The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Sunsettommy]

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?

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

 

[Ringtone]

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!

`

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.

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

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]

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]

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!

`

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.

Answer the question, punk.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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]

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!

`

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.

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

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.

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

 

[anotherlife]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Sunsettommy]

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?

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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

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.

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".....

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]

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?

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

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.

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".....

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.

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.