing, only because this blended noise is separated inside your ear. If your eyes performed a similar function, they would break down white just as a prism does, into disparate pure colors.
> 
> Finally, our two eyes enable us to discern distance (and relative size) by triangulation. Our brains automatically compute the angle of the object seen, and compute its approximate distance. Similarly, our two ears enable us to discern the direction from which noises emanate not only because we have two ears, but also because of the relatively slow speed of sound. A difference in the arrival time from one ear to another of one thousandth to one ten-thousandth of a second is sufficient to discern, so that we can tell generally where a sound originated. If sound were substantially faster, both our ears would hear the sound at about the same time, and we could not enjoy stereophonic music, nor tell where sounds came from.
> 
> 
> In His wisdom, God made these velocities profoundly useful to us (as well, of course, as many, many other physical constants besides). They did not "evolve" to such values. And should they have been substantially different, no evolutionary "modification" could possibly compensate to give us what we now have.
> 
> Biochemistry is so profoundly complex that we are only beginning to appreciate how “wonderfully” we are made. Human blood defies LeChatelier’s Principle, in that when one molecule of oxygen is adsorbed by a hemoglobin molecule, its affinity for oxygen grows, instead of diminishing. The second molecule increases the affinity for the third, and the third for the fourth. This is precisely the reverse of normal chemistry principles and experimental observations. Our bodies’ powers of endurance and healing are absolutely astounding.
> 
> The list of features of our wonderful construction begins with conception, continues through growth, and concludes with our spiritual transformations evidenced time and again by the scientific observations of such people as Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. Dr. Kubler-Ross documented hundreds of instances of scientific evidence of a spiritual nature. She convincingly testified that she could not be persuaded of any naturalistic (scientific) explanation for it.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.*
> 
> Not only does the mid-Atlantic ridge constitute the continuing breakup of tectonic plates, but also in the depths of the Pacific Ocean also "the depths are broken up," as discovered by modern science, unknown almost two thousand years ago.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven;*
> 
> “To seek out and search by wisdom.” This is the very definition of science, is it not? "Scientia," Latin for "truth," is the root word of science.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 1:7 All rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence rivers come, thither they return again.*
> 
> The cyclical nature of nature encompasses us wherever we look. The water cycle is described only with utmost brevity in Ecclesiastes. Today we understand (considerably better than did Biblical authors) water and its importance in most chemical processes, as well as its profoundly fortuitous cyclical nature, as originally shown in the Bible. Beyond this, we can see and describe cycles of carbon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, and hydrogen. We are able to comprehend the nature of energy, and the conservation of not only energy, but also of matter itself. More complex by far is the transformation of matter into energy, which gives us sunlight continuously. Why should all these things be? And why so reliably? Why are chemical reactions so wonderfully and perfectly reversible? Why? For the same reason that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”. For that reason. These Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies did not just fall into place with Megaluck over Megatime, as some scientists posit, with their fingers crossed.
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.*
> 
> Can you name even one aspect of our universe that is known “from the beginning to the end”? Research continues everywhere, with absolutely no end remotely in sight. Research at the subatomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, at the human level, at the planetary level, and at the galactic level.
> 
> How is it that we don’t know everything about anything, if all that we see came about from nothing, as materialists contend? How is that possible? Infinite complexity from nothing is infinitely absurd and infinitely improbable. There is not the slightest scientific basis or law for their grand proposal. Profound organization and information and consistency and physical laws, originating…. HOW ! An infinite God makes spiritual sense. He is utterly beyond the purview of science - which is merely another of God’s brilliant creations. As to the mocking question of “Who made God,” Professor John Lennox of Cambridge University gives us the answer: “If anybody made God, then He wouldn’t be God, would He!” (See Lennox’ one hour lecture, “A Matter of Gravity” on YouTube.)
> 
> 
> Two things are incomprehensible. First, the origin of everything from nothing, and second, God Himself, Who so wondrously explains and accounts for everything else. Everyone must choose his own incomprehensible option. The first is random and meaningless, literally and figuratively. The second option is elegant, beautiful, hopeful, and wonderful beyond understanding. This second option matches the creative genius that surrounds us.
> 
> 
> *Ecclesiastes 7:9 Anger rests in the bosom of fools.
> 
> Galatians 6:26 Let us not be desirous of vainglory, provoking one another, envying one another.*
> 
> Atheists are exceedingly angry and bitter. Atheism is an essential component of socialism and communism, as is envying one another. The vainglory of atheists is prominent in their claims of intellectual and moral superiority. They claim that Christians are only good to get to heaven, while the atheists themselves are good just because off their sanctimonious egos. The Christian knows that we are all sinners, saved only by Grace.
> 
> *Philipians 4:8 ...whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.*
> 
> Psychological professionals in the 21st Century have affirmed the substantial benefits, both mental and physical, of positive thinking in countless scholarly experiments, published papers and books.
> 
> *Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.*
> 
> Twenty-first century social science confirms that Christians are happier than atheists. When confronted with this scientific truth, atheists angrily and snidely reply, “Ignorance is bliss.” It’s a lie, and lies are all they have. To contend otherwise is to claim that wisdom decreases your happiness. Why then do we strive for, and achieve wisdom?
> 
> *Proverbs 3:21 My son, let them not depart from your eyes. Keep sound wisdom and discretion;
> 
> Proverbs 16:16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver.*
> 
> Again and again there are Biblical references to wisdom, prudence, diligence, and other virtues. The essence of science is the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and facts. However, wisdom requires more than mere knowledge. Wisdom requires the integration of scientific truths with integrity, and far more virtuous conduct than the mere accretion of facts, which are value neutral.
> 
> Hitler and Stalin appreciated the science of Darwinism for its atheistic implications, but of wisdom, they had none.
> 
> * Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.*
> 
> Wisdom excelleth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. The Creator of mankind does not want anyone to be fooled; He does not wish that we be gullible, or duped by clever sounding words, whether they be from scientists wearing white robes, or priests wearing white robes. It is the essence of science to search for truth, and ask questions, and seek to answer them. Toward this end, we must acknowledge the extremely transitional nature of scientific “fact”, and the pretexts of contemporary scientific infallibility. Nowhere is the attempt to deceive us more malicious and destructive than when it seeks to deny the very existence of our Creator, and separate us from Him – permanently.
> 
> Forty percent of those listed in Who’s Who In Science acknowledge a personal belief in God. You must ask yourself why. Surely these people are not the fools that some scientific atheists accuse you and me of being.
> 
> *John 3:11, 12 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
> 
> If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?*
> 
> 
> The timeless veracity and wisdom of this statement is prophetic. After over two thousand years, what is often called the “myth” that is the Holy Bible, cannot remotely be discredited. To the contrary, the obvious and manifest benefits to mankind of Christianity have been repeatedly addressed by professionals in psychology, criminology, and other modern disciplines. The deep and abiding science, beginning with the first sentence in the first Book, is compelling testimony. For these reasons and more, Christianity is today the most popular human organization there has ever been. Yet many still “receive not our witness.” How can this be? Why will mankind not learn?
> 
> 
> 
> *I Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast that which is good.*
> 
> Is there a more concise explanation of the scientific method? “Test all things”? The essence of modern science is the proof of testable hypotheses, as scientists like to say. Such technique was proposed in the Scriptures which are mocked by so many who are proud of their lack of belief.
> 
> *Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.*
> 
> 
> This is confirmation of Genesis 1:1. Natural Theology, written in 1809 by William Paley, makes a similar argument from design. Just as a Boeing 747 can never be the product of an explosion in a junkyard, neither can the far more intricate construction of a human being be the ultimate product of random mutations, selectively but blindly “chosen.” See also www.2001Principle.net
> 
> 
> *Mark 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.*
> 
> 
> Although not strictly “scientific”, the foregoing verse demonstrates a profound economic truth notwithstanding the astonishing achievements of modern science. Had one the vision to see forward more than 2000 years to witness the abundance of food and material goods we now produce, surely one would have surmised that “the poor” would be no more than a relic of the ancient past. Not so. In fact, nowhere are “the poor” more common and more destitute than in socialist countries led by atheist despots.
> 
> 
> *Acts 17:26 (God) hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.*
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding the vast differences in outward appearance of the peoples of the earth, from fair skinned Norwegians, to African pygmies, “all nations of men” are Homo sapiens. All humans can, within the constraints of blood typing, be transfused by the blood from men of “all nations.” This close biological relationship of mankind was cited before blood types and biological classifications were ever imagined. Moreover, Charles Darwin repeatedly expressed his disdain for what he considered to be the “lower forms of life,” the Africans. This vile racist, who was an admittedly mediocre student in school, originated the hypothesis, not even a theory, of common descent, now called “evolution” or “Darwinian evolution.” From a letter to Asa Gray, a close friend and Professor of Biology at Harvard University: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
> 
> 
> *John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> 
> 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?*
> 
> Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates on Dec 2 and 3, 2004 for Newsweek Magazine. Jesus Christ said that people of the truth hear his voice. Today one especially hears atheists, most of them liberals, reply just as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago with a mockingly dishonest question: “What is truth?” when even a ten year old has the capacity to know what truth is. Some things never change.
> 
> *Luke 21:33; Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.*
> 
> Just as Genesis 1:1 foretold the scientific truth of the Big Bang, or as it is almost universally called today, “The Moment of Creation”, so too does the Gospel of Luke describe the passing away of matter. Stars like our own sun are consuming their own hydrogen, fusing it into helium, losing vast amounts of mass, and radiating that energy into the heavens. All starlight will eventually pass away, and the universe will ultimately become dark and absolutely cold (“heat death”), devoid of life as we know it. Numerous massive black holes have been indirectly observed. They attract matter and light into their domain, never to be seen again. Or so scientists thought before they once again changed their mind. It is now posited that Black Holes can radiate away energy, which is to say, mass. Even Black Holes seem to pass away.
> 
> The duration of primary elements of matter we call protons have a lifetime estimated to be 10 to the 33rd power years. The heaven and the earth shall pass into cold, dark oblivion, just as stated in the Holy Bible, a book ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed by the left. Thousands of years after the Bible said heaven and earth shall pass away, the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply repeated it, in the name of “science.” Universal heat death is the ultimate and final increase in entropy, or disorder. The origin of our universe as well as its demise were both described in an ancient book with astonishing precision. The universe has not always existed, as previously thought by scientists, nor was it assembled piecemeal. It was “created” with a Big Bang. The universe will not continue on forever; it will, it must pass away. These were not lucky guesses. They were inspirations from our Creator who made science.
> 
> Footnote 1: By “the insuperable statistics of abiogenesis, I mean the utter impossibility of any naturalistic explanation for synthesizing even a single polypeptide, much less the enormous variety of proteins, enzymes, and related structures which constitute every living cell. Our polypeptides, as they are called, are so profoundly complex that even with a blueprint, contemporary scientists cannot produce them in a laboratory from reagents. How much more hopeless it would be to expect a pool of dirty water to produce hundreds proteins necessary for the first living cell.
> 
> Footnote 2: By “insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, I refer to the several dozen physical constants, such as the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, and the fine structure constant, which are so finely tuned that if they were as little as one part in 1040th larger or smaller, there would be no planet earth and no human beings. The gravitational constant in particular is precise within one part in 10 to the 10120th. What has been so desperately offered as an explanation for the Anthropic Principle is the preposterous fantasy of “Multiverse,” an infinite number of universes, of which we live in “just the right one.” It is not remotely connected to science or reality.
> 
> 
> * Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies, a term I originated, refers to the interrelated factors surrounding us that are utterly essential to life as civilized people know and enjoy. There is a pervasive elegance throughout our world and indeed our universe which far transcends the atheistic nihilism so popular today in what they call "intellectual" circles.
> 
> 
> First example of Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies: Oxygen happens to be one of the more reactive elements, and it exists in the most reactive phase, viz. gas. This dynamic equilibrium producing our essential breath of life is possible only because: 1. Reactions are reversible (how profoundly fortuitous!) and; 2. The reversibility of such reactions is, so far as we can tell, 100% and; 3. Natural laws are consistent and harmonious and discoverable, and; 4. Plants recycle oxygen from carbon dioxide, and water.
> 
> 
> Second example of PFIs: The sophisticated engineering of matter, constructed primarily out of three simple building blocks, electrons, protons, and neutrons, is evidenced by the fact that only one part in 1017 is matter, and the rest is empty space. Moreover these three foundational components can be combined with only slight variations to give us unique characteristics as found in metals, including high shear strength, malleability, ductility, high heat and electrical conductivity, profound availability, high melting points, and other features without which there could be no airplanes, cars, or even internal combustion engines. As essential as metals** are to internal combustion engines, they would be virtually worthless without hydrocarbons to burn in them, which hydrocarbons just happen to be available in wondrous, underground storage tanks, to be refined and used worldwide.
> 
> But without oxygen, and without its dispersal throughout our atmosphere, there could be no cars, no plane rides to faraway places, and no fires, even inside engines. Fire, a simple chemical reaction we have always taken for granted, is but one of the countless Profound Fortuitous Interdependencies.
> 
> 
> ** In contrast to water, plastic, glass, and fused quartz, which transmit light with near perfection, unlike metals.
> 
> 
> Third example of PFIs: Vision, made possible only through the combined PFIs of the elegant properties of electromagnetic radiation in the visible portion of that spectrum, including the capacity to transmit both energy as well as information, over unimaginable distances, with almost perfect fidelity and reliability, and to be magically bent by a wide variety of readily available transparent materials, so as to enable wide-angle vision instead of 1:1 tunnel vision of an image roughly the same size as the receiving retina, and all the while photons pass through photons in every direction and in every wavelength, utterly unaffected in the slightest.
> 
> 
> Additional reading: Science and the Bible


Another long, tedious cut and paste of silly "Biblical miracles" wherein only the gullible will accept the nonsensical attempts by religious extremists to present the Bibles as science texts.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness? Magic?


I have no belief as to the origin of the universe. I don't know.


----------



## cnm

ChemEngineer said:


> *Science of the Bible*


Jesus save my scrolling finger.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods.



By the way, the paragraph from the excerpt from my article should read:

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms *couldn't* possibly exist in the first place. An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity. The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.​
My revision of the clause changed the meaning of the phrase.  There, that should do it.  But I see that you're still going on about how the impossible should be possible for God.  I almost can't believe I'm having to explain this to you again, but the impossible is not possible because the impossible is impossible:  the impossible  ≠  the possible.  That's about as simple as I can make it for you.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually is was the MUSLIMS who devised the Scientific Method while the Christians were enjoying the dark ages of their own making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The modern scientific method comprehensively incorporates Aristotelian empiricism and Arabic experientialism per the unification of the inductive-deductive continuum.   While Aristotle is credited for apprehending the duality of scientific reasoning, it was left to Robert Grosseteste to expound the synthesis of the two methods of knowledge (logic and experience) relative to deciphering the discrete constituents of empirical phenomena.  From there Roger Bacon expounded the unification relative to his cyclically repetitious methodology of observation, hypothesis experimentation and verification.  From that point on, the West left the the Islamic world in the dust.
Click to expand...

Only partially correct. The Renaissance was sparked by the waning authority of the Church and the advances of Western/European scientists. The seeds of knowledge and learning began germinating in the work of Renaissance thinkers and scientists, and started to bloom during the Enlightenment. The church simply could not enforce its authoritarianism forever. The Renaissance, the European enlightenment, and finally the scientific-technological revolution, all predicated on free thought and open debate, allowed the West to surge ahead and forge new avenues of social, political and economic advances. Those advances were a direct result of the diminished authority of the Church. In a very real sense, the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

"Arabic experientialism" must be a slogan you picked up at the Benny Hinn madrassah and thought you would dump it here. My favorite example of the ineptitude of Arabs-Moslems as innovators is exampled by the discussion of optics as a science. It poses yet another inexplicable challenge to the claims of “Arabic experientialism.” It is undeniable that Arab-Moslem thinkers collected and preserved much of the science and theology innovated by the Greeks. That enabled them to collect _some_ understanding of physics and light that constitute “classical optics.” Yet they failed to make pragmatic use of any of that knowledge. They understood from the Greeks the mathematics of light, lenses, prisms, mirrors, reflection and refraction… but never managed to invent a single telescope, microscope, or pair of spectacles. All of these were later European inventions, making use of the knowledge passed to them by Islamic scholars who do not appear to have known what to do with it. When the islamist world was left to innovate and discover on its own, they quickly found that they were not up to the task. That’s precisely why the islamist world has been left in its own Dark Ages while the rest of the world has advanced.


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness? Magic?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no belief as to the origin of the universe. I don't know.
Click to expand...

Either you want to believe, Believe without evidence or don’t believe. No on knows either way. No god has ever been proven. This is why I dont believe the old or new testaments. Organized religions say god is a fact in human history. Visited Moses, sent Jesus, visited Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

I don’t believe any of those fairytales


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we're lucky you fine folks have given up burning people at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't "give it up". They were forced to abandon it, once better, secular ideas like scientific enlightenment and classical liberalism came along. Once again (and this is the theme for the last 2000 years), we progressed past those bad ideas not just in spite of religion, but in the face of strong, active opposition from religious people acting on their religion.
> 
> And the only reason they don't do it now is that they benefit from the gift of being born in a more enlightened age. Did the Bible change over time? Nope. Same Bible, but better culture.  The culture they were born into changed, thanks to secular ideas. They can literally thank the abandonment of their religion for the current, better state of affairs. But they won't.
Click to expand...

And sneakily and subtly over time Catholicism has gotten into science and studying the heavens and stars. Today Catholics believe Catholicism is pro science. They’ll forget what the church did to Bruno giordano when he suggested the earth wasn’t the center iPod the universe.

So the church has come a long way. One day female priests. You wait and see. Or priests can be married.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of defining what the gods can and cannot do, you need to take the first step and make a rational case for the existence of your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, the paragraph from the excerpt from my article should read:
> 
> That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms *couldn't* possibly exist in the first place. An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity. The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.​
> My revision of the clause changed the meaning of the phrase.  There, that should do it.  But I see that you're still going on about how the impossible should be possible for God.  I almost can't believe I'm having to explain this to you again, but the impossible is not possible because the impossible is impossible:  the impossible  ≠  the possible.  That's about as simple as I can make it for you.  LOL!
Click to expand...

Still moving those goal posts, I see.  LOL!

When another confused, rambling collection of incoherent rambling is exposed, change it around in an attempt to make the sentence structure a bit less disjointed.  LOL! 

It's always comical when the non-religious have to explain to the religious extremists what their religion actually conveys.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that the gods have no attributes other than those that religionists apply to them after acknowledging that their gods follow precise rules that the religionists apply to them. Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes and at the same time claiming “they” are limited in their abilities.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of  ''you don't get it'', I see you're still confused about the various attributes you have assigned to your gods. How could anything be impossible for the omni-everything gods? A critical component of scientific inquiry is the process of observation and testing. Those attributes defining science consist of gathering evidence. And evidence is the only tool we have to distinguish between claims in which we can have confidence and claims in which we cannot. 

In your example above, why would infinity apply to the gods? Haven't the gods always existed, uncreated? 

Gods are unlimited. The impossible  ≠  the possible even for the gods, therefore the gods are limited.


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.



Okay, I think I actually see what you're getting at, but I did have to review the mathematics of sine and cosine relative to the Tailor expansion principle to get there.  I was able to follow you up to that point from the post.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that you're saying that the conclusion of any given argument is circularly embedded in the premise, albeit, in a universally overarching, metaphysical sense.  Presumably, such an argument's conclusion would proceed from a valid premise and would entail a valid chain of discourse.  I would happily agree with that as understood within the context of the Logos' authority; that is to say, one necessarily relies on the reliability of that authority by faith.  But, then, we have no other alternative, as the laws of logic are incontrovertible.  Hence, I have two caveats for the sake of clarity.  The discourse itself is still linear, albeit, within that context, and one must faithfully observe the laws of logic in order to get to the Logos.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Still moving those goal posts, I see. . . .
> 
> . . . Gods are unlimited. The impossible  ≠  the possible even for the gods, therefore the gods are limited.



You mindless ditz.  The only thing that was changed in the following was one word.  The rest of the paragraph is fine.

This is not a limitation on God's power.  On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms *couldn't* possibly exist in the first place.​
_Could_ implies an unintended contradiction; hence, _couldn't_, not _could_.  I struck a preceding sentence from the original paragraph that was gratuitously confusing and changed the expression of the clause in the second sentence in the above, but forgot to change the expression of the phrasal in the sentence.

Goal posts were not moved, dummy.  The word _could_ was changed to _couldn't_ to agree with the same friggin' idea that *God cannot do the impossible because the impossible is, you know, impossible.*

And you bloviated on for four paragraphs to circle back (a little Psaki speak) to your drooling stupidity that the impossible is possible.

**

You're fired.  Now drop and give me 50!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> *God cannot do the impossible because the impossible is, you know, impossible.*


Says Ringtone 

Also Ringtone: It is impossible for something to come from nothing. Except for when God does it. It is impossible for anything to have no beginning. Except for God. It is impossible to see the future. Except for if you are God.

What a luxury it must be just to make stuff up as you go along, regardless of integrity, honesty, or self-consistency. So this is the ethics and intellectualism of faith, eh? Not impressed.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still moving those goal posts, I see. . . .
> 
> . . . Gods are unlimited. The impossible  ≠  the possible even for the gods, therefore the gods are limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mindless ditz.  The only thing that was changed in the following was one word.  The rest of the paragraph is fine.
> 
> This is not a limitation on God's power.  On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms *couldn't* possibly exist in the first place.​
> _Could_ implies an unintended contradiction; hence, _couldn't_, not _could_.  I struck a preceding sentence from the original paragraph that was gratuitously confusing and changed the expression of the clause in the second sentence in the above, but forgot to change the expression of the phrasal in the sentence.
> 
> Goal posts were not moved, dummy.  The word _could_ was changed to _couldn't_ to agree with the same friggin' idea that *God cannot do the impossible because the impossible is, you know, impossible.*
> 
> And you bloviated on for four paragraphs to circle back (a little Psaki speak) to your drooling stupidity that the impossible is possible.
> 
> **
> 
> You're fired.  Now drop and give me 50!
Click to expand...

Your schoolboy tirades are funny.

So what else can’t the gods do? What would be impossible for the gods to do, other than, you know, the impossible? As the gods Emir here on earth, we look to you for the ramifications of the first principles of “... because I say so”.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> The reason why I ignored the OP itself is because I have seen all the religious pap for over 40 years now, there is little left for me not to know anymore.
> 
> Religion runs on faith, that is all you have.



You're imbecilic questions demonstrate that you don't understand what you call _pap_ in the first place.  For over 40 years, apparently, it has gone in one ear and out the other sans any understanding at all.  Bottom line:  you have refuted nothing, none of you have.  All we have from the atheists on this thread, as usual, is slogan speak, smack talk and gossip: the boorish yuk-yuk of buck-toothed, nose-picking hayseeds.

Moreover, for over 40 years you still haven't grasped the fact that all of human understanding is necessarily predicated on our faith in the reliability of the imperatives of logic and mathematics, that the subsequent inferences of scientific methodology are preceded by the former.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> It was a Christian mob that destroyed the Library of Alexandria, literally setting back human development.




That's a myth, dummy.





__





						The Library of Alexandria – destroyed by an angry mob with torches? Not very likely.
					

Why do little girls adore martyrs so much? Perhaps it’s preparation for marriage. In my elementary school, the book on Jeanne d’Arc was one of the most heavily worn and pawed over volumes in our small library, and my fingerprints are over every page, if the tattered book still exists at all. The...




					bookhaven.stanford.edu


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Christian mob that destroyed the Library of Alexandria, literally setting back human development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Library of Alexandria – destroyed by an angry mob with torches? Not very likely.
> 
> 
> Why do little girls adore martyrs so much? Perhaps it’s preparation for marriage. In my elementary school, the book on Jeanne d’Arc was one of the most heavily worn and pawed over volumes in our small library, and my fingerprints are over every page, if the tattered book still exists at all. The...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookhaven.stanford.edu
Click to expand...

But what was very real was the purging of all the intellectuals from Alexandria by fundamentalist Christian nutballs.


----------



## Ringtone

cnm said:


> I have no belief as to the origin of the universe. I don't know.



So you do not know anything about the pertinent logic, mathematics and science.  That's just capital.  So why are you on this thread talking smack to those who do know?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> So why are you on this thread talking smack to those who do know?


You do not know. You have grown so comfortable with lying to yourself that you managed to convince yourself that you do.


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.



By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I think I actually see what you're getting at, but I did have to review the mathematics of sine and cosine relative to the Tailor expansion principle to get there.  I was able to follow you up to that point from the post.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> It seems to me that you're saying that the conclusion of any given argument is circularly embedded in the premise, albeit, in a universally overarching, metaphysical sense.  Presumably, such an argument's conclusion would proceed from a valid premise and would entail a valid chain of discourse.  I would happily agree with that as understood within the context of the Logos' authority; that is to say, one necessarily relies on the reliability of that authority by faith.  But, then, we have no other alternative, as the laws of logic are incontrovertible.  Hence, I have two caveats for the sake of clarity.  The discourse itself is still linear, albeit, within that context, and one must faithfully observe the laws of logic in order to get to the Logos.
Click to expand...


If I understand correctly what you are saying, then I would agree that the discourse is like rolling a paint roll on an infinite linear wall, and yes, the statements of the logic will be repeated every time it completes a full turn.  This is how we can sense time.

Moreover, it is no accident that genesis saying the man and women both leave to unite and Jesus in gospel saying what God puts together human no separate.

This points to the fact, that once something exists, it appears as a difference that is it generates two endpoints.  This is reality.  As soon as you imagine this reality, another two endpoints exist in imagination.  Square summing these two things that is the four endpoints always provides the square of a radius.  It always behaves as a triangle.  So the basic unit of creation is 3 that is made out of pairs.  Mathematically expressed as the Pythagoras and Thales theorems. 

Applying this to the Holy Trinity, the real existence is the Blessed Virgin Mary, the imaginary one is the Holy Spirit, and the resulting radius is Jesus Christ.  And this is true to every marriage.  Hence Jesus saying don't separate it.

