Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WTF!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.
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.
WTF!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.
This is what?
Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
Your own principles and Laws!
WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
`
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.WTF!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.
This is what?
Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
Your own principles and Laws!
WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
`
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.WTF!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.
This is what?
Self-made/Fabricated techno-philosophica?
Your own principles and Laws!
WHAT A PILE OF BS TERMS!
`
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.
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.
`
^^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 yourpantspanties 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?
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.
So what you're actually doing is pulling yourpantspanties 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?
You're ill-informed angry fundie.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
ehistory.osu.edu
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.
Haha, good point. He is like a 16 year old girl trying on prom dresses. "How about this one?"..."This one?"...and ultimately has no requirement to be true?
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
Because they're full of shit and need to be told so.So why are you on this thread talking smack to those who do know?
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.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.
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?
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.
Okay so here is then what Pontius Pilot asked Jesus for the substantiation: "What is truth?".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.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.
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?
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.
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.
Creation out of no priorly existing material substance ≠ creation out of nothing, and the fideism of materialism is all you have.creation out of nothing is still NOTHING!
Faith is all you have.....
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
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.
