The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Ringtone]

A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...

Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature?

crickets chirping

You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are talking about, you silly ass, because you don't grasp the distinction between potential and actual infinities.

What a dingbat!

Now drop and give me 50 more!

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....

By the way, your professor is a dithering fool too. Was his name Morrison by any chance?

 

[ReinyDays]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the ad hominem fallacy is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, with a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as fiat, ad infinitum, laissez-faire, or ad hominem, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes all words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such.

You never define anything, you never qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.

Saying that’s not proof, that’s not true and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.

Once again, I am not talking about the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics. I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities outside of minds in nature, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​

​

. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​

​

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​

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

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism. Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.

Checkmate!

Now drop and give me 50 more!

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReinyDays

 

[ReinyDays]

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Psalm 1

[emphasis mine]

 

[Ringtone]

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Psalm 1

[emphasis mine]

These six things doth the Lord hate:

. . . A proud look, a lying tongue . . . [a]n heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, [a] false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

 

[Hollie]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the ad hominem fallacy is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, with a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as fiat, ad infinitum, laissez-faire, or ad hominem, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes all words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such.

You never define anything, you never qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.

Saying that’s not proof, that’s not true and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.

Once again, I am not talking about the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics. I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities outside of minds in nature, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​

​

. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​

​

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​

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

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism. Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.

Checkmate!

Now drop and give me 50 more!

That was pretty darn funny. Your feverish, sweaty tirade was an apparent attempt bluster your way past an admission that the thread title is a fraud.

So, we can agree. Nothing in your tirades, pompous blathering or tedious cutting and pasting offers anything, anywhere, approaching “pwoof” for your gods.

What an abysmal waste of time.

 

[Ringtone]

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Psalm 1

[emphasis mine]

Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the ad hominem fallacy is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as fiat, ad infinitum, laissez-faire, or ad hominem, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes all words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.

You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.

Saying that’s not proof, that’s not true and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.

Once again, I never denied the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics. I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities outside of minds in nature, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​

​

. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​

​

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​

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

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism. Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.

You bring to mind the following image:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​

ReinyDays​

Checkmate!

Now drop and give me 50 more!

 

[Ringtone]

I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....

No. You have yet to emphatically demonstrate any understanding of my observations regarding the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities, let alone acknowledged your mathematical errors and your misrepresentations/misunderstanding of my observations.

And what position of mine, precisely, do you understand? What, precisely, can't be mathematically backed up? What, precisely, does your professor's quote mean relative to the context of my observations?

Like I said, you never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything. You're a slogan-spouting bore.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

What caused gods to begin to exist?

There are no gods. There exists but one GOD and HE is SPIRIT. SPIRIT is not material and doesn't depend on material things in order to exist. GOD through the MESSIAH assumed a human form, but this was only after HE created space, time and material by speaking it into existence.

Wrong section. This is the science section. These authoritative declarations of magic go in the religion section.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

View attachment 455532
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReinyDays

A fine attitude. The iron age doctrine is obviously very stupid and immoral.

 

[Hollie]

It’s now 17 pages of claimed “Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence” and there is no science, no mathematics and no evidence of any gods.

What a total fraud.

 

[Ringtone]

What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...

Total gibberish with a smidgen of word-salad dressing (i.e., the CMB epoch) poured on top.

The summation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument below the accompanying videos of the same in the OP stand and stay.

The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.

Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal ±∞. Nor would it equal 0. If we were to divide ±1 by ∞, for example, and say that the quotient were 0, then what happened to ±1? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression n ÷ ∞ = 0 doesn't mean the quotient literally equals 0. Rather, 0 is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, n ÷ ∞, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that ±1 ÷ ∞ equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that ±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1, and we would be correct.​

​

For the proof, let the input variable = x, and let the integer = 1:​

​

x​	1 ÷ x​
1​	1​
2​	0.5​
4​	0.25​
10​	0.1​
100​	0.01​
1,000​	0.001​
10,000​	0.0001​
100,000​	0.00001​
1,000,000 . . .​	0.000001 . . .​

​

Note that as x gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ x gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the x of the function (or, in shorthand, the x of the f ) approaches a certain value:​

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

We know that we're proving the limit for 1 ÷ ∞; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function f(x) is 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity":​

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

Additionally, the output values of function f depend on the input values for the variable x. In the expression f(x), f is the name of the function and (x) denotes that x is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ x as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions f for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow f in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: g, h, i, j and so on.​

​

Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as x approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ x approaches 0.​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

x​	1 ÷ x​
1​	1​
2​	0.5​
4​	0.25​
10​	0.1​
100​	0.01​
1,000​	0.001​
10,000​	0.0001​
100,000​	0.00001​
1,000,000 . . .​	0.000001 . . .​

In nature t = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.

Checkmate!

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....

Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the ad hominem fallacy is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as fiat, ad infinitum, laissez-faire, or ad hominem, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes all words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.

You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.

Saying that’s not proof, that’s not true and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.