In terms of enthropy, the energy of existence is the average deviation of everybody from the absolute average.  That is entropy itself is such a radius.  Governments invent laws and regulations to drive these deviations to zero, thereby ending existence.

We can apply your linearity argument onto the soul and the spirit too.  Jesus says on the Cross when He dies that He commands His Spirit to God.

So the spirit, as a unit of creation has its real part the fellowship with God, it's imaginary part the intuition, and it's radius that is its square sum that is logic itself.

How did then Jesus send His Spirit to God?  Surely you can't sit in your boat take a big breath and blow your sail to make your boat move because of energy conservation.

Jesus did it, because the pairs that make up the basic unit of 3 of the creation, that is the triangle, are orthogonal.  Each pair is composed of two orthogonal qualities.

Therefore Jesus took the real part of His Soul which is His senses orthogonal to the fellowship of the spirit, then the imaginary part of His Soul which is the feelings, orthogonal to the intuition of the spirit, and the radius of His Soul which is the will of the soul orthogonal to logic, to execute that command.

And as a result, the two orthogonal triangles went into orthogonal ways.  The spirit to God, the soul to hell.

The orthogonality of the pairs by which God creates and arrives at the basic unit of creation which is the 3, the triangle, is visible in everything.

For example, draw any pattern, like an arbitrary map with arbitrary country borders.  When you use 3+1 colors that is four colors, you can avoid always of ending up with the same color on both sides of a border.

Orthogonality defines the pairs, like woman the real and man the imaginary, and these pairs form always a triangle wich is the resulting child, the radius, the creation itself.

Since it is a rdius, it's linearity is periodic.  Everything can be decomposed into triangles.  Therefore the circular repetition in every linearity in unavoidable in the Creation.


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
Click to expand...


This is even more interesting.  

Yes, the identity is a very dangerous problem.

OnCe the variance of something is matched, that is we apply as much energy to it as what it has without us, then the identities merge, and this merger is in a way that whichever of the two has a higher intensity, will eliminate the identity of the other one.  This is how the devil takes souls.

This is how phosphorous glows in the dark.

And thus is why Neuro kinetic language works.

And so on. 

A terrible bresking point of Creation as a whole, declared right at the beginning in genesis, in chapterc3, straight after chapters 1 and 2 to describe creation.

Every religion has to solve this problem.  The identity problem when the deviations match, that is tge energies match, that is the egyptiin book of the dead or the Sanscrit Hinduism or God promising Jesus to Adam and Eve.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> _creation out of nothing_  is still NOTHING!
> 
> Faith is all you have.....


_Creation out of no priorly existing material substance __≠ creation out of nothing, _and the fideism of materialism is all you have.


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is even more interesting.
> 
> Yes, the identity is a very dangerous problem.
> 
> OnCe the variance of something is matched, that is we apply as much energy to it as what it has without us, then the identities merge, and this merger is in a way that whichever of the two has a higher intensity, will eliminate the identity of the other one.  This is how the devil takes souls.
> 
> This is how phosphorous glows in the dark.
> 
> And thus is why Neuro kinetic language works.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> A terrible bresking point of Creation as a whole, declared right at the beginning in genesis, in chapterc3, straight after chapters 1 and 2 to describe creation.
> 
> Every religion has to solve this problem.  The identity problem when the deviations match, that is tge energies match, that is the egyptiin book of the dead or the Sanscrit Hinduism or God promising Jesus to Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...


I surmise that English is your second language.  What is you native language?


----------



## Ringtone

Moonglow said:


> With Semitic overtones.



Funny that.  

But back to my post: can you tell me, precisely, what _that_ and _it_ are, you know, the things you wish to see in an equation or you wish to see quantified?


----------



## Ringtone

BlindBoo said:


> And I was hoping for some  math.



Did you finish with the discussion of potential and actual infinities yet?  Let me know so I can go on to the nuts and bolts of the hard mathematics of the matter.


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is even more interesting.
> 
> Yes, the identity is a very dangerous problem.
> 
> OnCe the variance of something is matched, that is we apply as much energy to it as what it has without us, then the identities merge, and this merger is in a way that whichever of the two has a higher intensity, will eliminate the identity of the other one.  This is how the devil takes souls.
> 
> This is how phosphorous glows in the dark.
> 
> And thus is why Neuro kinetic language works.
> 
> And so on.
> 
> A terrible bresking point of Creation as a whole, declared right at the beginning in genesis, in chapterc3, straight after chapters 1 and 2 to describe creation.
> 
> Every religion has to solve this problem.  The identity problem when the deviations match, that is tge energies match, that is the egyptiin book of the dead or the Sanscrit Hinduism or God promising Jesus to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I surmise that English is your second language.  What is you native language?
Click to expand...


Well I really really tried to learn English.  I attend the lectures in that language.  I attended lectures in other countries too in other languages.  One thing with the English is that it is very convenient and there is a lot if spell checkers but a lot if times the spell checkers go to the wrong word and mess up my words.  I guess thus is how the devil shuts me up. I probably deserve it.

My language is a very small north European language, spoken called Lapp/Saami.


----------



## abu afak

Ringtone said:


> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*


WTF!
This is what?
Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
Your own principles and Laws!

WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!

You're nothing but a RELIGIOUS NUTBAG WHO HAS VOCABULARY- CONFLATED INTO COMPLETE NONSENSE-SPEAK
*You just believe in Christ, and from THAT you work Backwards into INSANITY/your own 'logic.'

You NEED HELP
You're totally Mind-porked.

`*


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> Well I really really tried to learn English.  I attend the lectures in that language.  I attended lectures in other countries too in other languages.  One thing with the English is that it is very convenient and there is a lot if spell checkers but a lot if times the spell checkers go to the wrong word and mess up my words.  I guess thus is how the devil shuts me up. I probably deserve it.
> 
> My language is a very small north European language, spoken called Lapp.



Not at all.  I only speak English.  You're way ahead of me on that score.


----------



## anotherlife

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
Click to expand...


But let's use it.  It does reflect a problem theological that is not solved.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever. 

And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:

"Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."

Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.


----------



## anotherlife

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
Click to expand...


Haven't you elected a president for doing that?  What was his name?  Wdooblya?


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> You're nothing but a RELIGIOUS NUTBAG WHO HAS VOCABULARY- CONFLATED INTO COMPLETE NONSENSENSE-SPEAK
> *You just believe in Christ, and from THAT you work Backwards into INSANITY/your own 'logic.'
> 
> You NEED HELP
> You're totally Mind-porked.
> 
> `*



So what you're actually doing is pulling your pants panties down in front of God and everybody, and showing us that you don't know what the first law (or principle) of logic is?  I take it you're also not aware that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extensions of the first law, namely, the law of identity.

A product of the public education system and an uninquisitive dolt into adulthood, eh?  How embarrassing.  Does your mommy know?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> You're nothing but a RELIGIOUS NUTBAG WHO HAS VOCABULARY- CONFLATED INTO COMPLETE NONSENSENSE-SPEAK
> *You just believe in Christ, and from THAT you work Backwards into INSANITY/your own 'logic.'
> 
> You NEED HELP
> You're totally Mind-porked.
> 
> `*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're actually doing is pulling your pants panties down in front of God and everybody, and showing us that you don't know what the first law (or principle) of logic is?  I take it you're also not aware that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extensions of the first law, namely, the law of identity.
> 
> A product of the public education system and an uninquisitive dolt into adulthood, eh?  How embarrassing.  Does your mommy know?
Click to expand...

^^

Exhibit A


----------



## ChemEngineer

Ringtone said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I was hoping for some  math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you finish with the discussion of potential and actual infinities yet?  Let me know so I can go on to the nuts and bolts of the hard mathematics of the matter.
Click to expand...


Dear Friend Ringtone, TrulyBlindBoo is on my ignore list for obvious reasons.  I only saw his inane comment by replying to you, Ringtone.

I offer some "math" for atheists everywhere.  Hold on tight.

Human hemoglobin is a structure 574 amino acids in length of very precise arrangement.
Its original synthesis was by a brilliant Creator because even knowing its structure, biochemists can't make it today.  If it was pretend materialism, then the probability of synthesizing it was 1/20 to the 574th power which works out to about 1 in 10 to the 650th power.
This is before compounding that impossibility by the probability of all peptide bonds, since non-peptide bonds are equally probable, ceteris paribus.  So 1/2 to the 574th times 1/10 to the 650th.
Then there is the problem of chirality. Amino acids come in both D and L forms and humans are all L, or Levorotary.  1/2 to the 574th times the previous two impossibilities.

Recall that Richard Dawkins, atheist evolutionary biologist, defines "impossible"  as 1 chance in only 10 to the 40th.

Factor in the folding however you wish.  It does not lend itself to numerical analysis except to add that nobody knows how and when to fold any polypeptide during synthesis, which we can't do  anyway.

We're just getting started with the "math" BlindBoo.

There are some 5,000 proteins in humans.  The biggest one is Titin, 33,450 amino acids in length.
What is 1/20 to the 33,450 BlindBoo?    It is indistinguishable from zero, the chances that your cockamamy atheism explains anything.

Math away.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> So what you're actually doing is pulling your pants panties down in front of God and everybody, and showing us that you don't know what the first law (or principle) of logic is?  I take it you're also not aware that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extensions of the first law, namely, the law of identity.
> 
> A product of the public education system and an uninquisitive dolt into adulthood, eh?  How embarrassing.  Does your mommy know?



Would you please go back to your post #11 ... I'd like to see your mathematical derivations you promised us ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Christian mob that destroyed the Library of Alexandria, literally setting back human development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Library of Alexandria – destroyed by an angry mob with torches? Not very likely.
> 
> 
> Why do little girls adore martyrs so much? Perhaps it’s preparation for marriage. In my elementary school, the book on Jeanne d’Arc was one of the most heavily worn and pawed over volumes in our small library, and my fingerprints are over every page, if the tattered book still exists at all. The...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookhaven.stanford.edu
Click to expand...

You're ill-informed angry fundie.





__





						The Burning of the Library of Alexandria | eHISTORY
					






					ehistory.osu.edu


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
Click to expand...


Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> and ultimately has no requirement to be true?


Haha, good point. He is like a 16 year old girl trying on prom dresses. "How about this one?"..."This one?"...

These little tapdances are telling in and of themselves. A salient example: the lies about the election. Every day one would get debunked, and every day a new one would pop up. Rinse, repeat. Until 2+ months later, when millions of people were Googling for 1-day old youtube vids with 1-day old 'spiracy theories to present as the reason they had believed something for 2+ months. Clear intellectual fraud. Clearly a type of coping mechanism.


----------



## anotherlife

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
Click to expand...


Who is William Lane Craig?  I have never taken a philosophy class.  I know only as far as maths and some theology go.   So I use those.  And that way human logic us always circular.  But there is nothing new under the sun, St Thomas Aquinas declared it too like 800 years ago, plus probably another 100 writers for millennia before him too.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I was hoping for some  math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you finish with the discussion of potential and actual infinities yet?  Let me know so I can go on to the nuts and bolts of the hard mathematics of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Friend Ringtone, TrulyBlindBoo is on my ignore list for obvious reasons.  I only saw his inane comment by replying to you, Ringtone.
> 
> I offer some "math" for atheists everywhere.  Hold on tight.
> 
> Human hemoglobin is a structure 574 amino acids in length of very precise arrangement.
> Its original synthesis was by a brilliant Creator because even knowing its structure, biochemists can't make it today.  If it was pretend materialism, then the probability of synthesizing it was 1/20 to the 574th power which works out to about 1 in 10 to the 650th power.
> This is before compounding that impossibility by the probability of all peptide bonds, since non-peptide bonds are equally probable, ceteris paribus.  So 1/2 to the 574th times 1/10 to the 650th.
> Then there is the problem of chirality. Amino acids come in both D and L forms and humans are all L, or Levorotary.  1/2 to the 574th times the previous two impossibilities.
> 
> Recall that Richard Dawkins, atheist evolutionary biologist, defines "impossible"  as 1 chance in only 10 to the 40th.
> 
> Factor in the folding however you wish.  It does not lend itself to numerical analysis except to add that nobody knows how and when to fold any polypeptide during synthesis, which we can't do  anyway.
> 
> We're just getting started with the "math" BlindBoo.
> 
> There are some 5,000 proteins in humans.  The biggest one is Titin, 33,450 amino acids in length.
> What is 1/20 to the 33,450 BlindBoo?    It is indistinguishable from zero, the chances that your cockamamy atheism explains anything.
> 
> Math away.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, the phony “odds” above are standard fare on the ID’iot creationist websites. As you might guess, “playing with numbers” is what the ID’iot creationer cranks do.


----------



## cnm

Ringtone said:


> So why are you on this thread talking smack to those who do know?


Because they're full of shit and need to be told so.


----------



## Hollie

anotherlife said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is William Lane Craig?  I have never taken a philosophy class.  I know only as far as maths and some theology go.   So I use those.  And that way human logic us always circular.  But there is nothing new under the sun, St Thomas Aquinas declared it too like 800 years ago, plus probably another 100 writers for millennia before him too.
Click to expand...

Craig is a Christian philosopher who found 15 minutes of fame when promoting the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam argument is a philosophical one, convenient for a Christian apologist. Ultimately, there is no requirement for a philosophical argument to be true and no requirement for one promoting such an argument to present substantiating fact.


----------



## anotherlife

Hollie said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is William Lane Craig?  I have never taken a philosophy class.  I know only as far as maths and some theology go.   So I use those.  And that way human logic us always circular.  But there is nothing new under the sun, St Thomas Aquinas declared it too like 800 years ago, plus probably another 100 writers for millennia before him too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Craig is a Christian philosopher who found 15 minutes of fame when promoting the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam argument is a philosophical one, convenient for a Christian apologist. Ultimately, there is no requirement for a philosophical argument to be true and no requirement for one promoting such an argument to present substantiating fact.
Click to expand...

Okay so here is then what Pontius Pilot asked Jesus for the substantiation: "What is truth?".


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.



I just want to get things straight from the braying jackass' mouth:  you're claiming that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle historically proceed the law of identity by centuries?


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> _creation out of nothing_  is still NOTHING!
> 
> Faith is all you have.....
> 
> 
> 
> _Creation out of no priorly existing material substance __≠ creation out of nothing, _and the fideism of materialism is all you have.
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha, you offer NOTHING but faith, which is based on nothing.

Materialism are based on reality, you see it it, smell it, touch it. From Merriam-Webster,



> a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter



Materialism is real, god isn't real, it is that simple........

Faith is based on imagined belief, thus it isn't real, not based on a real person, not based on evidence.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why I ignored the OP itself is because I have seen all the religious pap for over 40 years now, there is little left for me not to know anymore.
> 
> Religion runs on faith, that is all you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're imbecilic questions demonstrate that you don't understand what you call _pap_ in the first place.  For over 40 years, apparently, it has gone in one ear and out the other sans any understanding at all.  Bottom line:  you have refuted nothing, none of you have.  All we have from the atheists on this thread, as usual, is slogan speak, smack talk and gossip: the boorish yuk-yuk of buck-toothed, nose-picking hayseeds.
> 
> Moreover, for over 40 years you still haven't grasped the fact that all of human understanding is necessarily predicated on our faith in the reliability of the imperatives of logic and mathematics, that the subsequent inferences of scientific methodology are preceded by the former.
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha, you are running on baloney here since I don't have to refute anything since it is YOU who has to provide something beyond faith, that god exist. All I have said is you rely on faith and nothing more, your replies are angry and completely free of evidence.

Where is the* EVIDENCE *that god exist!


----------



## Sunsettommy

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
Click to expand...


This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't you elected a president for doing that?  What was his name?  Wdooblya?
Click to expand...


If you believe Fort Fun Indiana, anotherlife, you're a fool.  Do not be a fool.  He's well-known to be a pathological liar.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.



Last chance to take your dissembling back. 

Once again, I just want to get things straight from the braying jackass' mouth: you're claiming that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle historically proceed the law of identity by centuries?


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
Click to expand...


Answer the question, punk.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why I ignored the OP itself is because I have seen all the religious pap for over 40 years now, there is little left for me not to know anymore.
> 
> Religion runs on faith, that is all you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're imbecilic questions demonstrate that you don't understand what you call _pap_ in the first place.  For over 40 years, apparently, it has gone in one ear and out the other sans any understanding at all.  Bottom line:  you have refuted nothing, none of you have.  All we have from the atheists on this thread, as usual, is slogan speak, smack talk and gossip: the boorish yuk-yuk of buck-toothed, nose-picking hayseeds.
> 
> Moreover, for over 40 years you still haven't grasped the fact that all of human understanding is necessarily predicated on our faith in the reliability of the imperatives of logic and mathematics, that the subsequent inferences of scientific methodology are preceded by the former.
Click to expand...


35 years ago I was a DEACON in the church, led in Prayer, involved in bible studies but in the end realized the religious argument for god was never based on anything real. Thus I left religion in August 1990, been free ever since......,, I am so glad that I woke up from the delusion that religion is.

Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?

The idea of religion is a total failure, it has never generated true brotherhood, never generated true lasting peace and generated a lot of ecological damage in the process.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> Ha ha ha, you are running on baloney here since I don't have to refute anything since it is YOU who has to provide something beyond faith, that god exist. All I have said is you rely on faith and nothing more, your replies are angry and completely free of evidence.
> 
> Where is the* EVIDENCE *that god exist!



Let us go then, you and me,
And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
Silky slick with sullen rains
And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,
the lofty perches,​Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows
And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
Click to expand...

That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> 35 years ago I was a DEACON in the church, led in Prayer, involved in bible studies but in the end realized the religious argument for god was never based on anything real. Thus I left religion in August 1990, been free ever since......,, I am so glad that I woke up from the delusion that religion is.
> 
> Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?
> 
> The idea of religion is a total failure, it has never generated true brotherhood, never generated true lasting peace and generated a lot of ecological damage in the process.


A chorus of crickets roll their eyes,​And dance beneath the cloudy skies.


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't you elected a president for doing that?  What was his name?  Wdooblya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe Fort Fun Indiana, anotherlife, you're a fool.  Do not be a fool.  He's well-known to be a pathological liar.
Click to expand...

I didn't read most of the posts so this is possible.


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 35 years ago I was a DEACON in the church, led in Prayer, involved in bible studies but in the end realized the religious argument for god was never based on anything real. Thus I left religion in August 1990, been free ever since......,, I am so glad that I woke up from the delusion that religion is.
> 
> Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?
> 
> The idea of religion is a total failure, it has never generated true brotherhood, never generated true lasting peace and generated a lot of ecological damage in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes,​And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent example of demonic construction.  It leads to demonic posession.  With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be.


----------



## abu afak

God's existence cannot be proven.
Indeed there is NO evidence for it.
Only idiot's try to prove 'faith.' (belief withOUT evidence)

*NO Post of Ringtone contains anything but false TRITE 'God of the Gaps' thinking  sprinkled with philosophical Gibberish.*

Like most of the Quacks he would surely Freak Out and need treatment if the stars all aligned overhead one night and formed the word 'Allah' in Arabic.
Suicide for Tens of millions of Literalist Christians.

While for an atheist like me it would be an amazing happening and would be accepted. Like all Facts that make us science-based posters.... Bigotedly called 'Atheists' AS IF That affects any FACTS.
Serious Scientists are overwhelmingly ATHEISTS (NAS, etc),

*While DISONEST RINGTONE's Signature quotes two pre-1800 figures as representative of his ASININE and primitive beliefs.
QUOTE MINING while Unwittingly Humiliating his backwards ass.*

`

`

`


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 35 years ago I was a DEACON in the church, led in Prayer, involved in bible studies but in the end realized the religious argument for god was never based on anything real. Thus I left religion in August 1990, been free ever since......,, I am so glad that I woke up from the delusion that religion is.
> 
> Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?
> 
> The idea of religion is a total failure, it has never generated true brotherhood, never generated true lasting peace and generated a lot of ecological damage in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes,​And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
Click to expand...


You have no proof god exist and you know it since you never try to tell me.

What is his home address, his phone number, his e-mail address.... but you will never answer because you don't have them.

What is really funny is that your make believe god is all knowing, powerful and everywhere, yet this same same god begs to worshipped.

*Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!*


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 35 years ago I was a DEACON in the church, led in Prayer, involved in bible studies but in the end realized the religious argument for god was never based on anything real. Thus I left religion in August 1990, been free ever since......,, I am so glad that I woke up from the delusion that religion is.
> 
> Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?
> 
> The idea of religion is a total failure, it has never generated true brotherhood, never generated true lasting peace and generated a lot of ecological damage in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes,​And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an excellent example of demonic construction.  It leads to demonic posession.  With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be.
Click to expand...


Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Actually my being completely OUT of religion,  is the reason why I am free. 

Demons do not exist either, the wholly babble is the only place that pushes this delusion.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.



*Exposure time!

I never claimed that the law of identity was formally codified by any school of thought before the others in history*, which is the predicate of your prevarication, apparently! What did you do, punk? Google something and then pass your filth off as original thought sans any real understanding as you failed to thoroughly investigate the matter?  Yeah, that's what you did alright. How many other lies have you been telling behind my back while I ignored you?

What did you mean by _recently_?

The only thing that makes any sense is that you're stupidly going on about the order of historical codification, precisely because you don't grasp the conceptual ramifications of the matter. I'm talking about the conceptual order of logic itself, and *it was Aristotle who first elucidated the law of identity in the Third Century B.C., shortly after Plato elucidated the other two and centuries before Aristotle's elucidation of it was, finally, formally codified by a philosophical school of thought, namely the Schoolmen of Scotus.

Centuries!*

LOL!

Busted for the pathological liar that you are, and have been on this board for a very long time.

The law of identity: Whatever is, is.​​For all a: a = a [or for all x: x = x, as you quoted me from an earlier post apparently]​​Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote:​​First then this at least is obviously true, that the word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so". Again, if "man" has one meaning, let this be "two-footed animal"; by having one meaning I understand this:—if "man" means "X", then if A is a man "X" will be what "being a man" means for him. (It makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each definition there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that "man" has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. "two-footed animal", while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.)  —Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4, Law of thought - Wikipedia​​William Hamilton of the Nineteenth Century whose work is still regarded as the leading authority on the history of the development of logic from the Classical Era to modernity holds, like Antonius Andres and I, that the law of identity is* "[t]he principle of all logical affirmation and definition."*​​The law of Identity, I stated, was not explicated as a coordinate principle till a comparatively recent period. The earliest author in whom I have found this done, is *Antonius Andreas*, a scholar of Scotus, who flourished at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century. The schoolman, in the fourth book of his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views—*not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, *_*against*_* Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was *_*Ens est ens*_*. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank. —William Hamilton *​​Further, ever since the Nineteenth Century, the law of identity has been almost universally held to be the foundation of the laws of thought and rightly so, given that it inherently entails the other two and, thusly, the other two in terms of conceptualization are extensions of the same. That's why philosophers routinely list the law of identity first, followed by (2) the law of non-contradiction, (3) the law of the excluded middle and, in recent history, (4) the law of sufficient reason, including Schopenhauer, by the way, although he contended that the laws of thought could be reduced to the excluded middle and sufficient reason, with identity and non-contradiction as corollaries of the excluded middle. I follow his reasoning, but I and others disagree as the law of the excluded middle can actually be suspended for scientific purposes.​​Of course, you wouldn't understand why it's sometimes suspended for scientific purposes, anymore than you understood what your source, whatever it was, was actually talking about regarding the law of identity being emphatically _explicated as a coordinate principle_ in history.  Clearly, you, being an ignoramus, interpreted that mean the origin of the law of identity.​​LMAO!​


----------



## Sunsettommy

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha, you are running on baloney here since I don't have to refute anything since it is YOU who has to provide something beyond faith, that god exist. All I have said is you rely on faith and nothing more, your replies are angry and completely free of evidence.
> 
> Where is the* EVIDENCE *that god exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us go then, you and me,
> And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
> As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
> Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
> Silky slick with sullen rains
> And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
> Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,
> the lofty perches,​Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
> A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows
> And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.
Click to expand...


Thank you for showing to the forum that you can't answer a simple question.


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
Click to expand...


Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 35 years ago I was a DEACON in the church, led in Prayer, involved in bible studies but in the end realized the religious argument for god was never based on anything real. Thus I left religion in August 1990, been free ever since......,, I am so glad that I woke up from the delusion that religion is.
> 
> Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?
> 
> The idea of religion is a total failure, it has never generated true brotherhood, never generated true lasting peace and generated a lot of ecological damage in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes,​And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an excellent example of demonic construction.  It leads to demonic posession.  With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> Actually my being completely OUT of religion,  is the reason why I am free.
> 
> Demons do not exist either, the wholly babble is the only place that pushes this delusion.
Click to expand...


Well if you had ever had any religion ever, or any spirituality ever, then as a member of a church in the past, you would have known that there is no such thing as freedom except freedom in Christ.  

To claim otherwise is demonic, which Christ explains in the Gospels in spiritual twrms, but here we do it mathematically. 

Everything has a finite degree of freedom.  The degree of freedom is a number which is the number of combinations that the thing in question can possibly exist in.  Only God is infinite, so God is the only thing that can exist in infinite combinations therefore free. 

So now that you have rejected the number if combinations that you can exist in, as created by God, who defines your freedom from now on?  It is not God. 

The problem with not God defining your freedom is, that the devil can always exist in more combinations than humabs, see Ezekiel, so if you reject Christ then all your combinations is just a subset of the devil.  So you are in a catch 22.  And yes, it does show itself as freedom to its prisoner, as described in the Paul letter in terms if delusion.


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
Click to expand...


You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.  

The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.

The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.


----------



## Sunsettommy

I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:

Post 205,

"Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"

Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:

"This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."

But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......  

Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
Click to expand...


*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*

 I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.

You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.


Ok then maybe I can put in a few two penny worth to answer these questions if nobody does. 

Let's be saved is the only way.  What is reality is the soul, not the physical world.  All evil people and all evil religions know this, and covertly exploit it to the fullest.  That is where all that suffering comes from.  So the real solution is indeed the salvation.  

