The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[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.

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.​

Heh. More of the spam you dump into threads when your attempt at argument collapses.

The gods have played a cruel joke on you, yes?

 

[Hollie]

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.

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

 

[Ringtone]

Heh. More of the spam you dump into threads when your attempt at argument collapses.

The gods have played a cruel joke on you, yes?

Oh, let’s do lunch and explore the boundless profundities

of our pregnant self-esteem,​

As we boldly proclaim our tolerance for everything that’s grown,
Lest something sacred, something precious rise above the common drone.
Let us smirk, let us squawk, let us blather till we mock
Every triumph, every blunder that has ever inspired wonder,
Every wisdom, every dream that has ever caused a scream,

till all music and all poetry are dead.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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!

So, when you are done predictably declaring victory, try on your big boy panties for this one:

Do you understand what it looks like to you, when someone falls into a black hole? Yes or no.

 

[Ringtone]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I just showed my 18 year old son how to resolve your amateurish nonsense with simple ideas well known to mathematicians and physicists by the end of their first college courses. So, while you have done little but embarrass yourself in front of people who know more about these topics than you do, you did accomplish something.

 

[Hollie]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

 

[Ringtone]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

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

 

[Hollie]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

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

Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.

 

[Ringtone]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

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

Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.

I'm sorry you feel that way. In the meantime. . . .

I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush

of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​

When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?

 

[Hollie]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

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

Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.

I'm sorry you feel that way. In the meantime. . . .

I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush

of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​

When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?

Your creepy sexual fantasies are disturbing.

 

[abu afak]

`

`

 

[Ringtone]

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

In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

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

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Ringtone]

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

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

Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.

I'm sorry you feel that way. In the meantime. . . .

I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush

of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​

When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?

Your creepy sexual fantasies are disturbing.

In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

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

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Ringtone]

`
View attachment 455996


`

In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

MOD EDIT - Repeating the same post over and over constitutes spamming a thread.

 

[Hollie]

`
View attachment 455996


`

I will be jealous if Ringtone pens poetry

You realize you’re viewed as a creepy stalker, right?

Okay, Hollie, I accept your faulty perception of me. In the meantime. . . .

Excerpt from my article:

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

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

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = ​

x→a​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→∞ ​

​

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

​

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

I understand that panic that grips you when your false claims, pointless spamming and repetitive cutting and pasting is called out as such, but we're left to point out that the thread premise is a fraud, nothing you have cut and pasted approaches proof of your gods and your juvenile blathering is tiresome.

I will require you to cut and paste the silly ''infinite regression'' math you found on the web at least a few more times because, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it is appropriate to point and laugh at the religious extremist.

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

Religious extremists suffer from a pathology of self-hate.

I'm sorry you feel that way. In the meantime. . . .

I have stood naked, caught inside a crystal jar—
Trapped inside the frozen moment, trapped inside the silent pause,
Surrounded by a lethal ring of faces;
Have stood mute in bewildered indecision—the simmering flush

of sudden, unshed tears behind the stupid smile.​

When I’m standing inches tall and shrinking,
When my throat is clogged with cobwebs,
When my sluggish steps turn into miles and miles—
What shall I say to the man, with the withering sneer, standing by the open door?

Your creepy sexual fantasies are disturbing.

In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

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

www.usmessageboard.com

Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

 

[Ringtone]

Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

MOD EDIT - Repeating the same post over and over constitutes spamming a thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

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

www.usmessageboard.com

Are you done ducking me yet?

Good. So, what does it look like when you watch someone fall into a black hole?

 

[Hollie]

Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

In the meantime, back to reality . . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

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

www.usmessageboard.com

The wisdom of this world is a chatty girl with brazen eyes and big teeth.

Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.

 

[Hollie]

Reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.

In the meantime, back to reality. . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

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

www.usmessageboard.com

And after all the medicinal blather, the commiserations;
After all the drunken sleeps;
After the blood that flows from Private altars, the tear stains;
After all the moral leaps;
After all the feigned disclosures . . . the crickets, the withered leaves;
After all the tedious echoes, the teaspoons, the broken jars;
After all the banalities . . . that flow from the lips flickering on the parlor walls:
What shall I say to the woman with the lustrous shrug and the censorious eyes?

Shall I say, after a snort or two, that I have wrestled

with demons in squalid hotel rooms? . . .​

The paint that peels from walls,
The lone, naked light bulb hanging from the ceiling.

Dragging the religious zealot by the ear, reality is not observed with your false claims and failed "proofs" for your gods.

The wisdom of the world was not achieved by religious extremists.