The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[anotherlife]

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?

This is a good one! Hehehe

 

[Ringtone]

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 ...

Sure. But will have to do that tomorrow.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Internet tough guys are hilarious.

 

[ReinyDays]

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 ...

Sure. But will have to do that tomorrow.

Looking forward to it ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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]

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.

Internet tough guys are hilarious.

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]

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.

No evidence then, but faith got you conned deeply.

“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]

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.

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

You didn't watch KCA vid 1. Or tell me what else was it?

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.

For now. Doesn’t mean it will forever.

I can't argue with that scientifically, as we do not know what is causing the acceleration (Bible says it's God)?

 

[james bond]

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]

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]

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, The 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]

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, The 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.

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]

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 ...

Sure. But will have to do that tomorrow.

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]

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, The 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.

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]

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]

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.

Pay your respects, everybody tells you
You pay for what you get”
-Dave Matthews

 

[Sunsettommy]

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, The 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.

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]

This is a good one! Hehehe

These are excerpts from a poetic dramatic dialogue I wrote several years ago.

 

[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.

Internet tough guys are hilarious.

Apparently you failed to read Fort Fun Indiana's tough guy talk.

 

[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.

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.