The bullet hole in the salvation plan is how we realize Christ when we have no opportunity for a conscious mind.  The answer seems to be God'sGod's promise to Eve to send Christ and Christ'sChrist's word on the Cross to send His Spirit to God.  But no church if Christ has worked it out yet how to make a physical practice if this to protect ourselves when the conscious is gone.  On the other hand, the evil covert churches have done their homework.


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then maybe I can put in a few two penny worth to answer these questions if nobody does.
> 
> Let's be saved is the only way.  What is reality is the soul, not the physical world.  All evil people and all evil religions know this, and covertly exploit it to the fullest.  That is where all that suffering comes from.  So the real solution is indeed the salvation.
> 
> The bullet hole in the salvation plan is how we realize Christ when we have no opportunity for a conscious mind.  The answer seems to be God'sGod's promise to Eve to send Christ and Christ'sChrist's word on the Cross to send His Spirit to God.  But no church if Christ has worked it out yet how to make a physical practice if this to protect ourselves when the conscious is gone.  On the other hand, the evil covert churches have done their homework.
Click to expand...




Still no evidence at all, just a catechism is what you offer.

You are so lost into the nonsense that you are unaware that you have NOTHING to support your Salvation plan, which after 2,000 years of this crap with no end in sight, it is pure nonsense.

I was Deacon in the Church, I am well aware of the "Salvation" plan, one that goes on and on for 2,000 years, what you is your imagined god waiting for?

Why can't you explain your made up impotent god failure?

"Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"

Your imagined god looks very weak to me....


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*
> 
> I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.
> 
> You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.
Click to expand...


You behave exactly how the Paul letter predicts you to behave.  This is not a durprise, because without the Word, it doesn't matter how many evidences you dig up or manufacture for anything. 

What you should ask is what work on your soul reprogrammed you into such rejection of Christ and how could it succeed.  That story would be really interesting, for the benefit of us and all readers.


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then maybe I can put in a few two penny worth to answer these questions if nobody does.
> 
> Let's be saved is the only way.  What is reality is the soul, not the physical world.  All evil people and all evil religions know this, and covertly exploit it to the fullest.  That is where all that suffering comes from.  So the real solution is indeed the salvation.
> 
> The bullet hole in the salvation plan is how we realize Christ when we have no opportunity for a conscious mind.  The answer seems to be God'sGod's promise to Eve to send Christ and Christ'sChrist's word on the Cross to send His Spirit to God.  But no church if Christ has worked it out yet how to make a physical practice if this to protect ourselves when the conscious is gone.  On the other hand, the evil covert churches have done their homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no evidence at all, just a catechism is what you offer.
> 
> You are so lost into the nonsense that you are unaware that you have NOTHING to support your Salvation plan, which after 2,000 years of this crap with no end in sight, it is pure nonsense.
> 
> I was Deacon in the Church, I am well aware of the "Salvation" plan, one that goes on and on for 2,000 years, what you is your imagined god waiting for?
> 
> Why can't you explain your made up impotent god failure?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Your imagined god looks very weak to me....
Click to expand...


Your answer should be the second half of Psalm 50.  We're you able to detect when you lost faith in God?


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*
> 
> I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.
> 
> You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You behave exactly how the Paul letter predicts you to behave.  This is not a durprise, because without the Word, it doesn't matter how many evidences you dig up or manufacture for anything.
> 
> What you should ask is what work on your soul reprogrammed you into such rejection of Christ and how could it succeed.  That story would be really interesting, for the benefit of us and all readers.
Click to expand...


I accept your surrender.


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*
> 
> I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.
> 
> You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You behave exactly how the Paul letter predicts you to behave.  This is not a durprise, because without the Word, it doesn't matter how many evidences you dig up or manufacture for anything.
> 
> What you should ask is what work on your soul reprogrammed you into such rejection of Christ and how could it succeed.  That story would be really interesting, for the benefit of us and all readers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
Click to expand...


When were you reprogrammed?  Can you at least triangulate an approximate time frame if it? 

Emotions is the first line if fire from the devil.


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then maybe I can put in a few two penny worth to answer these questions if nobody does.
> 
> Let's be saved is the only way.  What is reality is the soul, not the physical world.  All evil people and all evil religions know this, and covertly exploit it to the fullest.  That is where all that suffering comes from.  So the real solution is indeed the salvation.
> 
> The bullet hole in the salvation plan is how we realize Christ when we have no opportunity for a conscious mind.  The answer seems to be God'sGod's promise to Eve to send Christ and Christ'sChrist's word on the Cross to send His Spirit to God.  But no church if Christ has worked it out yet how to make a physical practice if this to protect ourselves when the conscious is gone.  On the other hand, the evil covert churches have done their homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no evidence at all, just a catechism is what you offer.
> 
> You are so lost into the nonsense that you are unaware that you have NOTHING to support your Salvation plan, which after 2,000 years of this crap with no end in sight, it is pure nonsense.
> 
> I was Deacon in the Church, I am well aware of the "Salvation" plan, one that goes on and on for 2,000 years, what you is your imagined god waiting for?
> 
> Why can't you explain your made up impotent god failure?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Your imagined god looks very weak to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer should be the second half of Psalm 50.  We're you able to detect when you lost faith in God?
Click to expand...


There is that word again, FAITH.

*Faith*, derived from Latin _fides_ and Old French _feid_,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant,[4][5] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[6]

No evidence is needed, just your delusion is all YOU need.

Belief,



> a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing



No evidence is needed, just my follow made up delusions.

You are so lost...... you don't even realize I am making a big fool out of you.....


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*
> 
> I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.
> 
> You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You behave exactly how the Paul letter predicts you to behave.  This is not a durprise, because without the Word, it doesn't matter how many evidences you dig up or manufacture for anything.
> 
> What you should ask is what work on your soul reprogrammed you into such rejection of Christ and how could it succeed.  That story would be really interesting, for the benefit of us and all readers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were you reprogrammed?  Can you at least triangulate an approximate time frame if it?
> 
> Emotions is the first line if fire from the devil.
Click to expand...


You have nothing but stupid one liners, you don't try to answer for your lack of evidence.

Why do you keep ducking this?

"Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"

Why can't you answer it?


----------



## Sunsettommy

ChemEngineer said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't evidence, just origin words to soothe the crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Volumes have been written contradicting your atheist faith. Thousands of volumes.
> 
> I refer you to:
> 
> _*The Case for Faith *_by Lee Strobel
> *The Case for Christ *by Lee Strobel
> _*The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict *_by Josh McDowell
> *The Devil's Delusion* by David Berlinski
> _*Rare Earth*_ by Ward and Brownlee
> _*Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn (Former militant atheist)
> There is that same putrid stench of militarist propaganda which reeks from the pages of New Atheist script, and is immediately familiar to anyone who has read the work of Herr Josef Goebbels, constituting little more than a host of lavishly morbid anecdotes and caricatures of religion punctuated here and there with traces of puerile logic.
> 
> Put simply, scientists will tell you that “science works.” If science works, then the universe works. If the universe works then it means that it was made; because what is not made cannot possibly “work.”
> 
> Professor Andrew Simms, former President of the Royal Institute of Psychiatry in Britain… concludes that religious faith is one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Particularly among Christian adherents in western society, religious practice seems to result in lower levels of stress and depression, better physical health, better interpersonal relationship and family life and a much lower inclination to substance addiction, among other behavioral and mental disorders. The psychiatric data for atheism and agnosticism, on the other hand, appears to run quite in the opposite direction. A number of studies performed by members of the American psychiatric association determine a strong correlation between a “lack of faith” (i.e. atheism) and depression and suicide.
> 
> _*The Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day (Former militant atheist)
> 
> The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions believed by less intelligent beings is the foremost conceit of the atheist.
> 
> Studies have shown that those without religion have life expectancies seven years shorter than the average churchgoer, are more likely to smoke, abuse alcohol and be depressed or obese, and they are much less likely to marry or have children.
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> *Your atheist beliefs are demonstrably unhealthy, physically and mentally, and yet you insist otherwise, to your own eternal detriment. Pride is the original sin.  It is your downfall.  I am nothing.   It's not about me, but you atheists always try to make it about the individual(s) trying to teach you what you refuse to consider much less learn.   You're smarter, you're better, you're more moral, you're more scientific. You're better than God and so you don't need God (you think, you preach).- ChemEngineer*
Click to expand...


You didn't provide any evidence here, you are a smart man, you can do a lot better than that, but all you did was completely leave out the only possible authoritative source in support for god, but you didn't bring that Meta book up.

I was a Deacon in the church from 35 years ago, left religion in August 1990, been free ever since, it is so nice to be free of  delusion of some guy named god, who never seems to be around to end the Salvation racket and get on with this mythical going to heaven promise his second son briefly talked about only 2,000 years ago, for some reason god INC. must like watching the suffering of his people, since it has been 2,000 years since his second son supposedly talked about getting saved.........

Maybe your god is sadist?


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.



*Recently, Fort Fun Indiana said, recently.*

Yeah, Fort Fun Indiana is completely full of feces.

The law of identity was elucidated by Aristotle shortly after Plato elucidated the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle by any school of philosophical thought.  So when he denied that the other two laws of logic are inherent to the law of identity, as Western philosophers came to realize after Andreas made that very extrapolation, he was literally just talking out of his ass due to his little knowledge as he confounded the law's historical explication as a coordinate principle with the time frame of its historical origin by centuries.  Clearly, Fort Fun Indiana has ZERO formal training in any of the pertinent subjects of this discussion and has no real understanding of just how obviously stupid he is.

And he just poo-pooed the original notion that the Logos—originally conceived by the Greeks as the eternally immutable and universal principle (or reason) for the existence and organization of the cosmos, a concept applied to the Living Word of God by John the Apostle—may be varyingly surmised by me as the Universal Principle of Identity entailing the fundamental laws of thought imprinted on the mind of humanity by God, a.k.a., the _Imago Dei_.

Hot damn his  intellectual bigotry is hilarious!  It's the same imbecility that Ringtone has exposed over and over again about this punk:  everything that conclusively demonstrates God's existence is false in his tiny cranium, and he's oblivious of the fact that he's a grubby little pissant of a bucked-tooth, nose-picking doofus. 

A pure intellectual fraud!

Fort Fun Indiana is an amateur who keeps exposing himself for what he is.  Even when he tries to use Google, he can't get it right.  Every time he opens his yap, his panites fall down and expose his little tee-tee as he spouts a torrent of drooling stupidity, ignorance, rank falsehoods, ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and grammatical monstrosities.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> You have nothing but stupid one liners, you don't try to answer for your lack of evidence.
> 
> Why do you keep ducking this?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Why can't you answer it?



The Air is still tonight—drenched with slumber.​A withered leaf dodders on spindly legs across Its gnarled spine.


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then maybe I can put in a few two penny worth to answer these questions if nobody does.
> 
> Let's be saved is the only way.  What is reality is the soul, not the physical world.  All evil people and all evil religions know this, and covertly exploit it to the fullest.  That is where all that suffering comes from.  So the real solution is indeed the salvation.
> 
> The bullet hole in the salvation plan is how we realize Christ when we have no opportunity for a conscious mind.  The answer seems to be God'sGod's promise to Eve to send Christ and Christ'sChrist's word on the Cross to send His Spirit to God.  But no church if Christ has worked it out yet how to make a physical practice if this to protect ourselves when the conscious is gone.  On the other hand, the evil covert churches have done their homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no evidence at all, just a catechism is what you offer.
> 
> You are so lost into the nonsense that you are unaware that you have NOTHING to support your Salvation plan, which after 2,000 years of this crap with no end in sight, it is pure nonsense.
> 
> I was Deacon in the Church, I am well aware of the "Salvation" plan, one that goes on and on for 2,000 years, what you is your imagined god waiting for?
> 
> Why can't you explain your made up impotent god failure?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Your imagined god looks very weak to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer should be the second half of Psalm 50.  We're you able to detect when you lost faith in God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is that word again, FAITH.
> 
> *Faith*, derived from Latin _fides_ and Old French _feid_,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant,[4][5] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[6]
> 
> No evidence is needed, just your delusion is all YOU need.
> 
> Belief,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence is needed, just my follow made up delusions.
> 
> You are so lost...... you don't even realize I am making a big fool out of you.....
Click to expand...


Your premise is that you can control or even count the number of things that you need for your logic to work.  No such counting is ever possible.  So everything apart from faith is illusion or delusion.


----------



## Sunsettommy

In the old testament, there are a lot of* god mandated wars *in it, a lot of people die under his orders, He drowns the entire world of humans except for Noah and his family, he wiped a couple cities (famously wicked for fucking a lot) off the surface of the earth, turns people to salt for the terrible crime of looking back at the destruction from far off, he also likes to punish the Jews for disobeying him and they disobey him over and over, despite the miracles they allegedly saw in front of them. They get taken into slavery that last for 400 years, then after a *god off *contest between the Egyptian and Hebrew gods, they get free, then do the impossibly (noted bible error) fast walk to the "land of milk and honey", which doesn't exist.

He realize his drowning of everyone on the planet except Noah and his group ends up in failure since *wickedness and disobedience still exist anyway*, he decided to shift his attention to a tiny nation for his next attempt to mold a people into mindless devotion to him and end the wickedness problem, which ends up in failure since they openly disobey him, even with miracles they saw first hand and were freed from Egypt. They still kill and commit many forms of crimes despite his 10 Commandments and other rules, *they keep disobeying anyway*, what a failure he is!

God can't seen to get everyone to bow down to him, there are always a lot of people who turn their backs on him, he fails over and over to create a 100% obedience rate, always fails to win everyone over. The human suffering goes on and on while the omnipotence all knowing dude tries plan and after plan to get his followers to be glassy eyed followers who never make an error and always obey him.

The obvious question has to be made here, why still take this long running god failure seriously anymore?

His latest attempt (the *born again* plan) to get everyone to kiss his butt all the time and be raptured straight into 4 bedroom 2 bathroom homes in heaven is already a developing failure and been going on for 2,000 years, he is failing despite the rent free offer up there...., maybe the harps are a bad choice?

Maybe in a 1,000 years from now, he will drown everyone again and start over with a Palestinian family instead, maybe they will do what the Jews totally failed to do, obey him 100% of the time and the harps be strummed all day long.

God has been failing for over 4004 years now, a record of failure to be proud of.

How odd of god to chose the Jews!


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*
> 
> I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.
> 
> You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You behave exactly how the Paul letter predicts you to behave.  This is not a durprise, because without the Word, it doesn't matter how many evidences you dig up or manufacture for anything.
> 
> What you should ask is what work on your soul reprogrammed you into such rejection of Christ and how could it succeed.  That story would be really interesting, for the benefit of us and all readers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were you reprogrammed?  Can you at least triangulate an approximate time frame if it?
> 
> Emotions is the first line if fire from the devil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stupid one liners, you don't try to answer for your lack of evidence.
> 
> Why do you keep ducking this?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Why can't you answer it?
Click to expand...


I have already answered it.  God stops all those sufferings by making you work for your salvation through Christ as promised at the very beginning in Genesis.  Your question is not about God.  Your question is about the devil.  It is the devil that is the source of all that suffering, not God. And there are many people under the devil too, who work against salvation.


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then maybe I can put in a few two penny worth to answer these questions if nobody does.
> 
> Let's be saved is the only way.  What is reality is the soul, not the physical world.  All evil people and all evil religions know this, and covertly exploit it to the fullest.  That is where all that suffering comes from.  So the real solution is indeed the salvation.
> 
> The bullet hole in the salvation plan is how we realize Christ when we have no opportunity for a conscious mind.  The answer seems to be God'sGod's promise to Eve to send Christ and Christ'sChrist's word on the Cross to send His Spirit to God.  But no church if Christ has worked it out yet how to make a physical practice if this to protect ourselves when the conscious is gone.  On the other hand, the evil covert churches have done their homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no evidence at all, just a catechism is what you offer.
> 
> You are so lost into the nonsense that you are unaware that you have NOTHING to support your Salvation plan, which after 2,000 years of this crap with no end in sight, it is pure nonsense.
> 
> I was Deacon in the Church, I am well aware of the "Salvation" plan, one that goes on and on for 2,000 years, what you is your imagined god waiting for?
> 
> Why can't you explain your made up impotent god failure?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Your imagined god looks very weak to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer should be the second half of Psalm 50.  We're you able to detect when you lost faith in God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is that word again, FAITH.
> 
> *Faith*, derived from Latin _fides_ and Old French _feid_,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant,[4][5] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[6]
> 
> No evidence is needed, just your delusion is all YOU need.
> 
> Belief,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence is needed, just my follow made up delusions.
> 
> You are so lost...... you don't even realize I am making a big fool out of you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your premise is that you can control or even count the number of things that you need for your logic to work.  No such counting is ever possible.  So everything apart from faith is illusion or delusion.
Click to expand...


Translation:  I have nothing that is evidentiary to offer, just more of the the usual gobblegeddygook is what I was taught to pass on.


----------



## Sunsettommy

anotherlife said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*
> 
> I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.
> 
> You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You behave exactly how the Paul letter predicts you to behave.  This is not a durprise, because without the Word, it doesn't matter how many evidences you dig up or manufacture for anything.
> 
> What you should ask is what work on your soul reprogrammed you into such rejection of Christ and how could it succeed.  That story would be really interesting, for the benefit of us and all readers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were you reprogrammed?  Can you at least triangulate an approximate time frame if it?
> 
> Emotions is the first line if fire from the devil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stupid one liners, you don't try to answer for your lack of evidence.
> 
> Why do you keep ducking this?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Why can't you answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already answered it.  God stops all those sufferings by making you work for your salvation through Christ as promised at the very beginning in Genesis.  Your question is not about God.  Your question is about the devil.  It is the devil that is the source of all that suffering, not God. And there are many people under the devil too, who work against salvation.
Click to expand...


No it is about YOUR continual failure to show god exist, with out that evidence, there is no reason to take you seriously, all you do is run on faith.


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> You didn't provide any evidence here, you are a smart man, you can do a lot better than that, but all you did was completely leave out the only possible authoritative source in support for god, but you didn't bring that Meta book up.
> 
> I was a Deacon in the church from 35 years ago, left religion in August 1990, been free ever since, it is so nice to be free of  delusion of some guy named god, who never seems to be around to end the Salvation racket and get on with this mythical going to heaven promise his second son briefly talked about only 2,000 years ago, for some reason god INC. must like watching the suffering of his people, since it has been 2,000 years since his second son supposedly talked about getting saved.........
> 
> Maybe your god is sadist?



And above the tiny rustlings, above the glistening lanes,​Above the languid shadows that creep and close
on the mournful strains—​The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.
And below, crookbacked lampposts unfurl their hazy-white plumes and glare​At the four-footed heaps, at the white picket fences,
At the cracks in the sidewalks, at the manicured grasses,
As the musty night seeps through our senses.
And through the parlor windows we may see, you and I,​The flickering glow of that babbling flow on the walls:
The Soma of the enervated masses.
Morpheus has alighted on his throne at the commencement
of another dreary evening. . . .​


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> No it is about YOUR continual failure to show god exist, with out that evidence, there is no reason to take you seriously, all you do is run on faith.


And there will be other nights and other days too!​There will be seconds to spin and minutes to spill,
Hours to wend down a winding rill,
Moments for me and moments for you. . . .


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> Translation:  I have nothing that is evidentiary to offer, just more of the the usual gobblegeddygook is what I was taught to pass on.



There will be sacks full of question marks to sow​In furrowed brows replete with sad, fetid lies and concessions.
There will be secrets to air and rumors to grow,
Indiscretions to breed and issues to hoe
During the endless rounds of therapeutic confessions.
And if someone should say,
“Do you know?” and “Do you know?”
To whom shall I turn for the answer?


----------



## anotherlife

Sunsettommy said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify myself matematically, and if it is not acceptable then I will try with narrative.
> 
> Thesis is that every logic is circular.  Logic is defined as something where your state S is a consequence of your previous state and also is a cause of your next state, the difference from your current state S to the next state is d.  You number all the state's in your chain of logic in consecutive order like 1,2,3,...,n,...  Your argument is A.
> 
> By this basic definition of logic, that is to reiterate the above, that it's discourse d from its current state S to its next state is determined by its current state S through an argument A, we are a simple first order ordinary differential equation:
> 
> dS/dn = A*S
> 
> and as per usual maths textbooks, the solution of this, that is the solution of every logic, through the Euler theorem, is a simple exponential function:
> 
> S(n) = exp(A*n)
> 
> The argument A of logic is the key.  It is incorrect to assume that A is only real, because then we just have a cogwheel, no human thinking.  Therefore A is a sum of a real component r and of imagination i, in other words A = r + i.
> 
> So, what is imagination?  Imagination is something whose power changes reality.  For example +1 is real, and so is -1.  But you can't find anything that you can multiply with itself to get anything negative, so imagination is the square root of -1, in other words i = sqrt(-1).
> 
> Now, by the Tailor expansion principle, we know, that anything that has sqrt(-1) that is anything imaginary in its exponent is a cyclical object, running in circles, producing waves as its projected aspects, cosine and since.
> 
> S(n) = r*cos(n) + i*sin(n)
> 
> And none of the above can eliminate the imaginary i part of the logic argument A, no matter what A is and how variable it may be, the cyclical circular component of logic is always there in every solution.
> 
> To kill the circular nature of any human logic, you would need to formulate A in a way that it multiplies i with zero.  But this would have to be a very exact zero.  And very exact things don't exist in physical life, because to get to that accuracy we would need infinitely long time:
> 
> accuracy * time = Planck constant
> 
> Planck constant = 6.63*10^-34 Js
> 
> This is also known as Heisenberg principle, and the accuracy is the energy of existence of the concept, statistically its variance.  In other words, the energy by which the Creator created it.
> 
> So human logic must always be curcular, and that is why Jesus has always said, that you must look at faith and authority, not logic, if you ever want to get somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I surmised some years ago that what I call the Universal Principle of Identity, from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lordy, man. Is that another of your William Lane Craig styled "philosophical argument" that has no utility, drives within a Cul de sac of pointless notions and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a man who prefer Faith over Evidence, that is why he has no rational argument to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what truth requires.  Jesus already explains this. Believing in an evidence is circular.  That is why Jesus declares that no sign will be given.  Evidence can always be manufactured, revised, deleted, re explained, and so on.  Evidence is such a fallacy, that even Pontius pilot who cares nothing about Jesus can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reliance on the wholly babble is frightening since there is nothing enlightening about it and contains embarrassing errors that your all knowing god doesn't seem to notice, even though it is supposed to be..... he he.... "god breathed".....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rejecting the Holy Bible as the word of wisdom that is declared to frustrate the wise is bound to frustrate you.
> 
> The errors that some people like constructing out of some verses may or may not be errors at some time and not at some other time.  Such us the nature of logic and evidential thinking.
> 
> The ultimate test is that it is foolish to think that you can control enough things to make your wisdom valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!*
> 
> I am laughing at your stupid evidence free replies, all you do is babble and nothing more.
> 
> You off no evidence on anything, just more windy babbling. I am wondering if you are on drugs because you show no rational thinking at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You behave exactly how the Paul letter predicts you to behave.  This is not a durprise, because without the Word, it doesn't matter how many evidences you dig up or manufacture for anything.
> 
> What you should ask is what work on your soul reprogrammed you into such rejection of Christ and how could it succeed.  That story would be really interesting, for the benefit of us and all readers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When were you reprogrammed?  Can you at least triangulate an approximate time frame if it?
> 
> Emotions is the first line if fire from the devil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have nothing but stupid one liners, you don't try to answer for your lack of evidence.
> 
> Why do you keep ducking this?
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Why can't you answer it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already answered it.  God stops all those sufferings by making you work for your salvation through Christ as promised at the very beginning in Genesis.  Your question is not about God.  Your question is about the devil.  It is the devil that is the source of all that suffering, not God. And there are many people under the devil too, who work against salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is about YOUR continual failure to show god exist, with out that evidence, there is no reason to take you seriously, all you do is run on faith.
Click to expand...


God did harden the heart of faraoh to exclude him off faith in order to get enough time for the Jews to accomplish the exodus. 

What purpose does your programmed lack of faith serve?


----------



## anotherlife

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  I have nothing that is evidentiary to offer, just more of the the usual gobblegeddygook is what I was taught to pass on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be sacks full of question marks to sow​In furrowed brows replete with sad, fetid lies and concessions.
> There will be secrets to air and rumors to grow,
> Indiscretions to breed and issues to hoe
> During the endless rounds of therapeutic confessions.
> And if someone should say,
> “Do you know?” and “Do you know?”
> To whom shall I turn for the answer?
Click to expand...


This is a good one!  Hehehe


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're actually doing is pulling your pants panties down in front of God and everybody, and showing us that you don't know what the first law (or principle) of logic is?  I take it you're also not aware that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extensions of the first law, namely, the law of identity.
> 
> A product of the public education system and an uninquisitive dolt into adulthood, eh?  How embarrassing.  Does your mommy know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please go back to your post #11 ... I'd like to see your mathematical derivations you promised us ...
Click to expand...


Sure.  But will have to do that tomorrow.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question, punk.
Click to expand...

Internet tough guys are hilarious.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're actually doing is pulling your pants panties down in front of God and everybody, and showing us that you don't know what the first law (or principle) of logic is?  I take it you're also not aware that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extensions of the first law, namely, the law of identity.
> 
> A product of the public education system and an uninquisitive dolt into adulthood, eh?  How embarrassing.  Does your mommy know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please go back to your post #11 ... I'd like to see your mathematical derivations you promised us ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But will have to do that tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Looking forward to it ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question, punk.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight:

You say God cannot do the impossible, until it is convenient to say he can, while hoping nobody notices?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Internet tough guys are hilarious.
Click to expand...

We are both right on this one. But as a fundamental principle, interestingly enough, it was not really delineated well until later and relied on the other two in order to be delineated, i.e., being used the way he proposes to use them in his little attempt to squeeze in the word of god. But the charlatan isn't going to suck all the oxygen out of the thread chasing a semantic point by me, after having so many fatal contradictions in his material being pointed out without even an attempt at response by him. so he can twist in he wind on this one. Maybe he can call on his gods to do the "impossible" and resolve these contradictions for him.


----------



## james bond

Sunsettommy said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence then, but faith got you conned deeply.
Click to expand...