Once again, I never denied the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics. I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​

​

. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​

​

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​

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

Also see the annihilation of Fort Fun Indiana's obfuscations:

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism. Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.

You bring to mind the following image:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReinyDays

Checkmate!

Now drop and give me 50 more!

 

[ReinyDays]

Still spinning in the wind? ... a few more walls of text since you have time ...

 

[Ringtone]

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence? The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the...

www.usmessageboard.com

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

I think Socrates did 300 years bc. Correct. And the Christians destroyed his work and legacy for over 1000 years. It was once we experienced secular enlightenment did we again discover the value of the scientific method. We literally began adhering to the method again IN SPITE OF Christianity...

www.usmessageboard.com

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

Ironically, by his own arguments and methods, the present cannot possibly exist. It is impossible, as an infinite number of moments (which are as small as you want them to be) must have occured prior to this moment, regardless of whether or not time had a beginning. A simple epsilon/delta...

www.usmessageboard.com

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ... Yes, you dithering idiot, but where, precisely, do actual infinities have exitetiality in nature? crickets chirping You don't grasp what I and history's mathematicians are...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Hollie]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....

Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the ad hominem fallacy is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as fiat, ad infinitum, laissez-faire, or ad hominem, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes all words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.

You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.

Saying that’s not proof, that’s not true and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.

Once again, I never denied the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics. I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​

​

. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​

​

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​

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

Also see the annihilation of Fort Fun Indiana's obfuscations:

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism. Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.

You bring to mind the following image:

View attachment 455614
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReinyDays

Checkmate!

Now drop and give me 50 more!

These cut and paste tirades which cause you to dump the same, tedious cut and paste nonsense that does does nothing to suppport your claims to proof of the gods makes you appear to be quite the unreasonable zealot.

 

[Ringtone]

Thank you for the ad hominem attack ... you admit my arguments are unassailable and thus have only my person to denigrate ...

You have no mathematical proof of any kind ... that is plain ... you seem not to be able to make a mathematical statement of any kind ... the sad part is I understand your position, but math can't back it up ... as one of my professors once said: "such a question is for the philosophers; when they answer, we have the math in hand" ....

Looks like we'll have to review things again. . . .

You're a nitwit. You don't even know what the ad hominem fallacy is. It’s not name-calling. It’s attacking the man, which is precisely what you’ve been doing from the jump, instead of objectively and accurately addressing the man’s argument. And, by the way, you pseudo-intellectual fraud, one doesn’t italicize words of a foreign language, in either formal or informal writing, which have a long history of common usage in English discourse, such as fiat, ad infinitum, laissez-faire, or ad hominem, unless one is referring to them as such . . . as I just did and as I did in the post above this one. But, then, one italicizes all words or phrases, regardless of their linguistic origin, when referring to them as such, including English words and phrases.

You never contextually define anything, you never contextually qualify anything, let alone establish any objectively verifiable foundation for your denials of the veracity of my observations.

Saying that’s not proof, that’s not true and the like are not arguments. They’re the stuff of mindless slogan speak, including your contextually meaningless, word-salad dressing of the CMB epoch.

Once again, I never denied the conceptual existentiality of actual infinities in mathematics. I’m talking about the existential impossibility of actual infinities in nature outside of minds, and the distinction between potential and actual infinities . . . and it all just flies right over your little pinhead:

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. . . .​

​

. . . The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!​

​

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.​

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

Also see the annihilation of Fort Fun Indiana's obfuscations:

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

You have offered absolutely no counter-arguments to any of the above. Your contention that actual infinities concretely exist outside of minds in nature is rank irrationalism. Indeed, you claim to be a Christian, and yet you're utterly unaware of the fact that your contention is the rank apostasy of pagan materialism.

It’s no wonder you abet the obfuscations of atheist reprobates and deny the logical, mathematical and scientific proofs regarding God’s existence.

You bring to mind the following image:

View attachment 455614
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReinyDays

Checkmate!

Now drop and give me 50 more!

These cut and paste tirades which cause you to dump the same, tedious cut and paste nonsense that does does nothing to suppport your claims to proof of the gods makes you appear to be quite the unreasonable zealot.

And I have seen the feverish glint​

That lights the eyes of the campus policemen
(The goose bumps on their hairy arms!),
Who train our sensitivities, arrest our moral zeal.
I Have heard the awkward silence of hounded thoughts and speeches;
Have seen the spittle that files off the rhetoric of the mindless Jacobins . . .
The unwashed, slogan-spouting cutouts reared by academic leeches.
And moreover, I have choked on the gall and the licentious,

toe-jam-funk-smellin’ rot of pretentious celluloid gods.​

 

[Ringtone]

Still spinning in the wind? ... a few more walls of text since you have time ...

And the nanny state, the meddler, bewitches so easily!
Conceived by venal men, contrived by ruthless means . . .
That ancient human misery loosed again on you and me,
Watching, prying . . . or it smothers,
The self-anointed class, the deified regime.