“The most contrarian thing of all is not to oppose the crowd but to think for yourself.” Peter Thiel 

I am able to figure out what was there BEFORE the big bang while you can't.

You can't figure it out while I can or else where is your evidence?


----------



## james bond

sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0 + 0 =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing + nothing should = nothing, but in the case of our universe it happened.
> 
> I think it's evidence that there was something before the big bang -- the creator God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was something before the big bang true. But why a god?
Click to expand...


You didn't watch KCA vid 1.  Or tell me what else was it?



sealybobo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon both Georges Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble showed an expanding and accelerating universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For now. Doesn’t mean it will forever.
Click to expand...


I can't argue with that scientifically, as we do not know what is causing the acceleration (Bible says it's God)?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The entire Tower of Babel story is a justification for racism. It is literally the reason the fairy tale was invented. People were using the Bible to argue against interracial mixing in the 60s. They literally were saying God told them not to serve negroes in their stores. And, maybe even worse, claiming this belief should be respected by law because they believe it.



I never heard that, so did you just make it up?

It was the opposite as God created only one race -- the human race.  The rest was taken care of by natural selection.  You couldn't figure this out haha?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I never heard that, so did you just make it up?


Then you haven't been paying attention. Understanding this also requires a perspective that you simply can never have, as you believe the Bible is the word of god. So this discussion is best left to those with some perspective.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Sunsettommy said:


> Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> Actually my being completely OUT of religion,  is the reason why I am free.
> 
> Demons do not exist either, the wholly babble is the only place that pushes this delusion.



*The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict* by Josh McDowell is a book you desperately need to read and comprehend.

_*Add to it The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, T_*he Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day, and_* Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn.

Atheism is medically, psychologically and spiritually unhealthy as borne out by statistics and medical records.    Your laughter is as hollow and feigned as your evil faith.... in nothing.


----------



## Ringtone

ChemEngineer said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> Actually my being completely OUT of religion,  is the reason why I am free.
> 
> Demons do not exist either, the wholly babble is the only place that pushes this delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict* by Josh McDowell is a book you desperately need to read and comprehend.
> 
> _*Add to it The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, T_*he Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day, and_* Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn.
> 
> Atheism is medically, psychologically and spiritually unhealthy as borne out by statistics and medical records.    Your laughter is as hollow and feigned as your evil faith.... in nothing.
Click to expand...


McDowel and Berlinski's works are fantastic.  As you know I haven't read Day's, but neither have I read Jinn's . . .  yet.  Have  you read _Darwin's Doubt _by  Stephen Meyer or any of Carl F.H. Henry's works?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're actually doing is pulling your pants panties down in front of God and everybody, and showing us that you don't know what the first law (or principle) of logic is?  I take it you're also not aware that the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extensions of the first law, namely, the law of identity.
> 
> A product of the public education system and an uninquisitive dolt into adulthood, eh?  How embarrassing.  Does your mommy know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please go back to your post #11 ... I'd like to see your mathematical derivations you promised us ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  But will have to do that tomorrow.
Click to expand...




Ringtone said:


> McDowell and Berlinski's works are fantastic.  As you know I haven't read Day's, but neither have I read Jinn's . . .  yet.  Have  you read _Darwin's Doubt _by  Stephen Meyer or any of Carl F.H. Henry's works?



Public libraries, like colleges, are biased hard to the Left.  This is obvious from the selections they make in books they purchase across the country.

*The Irrational Atheist* was not available at any library in my city, county, state, or the U.S.
They had to borrow the copy I read from, are you ready for this, The Library of Congress.
Yep that's right.  The L of C.   My copious notes on it are in your mailbox as I type.

I purchased the Kindle edition of _*Illogical  Atheism *_by Bo Jinn.  It too is in your mailbox, Friend.
You have some reading to do.

These two former atheists are as articulate as they are brilliant.  I can find no fault in their observations and commentaries, as I can easily do in the works of Dawkins, Sagan, Asimov, Al Gore, and any other Leftist or atheist you care to choose.  This is because the truth is not in them.

The national motto of India is  *Satyameva Jayate*, "Truth alone prevails."


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> Actually my being completely OUT of religion,  is the reason why I am free.
> 
> Demons do not exist either, the wholly babble is the only place that pushes this delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict* by Josh McDowell is a book you desperately need to read and comprehend.
> 
> _*Add to it The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, T_*he Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day, and_* Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn.
> 
> Atheism is medically, psychologically and spiritually unhealthy as borne out by statistics and medical records.    Your laughter is as hollow and feigned as your evil faith.... in nothing.
Click to expand...

There is also some reading you might find informative regarding the negative, detrimental medical and psychological effects of religious extremism.



			https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~elib/rex.pdf
		










						Extremism and common mental illness: cross-sectional community survey of White British and Pakistani men and women living in England - PubMed
					

Depression, dysthymia and symptoms of anxiety and post-traumatic stress are associated with extremist sympathies.




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				












						Religious Beliefs, Emotional Problems Linked In Provocative New Study
					

Religious Beliefs, Emotional Problems Linked In Provocative New Study




					www.huffpost.com
				






Whining about Berlinski?






						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).


----------



## Ringtone

Sunsettommy said:


> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.



And there will be time for the time of the pitch and the shoeshine.​There will be time to bend our resolutions, to brood with callow men;
Time to follow the errant line of ink to its conclusion—
bleeding from a boosted pen.​There will be time for hope and time for hope to crash . . .
Time to reach for desperate dreams or drive them toward a sudden stop.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice Ringtone ignored this part completely:
> 
> Post 205,
> 
> "Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?"
> 
> Then we have this STUPID comment from post 210 about me, written by afterlife:
> 
> "This is an excellent example of demonic construction. It leads to demonic posession. With the goal of enslaving others that he doesn't even suspect would be."
> 
> But somehow after 30 years, the demons haven't been able to posses me......
> 
> Neither one of these people want to address my comment at all, it must be embarrassing to see their made up god fail so spectacularly for thousands of years...., maybe that is why they ignore gaping holes in their wholly babble, they are so hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there will be time for the time of the pitch and the shoeshine.​There will be time to bend our resolutions, to brood with callow men;
> Time to follow the errant line of ink to its conclusion—
> bleeding from a boosted pen.​There will be time for hope and time for hope to crash . . .
> Time to reach for desperate dreams or drive them toward a sudden stop.
Click to expand...

Pay your respects, everybody tells you
You pay for what you get” 
-_Dave Matthews_


----------



## Sunsettommy

ChemEngineer said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
> 
> Actually my being completely OUT of religion,  is the reason why I am free.
> 
> Demons do not exist either, the wholly babble is the only place that pushes this delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict* by Josh McDowell is a book you desperately need to read and comprehend.
> 
> _*Add to it The Devil's Delusion*_ by David Berlinski, T_*he Irrational Atheist *_by Vox Day, and_* Illogical Atheism*_ by Bo Jinn.
> 
> Atheism is medically, psychologically and spiritually unhealthy as borne out by statistics and medical records.    Your laughter is as hollow and feigned as your evil faith.... in nothing.
Click to expand...


You are the latest religious coward who ignore this:

"Your made up god doesn't show any desire to stop wars, doesn't show any desire to stop pestilence, doesn't show any desire to end abuse of the planets environment, doesn't show any desire to stop the overpopulation train, *for THOUSANDS of years*, your imagined god never does anything to stop the widespread suffering, all we get is more of the same _lets be saved_ crap, but BILLIONS of people die without being "saved", saved for what anyway?" 

Meanwhile you ignore the Bibles whopping doctrinal and mathematical errors, many are long discovered over 100 years ago.

I am not going to read books that defends a mirage and makes stupid attacks on Atheists. I am well aware of the many anti-atheist attacks, they are borne out of doubts and sometimes with fear and hate.

I have been an Atheist for 30 years, NEVER committed a single crime, steal other peoples stuff, never took drugs, never slept around, or sleep with wives., Teen girls are safe around me. Never attacked anyone or made threats to anyone. People around me have learned that I am not a threat to them, yes even religious people don't fear me because I am a rational person who long understood that people can believe and follow a mirage, it is a constitutional right that I respect.

I don't have faith because I go with reality and evidence, that is why I have a reputation of being trusted by many people in life, I don't play mind games either, they know where I come from, but don't try to force anything.

 I have two brothers who are also Atheists from day one, who also did well in life, both well off financially, one being married for around 40 years.

I am free and that greatly bothers you. I don't even belong to any atheist groups and never donated to them either, being a freethinker is enough for me.


----------



## Ringtone

anotherlife said:


> This is a good one!  Hehehe



These are excerpts from a poetic dramatic dialogue I wrote several years ago.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Internet tough guys are hilarious.
Click to expand...


Apparently you failed to read Fort Fun Indiana's tough guy talk.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> *By the way, I Surmised some years ago that
> what I call the Universal Principle of Identity,
> from which the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle are extrapolated, is the Logos.*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!
> This is what?
> Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
> Your own principles and Laws!
> 
> WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
Click to expand...


Hey, everyone, *Fort Fun Indiana* thought that the formal explication of the law of Identity in the literary canon as a coordinate principle = the origin of the same, when in fact this principle was formally elucidated by Aristotle centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle; indeed, it was later explicated by Andreas and others as the foundational coordinate principle!

But aside from the historical academics of the matter, one wonders if *Fort Fun Indiana* believes that the laws of logic didn’t exist at all in human consciousness until Plato and Aristotle, respectively, formally elucidated them. According to *Fort Fun Indiana*, apparently, _whatever is wasn’t whatever it is_, for example, until Aristotle elucidated that _whatever is, is_. In other words, in that moment _whatever is _suddenly became_ whatever it is_. Magic! Talk about a total lack of understanding of things!  This leads one to wonder if *Fort Fun Indiana’s* mind is boggled by LSD or by a lack of common sense. I think it’s a combination of both given that he, like Hollie, thinks the impossible is possible. 

*Let’s review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .

I never claimed that the law of identity was formally codified by any school of thought before the others in history*, which is the predicate of your prevarication, apparently! What did you do, punk? Google something and then pass your filth off as original thought sans any real understanding as you failed to thoroughly investigate the matter? Yeah, that's what you did alright. How many other lies have you been telling behind my back while I ignored you?

What did you mean by _recently_?

The only thing that makes any sense is that you're stupidly going on about the order of historical codification, precisely because you don't grasp the conceptual ramifications of the matter. _I'm_ talking about the conceptual order of logic itself, and *it was Aristotle in the Third Century B.C. who was the first to formally elucidate the law of identity, shortly after Plato elucidated the other two in the literature.  This was *_*centuries*_* before Aristotle's elucidation of it was, finally, formally codified by the Schoolmen of Scotus.

Centuries before the Fourteenth Century!*

The law of identity: Whatever is, is.​​For all a: a = a [or for all x: x = x, as you quoted me from an earlier post, apparently]​​Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote:​​First then this at least is obviously true, that the word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so". Again, if "man" has one meaning, let this be "two-footed animal"; by having one meaning I understand this:—if "man" means "X", then if A is a man "X" will be what "being a man" means for him. (It makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each definition there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that "man" has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. "two-footed animal", while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.) —Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4, (Law of thought - Wikipedia)​
William Hamilton of the Nineteenth Century whose work is still regarded as the leading authority on the history of the development of logic from the Classical era to modernity holds, like Antonius Andres and I, that the law of identity is* "[t]he principle of all logical affirmation and definition."*

The law of Identity, I stated, was not explicated as a coordinate principle till a comparatively recent period. The earliest author in whom I have found this done, is *Antonius Andreas*, a scholar of Scotus, who flourished at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century. The schoolman, in the fourth book of his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views—*not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, against Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was Ens est ens. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank. —William Hamilton *​
Further, ever since the Nineteenth Century, the law of identity has been almost universally held to be the foundation of the laws of thought and rightly so, given that it inherently entails the other two and, thusly, the other two in terms of conceptualization are extensions of the same. That's why philosophers routinely list the law of identity first, followed by (2) the law of non-contradiction, (3) the law of the excluded middle and, in recent history, (4) the law of sufficient reason, including Schopenhauer, by the way, although he contended that the laws of thought could be reduced to the excluded middle and sufficient reason, with identity and non-contradiction as corollaries of the excluded middle. I follow his reasoning, but I and most others disagree, as the law of the excluded middle can be and is routinely suspended for scientific purposes.  Schopenhauer failed to anticipate that, just as he failed to appreciate the fact that the law of sufficient reason conceptually alludes back to the foundational law of logic.  But, then, Schopenhauer was an atheist and, thus, a fool.

Of course, you wouldn't understand why it's sometimes suspended for scientific purposes, anymore than you understood what your source, whatever it is, was actually talking about regarding the law of identity's _formal explication as a coordinate principle_ in the historical timeline.  Clearly, you, being an ignoramus, interpreted that to regard _the origin of the law of identity itself_.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> You're ill-informed angry fundie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Burning of the Library of Alexandria | eHISTORY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ehistory.osu.edu







__





						The Library of Alexandria – destroyed by an angry mob with torches? Not very likely.
					

Why do little girls adore martyrs so much? Perhaps it’s preparation for marriage. In my elementary school, the book on Jeanne d’Arc was one of the most heavily worn and pawed over volumes in our small library, and my fingerprints are over every page, if the tattered book still exists at all. The...




					bookhaven.stanford.edu
				




And the world’s amusements, its diversions, abound!​Sought by pale hands, chased by wooden feet:
Candy-coated rainbows that calm and feed the head
Or illicit, well-used harpies that slip into your bed . . .
Charms that lift you or drop you into a cold sweat.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> And the world’s amusements, its diversions, abound!
> Sought by pale hands, chased by wooden feet:
> Candy-coated rainbows that calm and feed the head
> Or illicit, well-used harpies that slip into your bed . . .
> Charms that lift you or drop you into a cold sweat.



How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ill-informed angry fundie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Burning of the Library of Alexandria | eHISTORY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ehistory.osu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Library of Alexandria – destroyed by an angry mob with torches? Not very likely.
> 
> 
> Why do little girls adore martyrs so much? Perhaps it’s preparation for marriage. In my elementary school, the book on Jeanne d’Arc was one of the most heavily worn and pawed over volumes in our small library, and my fingerprints are over every page, if the tattered book still exists at all. The...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookhaven.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the world’s amusements, its diversions, abound!​Sought by pale hands, chased by wooden feet:
> Candy-coated rainbows that calm and feed the head
> Or illicit, well-used harpies that slip into your bed . . .
> Charms that lift you or drop you into a cold sweat.
Click to expand...

I agree. You're utterly befuddled.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.



*Let’s review that again, **Fort Fun Indiana. . . .*

Yeah, *Fort Fun Indiana* is completely full of feces.

The law of identity was formally elucidated by Aristotle shortly after Plato elucidated the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle by any school of philosophical thought. So when *Fort Fun Indiana *denied that the other two laws of logic are inherent to the law of identity, as Western philosophers came to realize after Andreas made that very extrapolation, he was literally just talking out of his ass due to his little knowledge as he conflated the law's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the literature and its formal elucidation in the literature. In fact, he wasn’t even aware of the latter’s historicity in the scheme of things until I pointed it out to him. Simultaneously, he seemed to think that the laws of logic, in and of themselves, didn't even exist in human consciousness before they were formally elucidated in the literature. 

Clearly, *Fort Fun Indiana* has ZERO formal training or any real understanding about . . . well, about anything in this wise, let alone any real understanding of just how incredibly stupid he is.

And he poo-pooed the notion that the Logos—originally conceived by the Greeks as the eternally immutable and universal principle (or reason) for the existence and organization of the cosmos, a concept applied to the Living Word of God by John the Apostle—may be varyingly surmised by me as the Universal Principle of Identity entailing the fundamental laws of thought imprinted on the mind of humanity by God, a.k.a., the _Imago Dei_.

Hot damn his intellectual bigotry and ignorance is hilarious!

It's the same imbecility that Ringtone has exposed over and over again about this punk: everything that conclusively demonstrates God's existence is false in his tiny cranium, and he's oblivious of the fact that he's a grubby little pissant of a bucked-tooth, nose-picking doofus.

A pure intellectual fraud!

*Fort Fun Indiana* is an amateur who keeps exposing himself for what he is. Even when he tries to use Google, he can't get it right. Every time he opens his yap, his panties fall down and expose his little tee-tee as he spouts a torrent of drooling stupidity, ignorance, rank falsehoods, ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and grammatical monstrosities.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...



Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present.  In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.

Are you with me so far?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.
> 
> And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:
> 
> "Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."
> 
> Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Let’s review that again, **Fort Fun Indiana. . . .*
> 
> Yeah, *Fort Fun Indiana* is completely full of feces.
> 
> The law of identity was formally elucidated by Aristotle shortly after Plato elucidated the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle by any school of philosophical thought. So when *Fort Fun Indiana *denied that the other two laws of logic are inherent to the law of identity, as Western philosophers came to realize after Andreas made that very extrapolation, he was literally just talking out of his ass due to his little knowledge as he conflated the law's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the literature and its formal elucidation in the literature. In fact, he wasn’t even aware of the latter’s historicity in the scheme of things until I pointed it out to him. Simultaneously, he seemed to think that the laws of logic, in and of themselves, didn't even exist in human consciousness before they were formally elucidated in the literature.
> 
> Clearly, *Fort Fun Indiana* has ZERO formal training or any real understanding about . . . well, about anything in this wise, let alone any real understanding of just how incredibly stupid he is.
> 
> And he poo-pooed the notion that the Logos—originally conceived by the Greeks as the eternally immutable and universal principle (or reason) for the existence and organization of the cosmos, a concept applied to the Living Word of God by John the Apostle—may be varyingly surmised by me as the Universal Principle of Identity entailing the fundamental laws of thought imprinted on the mind of humanity by God, a.k.a., the _Imago Dei_.
> 
> Hot damn his intellectual bigotry and ignorance is hilarious!
> 
> It's the same imbecility that Ringtone has exposed over and over again about this punk: everything that conclusively demonstrates God's existence is false in his tiny cranium, and he's oblivious of the fact that he's a grubby little pissant of a bucked-tooth, nose-picking doofus.
> 
> A pure intellectual fraud!
> 
> *Fort Fun Indiana* is an amateur who keeps exposing himself for what he is. Even when he tries to use Google, he can't get it right. Every time he opens his yap, his panties fall down and expose his little tee-tee as he spouts a torrent of drooling stupidity, ignorance, rank falsehoods, ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and grammatical monstrosities.
Click to expand...

My, that was a special little tantrum, full of errors, that nobody will read. Hey crybaby, my argument wins:

*All ice cream must be made by someone else.

God is ice cream

Thus, God was made by someone else.*

Look, i just successfully neutralized your tired old arguments without 20 pages of plagiarization! Work smarter, not harder.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present


And motion is impossible, too! Same exact regressive argument as Zeno's regressive paradoxes, with a sprinkling of magnanimous thesaurus-wringing meant to beguile the audience, but which mostly confuses its author.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present.  In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.
> 
> Are you with me so far?
Click to expand...


Infinites exist ... why do you say they are impossible? ... how many real numbers are there between 1 and 2? ... 

*the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present*

Do you have proof of this claim? ... why must there be an origin and how are you proving this origin? ... what experiment can we conduct to show evidence of an origin? ...

Let's start with negative infinity ... walk me through this step by step ... why is this mathematical state impossible? ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Do you have proof of this claim?


Don't do it. You are leaping into the regressive trap. His argument is a regressive argument that is designed to be impossible to counter, as all valid regressive arguments are. That's the game this charlatan is playing. He wants to thesaurus-puke on you for ten pages, then declare victory. And he does this to soothe his own insecurities. Spare yourself. 

Think of the example i gave: Zeno's paradox of motion.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present.  In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.
> 
> Are you with me so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infinites exist ... why do you say they are impossible? ... how many real numbers are there between 1 and 2? ...
> 
> *the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present*
> 
> Do you have proof of this claim? ... why must there be an origin and how are you proving this origin? ... what experiment can we conduct to show evidence of an origin? ...
> 
> Let's start with negative infinity ... walk me through this step by step ... why is this mathematical state impossible? ...
Click to expand...


First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds, and it's impossible for an infinite regress of causal events to be traversed to the present.  See the second video in the OP.  Then, as a prologue, I'll share a verbal explication of the difference between potential and actual infinites before I get into the calculi of infinity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.


You can't even go one sentence without trying to sneak by a dubious premise. You don't know the truth of this. All of your horseshit (that isn't a copy/paste of someone else's hard work) is circular or based on dubious premises nobody could possibly know the truth of. Cheap charlatan.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> I agree. You're utterly befuddled.



You don't even understand your own citation.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present.  In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.
> 
> Are you with me so far?
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you intended to convey but only managed to stumble, mutter and slog your way through. Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of impossibility, you're claiming an actual infinite is impossible except for the gods being an infinite because impossibility is not an attribute of the gods.

Super! 

That confounds your earlier comments but let's not make the mistake of holding religious extremists to a consistent argument.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You're utterly befuddled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand your own citation.
Click to expand...

You don't understand your inability to form a coherent argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present.  In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.
> 
> Are you with me so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I understand what you intended to convey but only managed to stumble, mutter and slog your way through. Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of impossibility, you're claiming an actual infinite is impossible except for the gods being an infinite because impossibility is not an attribute of the gods.
> 
> Super!
> 
> That confounds your earlier comments but let's not make the mistake of holding religious extremists to a consistent argument.
Click to expand...

God cannot do the impossible, per Ringtone !

Except for when God does the impossible, per Ringtone !


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You're utterly befuddled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand your own citation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand your inability to form a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

A chorus of crickets roll their eyes​And dance beneath the cloudy skies.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present.  In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.
> 
> Are you with me so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I understand what you intended to convey but only managed to stumble, mutter and slog your way through. Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of impossibility, you're claiming an actual infinite is impossible except for the gods being an infinite because impossibility is not an attribute of the gods.
> 
> Super!
> 
> That confounds your earlier comments but let's not make the mistake of holding religious extremists to a consistent argument.
Click to expand...

I have cravenly suffered the sentimental drivel of the career politician—​The pandering fop, the trailer-trash clone,
The glib picaro who would do anything at all to be somebody,
Except be somebody who would do anything useful.
I have felt his pudgy fingers foraging in my pockets—
The easy smile, the evasive speech, the beguiling eyes
that woo the timid sheep . . .​The stuff and the skinny of Orwellian nightmares.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds, and it's impossible for an infinite regress of causal events to be traversed to the present.  See the second video in the OP.  Then, as a prologue, I'll share a verbal explication of the difference between potential and actual infinites before I get into the calculi of infinity.



What is your *proof* of this claim ... or are you asking us to *assume* this is true? ...
Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you *prove* it is not? ...

I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds, and it's impossible for an infinite regress of causal events to be traversed to the present.  See the second video in the OP.  Then, as a prologue, I'll share a verbal explication of the difference between potential and actual infinites before I get into the calculi of infinity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your *proof* of this claim ... or are you asking us to *assume* this is true? ...
> Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
> I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you *prove* it is not? ...
> 
> I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..
Click to expand...

Ironically, by his own arguments and methods, the present cannot possibly exist. It is impossible, as an infinite number of moments (which are as small as you want them to be) must have occured prior to this moment, regardless of whether or not time had a beginning.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ironically, by his own arguments and methods, the present cannot possibly exist. It is impossible, as an infinite number of moments (which are as small as you want them to be) must have occured prior to this moment, regardless of whether or not time had a beginning.



A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, by his own arguments and methods, the present cannot possibly exist. It is impossible, as an infinite number of moments (which are as small as you want them to be) must have occured prior to this moment, regardless of whether or not time had a beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...
Click to expand...

Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago!  Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming.  Next up: Alchemy!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You're utterly befuddled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand your own citation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand your inability to form a coherent argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes​And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
Click to expand...

Masterful concision.

Absent an argument, grade school antics.

Most impressive.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago!  Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming.  Next up: Alchemy!



Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got _crickets_ ... math is hard ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> What is your *proof* of this claim ... or are you asking us to *assume* this is true? ...
> Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
> I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you *prove* it is not? ...
> 
> I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..



I didn't say _the concept of infinity_ doesn't exist.  It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only!  Where does _the concept of infinity_ exist outside of mnds?  Where do mathematics exist outside of minds?  These things are not controversial.  There facts of reality.

Question:  What does infinity equal?

Mathematically, it's _the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something_.

It cannot be quantified.

Further, I didn't say _the concept of an infinite regress of causal events_ doesn't exist.  It exist as a concept in mnds and mathematics.  I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?

And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only!



This is true for any language ... including all 284 posts in this thread ... nothing you've posted exist anywhere except your mind ...



Ringtone said:


> I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.



For the second time ... what is your *proof* of this claim? ... or are you asking us to *assume* this is true? ...



Ringtone said:


> What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?
> And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?



Any is fine ... although it will have to be all these points for a rigid proof ... is our space smooth? ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true for any language ... including all 284 posts in this thread ... nothing you've posted exist anywhere except your mind ...
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the second time ... what is your *proof* of this claim? ... or are you asking us to *assume* this is true? ...
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?
> And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any is fine ... although it will have to be all these points for a rigid proof ... is our space smooth? ...
Click to expand...


Sorry, was attending to something.

I don't hold to the notion that the only things that exist are the contents of _my_ mind, and I don't see what bearing philosophical solipsism or methodological solipsism has on my observations.

I directed your attention to an argument expounding why an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.  That is both a logical and, arguably, a mathematical proof. 

If you're not convinced by it, presumably, you're implying that the argument is invalid.  So what is your counter argument or proof that it's invalid?  Please begin your discourse with a demonstration that you objectively and accurately understand what you're arguing against.  

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity:  an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit.  That is the existential distinction between the two.  Given the Epsilon-Delta Proof, I don't understand why you're quibbling with my over this.

This was a joke:

And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?​
You didn't define your parameters.  Are you talking in terms of being, time or counting along the number line?


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got _crickets_ ... math is hard ...


 

Yeah, math is hard alright.  Instead of making gossipy, baby talk with that imbecile Fort Fun you better concentrate.  I already pulled his panties down.  Now start demonstrating you understand the existential distinction between potential and actual infinities.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago!  Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming.  Next up: Alchemy!



*Looks like we need to review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .*

Yeah, *Fort Fun Indiana* is completely full of feces.

The law of identity was formally elucidated by Aristotle shortly after Plato elucidated the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle by any school of philosophical thought. So when *Fort Fun Indiana *denied that the other two laws of logic are inherent to the law of identity, as Western philosophers came to realize after Andreas made that very extrapolation, he was literally just talking out of his ass due to his little knowledge as he conflated the law's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the literature and its formal elucidation in the literature. In fact, he wasn’t even aware of the latter’s historicity in the scheme of things until I pointed it out to him. Simultaneously, he seemed to think that the laws of logic, in and of themselves, didn't even exist in human consciousness before they were formally elucidated in the literature.

Clearly, *Fort Fun Indiana* has ZERO formal training or any real understanding about . . . well, about anything in this wise, let alone any real understanding of just how incredibly stupid he is.

And he poo-pooed the notion that the Logos—originally conceived by the Greeks as the eternally immutable and universal principle (or reason) for the existence and organization of the cosmos, a concept applied to the Living Word of God by John the Apostle—may be varyingly surmised by me as the Universal Principle of Identity entailing the fundamental laws of thought imprinted on the mind of humanity by God, a.k.a., the _Imago Dei_.

Hot damn his intellectual bigotry and ignorance is hilarious!

It's the same imbecility that Ringtone has exposed over and over again about this punk: everything that conclusively demonstrates God's existence is false in his tiny cranium, and he's oblivious of the fact that he's a grubby little pissant of a bucked-tooth, nose-picking doofus.

A pure intellectual fraud!

*Fort Fun Indiana* is an amateur who keeps exposing himself for what he is. Even when he tries to use Google, he can't get it right. Every time he opens his yap, his panties fall down and expose his little tee-tee as he spouts a torrent of drooling stupidity, ignorance, rank falsehoods, ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and grammatical monstrosities.


----------



## Ringtone

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago!  Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming.  Next up: Alchemy!



*This same stooge thinks ReinyDays is going to teach me something about math. . . .*

Hey, everyone, *Fort Fun Indiana* thought that the formal explication of the law of Identity in the literary canon as a coordinate principle = the origin of the same, when in fact this principle was formally elucidated by Aristotle centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle; indeed, it was later explicated by Andreas and others as the foundational coordinate principle!

But aside from the historical academics of the matter, one wonders if *Fort Fun Indiana* believes that the laws of logic didn’t exist at all in human consciousness until Plato and Aristotle, respectively, formally elucidated them. According to *Fort Fun Indiana*, apparently, _whatever is wasn’t whatever it is_, for example, until Aristotle elucidated that _whatever is, is_. In other words, in that moment _whatever is _suddenly became_ whatever it is_. Magic! Talk about a total lack of understanding of things! This leads one to wonder if *Fort Fun Indiana’s* mind is boggled by LSD or by a lack of common sense. I think it’s a combination of both given that he, like Hollie, thinks the impossible is possible.

*Let’s review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .

I never claimed that the law of identity was formally codified by any school of thought before the others in history*, which is the predicate of your prevarication, apparently! What did you do, punk? Google something and then pass your filth off as original thought sans any real understanding as you failed to thoroughly investigate the matter? Yeah, that's what you did alright. How many other lies have you been telling behind my back while I ignored you?

What did you mean by _recently_?

The only thing that makes any sense is that you're stupidly going on about the order of historical codification, precisely because you don't grasp the conceptual ramifications of the matter. _I'm_ talking about the conceptual order of logic itself, and *it was Aristotle in the Third Century B.C. who was the first to formally elucidate the law of identity, shortly after Plato elucidated the other two in the literature. This was centuries before Aristotle's elucidation of it was, finally, formally codified by the Schoolmen of Scotus.

Centuries before the Fourteenth Century!*

The law of identity: Whatever is, is.​​For all a: a = a [or for all x: x = x, as you quoted me from an earlier post, apparently]​​Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote:​​First then this at least is obviously true, that the word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so". Again, if "man" has one meaning, let this be "two-footed animal"; by having one meaning I understand this:—if "man" means "X", then if A is a man "X" will be what "being a man" means for him. (It makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each definition there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that "man" has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. "two-footed animal", while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.) —Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4, (Law of thought - Wikipedia)​
William Hamilton of the Nineteenth Century whose work is still regarded as the leading authority on the history of the development of logic from the Classical era to modernity holds, like Antonius Andres and I, that the law of identity is* "[t]he principle of all logical affirmation and definition."*

The law of Identity, I stated, was not explicated as a coordinate principle till a comparatively recent period. The earliest author in whom I have found this done, is *Antonius Andreas*, a scholar of Scotus, who flourished at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century. The schoolman, in the fourth book of his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views—*not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, *_*against*_* Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was *_*Ens est ens*_*. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank. —William Hamilton *​
Further, ever since the Nineteenth Century, the law of identity has been almost universally held to be the foundation of the laws of thought and rightly so, given that it inherently entails the other two and, thusly, the other two in terms of conceptualization are extensions of the same. That's why philosophers routinely list the law of identity first, followed by (2) the law of non-contradiction, (3) the law of the excluded middle and, in recent history, (4) the law of sufficient reason, including Schopenhauer, by the way, although he contended that the laws of thought could be reduced to the excluded middle and sufficient reason, with identity and non-contradiction as corollaries of the excluded middle. I follow his reasoning, but I and most others disagree, as the law of the excluded middle can be and is routinely suspended for scientific purposes. Schopenhauer failed to anticipate that, just as he failed to appreciate the fact that the law of sufficient reason conceptually alludes back to the foundational law of logic. But, then, Schopenhauer was an atheist and, thus, a fool.

Of course, you wouldn't understand why it's sometimes suspended for scientific purposes, anymore than you understood what your source, whatever it is, was actually talking about regarding the law of identity's _formal explication as a coordinate principle_ in the historical timeline. Clearly, you, being an ignoramus, interpreted that to regard _the origin of the law of identity itself_.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got _crickets_ ... math is hard ...



Here's the first part of the _crickets_ I promised you, an excerpt from an article I wrote regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities:

. . . Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the existential impossibility of a quantitatively definite actual infinity.  How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities?  As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.  

It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit, and the only sense in which they exist inside minds is strictly conceptual.  There's never a point in time or being outside of minds when there isn't still more and more. . . .  One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is.  From this we see that the existential impossibility of an actual infinity outside of minds goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being. 

A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually.  Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity.  The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers *0* and *1*, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from *0* to *±∞* combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)!  Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities.  

Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists, in and of itself, outside of minds either.  When we talk about a real number like *±1* as opposed to a surreal number like *±∞*, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value.  The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers. 

Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes.  When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways.  There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such.  God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things.  I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude).  God is the Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end. 

While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God _could_ create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.   

But it's Morriston who's befuddled.     

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms couldn't possibly exist in the first place.  An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity.  The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment in time or being that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.   

It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!   

In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature.  Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us.  For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself.  God = God.  God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously.     How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy?  Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities. 

Now on to the mathematical treatment of Infinity.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> I directed your attention to an argument expounding why an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.  That is both a logical and, arguably, a mathematical proof.



What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago!  Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming.  Next up: Alchemy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This same stooge thinks ReinyDays is going to teach me something about math. . . .*
> 
> Hey, everyone, *Fort Fun Indiana* thought that the formal explication of the law of Identity in the literary canon as a coordinate principle = the origin of the same, when in fact this principle was formally elucidated by Aristotle centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle; indeed, it was later explicated by Andreas and others as the foundational coordinate principle!
> 
> But aside from the historical academics of the matter, one wonders if *Fort Fun Indiana* believes that the laws of logic didn’t exist at all in human consciousness until Plato and Aristotle, respectively, formally elucidated them. According to *Fort Fun Indiana*, apparently, _whatever is wasn’t whatever it is_, for example, until Aristotle elucidated that _whatever is, is_. In other words, in that moment _whatever is _suddenly became_ whatever it is_. Magic! Talk about a total lack of understanding of things! This leads one to wonder if *Fort Fun Indiana’s* mind is boggled by LSD or by a lack of common sense. I think it’s a combination of both given that he, like Hollie, thinks the impossible is possible.
> 
> *Let’s review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .
> 
> I never claimed that the law of identity was formally codified by any school of thought before the others in history*, which is the predicate of your prevarication, apparently! What did you do, punk? Google something and then pass your filth off as original thought sans any real understanding as you failed to thoroughly investigate the matter? Yeah, that's what you did alright. How many other lies have you been telling behind my back while I ignored you?
> 
> What did you mean by _recently_?
> 
> The only thing that makes any sense is that you're stupidly going on about the order of historical codification, precisely because you don't grasp the conceptual ramifications of the matter. _I'm_ talking about the conceptual order of logic itself, and *it was Aristotle in the Third Century B.C. who was the first to formally elucidate the law of identity, shortly after Plato elucidated the other two in the literature. This was centuries before Aristotle's elucidation of it was, finally, formally codified by the Schoolmen of Scotus.
> 
> Centuries before the Fourteenth Century!*
> 
> The law of identity: Whatever is, is.​​For all a: a = a [or for all x: x = x, as you quoted me from an earlier post, apparently]​​Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote:​​First then this at least is obviously true, that the word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so". Again, if "man" has one meaning, let this be "two-footed animal"; by having one meaning I understand this:—if "man" means "X", then if A is a man "X" will be what "being a man" means for him. (It makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each definition there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that "man" has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. "two-footed animal", while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.) —Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4, (Law of thought - Wikipedia)​
> William Hamilton of the Nineteenth Century whose work is still regarded as the leading authority on the history of the development of logic from the Classical era to modernity holds, like Antonius Andres and I, that the law of identity is* "[t]he principle of all logical affirmation and definition."*
> 
> The law of Identity, I stated, was not explicated as a coordinate principle till a comparatively recent period. The earliest author in whom I have found this done, is *Antonius Andreas*, a scholar of Scotus, who flourished at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century. The schoolman, in the fourth book of his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views—*not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, *_*against*_* Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was *_*Ens est ens*_*. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank. —William Hamilton *​
> Further, ever since the Nineteenth Century, the law of identity has been almost universally held to be the foundation of the laws of thought and rightly so, given that it inherently entails the other two and, thusly, the other two in terms of conceptualization are extensions of the same. That's why philosophers routinely list the law of identity first, followed by (2) the law of non-contradiction, (3) the law of the excluded middle and, in recent history, (4) the law of sufficient reason, including Schopenhauer, by the way, although he contended that the laws of thought could be reduced to the excluded middle and sufficient reason, with identity and non-contradiction as corollaries of the excluded middle. I follow his reasoning, but I and most others disagree, as the law of the excluded middle can be and is routinely suspended for scientific purposes. Schopenhauer failed to anticipate that, just as he failed to appreciate the fact that the law of sufficient reason conceptually alludes back to the foundational law of logic. But, then, Schopenhauer was an atheist and, thus, a fool.
> 
> Of course, you wouldn't understand why it's sometimes suspended for scientific purposes, anymore than you understood what your source, whatever it is, was actually talking about regarding the law of identity's _formal explication as a coordinate principle_ in the historical timeline. Clearly, you, being an ignoramus, interpreted that to regard _the origin of the law of identity itself_.
Click to expand...

You know, literally every person seeing your copy paste tantrum (not one person will actually read it) knows this is an attempt by you to avoid all other points. Do you even fool yourself?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got _crickets_ ... math is hard ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the first part of the _crickets_ I promised you, an excerpt from an article I wrote regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities:
> 
> . . . Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the existential impossibility of a quantitatively definite actual infinity.  How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities?  As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.
> 
> It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit, and the only sense in which they exist inside minds is strictly conceptual.  There's never a point in time or being outside of minds when there isn't still more and more. . . .  One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is.  From this we see that the existential impossibility of an actual infinity outside of minds goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.
> 
> A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually.  Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity.  The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers *0* and *1*, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from *0* to *±∞* combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)!  Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities.
> 
> Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists, in and of itself, outside of minds either.  When we talk about a real number like *±1* as opposed to a surreal number like *±∞*, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value.  The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.
> 
> Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes.  When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways.  There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such.  God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things.  I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude).  God is the Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.
> 
> While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God _could_ create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.
> 
> But it's Morriston who's befuddled.
> 
> That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms couldn't possibly exist in the first place.  An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity.  The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment in time or being that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.
> 
> It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!
> 
> In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature.  Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us.  For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself.  God = God.  God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously.     How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy?  Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities.
> 
> Now on to the mathematical treatment of Infinity.
Click to expand...

This is copy paste material you don't really understand. It is posted in an effort to try to make your subjective premises look as though they have more substance than they do. Have you ever taken discrete mathematics? Clearly not.


----------



## ReinyDays

Rather quickly spinning in the wind ... some new and unfounded brand of pseudo-math that won't make his case ... just sounds good is all ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Rather quickly spinning in the wind ... some new and unfounded brand of pseudo-math that won't make his case ... just sounds good is all ...


Of course. That's the MO of this charlatan. And it matches right up with the MO of religiosity. Large, ornate buildings...elaborate costumes...music, chanting, speaking in tongues, long winded, emotional sermons...all to put a tuxedo on the turd of iron age myths.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your *proof* of this claim ... or are you asking us to *assume* this is true? ...
> Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
> I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you *prove* it is not? ...
> 
> I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say _the concept of infinity_ doesn't exist.  It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only!  Where does _the concept of infinity_ exist outside of mnds?  Where do mathematics exist outside of minds?  These things are not controversial.  There facts of reality.
> 
> Question:  What does infinity equal?
> 
> Mathematically, it's _the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something_.
> 
> It cannot be quantified.
> 
> Further, I didn't say _the concept of an infinite regress of causal events_ doesn't exist.  It exist as a concept in mnds and mathematics.  I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.
> 
> What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?
> 
> And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?
Click to expand...

Fifteen pages in a thread you opened purporting to have something to do with mathematics and incontrovertible evidence for your gods.

There has been no mathematics presented offering proof of your gods and no offering of incontrovertible evidence for your gods.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principle of the thread title promoting a fraudulent premise, your participation in the thread has been an embarrassment to the gods and mathematics alike.


----------



## ReinyDays

As a Christian myself ... this is NOT how we are commanded to treat our neighbors ... just awful how some people discredit our doctrine, just awful ... we worship the Prince of Peace, we should be peaceful, duh ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> As a Christian myself ... this is NOT how we are commanded to treat our neighbors ... just awful how some people discredit our doctrine, just awful ... we worship the Prince of Peace, we should be peaceful, duh ...



If you're a Christian then why did you turn what began as a civil conversation with me into a mockfest as you incessantly misrepresented my observations?  Why are you abetting the obfuscations. of atheist reprobates and throwing shade on the logical, mathematic and scientific ramifications regarding God's existence?  I'm not impressed by your moralizing yuk yuk.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...



Total gibberish with a smidgen of word-salad dressing (i.e., _the CMB epoch_) poured on top.  

(By the way, that's the second time I posted the excerpt from my article in this thread. You should have read it the first time.)

The summation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument below the accompanying videos of the same in the OP stand and stay.

The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.

Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
*x*​_*1 ÷ x*_​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​*x→a  x→∞ *​​
*x*_*1 ÷ x*_1120.540.25100.11000.011,0000.00110,0000.0001100,0000.000011,000,000 . . .0.000001 . . .


In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.

Check and mate!


----------



## Ringtone

Edit:   I had to delete the post in the above and repost it as the format would not let me present the inputs and outputs properly sans a table.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total gibberish with a smidgen of word-salad dressing, the CMB epoch, poured on top.
> 
> (By the way, that's the second time I posted the excerpt from my article in this thread. You should have read it the first time.)
> 
> The summation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument below the accompanying videos of the same in the OP stand and stay.
> 
> The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!
> 
> And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​_*1 ÷ x*_​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as good as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​*x→a  x→∞ *​​
> *x*_*1 ÷ x*_1120.540.25100.11000.011,0000.00110,0000.0001100,0000.000011,000,000 . . .0.000001 . . .
> 
> 
> In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.
> 
> Check and mate!
Click to expand...

Sans an ability to “prove” your gods it is actually pretty funny as the above is nothing more than what happens when solving mathematical equations resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.

Nothing in that long cut and paste points to any gods. Sans an actual argument, it is just another desperate attempt by religious extremists to “prove” their gods with calculus they don’t understand.


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> If you're a Christian then why did you turn what began as a civil conversation with me into a mockfest as you incessantly misrepresented my observations?  Why are you abetting the obfuscations. of atheist reprobates and throwing shade on the logical, mathematic and scientific ramifications regarding God's existence?  I'm not impressed by your moralizing yuk yuk.





ReinyDays said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> I directed your attention to an argument expounding why an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.  That is both a logical and, arguably, a mathematical proof.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...
Click to expand...


This is all I've commented on so far ... you haven't yet said if this is proved or assumed ... it's a simple question ... the "mockfest" seems to be in your own mind ... I only want clarification ...

In the OP, you claimed mathematical proof ... you can't seem to produce any so we must assume yours is strictly a philosophical approach ... and once again are posting in the wrong forum ......


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.


Hahahaha


So you basically just reiterated Zeno's paradox of movement. A regressive argument that is useless. And easily discarded by the fact that we can sum infinite series. 

Like i said. A bunch of window dressing on a turd. 

What might help you stop embarrassing yourself here is a bit of time with a cosmology textbook. See how they resolve, for example, watching someone fall into a black hole. Then come back and admit your arguments are stupid.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Fifteen pages in a thread you opened purporting to have something to do with mathematics and incontrovertible evidence for your gods.



See above.  Check and mate.
​​​


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> This is all I've commented on so far ... you haven't yet said if this is proved or assumed ... it's a simple question ... the "mockfest" seems to be in your own mind ... I only want clarification ...
> 
> In the OP, you claimed mathematical proof ... you can't seem to produce any so we must assume yours is strictly a philosophical approach ... and once again are posting in the wrong forum ......



You're a liar or an ignoramus.  Which is it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> See above. Check and mate.


Wrong. Your math does not prove your assertions. Not only is it NOT incontrovertible, it is easily squashed by any high school junior that can sum an infinite series.

Furthermore... And this is the best part...you just used a mathematical proof to demonstrate that time cannot have any beginning, to someone living in it. But you don't understand that.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fifteen pages in a thread you opened purporting to have something to do with mathematics and incontrovertible evidence for your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above.  Check and mate.
> ​​​
Click to expand...

I saw above. Nothing points to your version of supernatural gods.

Fifteen pages from now, you will be slogging through nonsensical ''pwoofs'', sans any meaningful argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fifteen pages in a thread you opened purporting to have something to do with mathematics and incontrovertible evidence for your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above.  Check and mate.
> ​​​
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the declaration of victory. As i predicted. The charlatans all use the same tactics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw above. Nothing points to your version of supernatural gods.
> 
> Fifteen pages from now, you will be slogging through nonsensical ''pwoofs'', sans any meaningful argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washroom Meditations in Blue
> by Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)​
> Have you ever stood in crowded halls and listened to the footfalls
> that approach you and pass you and leave you stranded?​Have you ever sensed the faint and weightless drift beyond the temporal stream?
> Did you touch it?
> Did you taste it?
> Were you frightened?
> Have you ever stood in the pouring rain?
> Or felt a Dread so acute that you believed yourself to be teetering
> on the very edge of the blackest hole in your brain?​Did you fall?
> Have you ever walked on a rainbow?
> Or felt the touch of a child’s hand—frail and tiny—
> wrap itself around your smallest finger?​Did the air hold its breath?
> Did time stop?
> Did you stop?
> I should have been a monstrous insect, with fetid breath,
> hanging on your bedroom wall.​
Click to expand...

Hey crybaby... What does it look like to an outside observer, when watching their friend fall into a black hole across the event horizon?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw above. Nothing points to your version of supernatural gods.
> 
> Fifteen pages from now, you will be slogging through nonsensical ''pwoofs'', sans any meaningful argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washroom Meditations in Blue
> by Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)​
> Have you ever stood in crowded halls and listened to the footfalls
> that approach you and pass you and leave you stranded?​Have you ever sensed the faint and weightless drift beyond the temporal stream?
> Did you touch it?
> Did you taste it?
> Were you frightened?
> Have you ever stood in the pouring rain?
> Or felt a Dread so acute that you believed yourself to be teetering
> on the very edge of the blackest hole in your brain?​Did you fall?
> Have you ever walked on a rainbow?
> Or felt the touch of a child’s hand—frail and tiny—
> wrap itself around your smallest finger?​Did the air hold its breath?
> Did time stop?
> Did you stop?
> I should have been a monstrous insect, with fetid breath,
> hanging on your bedroom wall.​
Click to expand...

I see. When your argument is a bust, you spam the thread with silly, self-indulgent poetry that reads like the ramblings of a pre-pubescent child.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw above. Nothing points to your version of supernatural gods.
> 
> Fifteen pages from now, you will be slogging through nonsensical ''pwoofs'', sans any meaningful argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washroom Meditations in Blue
> by Michael Rawlings (a.k.a., Ringtone)​
> Have you ever stood in crowded halls and listened to the footfalls
> that approach you and pass you and leave you stranded?​Have you ever sensed the faint and weightless drift beyond the temporal stream?
> Did you touch it?
> Did you taste it?
> Were you frightened?
> Have you ever stood in the pouring rain?
> Or felt a Dread so acute that you believed yourself to be teetering
> on the very edge of the blackest hole in your brain?​Did you fall?
> Have you ever walked on a rainbow?
> Or felt the touch of a child’s hand—frail and tiny—
> wrap itself around your smallest finger?​Did the air hold its breath?
> Did time stop?
> Did you stop?
> I should have been a monstrous insect, with fetid breath,
> hanging on your bedroom wall.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. When your argument is a bust, you spam the thread with silly, self-indulgent poetry that reads like the ramblings of a pre-pubescent child.
Click to expand...

*and declarations of victory.

So many, Bond is getting jealous.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> In the OP, you claimed mathematical proof ... you can't seem to produce any so we must assume yours is strictly a philosophical approach ... and once again are posting in the wrong forum ......



Pay attention!

*The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence *





__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.  3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.  Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?  The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> You're a liar or an ignoramus.  Which is it?



Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Pay attention!


*The Incontrovertible Incoherent, Failed and Nonsensical Science and Mathematics of God's Existence *


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence? Well, obviously, it doesn't.


----------



## LittleNipper

cnm said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
Click to expand...

There are no gods. There exists but one GOD and HE is SPIRIT. SPIRIT is not material and doesn't depend on material things in order to exist. GOD through the MESSIAH assumed a human form, but this was only after HE created space, time and material by speaking it into existence.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....


You're a nitwit. You don't even know what _ad hominem_ means, and _that's not proof, _which all your posts ever amount to_,_ is not an argument.  You're a bore, as intellectually shallow and clueless as they come.

See post:  The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

Checkmate.

Now drop and give me 50!


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no gods. There exists but one GOD and HE is SPIRIT. SPIRIT is not material and doesn't depend on material things in order to exist. GOD through the MESSIAH assumed a human form, but this was only after HE created space, time and material by speaking it into existence.
Click to expand...

"... because I say so"


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nitwit. You don't even know what _ad hominem_ means, and _that's not proof, _which all your posts ever amount to_,_ is not an argument.  You're a bore, as intellectually shallow and clueless as they come.
> 
> See post:  The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> Checkmate.
> 
> Now drop and give me 50!
Click to expand...

I can’t help but notice that religions tend to accumulate some of the most angry, self-hating personality types.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> I can’t help but notice that religions tend to accumulate some of the most angry, self-hating personality types.



Yeah, talk about over the edge ... we bring Christ into our hearts to dispel these demons, but some always use Christ to hide that demon inside ... the hardest person to forgive is yourself, and Ringtone cannot forgive ... the sin he wallows in must be deep as he can't seem to pull himself out ... much easier lashing out at those around him ... self-loathing has blinded him ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Rather quickly spinning in the wind ... some new and unfounded brand of pseudo-math that won't make his case ... just sounds good is all ...



Look, everyone, ReinyDays thinks that the distinction between potential and actual infinities is "some new and unfounded brand of pseudo-math".  I guess someone had better dig up the greatest mathematicians  in history (starting with Pythagoras?) and inform them about the ReinyDays Theorem of Batshit Lunacy.

What a dingbat!

Now drop and give me 50 more!


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...



Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?

_crickets chirping_

You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are talking about, you silly ass, because you don't grasp the distinction between potential and actual infinities.

What a dingbat!

Now drop and give me 50 more!


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....



By the way, your professor is a dithering fool too.  Was his name Morrison by any chance?


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....



You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the _ad hominem fallacy_ is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, with a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as _fiat_, _ad infinitum_, _laissez-faire,_ or _ad hominem_, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes _all_ words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such.

You never define anything, you never qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.  

Saying _that’s not proof_, _that’s not true_ and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch. 

Once again, I am not talking about the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics.  I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities outside of minds in nature, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​​. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​​And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​
Also see above: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above.  Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism.   Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.

Checkmate!  

Now drop and give me 50 more!


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...







^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReinyDays


----------



## ReinyDays

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, *nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful*.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Psalm 1

[emphasis mine]


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, *nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful*.
> 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
> 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
> 4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
> 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
> 6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
> 
> Psalm 1
> 
> [emphasis mine]




These six things doth the Lord hate: 

. . . A proud look, *a lying tongue* . . .  *[a]n heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, [a] false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.*


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the _ad hominem fallacy_ is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, with a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as _fiat_, _ad infinitum_, _laissez-faire,_ or _ad hominem_, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes _all_ words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such.
> 
> You never define anything, you never qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.
> 
> Saying _that’s not proof_, _that’s not true_ and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.
> 
> Once again, I am not talking about the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics.  I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities outside of minds in nature, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:
> 
> As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​​. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​​And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​
> Also see above: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above.  Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism.   Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.
> 
> It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Now drop and give me 50 more!
Click to expand...

That was pretty darn funny. Your feverish, sweaty tirade was an apparent attempt bluster your way past an admission that the thread title is a fraud.

So, we can agree. Nothing in your tirades, pompous blathering or tedious cutting and pasting offers anything, anywhere, approaching “pwoof” for your gods.

What an abysmal waste of time.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, *nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful*.
> 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
> 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
> 4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
> 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
> 6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
> 
> Psalm 1
> 
> [emphasis mine]



*Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .*

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the _ad hominem fallacy_ is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as _fiat_, _ad infinitum_, _laissez-faire,_ or _ad hominem_, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes _all_ words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.

You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.  

Saying _that’s not proof_, _that’s not true_ and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch. 

Once again, I never denied the _conceptual_ existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics.  I’m talking about _the existential impossibility of actual infinities outside of minds in nature, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities_ . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​​. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​​And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​
Also see above: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism.   Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.  

You bring to mind the following image:


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​ReinyDays​
Checkmate!  

Now drop and give me 50 more!


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....



No.  You have yet to emphatically demonstrate any understanding of my observations regarding the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities, let alone acknowledged your mathematical errors and your misrepresentations/misunderstanding of my observations. 

And what position of mine, precisely, do you understand?  What, precisely, can't be mathematically backed up?  What, precisely, does your professor's quote mean relative to the context of my observations?

Like I said, you never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything.  You're a slogan-spouting bore.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What caused gods to begin to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no gods. There exists but one GOD and HE is SPIRIT. SPIRIT is not material and doesn't depend on material things in order to exist. GOD through the MESSIAH assumed a human form, but this was only after HE created space, time and material by speaking it into existence.
Click to expand...

Wrong section. This is the science section. These authoritative declarations of magic go in the religion section.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 455532
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ReinyDays
Click to expand...

A fine attitude. The iron age doctrine is obviously very stupid and immoral.


----------



## Hollie

It’s now 17 pages of claimed “Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence” and there is no science, no mathematics and no evidence of any gods. 

What a total fraud.


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...



Total gibberish with a smidgen of word-salad dressing (i.e., _the CMB epoch_) poured on top.

The summation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument below the accompanying videos of the same in the OP stand and stay.

The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.

Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
*x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
*x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​

In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.

Checkmate!


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....



*Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .*

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the _ad hominem fallacy_ is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as _fiat_, _ad infinitum_, _laissez-faire,_ or _ad hominem_, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes _all_ words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.

You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations. 

Saying _that’s not proof_, _that’s not true_ and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch. 

Once again, I never denied the _conceptual_ existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics.  I’m talking about _the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities_ . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​​. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​​And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​
Also see: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

Also see the annihilation of Fort Fun Indiana's obfuscations:

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism.  Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence. 

You bring to mind the following image:




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReinyDays

Checkmate! 

Now drop and give me 50 more!


----------



## ReinyDays

Still spinning in the wind? ... a few more walls of text since you have time ...


----------



## Ringtone

*The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence *





__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.  3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.  Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?  The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

I think Socrates did 300 years bc.  Correct. And the Christians destroyed his work and legacy for over 1000 years. It was once we experienced secular enlightenment did we again discover the value of the scientific method. We literally began adhering to the method again IN SPITE OF Christianity...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

Ironically, by his own arguments and methods, the present cannot possibly exist. It is impossible, as an infinite number of moments (which are as small as you want them to be) must have occured prior to this moment, regardless of whether or not time had a beginning.   A simple epsilon/delta...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...   Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?  crickets chirping  You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .*
> 
> You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the _ad hominem fallacy_ is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as _fiat_, _ad infinitum_, _laissez-faire,_ or _ad hominem_, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes _all_ words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.
> 
> You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.
> 
> Saying _that’s not proof_, _that’s not true_ and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.
> 
> Once again, I never denied the _conceptual_ existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics.  I’m talking about _the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities_ . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:
> 
> As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​​. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​​And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​
> Also see: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> Also see the annihilation of Fort Fun Indiana's obfuscations:
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism.  Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.
> 
> It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.
> 
> You bring to mind the following image:
> 
> View attachment 455614
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ReinyDays
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Now drop and give me 50 more!
Click to expand...


These cut and paste tirades which cause you to dump the same, tedious cut and paste nonsense that does does nothing to suppport your claims to proof of the gods makes you appear to be quite the unreasonable zealot.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .*
> 
> You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the _ad hominem fallacy_ is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as _fiat_, _ad infinitum_, _laissez-faire,_ or _ad hominem_, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes _all_ words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.
> 
> You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.
> 
> Saying _that’s not proof_, _that’s not true_ and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.
> 
> Once again, I never denied the _conceptual_ existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics.  I’m talking about _the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities_ . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:
> 
> As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​​. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​​And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​
> Also see: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> Also see the annihilation of Fort Fun Indiana's obfuscations:
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism.  Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.
> 
> It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.
> 
> You bring to mind the following image:
> 
> View attachment 455614
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ReinyDays
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Now drop and give me 50 more!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These cut and paste tirades which cause you to dump the same, tedious cut and paste nonsense that does does nothing to suppport your claims to proof of the gods makes you appear to be quite the unreasonable zealot.
Click to expand...


And I have seen the feverish glint​That lights the eyes of the campus policemen
(The goose bumps on their hairy arms!),
Who train our sensitivities, arrest our moral zeal.
I Have heard the awkward silence of hounded thoughts and speeches;
Have seen the spittle that files off the rhetoric of the mindless Jacobins . . .
The unwashed, slogan-spouting cutouts reared by academic leeches.
And moreover, I have choked on the gall and the licentious,
toe-jam-funk-smellin’ rot of pretentious celluloid gods.​


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Still spinning in the wind? ... a few more walls of text since you have time ...



And the nanny state, the meddler, bewitches so easily!
Conceived by venal men, contrived by ruthless means . . .
That ancient human misery loosed again on you and me,
Watching, prying . . . or it smothers,
The self-anointed class, the deified regime.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the _ad hominem_ attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...
> 
> You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .*
> 
> You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the _ad hominem fallacy_ is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as _fiat_, _ad infinitum_, _laissez-faire,_ or _ad hominem_, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes _all_ words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.
> 
> You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.
> 
> Saying _that’s not proof_, _that’s not true_ and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.
> 
> Once again, I never denied the _conceptual_ existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics.  I’m talking about _the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities_ . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:
> 
> As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​​. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​​And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​
> Also see: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> Also see the annihilation of Fort Fun Indiana's obfuscations:
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism.  Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.
> 
> It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.
> 
> You bring to mind the following image:
> 
> View attachment 455614
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ReinyDays
> 
> Checkmate!
> 
> Now drop and give me 50 more!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These cut and paste tirades which cause you to dump the same, tedious cut and paste nonsense that does does nothing to suppport your claims to proof of the gods makes you appear to be quite the unreasonable zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I have seen the feverish glint​That lights the eyes of the campus policemen
> (The goose bumps on their hairy arms!),
> Who train our sensitivities, arrest our moral zeal.
> I Have heard the awkward silence of hounded thoughts and speeches;
> Have seen the spittle that files off the rhetoric of the mindless Jacobins . . .
> The unwashed, slogan-spouting cutouts reared by academic leeches.
> And moreover, I have choked on the gall and the licentious,
> toe-jam-funk-smellin’ rot of pretentious celluloid gods.​
Click to expand...


Heh. More of the spam you dump into threads when your attempt at argument collapses.

The gods have played a cruel joke on you, yes?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still spinning in the wind? ... a few more walls of text since you have time ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the nanny state, the meddler, bewitches so easily!
> Conceived by venal men, contrived by ruthless means . . .
> That ancient human misery loosed again on you and me,
> Watching, prying . . . or it smothers,
> The self-anointed class, the deified regime.
Click to expand...

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Heh. More of the spam you dump into threads when your attempt at argument collapses.
> 
> The gods have played a cruel joke on you, yes?



Oh, let’s do lunch and explore the boundless profundities
of our pregnant self-esteem,​As we boldly proclaim our tolerance for everything that’s grown,
Lest something sacred, something precious rise above the common drone.
Let us smirk, let us squawk, let us blather till we mock
Every triumph, every blunder that has ever inspired wonder,
Every wisdom, every dream that has ever caused a scream,
till all music and all poetry are dead.​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total gibberish with a smidgen of word-salad dressing (i.e., _the CMB epoch_) poured on top.
> 
> The summation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument below the accompanying videos of the same in the OP stand and stay.
> 
> The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!
> 
> And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof_—_I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> 
> In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.
> 
> Checkmate!
Click to expand...

So, when you are done predictably declaring victory, try on your big boy panties for this one:

Do you understand what it looks like to you, when someone falls into a black hole? Yes or no.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?



Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
*x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
*x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
Click to expand...

I just showed my 18 year old son how to resolve your amateurish nonsense with simple ideas well known to mathematicians and physicists by the end of their first college courses. So, while you have done little but embarrass yourself in front of people who know more about these topics than you do, you did accomplish something.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
Click to expand...

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome. 

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.
Click to expand...


A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
And dance beneath the cloudy skies.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
> And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
Click to expand...

Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
> And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you feel that way.  In the meantime. . . .

I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush
of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
> And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
> Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
> Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
> Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush
> of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
> When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
> When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
> What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?
Click to expand...

Your creepy sexual fantasies are disturbing.


----------



## abu afak

`






`


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Still spinning in the wind? ... a few more walls of text since you have time ...



In the meantime, back to reality . . . .





__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...   Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?  crickets chirping  You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
> And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
> Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
> Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
> Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush
> of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
> When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
> When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
> What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your creepy sexual fantasies are disturbing.
Click to expand...


In the meantime, back to reality . . . .





__





						The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
					

A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...   Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?  crickets chirping  You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Ringtone

abu afak said:


> `
> View attachment 455996
> 
> 
> `




In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

*MOD EDIT - Repeating the same post over and over constitutes spamming a thread.*


----------



## Hollie

abu afak said:


> `
> View attachment 455996
> 
> 
> `


I will be jealous if Ringtone pens poetry


Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> Excerpt from my article:
> 
> But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal *±∞*. Nor would it equal *0*. If we were to divide *±1* by *∞*, for example, and say that the quotient were *0*, then what happened to *±1*? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression *n ÷ ∞ = 0* doesn't mean the quotient literally equals *0*. Rather, *0* is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, *n ÷ ∞*, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that *±1 ÷ ∞* equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that *±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1*, and we would be correct.​​For the proof, let the input variable = *x*, and let the integer = *1*:​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​Note that as _x_ gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷_ x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the _x_ of the function (or, in shorthand, the _x_ of the _f_ ) approaches a certain value:​​*lim f(x)*​*x→a *​​We know that we're proving the limit for *1 ÷ ∞*; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function _f(x)_ is 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity":​​*f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x*​*x→∞ *​​Additionally, the output values of function _f _depend on the input values for the variable _x_. In the expression _f(x)_, _f_ is the name of the function and (_x_) denotes that _x_ is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions _f_ for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow _f _in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: _g, h, i, j_ and so on.​​Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ _x_ as _x_ approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as _x_ approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ _x_ approaches 0.​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0*​*x→∞*​​Altogether then:​​*lim f(x) = *​*x→a*​​*lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)*​* x→∞ *​​
> *x*​*1 ÷ x*​1​1​2​0.5​4​0.25​10​0.1​100​0.01​1,000​0.001​10,000​0.0001​100,000​0.00001​1,000,000 . . .​0.000001 . . .​
> ​In nature _t_ = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.
> 
> I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A chorus of crickets roll their eyes
> And dance beneath the cloudy skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way.  In the meantime. . . .
> 
> I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
> Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
> Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
> Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush
> of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
> When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
> When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
> What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your creepy sexual fantasies are disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the meantime, back to reality . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> 
> A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...   Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?  crickets chirping  You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
Click to expand...

Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.



In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

*MOD EDIT - Repeating the same post over and over constitutes spamming a thread.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still spinning in the wind? ... a few more walls of text since you have time ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, back to reality . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> 
> A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...   Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?  crickets chirping  You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
Click to expand...

Are you done ducking me yet?

Good. So, what does it look like when you watch someone fall into a black hole?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, back to reality . . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> 
> A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...   Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?  crickets chirping  You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wisdom of this world is a chatty girl with brazen eyes and big teeth.
Click to expand...


Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> 
> The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, back to reality. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> 
> A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...   Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?  crickets chirping  You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And after all the medicinal blather, the commiserations;
> After all the drunken sleeps;
> After the blood that flows from Private altars, the tear stains;
> After all the moral leaps;
> After all the feigned disclosures . . . the crickets, the withered leaves;
> After all the tedious echoes, the teaspoons, the broken jars;
> After all the banalities . . . that flow from the lips flickering on the parlor walls:
> What shall I say to the woman with the lustrous shrug and the censorious eyes?
> 
> Shall I say, after a snort or two, that I have wrestled
> with demons in squalid hotel rooms? . . .​The paint that peels from walls,
> The lone, naked light bulb hanging from the ceiling.
Click to expand...


Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.



And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...
Click to expand...

He is trying to create a parlor trick paradox delineated by philosophers thousands of years ago.

In the modern world of science and mathematics, where relativity is a fact, we don't struggle with these old ideas.

If you watch a friend fall into a black hole, you will never see him cross the event horizon. Ever. You could watch forever and you would only see him get closer and closer, asymptotically.

From the perspective of the friend falling into the black hole, nothing unusual is felt or observed. In fact, without exact knowledge of their own position and that of the event horizon, they would have know way of knowing they had crossed it.

These two ideas have no problem existing simultaneously in our universe. Biblical scholars and religious philosophers like our charlatan OP contributed NOTHING to this knowledge. We literally had to learn it in spite of them.


----------



## abu afak

`







`


----------



## Hollie

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...
Click to expand...

Thanks. I saw the t ≠ 0 argument and found that suspicious but didn’t have the time available to drill down and research why he chose that argument.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> Thanks. I saw the t ≠ 0 argument and found that suspicious but didn’t have the time available to drill down and research why he chose that argument.



It's a fairly simple proof ... though it's not worth my time to chase it down for this IDiot ... it's a back-of-the-book section in most any calculus textbook ...


----------



## Ringtone

ReinyDays said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  _t_ = 0, and what's negative time?  LOL!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> and what's negative time? LOL!





Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  _t_ = 0, and what's negative time?  LOL!
Click to expand...

 Wow, you don't even understand the basic concept of a number line.


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.
> The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  _t_ = 0, and what's negative time?  LOL!
Click to expand...

Nonsense, Your phony math still does nothing to support the existence of your gods. LOL!


----------



## ReinyDays

Ringtone said:


> Nonsense.  _t_ = 0, and what's negative time?  LOL!



Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another meaningless non-argument.
> 
> You know the drill. . . .
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
Click to expand...

Meaningless chatter.


----------



## abu afak

Hollie said:


> Ringtone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another meaningless non-argument.
> 
> You know the drill. . . .
> 
> The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless chatter.
Click to expand...

He keeps linking to his own OP.
5 of the 6 deleted by Moderator.
Now he's doing it AGAIN.
The thread needs to be shut down.
Clearly he (the last-wording OCD Child) has NOTHING else to say.

`


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...





abu afak said:


> He keeps linking to his own OP.
> 5 of the 6 deleted by Moderator.
> Now he's doing it AGAIN.
> The thread needs to be shut down.
> Clearly he (the last-wording OCD Child) has NOTHING else to say.



I think the creationists have won this argument.  It was logically proven that one cannot have an infinite anything in nature except in mathematics.  It can be scientifically proven, too.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> He keeps linking to his own OP.
> 5 of the 6 deleted by Moderator.
> Now he's doing it AGAIN.
> The thread needs to be shut down.
> Clearly he (the last-wording OCD Child) has NOTHING else to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the creationists have won this argument.  It was logically proven that one cannot have an infinite anything in nature except in mathematics.  It can be scientifically proven, too.
Click to expand...

I’m not clear what you believe the creationers have won. The fraudulent thread title claims incontrovertible evidence for a version of gods and there is no such evidence.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I think the creationists have won this argument.  It was logically proven that one cannot have an infinite anything in nature except in mathematics.  It can be scientifically proven, too.



It's not an argument ... it's an assumption ... pay attention ... there exists infinite directions a force vector can point ... nature ...

But I'll bite ... show me your proof ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> pay attention ... there exists infinite directions a force vector can point ... nature ...



Can you prove that?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I’m not clear what you believe the creationers have won. The fraudulent thread title claims incontrovertible evidence for a version of gods and there is no such evidence.



There are no creationers.  Only creationists haha.

Maybe there are evolutioners like you?


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> `
> View attachment 456690
> 
> 
> 
> `



Interesting Fitch died after writing that book.  I think the atheist scientists start suffering right away while in Hades (like the rich man who mistreated Lazarus) because they carry more weight and have a greater burden of proof.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.

Without getting into the weeds, this hypothesis has a special connotation for our timeline. Specifically, if one would travel backwards in time, that one would never reach a "boundary". I.E., for anyone in our universe, time has NO beginning. You could travel backwards in time forever and never reach the beginning. 

To someone outside our universe looking in, time would appear to have a beginning. 

While this hypothesis may or may not be true, it clearly undermines the allegedly "incontrovertible" mathematical arguments put forth in this thread, per the thread title.

"Incontrovertible", they are not.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not clear what you believe the creationers have won. The fraudulent thread title claims incontrovertible evidence for a version of gods and there is no such evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no creationers.  Only creationists haha.
> 
> Maybe there are evolutioners like you?
Click to expand...

There are creationers, haha.

Not surprising, haha, that there is no creationer comment on the fraudulent thread title, haha.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> pay attention ... there exists infinite directions a force vector can point ... nature ...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that?
Click to expand...


Simple closure proves continuity ... read the first few pages of your old calculus textbook ... we can split the difference forever ...


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.
> 
> Without getting into the weeds, this hypothesis has a special connotation for our timeline. Specifically, if one would travel backwards in time, that one would never reach a "boundary". I.E., for anyone in our universe, time has NO beginning. You could travel backwards in time forever and never reach the beginning.
> 
> To someone outside our universe looking in, time would appear to have a beginning.
> 
> While this hypothesis may or may not be true, it clearly undermines the allegedly "incontrovertible" mathematical arguments put forth in this thread, per the thread title.
> 
> "Incontrovertible", they are not.



>>One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.<<

Sounds like a fairy tale.

The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.
> 
> Without getting into the weeds, this hypothesis has a special connotation for our timeline. Specifically, if one would travel backwards in time, that one would never reach a "boundary". I.E., for anyone in our universe, time has NO beginning. You could travel backwards in time forever and never reach the beginning.
> 
> To someone outside our universe looking in, time would appear to have a beginning.
> 
> While this hypothesis may or may not be true, it clearly undermines the allegedly "incontrovertible" mathematical arguments put forth in this thread, per the thread title.
> 
> "Incontrovertible", they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.<<
> 
> Sounds like a fairy tale.
> 
> The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.
Click to expand...


So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.
> 
> Without getting into the weeds, this hypothesis has a special connotation for our timeline. Specifically, if one would travel backwards in time, that one would never reach a "boundary". I.E., for anyone in our universe, time has NO beginning. You could travel backwards in time forever and never reach the beginning.
> 
> To someone outside our universe looking in, time would appear to have a beginning.
> 
> While this hypothesis may or may not be true, it clearly undermines the allegedly "incontrovertible" mathematical arguments put forth in this thread, per the thread title.
> 
> "Incontrovertible", they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.<<
> 
> Sounds like a fairy tale.
> 
> The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.
Click to expand...

Jesus arose, which goes far beyond anything any other supposed "gods" ever accomplished. And there is plenty of evidence Jesus existed in a particular place at a particular time and that HIS life was even prophesied a millennium and hundreds of years before HE was even born.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Jesus arose, which goes far beyond anything any other supposed "gods" ever accomplished.


The resurrection story was plagiarized from other religions before it. And Tom Brady just won his first Super Bowl.! No other QB has ever done this!

This is the science section, Nipskee. Your authoritative, magical declarations hold zero weight, here. Head over to the religion section for that. There you will find the mods enforce a "special" set of rules to protect the feelings of you little Napoleons and protect you from the ridicule and echoing laughter your magical claims deserve.

Here in the science section, you're just another crazy person on the corner with a bullhorn, claiming his houseplants told him the lizard people are about to take over.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.
> 
> Without getting into the weeds, this hypothesis has a special connotation for our timeline. Specifically, if one would travel backwards in time, that one would never reach a "boundary". I.E., for anyone in our universe, time has NO beginning. You could travel backwards in time forever and never reach the beginning.
> 
> To someone outside our universe looking in, time would appear to have a beginning.
> 
> While this hypothesis may or may not be true, it clearly undermines the allegedly "incontrovertible" mathematical arguments put forth in this thread, per the thread title.
> 
> "Incontrovertible", they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.<<
> 
> Sounds like a fairy tale.
> 
> The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.
Click to expand...


The science, math, and logic that supports the Christian God has been provided in this thread or did you miss that like all the others?  We also found out what is gonna happen to abu afak .  Same as Walter M. Fitch.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> pay attention ... there exists infinite directions a force vector can point ... nature ...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple closure proves continuity ... read the first few pages of your old calculus textbook ... we can split the difference forever ...
Click to expand...


Just as I thought.  You can't.  It's because of the laws of physics.  You have been caught in a lie or are wrong.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were wrong .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.
> 
> Without getting into the weeds, this hypothesis has a special connotation for our timeline. Specifically, if one would travel backwards in time, that one would never reach a "boundary". I.E., for anyone in our universe, time has NO beginning. You could travel backwards in time forever and never reach the beginning.
> 
> To someone outside our universe looking in, time would appear to have a beginning.
> 
> While this hypothesis may or may not be true, it clearly undermines the allegedly "incontrovertible" mathematical arguments put forth in this thread, per the thread title.
> 
> "Incontrovertible", they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.<<
> 
> Sounds like a fairy tale.
> 
> The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The science, math, and logic that supports the Christian God has been provided in this thread or did you miss that like all the others?  We also found out what is gonna happen to abu afak .  Same as Walter M. Fitch.
Click to expand...

I somehow missed the science, math, and logic that supports the Christian Gods. Could you point me to the post that lays out the science supporting your gods? I’ll take a look at the science part supporting your gods and circle back™ to the math part.

Thanks.

The post number or numbers for the science?

Thanks.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Just as I thought.  You can't.  It's because of the laws of physics.  You have been caught in a lie or are wrong.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were wrong .



Do you know what closure is? ... didn't think so ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The post number or numbers for the science?



See the OP, #11, (one of the dumbest af posts I've ever read #15; just point it out for ), #48, etc.  The rest of the questions are answered in the Bible.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  You can't.  It's because of the laws of physics.  You have been caught in a lie or are wrong.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were wrong .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what closure is? ... didn't think so ...
Click to expand...


You don't have it nor infinity in the universe.  Everything is finite in nature.  Physics proves it is, but you either cannot admit it or are wrong .


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> hahahhahahahahahahh
> ......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
> YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around



God has provided an answer for you.  He and the creationists have the last word and lol  

*Evidence will never overcome obstinance.*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The post number or numbers for the science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP, #11, (one of the dumbest af posts I've ever read #15; just point it out for ), #48, etc.  The rest of the questions are answered in the Bible.
Click to expand...

I saw posts you identified. There is no science of math pointing to any gods.

I have a question not answered in the Bibles. Why are there vestigial structures in humans and other animals?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I have a question not answered in the Bibles. Why are there vestigial structures in humans and other animals?



You should start this as a separate thread.  Name a few and why you think they are useless.  Is it based on fake evolution?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> You don't have it nor infinity in the universe.  Everything is finite in nature.  Physics proves it is, but you either cannot admit it or are wrong .



Physics relies on closure ... go ahead and learn what that means ... you seem ignorant of basic smoothness tests ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have it nor infinity in the universe.  Everything is finite in nature.  Physics proves it is, but you either cannot admit it or are wrong .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physics relies on closure ... go ahead and learn what that means ... you seem ignorant of basic smoothness tests ...
Click to expand...


So you admitted you were wrong about infinity in nature and now want to change the subject.  Go ahead an explain how "physics relies on closure," so we can understand what you are trying to say.  It's one of those subjects I don't want to explain.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> So you admitted you were wrong about infinity in nature and now want to change the subject.  Go ahead an explain how "physics relies on closure," so we can understand what you are trying to say.  It's one of those subjects I don't want to explain.



Do you understand that directions are closed ... between any two different directions, there exists yet a third direction? ... it doesn't matter how close the directions are, there will always be another direction in between? ... without exception ... 

Thus ... we can say there are an infinite amount of force vectors between any two other force vectors ... all of which exist in nature ... the same is true for time intervals, velocities, stress tensors, torques ... there's a few exceptions, but not that many ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admitted you were wrong about infinity in nature and now want to change the subject.  Go ahead an explain how "physics relies on closure," so we can understand what you are trying to say.  It's one of those subjects I don't want to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that directions are closed ... between any two different directions, there exists yet a third direction? ... it doesn't matter how close the directions are, there will always be another direction in between? ... without exception ...
> 
> Thus ... we can say there are an infinite amount of force vectors between any two other force vectors ... all of which exist in nature ... the same is true for time intervals, velocities, stress tensors, torques ... there's a few exceptions, but not that many ...
Click to expand...


Oh, I thought you were going to present something new.  Instead, it's just the same argument that was disproved.  Our universe is closed, so we cannot have more than what was there to begin with.  The physics laws of conservation of energy proves it.  Thus, your directions of any force vector is limited by SLOT.  Look it up and learn.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question not answered in the Bibles. Why are there vestigial structures in humans and other animals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should start this as a separate thread.  Name a few and why you think they are useless.  Is it based on fake evolution?
Click to expand...

I see. You made a statement not understanding that you might be tasked with supporting said statement so you’re left to drop ten, drop another ten and skedaddle.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Oh, I thought you were going to present something new.  Instead, it's just the same argument that was disproved.  Our universe is closed, so we cannot have more than what was there to begin with.  The physics laws of conservation of energy proves it.  Thus, your directions of any force vector is limited by SLOT.  Look it up and learn.



Please post a citation from a credible scientific source ... or you're lying ... my citation comes from the first few pages of any calculus textbook ...

And learn what closed means ... obviously you're clueless as to this ... direction is not quantized, it's smooth ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I thought you were going to present something new.  Instead, it's just the same argument that was disproved.  Our universe is closed, so we cannot have more than what was there to begin with.  The physics laws of conservation of energy proves it.  Thus, your directions of any force vector is limited by SLOT.  Look it up and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post a citation from a credible scientific source ... or you're lying ... my citation comes from the first few pages of any calculus textbook ...
> 
> And learn what closed means ... obviously you're clueless as to this ... direction is not quantized, it's smooth ...
Click to expand...


Let's not go upon a tangent.  You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours.  Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA:  My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature.  Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Let's not go upon a tangent.  You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours.  Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?
> 
> If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?
> 
> ETA:  My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature.  Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.



Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ... 

Define SLOT ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not go upon a tangent.  You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours.  Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?
> 
> If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?
> 
> ETA:  My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature.  Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...
> 
> Define SLOT ...
Click to expand...


Haha.  You don't know SLOT?  Maybe you should just post in R&E.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not go upon a tangent.  You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours.  Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?
> 
> If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?
> 
> ETA:  My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature.  Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...
> 
> Define SLOT ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You don't know SLOT?  Maybe you should just post in R&E.
Click to expand...

No...YOU don't know SLOT. Clearly.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not go upon a tangent.  You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours.  Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?
> 
> If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?
> 
> ETA:  My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature.  Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...
> 
> Define SLOT ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  You don't know SLOT?  Maybe you should just post in R&E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...YOU don't know SLOT. Clearly.
Click to expand...


I do, but that's not the point.  The point is infinity is not possible in nature or else show us the math and science behind it.  I'm not the one who made the claim.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not go upon a tangent.  You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours.  Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?
> 
> If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?
> 
> ETA:  My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature.  Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...
> 
> Define SLOT ...
Click to expand...


I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).  

To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.



Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
Click to expand...


I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen? 

I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.

Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.

"Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"

I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it



That's not what a Nature editorial said.

"Ignoring the creationist threat will not make it go away. 1

The subheading said, Creationists seize on any perceived gaps in our knowledge of evolutionary processes. But  scientists can and should fight back, says Russell Garwood. vary, and modern science is now based on 2

Last month, this journal [Nature] published a fossil study that described a new species of large tyrannosauroid dinosaur covered in feathers. A week later, the US state of Tennessee passed a creationist bill that encourages teachers to discuss the “weaknesses” of evolution. The first event provided fodder for a shrewd and calculated creationist machine; the second was its latest victory. As a palaeontologist, I believe the way that scientists and journals present research in my field can help to feed anti-evolution disinformation. Because we tend to stress novelty and play up scientific disagreement, and like to shift paradigms and break moulds, we offer our critics ammunition. As the events in Tennessee show, the fight against evolution comes with significant consequences. 3

In my field, uncertainty is everywhere. 4"

1 - Russell Garwood , Nature, 17 May 2012, “Reach out to defend evolution”, page 281, Reach out to defend evolution
2- ibid
3- ibid
4 - ibid

Even Nature feels the heat of creation and creation science.

ETA:   "Fifty studies were reviewed of opinions on teaching origins. The vast majority found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools.

About 90 % of Americans consider themselves creationists of some form, and about half believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. In America, about 15 % of high school teachers teach both evolution and creation, and close to 20 % of high school science teachers and about 10,000 scientists (including more than 4,000 life scientists) reject both macroevolution and theistic evolution. Although the vast majority of Americans desire both creation and evolution taught in school, the evolutionary naturalism worldview dominates, revealing a major disparity between the population and the ruling élite."









						Teaching Creation and Evolution in Schools
					

Fifty studies on teaching origins found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools.




					answersingenesis.org
				




" There is no reason that Creationism should not discussed in the public schools because evolution is being taught and after 125 years, it remains a theory.   Additionally, evidence against the theory of evolution should be allowed to be discussed.  There should be freedom to speak about the lack of fossil evidence like all of the missing links that should show transitional fossils evolving from one species into another.  The only evidence that the theory of evolution has right now are sketches, drawings, and computer images that show purported transitions of one species evolving into another, different species.  The fossil evidence has never supported this theory and students have every right to know all of the facts."









						Teaching Creation and Evolution in Schools
					

Fifty studies on teaching origins found about 90% of the public desired that both creation and evolution or creation only be taught in the public schools.




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahahahh
> ......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
> YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has provided an answer for you.  He and the creationists have the last word and lol
> 
> *Evidence will never overcome obstinance.*
Click to expand...

and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
we have the last LAUGH


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahahahh
> ......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
> YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has provided an answer for you.  He and the creationists have the last word and lol
> 
> *Evidence will never overcome obstinance.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
> we have the last LAUGH
Click to expand...


We have natural selection and the evidence for creation even more than the evidence for evolution.

Thus, it's your obstinance that cannot be overcome haha.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
Click to expand...


*"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*

It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use. 

The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahahahh
> ......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
> YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has provided an answer for you.  He and the creationists have the last word and lol
> 
> *Evidence will never overcome obstinance.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
> we have the last LAUGH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have natural selection and the evidence for creation even more than the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Thus, it's your obstinance that cannot be overcome haha.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for magical / supernatural creation. That's probably why creationers never manage to provide any.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
Click to expand...

 I was kind enough to carefully explain all of that to him before. Being the dick he is, he is just getting his jollies making you dance for him.


----------



## Hollie

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was kind enough to carefully explain all of that to him before. Being the dick he is, he is just getting his jollies making you dance for him.
Click to expand...

He’s low maintenance. I cut and pasted a previous response to address his “singularity” comment.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
Click to expand...


Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true.  It's not.  How do I know?  It violates the laws of physics.  You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not go upon a tangent.  You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours.  Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?
> 
> If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?
> 
> ETA:  My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature.  Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tangents are unique ... [giggle] ... seriously, there's no law of physics that says infinity cannot exist ... unless you have a proper citation ... I asked before, and I have no time for liars ...
> 
> Define SLOT ...
Click to expand...


Uniqueness isn't part of your tangent, but you can continue to believe in your lies; I don't want to argue semantics.

Again, you have been exposed as a wrong way-er.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true.  It's not.  How do I know?  It violates the laws of physics.  You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
Click to expand...

I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''. 

Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true.  It's not.  How do I know?  It violates the laws of physics.  You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.
> 
> Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.
Click to expand...


Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.

What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true.  It's not.  How do I know?  It violates the laws of physics.  You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.
> 
> Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.
Click to expand...

Who’s we?  Religionary thinking is not thinking at all. It’s submitting to mind numbing indoctrination.


----------



## justinacolmena

james bond said:


> Aristotle said ...
> 
> Aristotle argued ...
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution. I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.


Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher. To him if God said, "Let there be light," then that was Zeus, the ancient Greek God of lightning. The ancient Greeks had different ideas of how the world came into being than the ancient Jews did.

Call it "mythology" if you will, rather than the "word of God," if you prefer the Jewish story to the Greek story, but the truth stops at a certain place in the Jewish Bible:








						Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 12:2-3 - King James Version
					

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.




					www.biblegateway.com
				







__





						PSALMS 49:8 KJV (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)
					

Psalms 49:8 KJV: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)




					www.kingjamesbibleonline.org


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.



Here's a proof of the existence of singularities ... the one by Nobel Prize winning Roger Penrose ... point to the error please ... show us the lie ...









						Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




It's the liar who screams "liar" first ... you should know that from your Bible ...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true.  It's not.  How do I know?  It violates the laws of physics.  You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.
> 
> Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s we?  Religionary thinking is not thinking at all. It’s submitting to mind numbing indoctrination.
Click to expand...


We are the conservative and science users who have discovered science backs up the Bible (Genesis, even though it's not a science book).

To the contrary, "mind numbing indoctrination" is evolution, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, liberalism, and more since the 1850s.  People were swayed by Satan into atheistic science and religion and _choosing to go the hell_ thinking that _is_ scientific.  It really is wrong and more of the stupid choice, but that's how mind numbing indoctrination works.

What's mind numbing to me is how the libs were easily swayed and now believe they know everything dealing with science when they have no evidence and no backing by the scientific method.  They were fooled by natural selection which God created, but Satan used to fool the evolutionists.


----------



## james bond

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahahahh
> ......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
> YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has provided an answer for you.  He and the creationists have the last word and lol
> 
> *Evidence will never overcome obstinance.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
> we have the last LAUGH
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call screaming in pain forever _laughing_.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof of the existence of singularities ... the one by Nobel Prize winning Roger Penrose ... point to the error please ... show us the lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the liar who screams "liar" first ... you should know that from your Bible ...
Click to expand...


A lie is still a lie not dependent upon who screamed, "liar" first.

Anyway, using the fallacy of authoritarianism does not make Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems valid.  It's been shown that "accelerated expansion of the Universe with negative Λ are invalid because they are based upon demonstrably false foundations relating to Einstein’s field equations, trapped surfaces, and the cosmological constant."

Care to try again?


----------



## ChemEngineer

The laws of physics clearly are not inviolate, except in our visible universe, absent some supernatural intervention.  Since God made those laws, He is clearly outside them, not subject to them.
Of course the creation of the Universe violates the known laws of physics because God designed all of them at the Beginning.  Genesis 1:1 has, to the best of our knowledge today, been validated by the most sophisticated science available.  Still, we are just children in the great scheme of things.


----------



## justinacolmena

james bond said:


> We are the conservative and science users who have discovered science backs up the Bible (Genesis, even though it's not a science book).


The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that. If God created the earth and all living things in six days, and the sun, moon, and stars -- by which we ultimately measure time -- didn't exist until the fourth day of creation, clearly those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.

Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.

Man chooses not to believe in God, or to believe that God does not exist, and to have his children circumcised after the manner of the faithless midwives of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt, but that is man's choice to bear the inevitable consequences of his wicked deeds.









						Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 30:19 - King James Version
					

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:




					www.biblegateway.com


----------



## Stryder50

Turning a bit back to the title and theme of this thread ~ OP, consider;

1) You can't get something from nothing. Therefore, if there is a God/Creator of the Universe, IT* would have had to create such from IT's own substance.  Hence God/Creator is the Universe and the Universe is God/Creator
2) * I use the term IT because if as most theologies posit, "God" is infinite = has no beginning nor end, there appears to be no need for reproduction, hence no gender/sex would apply.  "God" could be just as much a female as an male, but more likely the Creator would have no gender/sex.
3) If the Universe(Cosmos) is made of the creator's own substance, and if the Creator is eternal/infinite as mentioned above, than so would the Universe be.  i.e. the Universe would have no beginning, nor an end.  The "Big Bang" eventually results in a "Big Collapse", which then becomes another Big Bang(expand) followed by another Big Collapse(contract), Big Bang~Big Collapse, etc. etc. etc.

A cycle with no begin or end, think of something circular, like the classic motif of the snake eating it's tail.

4) We humans (and all other "living" things) would then be a part of the Creator, like one of the millions of cells in our body, in this case one of billions of "cells' in the body of the Creator.  That would makes us the Creator, and the Creator is Us.

5) This would suggest that if we humans have a non-chemical/non-physical aspect of our existence, the "soul" as presented by some, than that soul, being a part of the Creator, would have no beginning nor any end, our souls would be fully eternal(infinite).  Our physical existence in a chemical body would be akin to the soul having a temporary suit of (chemical)clothes, which once worn out, is discarded and we will then eventually put on another suit of chemical clothes/body.  Reincarnation of a sorts.

6) Here's a visualization of sorts, using geometry and the classic "X" and "Y" grid on a sheet of graph paper.

Start with a single point on the graph/grid, say x = 2 and y = 2.
Now, make a series of connected points, touching/tangent to each other going out from 2,2; say x=3 & y=3, then 4/4 and 5/5 and 6/6.  This is what is called a segment.
To the atheist, and/or agnostic, one of purely secular beliefs such as their life and consciousness begins when they are born (2/2) and ends when they die (6/6) than personal life and existence is just a "segment".

For many of religious belief, especially of the Jew-Christian-Islam flavors, their "existence" begins as a segment: 2/2-6/6; but they then have a non-physical aspect of consciousness that continues on the same direction of the graph, 7/7~8/8~9/9~etc. out to infinity.  Such will be spent in either a "Heaven" or "Hell".**  
In Geometry this one direction series of connected points is known as a Ray. 
** = Both Heaven and Hell are also of the Creator in this scenario, or the Creator is both the Heaven and the Hell.

Now if one keeps the above graph(Ray), but also goes in the other direction: 1/1~ -1/-1 ~ -2/-2 ~ -3/-3 ~ etc. we then have what is known in geometry as a Line.  A series of connected points going in both directions on into infinity in both directions.

So, we have the following visualizations;

To Secular and non-religious, atheists and agnostics, those whom believe there is only on lifetime, short and simple, than personal existence is just a Segment.

To many religious believers, especially of the Jew-Christian-Muslim persuasion, ones existence is a brief physical lifetime=Segment; followed by an eternal non-physical existence (with some form of reward or punishment conditions in some theologies) going on forever~eternal~infinity.  This is a Ray.  One hitch is that it is only HALF eternal since it only goes in one direction.

The other alternative, more consistent with the concepts presented above regarding Creator and Created being One; than ones existence would be a "Soul", going in both direction, hence Full Eternal/Infinite, and such an existence is punctuated with occasional Segments of physical bodies=lifetimes. Hence a Line is the one that best fits the chain of logic presented so far in this scenario~thesis.

Always Was
Always Will Be


----------



## Stryder50

For further consideration;
*      Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II Fighter Pilot *


 by
Andrea Leininger,
Bruce Leininger,
Ken Gross (Contributor),
Carol Bowman (Foreword)
...
This is the story of James Leininger, who-- a little more than two weeks after his second birthday-- began having blood-curdling nightmares that just would not stop. When James began screaming out recurring phrases like, "Plane on fire! Little man can't get out!" the Leiningers finally admitted that they truly had to take notice.

When details of planes and war tragedies no two-year-old boy could know continued-- even in stark daylight-- Bruce and Andrea Leininger began to realize that this was an incredible situation. SOUL SURVIVOR is the story of how the Leiningers pieced together what their son was communicating and eventually discovered that he was reliving the past life of World War II fighter pilot James Huston. As Bruce Leininger struggled to understand what was happening to his son, he also uncovered details of James Huston's life-- and death-- as a pilot that will fascinate military buffs everywhere.

In SOUL SURVIVOR, we are taken for a gripping ride as the Leiningers' belief system is shaken to the core, and both of these families come to know a little boy who, against all odds and even in the face of true skeptics, harbors the soul of this man who died long ago.
...








						Soul Survivor
					

This is the story of James Leininger, who-- a little more than two weeks after his second birthday-- began having blood-curdling nightmar...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## justinacolmena

Stryder50 said:


> "God" could be just as much a female as an male, but more likely the Creator would have no gender/sex.


God is omnipotent and as such often referred to with capitalized masculine pronouns. Weakness and effeminacy cannot be named among the traits of the Almighty. All the same, the Bible makes it clear that when God created man, (i.e., "the human") in His own image, He created the female human, perfectly as well as the male human, in His own image.








						Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:27 - King James Version
					

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.




					www.biblegateway.com


----------



## Stryder50

justinacolmena said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God" could be just as much a female as an male, but more likely the Creator would have no gender/sex.
> 
> 
> 
> God is omnipotent and as such often referred to with capitalized masculine pronouns. Weakness and effeminacy cannot be named among the traits of the Almighty. All the same, the Bible makes it clear that when God created man, (i.e., "the human") in His own image, He created the female human, perfectly as well as the male human, in His own image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:27 - King James Version
> 
> 
> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.biblegateway.com
Click to expand...

And the Biblical "Gawd" appears upon the stage of human history many centuries after other gawds and gawdesses have been presented.  In many other parts of the world other than the Middle East region.


----------



## harmonica

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahahahahh
> ......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
> YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has provided an answer for you.  He and the creationists have the last word and lol
> 
> *Evidence will never overcome obstinance.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and AGAIN, you provide no proof----hahahahhahahahahhahah
> we have the last LAUGH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call screaming in pain forever _laughing_.
Click to expand...

STILL no proof from you 
more HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## abu afak

this is/WAS the Science section and there is no science.
only testimonials.
Please move this Thread, This page, and many like it of 'witnessing'/Belief withOUT evidence to Religion.
ty..

`


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> The laws of physics clearly are not inviolate, except in our visible universe, absent some supernatural intervention.  Since God made those laws, He is clearly outside them, not subject to them.
> Of course the creation of the Universe violates the known laws of physics because God designed all of them at the Beginning.  Genesis 1:1 has, to the best of our knowledge today, been validated by the most sophisticated science available.  Still, we are just children in the great scheme of things.


That's so silly.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true.  It's not.  How do I know?  It violates the laws of physics.  You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.
> 
> Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s we?  Religionary thinking is not thinking at all. It’s submitting to mind numbing indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are the conservative and science users who have discovered science backs up the Bible (Genesis, even though it's not a science book).
> 
> To the contrary, "mind numbing indoctrination" is evolution, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, liberalism, and more since the 1850s.  People were swayed by Satan into atheistic science and religion and _choosing to go the hell_ thinking that _is_ scientific.  It really is wrong and more of the stupid choice, but that's how mind numbing indoctrination works.
> 
> What's mind numbing to me is how the libs were easily swayed and now believe they know everything dealing with science when they have no evidence and no backing by the scientific method.  They were fooled by natural selection which God created, but Satan used to fool the evolutionists.
Click to expand...

The hyper-religious suffer from mind numbing indoctrination.


----------



## surada

Ringtone said:


> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​



Is science and math important to your belief in God?


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof of the existence of singularities ... the one by Nobel Prize winning Roger Penrose ... point to the error please ... show us the lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the liar who screams "liar" first ... you should know that from your Bible ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lie is still a lie not dependent upon who screamed, "liar" first.
> 
> Anyway, using the fallacy of authoritarianism does not make Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems valid.  It's been shown that "accelerated expansion of the Universe with negative Λ are invalid because they are based upon demonstrably false foundations relating to Einstein’s field equations, trapped surfaces, and the cosmological constant."
> 
> Care to try again?
Click to expand...


Do you have a citation for that quote? ... or did you make it up all on your own? ...

You should also learn what the "fallacy of authoritarianism" is ... I'm relying on actual physicists in matter concerning physics ... internationally recognized experts in the field at hand ... 

You call me a liar to direct attention away from your own lies ... 

Point to the error ... or you admit there is no error ...


----------



## ChemEngineer

Stryder50 said:


> Hence a Line is the one that best fits the chain of logic presented so far in this scenario~thesis.



You have presented no scenario or thesis.
Humans build cars but we are not cars. God made the universe, but that does not make Him one with it.  You posit utter nonsense.  There is no logic to it whatsoever.


----------



## abu afak

ChemEngineer said:


> You have presented no scenario or thesis.
> Humans build cars but we are not cars. *God made the universe, but that does not make Him one with it.  *You posit utter nonsense.  There is no logic to it whatsoever.


Who has no logic you Always Wrong NUMB NUTS?
There is NO god in evidence and certainly not yours.
This is the SCIENCE section where EVIDENCE is required.

`


----------



## james bond

justinacolmena said:


> The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.



Haha.  Atheist science or evolution is disputing that.



justinacolmena said:


> those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.



We know it's 24-hr days because God separated night and day on the first day after creating the EMS (light).



justinacolmena said:


> Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.



Evolution is a lie.  Origins disproves it such as the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis.  The evolutionists cannot explain what existed before the big bang and no space and time.  There can be no singularity.  Instead, creation science has the Kalam Cosmological argument and Genesis.


----------



## james bond

Stryder50 said:


> For further consideration;
> *      Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II Fighter Pilot *
> 
> 
> by
> Andrea Leininger,
> Bruce Leininger,
> Ken Gross (Contributor),
> Carol Bowman (Foreword)
> ...
> This is the story of James Leininger, who-- a little more than two weeks after his second birthday-- began having blood-curdling nightmares that just would not stop. When James began screaming out recurring phrases like, "Plane on fire! Little man can't get out!" the Leiningers finally admitted that they truly had to take notice.
> 
> When details of planes and war tragedies no two-year-old boy could know continued-- even in stark daylight-- Bruce and Andrea Leininger began to realize that this was an incredible situation. SOUL SURVIVOR is the story of how the Leiningers pieced together what their son was communicating and eventually discovered that he was reliving the past life of World War II fighter pilot James Huston. As Bruce Leininger struggled to understand what was happening to his son, he also uncovered details of James Huston's life-- and death-- as a pilot that will fascinate military buffs everywhere.
> 
> In SOUL SURVIVOR, we are taken for a gripping ride as the Leiningers' belief system is shaken to the core, and both of these families come to know a little boy who, against all odds and even in the face of true skeptics, harbors the soul of this man who died long ago.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soul Survivor
> 
> 
> This is the story of James Leininger, who-- a little more than two weeks after his second birthday-- began having blood-curdling nightmar...
> 
> 
> 
> www.goodreads.com



Hard to believe such happenings from those trying to sell a book.


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a proof of the existence of singularities ... the one by Nobel Prize winning Roger Penrose ... point to the error please ... show us the lie ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the liar who screams "liar" first ... you should know that from your Bible ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lie is still a lie not dependent upon who screamed, "liar" first.
> 
> Anyway, using the fallacy of authoritarianism does not make Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems valid.  It's been shown that "accelerated expansion of the Universe with negative Λ are invalid because they are based upon demonstrably false foundations relating to Einstein’s field equations, trapped surfaces, and the cosmological constant."
> 
> Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a citation for that quote? ... or did you make it up all on your own? ...
> 
> You should also learn what the "fallacy of authoritarianism" is ... I'm relying on actual physicists in matter concerning physics ... internationally recognized experts in the field at hand ...
> 
> You call me a liar to direct attention away from your own lies ...
> 
> Point to the error ... or you admit there is no error ...
Click to expand...


As usual you will not answer my question when called on your Penrose-Hawking singularity.  You should be able to explain in nutshell and flash if you knew and thought it was true.  Instead I get more questions upon my creditability.

You can't just use authoritarianism to say Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem is true.  You have to show how it is true.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Who has no logic you Always Wrong NUMB NUTS?
> There is NO god in evidence and certainly not yours.
> This is the SCIENCE section where EVIDENCE is required.



Yet, your side has not explanation for start of space and time, how the cell developed, how anything infinite can exist in the natural world when it would violate the laws of physics, how the energy needed for the universe came to be, how humans (intelligent beings who can make choices) came into existence, why there are mountains coming up from the depths of our oceans around the world, and more.  Stop lying and using the lies of evolution to explain what is NOT science and technology.  You are a colossal boob.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> As usual you will not answer my question when called on your Penrose-Hawking singularity.  You should be able to explain in nutshell and flash if you knew and thought it was true.  Instead I get more questions upon my creditability.
> 
> You can't just use authoritarianism to say Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem is true.  You have to show how it is true.



Still waiting for the citation for your quote ...

I'm not going to take the time to explain to you 4 years of university classes ... it would take me a year to explain high school algebra ... not going to waste my time ... I've given you my reference, not my fault you don't understand it ...


----------



## james bond

ReinyDays said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual you will not answer my question when called on your Penrose-Hawking singularity.  You should be able to explain in nutshell and flash if you knew and thought it was true.  Instead I get more questions upon my creditability.
> 
> You can't just use authoritarianism to say Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem is true.  You have to show how it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the citation for your quote ...
> 
> I'm not going to take the time to explain to you 4 years of university classes ... it would take me a year to explain high school algebra ... not going to waste my time ... I've given you my reference, not my fault you don't understand it ...
Click to expand...


And I'm still waiting for _your_ explanation.

Hm... what degree do you have?  Anyway, I'll just shrug and pass it off as you not being able to present an argument besides wikipedia for the Penrose-Hawking theorems which were shown to be invalid.

High school algebra is about finding the unknown.  It involves putting real life variables and making equations from them and solving it.  There, that wasn't too hard.

Instead, I think I've made my counter-argument that the Penrose-Hawking singularities cannot be expected because the theorems are based on false foundations of Einstein's field equations to which you have no counter.


----------



## BULLDOG

james bond said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Atheist science or evolution is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know it's 24-hr days because God separated night and day on the first day after creating the EMS (light).
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a lie.  Origins disproves it such as the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis.  The evolutionists cannot explain what existed before the big bang and no space and time.  There can be no singularity.  Instead, creation science has the Kalam Cosmological argument and Genesis.
Click to expand...

The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.  For a long time, the sun was believed to rotate around the earth. It was logical, it matched observations, and there was no reason to believe any other explanation was possible. It was also wrong.  Unknown doesn't equal God, no matter how much you want it to.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis


What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?


----------



## BULLDOG

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?
Click to expand...


The swan neck experiment proved that microorganisms on dust particles caused beef broth to go bad, but didn't prove anything else.  One example of his experiment is still in tact and on display  in the _Medical Science_ display case at the George Marshall Medical Museum. 
Pasteur's Swan Neck Flask — Worcester Medical Museums.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did find an answer to how many force vectors on the surface of a sphere and it is FINITE.  The number is the Plank length in meters of 10 to the minus 35th power... or 1/(10 followed by 34 zeros).
> 
> To see it easier, one can have multiple points between two points in a line.  While mathematics says one can divide points between a line into an infinite number of small points, i.e. potential infinities, the physical infinity of a point has a finite limit of plank length in meters.  Thus, your infinities are not found in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conjecture ... or link to the proof ... typical IDiot-ology, grabbing the latest pop-psycho fad and running with it ... I specifically called upon *direction* ... not magnitude ... I know, too stupid to know the difference ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave it to you atheists with the FLOT and SLOT.  Are you saying SLOT doesn't happen?
> 
> I asked for you to prove _your claim_ and it was wrong.  *We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang. * We may as file it under atheist fairy tales such as abiogenesis.
> 
> Aristotle said that we can have an infinite set of counting numbers, but no real numbers to count it.  For example, even the most powerful supercomputer cannot count to infinity.  It will eventually run out of memory.
> 
> "Aristotle argued that all the problems involving reasoning with infinity are really problems of improperly applying the incoherent concept of actual infinity instead of the coherent concept of potential infinity. (See Aristotle’s _Physics_, Book III, for his account of infinity.)"
> 
> I can't argue with people who believe in a _potential_ Earth and universe, i.e. evolution.  I can only deal with what is real of Earth and our universe that God created for us per the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"We still have no explanation for why a singularity would exist, let alone start the big bang"*
> 
> It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.
> 
> The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.
> Your notions about "a singularity'' mimic the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar creationist ministries. The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists. The term “singularity” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. The ''singularity'' is a misnomer in that the math resolves to a null value as the equations are unresolvable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing my understanding, you should be able to explain if the term "singularity" existed and was true.  It's not.  How do I know?  It violates the laws of physics.  You just have been embarrassed beyond belief in S&T and have been knocked down to harmonica level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I a'splained you earlier about the ''singularity''.
> 
> Who needs physics when ''the gawds did it'' answers every question that befuddles you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Singularity doesn't befuddle me.  I just called it a lie and you to believe in lies makes you a wrong way-er.  Atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> What we discover is science backs up God's word while it doesn't ToE, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, and origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who’s we?  Religionary thinking is not thinking at all. It’s submitting to mind numbing indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are the conservative and science users who have discovered science backs up the Bible (Genesis, even though it's not a science book).
> 
> To the contrary, "mind numbing indoctrination" is evolution, evolutionary thinking, cosmology, liberalism, and more since the 1850s.  People were swayed by Satan into atheistic science and religion and _choosing to go the hell_ thinking that _is_ scientific.  It really is wrong and more of the stupid choice, but that's how mind numbing indoctrination works.
> 
> What's mind numbing to me is how the libs were easily swayed and now believe they know everything dealing with science when they have no evidence and no backing by the scientific method.  They were fooled by natural selection which God created, but Satan used to fool the evolutionists.
Click to expand...

That's obviously false. When you use the term "we", I have to take that to mean you and the fundamentalist ministries. As you know, your fundie ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed papers. Your use of the term "we" simply means that you and the fundie ministries take the bible as a literal rendering of history. There is no science in the Bible. To suggest that the planet is flat, 6,000 years old and biblical tales and fables are true is nonsense.


----------



## james bond

BULLDOG said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The swan neck experiment proved that microorganisms on dust particles caused beef broth to go bad, but didn't prove anything else.  One example of his experiment is still in tact and on display  in the _Medical Science_ display case at the George Marshall Medical Museum.
> Pasteur's Swan Neck Flask — Worcester Medical Museums.
> View attachment 473908
Click to expand...


It disproved spontaneous generation; Today spontaneous generation has become abiogenesis.





__





						How Did Pasteur Finally Disprove Spontaneous Generation?
					

Louis Pasteur finally disproved spontaneous generation through an experiment where beef broth was sterilized through boiling in two flasks, one that was exposed to air and another that was protected from it. The one that was exposed to contaminants clouded, showing microbial growth, while the...




					www.reference.com
				






BULLDOG said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Atheist science or evolution is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know it's 24-hr days because God separated night and day on the first day after creating the EMS (light).
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a lie.  Origins disproves it such as the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis.  The evolutionists cannot explain what existed before the big bang and no space and time.  There can be no singularity.  Instead, creation science has the Kalam Cosmological argument and Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.  For a long time, the sun was believed to rotate around the earth. It was logical, it matched observations, and there was no reason to believe any other explanation was possible. It was also wrong.  Unknown doesn't equal God, no matter how much you want it to.
Click to expand...


Where is the KCA logically flawed.  Do you know what it states?  It has nothing to do with the wrong belief of the sun rotating around the Earth.


----------



## ReinyDays

james bond said:


> ... the theorems are based on false foundations of Einstein's field equations to which you have no counter.



Okay Bubba ...


----------



## BULLDOG

james bond said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> What chemicals were in the swan neck flask experiment and how many millions of years did it run?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The swan neck experiment proved that microorganisms on dust particles caused beef broth to go bad, but didn't prove anything else.  One example of his experiment is still in tact and on display  in the _Medical Science_ display case at the George Marshall Medical Museum.
> Pasteur's Swan Neck Flask — Worcester Medical Museums.
> View attachment 473908
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It disproved spontaneous generation; Today spontaneous generation has become abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Did Pasteur Finally Disprove Spontaneous Generation?
> 
> 
> Louis Pasteur finally disproved spontaneous generation through an experiment where beef broth was sterilized through boiling in two flasks, one that was exposed to air and another that was protected from it. The one that was exposed to contaminants clouded, showing microbial growth, while the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reference.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is the Good Book, the Book of Books. I don't think science is disputing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  Atheist science or evolution is disputing that.
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> those are not natural 24-hour days that the Bible is referring to as the six days of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know it's 24-hr days because God separated night and day on the first day after creating the EMS (light).
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not all scientists are in agreement to any particular theories of "evolution" per se in a Darwinian sense, but I don't see how the Bible rules out such theories -- God is God, the Master and Architect of the Universe, if one believes in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution is a lie.  Origins disproves it such as the swan neck flask experiment disproves abiogenesis.  The evolutionists cannot explain what existed before the big bang and no space and time.  There can be no singularity.  Instead, creation science has the Kalam Cosmological argument and Genesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.  For a long time, the sun was believed to rotate around the earth. It was logical, it matched observations, and there was no reason to believe any other explanation was possible. It was also wrong.  Unknown doesn't equal God, no matter how much you want it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the KCA logically flawed.  Do you know what it states?  It has nothing to do with the wrong belief of the sun rotating around the Earth.
Click to expand...


Basically, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause that made it exist. Since the cosmos exists something had to cause it, and that cause can only be God.  If you can't see the flaw there, I'm not going to waste my time trying to show it to you.


----------



## justinacolmena

BULLDOG said:


> Basically, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause that made it exist. Since the cosmos exists something had to cause it, and that cause can only be God. If you can't see the flaw there, I'm not going to waste my time trying to show it to you.


If you count anything concrete (or discrete) such as pebbles or coins -- every natural number is one more than the number that comes before it, but zero is not a natural number, and there cannot be a negative number of any tangible thing.


----------



## BULLDOG

justinacolmena said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause that made it exist. Since the cosmos exists something had to cause it, and that cause can only be God. If you can't see the flaw there, I'm not going to waste my time trying to show it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you count anything concrete (or discrete) such as pebbles or coins -- every natural number is one more than the number that comes before it, but zero is not a natural number, and there cannot be a negative number of any tangible thing.
Click to expand...

Yes. That all sounds logical and reasonable, and it is as easy to accept as the sun revolving around the earth, at least until we learned different. I'll admit your line of reasoning might be exactly right, but it's a little too soon to assume it is the only acceptable theory.  Even if it does turn out to be right, there is nothing to say that a god is what put everything in motion.


----------



## justinacolmena

BULLDOG said:


> Yes. That all sounds logical and reasonable, and it is as easy to accept as the sun revolving around the earth, at least until we learned different. I'll admit your line of reasoning might be exactly right, but it's a little too soon to assume it is the only acceptable theory. Even if it does turn out to be right, there is nothing to say that a god is what put everything in motion.


You've got to be so full of shit about it.


----------



## ChemEngineer

*The fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe.*


*Critical Physical Constants*​Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value 246.2 GeV
Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark 2.4, 4.8, 104 MeV
Mass of the electron, neutrinos (sum) .511, .32 eV
Electromagnetism Coupling Constant .00729
Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant .1187
Cosmological Constant (2.3 x 10to the -3 eV) to the 4th [Precise to 1 part in 10 to the 120]
Scalar Amplitude Fluctuation Q 2 x 10 to the -5
Baryon, Dark Matter Mass Per Photon .57 eV, 3 eV
Entropy of the Universe 4 x 10 to the 81 J/K
Gravitational Constant Precise to within 1 part in 10 to the 60
[Only 10 to the 20 seconds have elapsed since the creation of the universe]

If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 10 to the 10 to the 123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” – Stephen Hawking, Theoretical Physicist, Cambridge University



The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. – Psalm 19:1-2
This knowledge pouring forth from the heavens for millennia has been intensely studied by mankind since at least
Ptolemy (367 B.C. to 283 B.C.) and continues to be intensely studied by scientists around the world.

*"Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still." - Carl Sagan*
___________________________________
According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.

Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
(Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, _Social Forces_. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> *The fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe.*
> 
> 
> *Critical Physical Constants*​Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value 246.2 GeV
> Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark 2.4, 4.8, 104 MeV
> Mass of the electron, neutrinos (sum) .511, .32 eV
> Electromagnetism Coupling Constant .00729
> Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant .1187
> Cosmological Constant (2.3 x 10to the -3 eV) to the 4th [Precise to 1 part in 10 to the 120]
> Scalar Amplitude Fluctuation Q 2 x 10 to the -5
> Baryon, Dark Matter Mass Per Photon .57 eV, 3 eV
> Entropy of the Universe 4 x 10 to the 81 J/K
> Gravitational Constant Precise to within 1 part in 10 to the 60
> [Only 10 to the 20 seconds have elapsed since the creation of the universe]
> 
> If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 10 to the 10 to the 123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.
> 
> “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” – Stephen Hawking, Theoretical Physicist, Cambridge University
> 
> 
> 
> The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. – Psalm 19:1-2
> This knowledge pouring forth from the heavens for millennia has been intensely studied by mankind since at least
> Ptolemy (367 B.C. to 283 B.C.) and continues to be intensely studied by scientists around the world.
> 
> *"Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still." - Carl Sagan*
> ___________________________________
> According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.
> 
> Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
> (Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, _Social Forces_. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)




There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” 
― Stephen Hawking



Be brave. Be free from philosophies, prophets and holy lies. Go deep into your feelings and explore the mystery of your body, mind and soul. You will find the truth.” 
― Amit Ray, Meditation: Insights and Inspirations



I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.” 
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


What do we really want from religion? Palliatives? Therapy? Comfort? Do we want reassuring fables or an understanding of our actual circumstances? Dismay that the Universe does not conform to our preferences seems childish. You might think that grown-ups would be ashamed to put such thoughts into print. The fashionable way of doing this is not to blame the Universe -- which seems truly pointless -- but rather to blame the means by which we know the Universe, namely science.” 
― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space


----------



## Wuwei

ChemEngineer said:


> *The fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe.*
> 
> 
> *Critical Physical Constants*​Higgs Vacuum Expectation Value 246.2 GeV
> Mass of Up, Down, Strange Quark 2.4, 4.8, 104 MeV
> Mass of the electron, neutrinos (sum) .511, .32 eV
> Electromagnetism Coupling Constant .00729
> Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant .1187
> Cosmological Constant (2.3 x 10to the -3 eV) to the 4th [Precise to 1 part in 10 to the 120]
> Scalar Amplitude Fluctuation Q 2 x 10 to the -5
> Baryon, Dark Matter Mass Per Photon .57 eV, 3 eV
> Entropy of the Universe 4 x 10 to the 81 J/K
> Gravitational Constant Precise to within 1 part in 10 to the 60
> [Only 10 to the 20 seconds have elapsed since the creation of the universe]
> 
> If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to a precision of 10 to the 10 to the 123, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind.
> 
> “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” – Stephen Hawking, Theoretical Physicist, Cambridge University
> 
> 
> 
> The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. – Psalm 19:1-2
> This knowledge pouring forth from the heavens for millennia has been intensely studied by mankind since at least
> Ptolemy (367 B.C. to 283 B.C.) and continues to be intensely studied by scientists around the world.
> 
> *"Astronomical spectroscopy is an almost magical technique. It amazes me still." - Carl Sagan*
> ___________________________________
> According to U.N. statistics, in the last three centuries, among 300 outstanding scientists in the world, 242 believe in God.
> 
> Over 86% of scientists surveyed found no inherent contradiction between science and religion.
> (Ted R. Vaughan, Douglas H. Smith, Gideon Sjoberg, The Religious Orientations of American Physical Scientists, _Social Forces_. Jun., 1966, Vol. 44, Issue 4, p519-526, 8p. University of North Carolina Press. A more recent study of elite American scientists (professors at top research universities) found the majority seeing no conflict between science and religion. Ecklund and Park, Opt. Cit.)


The posting of physical constants has been done in many places, along with the realization that there is a remarkable balance in the mathematics that underlies everything from galaxies down to DNA and fundamental particles – quarks and leptons, etc. This is truly amazing. So, lets define a word for the entity behind all of this: God. We can also call this entity the “cause”.

Then what?

Shall we say the obvious: God exists (by definition? ) Are we supposed to pray and worship it? And believe that the entity listens to prayers and micromanages our lives? Those facets simply do not follow from the “definition” of God.

I find the argument that “God made everything” rather vacuous in that it doesn't lend anything to our understanding of the nature of the universe. It only puts a label on things that are currently unresolved, such as the nature of the big bang and abiogenesis. There is no clue that we should join a church or whatever.

.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ringtone said:


> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​



Prove that the universe had a beginning.

It doesn't need to have a beginning.

The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.

Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.


----------



## ChemEngineer

frigidweirdo said:


> Prove that the universe had a beginning.
> It doesn't need to have a beginning.
> The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.



The unmitigated gall of your pretentious  insouciance is deeply offensive and unintelligent.



> Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.



A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge," which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does.  How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChemEngineer said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that the universe had a beginning.
> It doesn't need to have a beginning.
> The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unmitigated gall of your pretentious  insouciance is deeply offensive and unintelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge," which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does.  How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?
Click to expand...


Then, conversation over. 

Bye.


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that the universe had a beginning.
> It doesn't need to have a beginning.
> The only reason you think it needs to have a beginning is because it explains something you don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unmitigated gall of your pretentious  insouciance is deeply offensive and unintelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why gods and God was invented by humans in the first place. A convenient story to fill in the MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge," which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does.  How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?
Click to expand...

So.... any questioning of your preconceived notions to supernatural gods is offensive?

Oh, my. You delicate flower. Because you’re not emotionally or intellectually prepared to understand that not everyone on a public message board is going to uncritically accept your claims to three unique gods, you might want to consider shielding yourself from such tortuous encounters. What’s on Oprah?


----------



## abu afak

ChemEngineer said:
			
		

> "...A universe which by your perfect *understanding* has always existed *could not possibly be so complex that thousands of years of concerted study and analysis by all off mankind has brought us to the current position of having "MASSIVE gaps in human knowledge,"* which description you think and claim excludes you personally because YOU understand what nobody else reading these lines does. How many Nobel Prizes line your mantle, anyway, Mister Just Joined My Ignore List?


1. We have not really had "Thousands of years of study."
Science is relatively new.
Virtually all science happened in the last 50-150 years..
DNA is only 60+ years old, Radiocarbon dating 70 years old. Serious deep space astronomy same. Einstein's theory less than 100.
Computers barely 50 years old.

2. "Massive Gaps is literally the fallacious "God of the Gaps" FALLACY, nonetheless we've already put thousands of man-created gods out of business. (Fire, lightning, fertility, etc) with even basic stuff.
I don't understand who, how, or when the Universe was created, but unlike you and people of other religions/Man- Creation Myths, I didn't make up a god for what I/we do Not understand ... YET. The bogus basis of virtually all gods/religions that has been debunked 10,000 times and still counting. (Genesis is also demonstrably and laughably wrong as a creation Myth)

3. Your specialty for a decade has been putting people on ignore
You have to. Sometimes a majority of posters in a section.
Hundreds have made mincemeat of your voodoo posts on this board and others.

`


----------



## Stryder50

*Changes to Standard Model of physics could point to a 'God Equation' *
...
Abnormalities found in the 'standard model of physics' by Fermilab and CERN could reveal a 'universal theory of everything' according to famed physicist Michio Kaku. 

In his latest book, Kaku, a leading string theorist from City College of New York, describes the ongoing search to find a 'God Theory' that explains everything.

This is a theory Albert Einstein hoped to discover but failed to find in his lifetime, with Kaku describing it as being able to explain the 'rich diversity of matter'.

Speaking to MailOnline, Kaku describes the Standard Model of physics as the 'Theory of Almost Everything', adding that it was 'inevitable discrepancies would be discovered eventually' as the theory was both 'ugly' and limited in its scope.

That is exactly what has happened in 2021, first with the discovery by CERN showing that muons appear to behave differently than the theory predicts, then with the discovery of a 'wobble' in the movement of muons by Fermilab.

A Muon is a tiny particle similar to an electron and finding a 'wobble' 0.1 per cent off the Standard Model could hint a new force of nature.

Kaku told MailOnline the 'God Theory' would unite all the forces of nature into a single, inch long equation, and 'finding even the tiniest deviation in the Standard Model, might give us a clue to the real fundamental theory.'
...


			Changes to Standard Model of physics could point to a 'God Equation'


----------



## abu afak

Stryder50 said:


> *Changes to Standard Model of physics could point to a 'God Equation' *
> ...
> Abnormalities found in the 'standard model of physics' by Fermilab and CERN could reveal a 'universal theory of everything' according to famed physicist Michio Kaku.
> 
> In his latest book, Kaku, a leading string theorist from City College of New York, describes the ongoing search to find a 'God Theory' that explains everything.
> 
> This is a theory Albert Einstein hoped to discover but failed to find in his lifetime, with Kaku describing it as being able to explain the 'rich diversity of matter'.
> 
> Speaking to MailOnline, Kaku describes the Standard Model of physics as the 'Theory of Almost Everything', adding that it was 'inevitable discrepancies would be discovered eventually' as the theory was both 'ugly' and limited in its scope.
> 
> That is exactly what has happened in 2021, first with the discovery by CERN showing that muons appear to behave differently than the theory predicts, then with the discovery of a 'wobble' in the movement of muons by Fermilab.
> 
> A Muon is a tiny particle similar to an electron and finding a 'wobble' 0.1 per cent off the Standard Model could hint a new force of nature.
> 
> Kaku told MailOnline the 'God Theory' would unite all the forces of nature into a single, inch long equation, and 'finding even the tiniest deviation in the Standard Model, might give us a clue to the real fundamental theory.'
> ...
> 
> 
> Changes to Standard Model of physics could point to a 'God Equation'


Your usual IDIOT post.
Kaku cleared this up a few years ago Copy-paste/throw-horse-shoes boy.

Physicists often use 'god' as an expression of awe at the universe/figuratively, NOT Jesus Christ or any other Personal god that the OP and every other VOODOO practitioner here does.

ie, Michio Kaku Clears Up God Discovery

`


----------



## ChemEngineer

*Relative Strengths*

Strong nuclear force: 1

Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4

Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13

Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40

Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
At random?

I have news for you.  (They didn't.)


----------



## Hollie

ChemEngineer said:


> *Relative Strengths*
> 
> Strong nuclear force: 1
> 
> Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4
> 
> Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13
> 
> Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40
> 
> Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
> At random?
> 
> I have news for you.  (They didn't.)


I have news for you. Claiming your three gods supernaturally, magically invented natural forces is completely unsupported conjecture.


----------



## Wuwei

ChemEngineer said:


> *Relative Strengths*
> 
> Strong nuclear force: 1
> 
> Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4
> 
> Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13
> 
> Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40
> 
> Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
> At random?
> 
> I have news for you.  (They didn't.)


Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?

Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?


----------



## miketx

Democrats - The party of Science Fiction.


----------



## ReinyDays

Wuwei said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Relative Strengths*
> 
> Strong nuclear force: 1
> 
> Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4
> 
> Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13
> 
> Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40
> 
> Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
> At random?
> 
> I have news for you.  (They didn't.)
> 
> 
> 
> Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?
> 
> Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?
Click to expand...


*Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?
Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?*

Physics tells us how to build the barn, but not why we should help our neighbor build his ... and church is a great place to both offer and ask for help ... 

"Love your brother as you love yourself" makes more sense to more people than *F*=m*a* ... nevermind both are vitally important ...


----------



## Wuwei

ReinyDays said:


> *Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?
> Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?*
> 
> Physics tells us how to build the barn, but not why we should help our neighbor build his ... and church is a great place to both offer and ask for help ...
> 
> "Love your brother as you love yourself" makes more sense to more people than *F*=m*a* ... nevermind both are vitally important ...


I agree for those seeking brotherhood. My point is when posters here try to use the depth of physical laws to "prove" God's existence, it does not connect with what you said. In that case the liturgy is studying the art and not simply praising the artist.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Ringtone said:


> 1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​​2.  The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​​3.  Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​
> Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?
> 
> The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:
> 
> *3.* The universe has a cause of its existence.​​*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​​*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​​*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8.* Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9.* A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10.* Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11.* The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12.* Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14.* Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16.* The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17.* Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​​Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​



You smoke a lot of weed, don't you?


----------



## Canon Shooter

There is no "proof" of God's existence.

That's why it's called "faith".

Consider, for a moment, what it would mean to every religion if the existence of God was undeniably proven. What if it was undeniably proven that God did _not _exist?

Religious beliefs cannot exist without faith and faith, by it's very nature, is something which cannot be proven.

Those who would prove the existence of God will, unknowingly or not, destroy the meaning of God...


----------



## ChemEngineer

Wuwei said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Relative Strengths*
> 
> Strong nuclear force: 1
> 
> Weak nuclear force: 4.69 x 10-4
> 
> Electromagnetic force: 2.03 x 10-13
> 
> Gravitational force: 3.93 x 10-40
> 
> Do you think these fixed constants just created their own respective values?
> At random?
> 
> I have news for you.  (They didn't.)
> 
> 
> 
> Great! So God did it. What are we supposed to do now? Go to church and read the Bible?
> 
> Rather than praying at church, don't you think studying physics would be a much greater liturgy?
Click to expand...


*Brandolini's Law:  It requires an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it took to produce it.*

The point of The Anthropic Principle is to refute atheist bullshit.    You obviously missed that point and instead created an inane either/or choice which pretends that you cannot do both.

The world needs more than physicists, or didn't you know?  Hitler and his evil followers were very big on science, weren't they.  They conducted "experiments" on prisoners, torturing and killing them.    No liturgy there.


----------



## Wuwei

ChemEngineer said:


> *Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it took to produce it.*
> 
> The point of The Anthropic Principle is to refute atheist bullshit. You obviously missed that point and instead created an inane either/or choice which pretends that you cannot do both.
> 
> The world needs more than physicists, or didn't you know? Hitler and his evil followers were very big on science, weren't they. They conducted "experiments" on prisoners, torturing and killing them. No liturgy there.


This is my message #470 to ReinyDays:


Wuwei said:


> I agree for those seeking brotherhood. My point is when posters here try to use the depth of physical laws to "prove" God's existence, it does not connect with what you said. In that case the liturgy is studying the art and not simply praising the artist.


He had roughly the same objection as you, to which I was sympathetic.
I was strictly speaking to the science aspect. It is obviously not an either/or choice. But you had to dirty science with the Hitler card. For shame.

.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Wuwei said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Brandolini's Law: It requires an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it took to produce it.*
> 
> The point of The Anthropic Principle is to refute atheist bullshit. You obviously missed that point and instead created an inane either/or choice which pretends that you cannot do both.
> 
> The world needs more than physicists, or didn't you know? Hitler and his evil followers were very big on science, weren't they. They conducted "experiments" on prisoners, torturing and killing them. No liturgy there.
> 
> 
> 
> This is my message #470 to ReinyDays:
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree for those seeking brotherhood. My point is when posters here try to use the depth of physical laws to "prove" God's existence, it does not connect with what you said. In that case the liturgy is studying the art and not simply praising the artist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He had roughly the same objection as you, to which I was sympathetic.
> I was strictly speaking to the science aspect. It is obviously not an either/or choice. But you had to dirty science with the Hitler card. For shame.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You had to make a false either/or choice.  The shame is all yours.  Science has long been used for good or evil.  This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.

Statistics DO connect with what we say.  Shame on you for contending otherwise.


----------



## Wuwei

ChemEngineer said:


> You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.


I disagree totally.


ChemEngineer said:


> Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.


You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.

.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Wuwei said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree totally.
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Look it up.  Ask someone who is educated.  I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.

ciao brutto


----------



## Wuwei

ChemEngineer said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree totally.
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up.  Ask someone who is educated.  I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.
> 
> ciao brutto
Click to expand...

Statistics is all over physics. You gave no context. I am very familiar with the several forces in physics, but there is no statistics involved.


----------



## ReinyDays

Wuwei said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree totally.
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up.  Ask someone who is educated.  I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.
> 
> ciao brutto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistics is all over physics. You gave no context. I am very familiar with the several forces in physics, but there is no statistics involved.
Click to expand...


Statistics is a mathematical construct ... useful, but it's not physics ... statistics tells us most stars in the universe are red dwarfs, but that doesn't say why ... we need physics to say a star's mass is inversely proportional to expected life span ... 

"Lies, damned lies and statistics" --- Benjamin Disraeli


----------



## Wuwei

ReinyDays said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree totally.
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up.  Ask someone who is educated.  I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.
> 
> ciao brutto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistics is all over physics. You gave no context. I am very familiar with the several forces in physics, but there is no statistics involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics is a mathematical construct ... useful, but it's not physics ... statistics tells us most stars in the universe are red dwarfs, but that doesn't say why ... we need physics to say a star's mass is inversely proportional to expected life span ...
> 
> "Lies, damned lies and statistics" --- Benjamin Disraeli
Click to expand...

I know what statics is. The point was that ChemEngineer used it with no further context.


----------



## ReinyDays

Wuwei said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to make a false either/or choice. The shame is all yours. Science has long been used for good or evil. This is undeniable and you are miffed that I brought it up with a valid point.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree totally.
> 
> 
> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics DO connect with what we say. Shame on you for contending otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to explain what you mean by statistics connecting whatever.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up.  Ask someone who is educated.  I can't be bothered with someone as pretentious over nothing as you so clearly are.
> 
> ciao brutto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistics is all over physics. You gave no context. I am very familiar with the several forces in physics, but there is no statistics involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statistics is a mathematical construct ... useful, but it's not physics ... statistics tells us most stars in the universe are red dwarfs, but that doesn't say why ... we need physics to say a star's mass is inversely proportional to expected life span ...
> 
> "Lies, damned lies and statistics" --- Benjamin Disraeli
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what statics is. The point was that ChemEngineer used it with no further context.
Click to expand...


I was addressing Chem's comments ... I realize your deeper knowledge in these matters and agree with your comments completely ...


----------

