The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[ReinyDays]

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.

And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...

He is trying to create a parlor trick paradox delineated by philosophers thousands of years ago.

In the modern world of science and mathematics, where relativity is a fact, we don't struggle with these old ideas.

If you watch a friend fall into a black hole, you will never see him cross the event horizon. Ever. You could watch forever and you would only see him get closer and closer, asymptotically.

From the perspective of the friend falling into the black hole, nothing unusual is felt or observed. In fact, without exact knowledge of their own position and that of the event horizon, they would have know way of knowing they had crossed it.

These two ideas have no problem existing simultaneously in our universe. Biblical scholars and religious philosophers like our charlatan OP contributed NOTHING to this knowledge. We literally had to learn it in spite of them.

 

[abu afak]

`

`

 

[Hollie]

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.

And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...

Thanks. I saw the t ≠ 0 argument and found that suspicious but didn’t have the time available to drill down and research why he chose that argument.

 

[ReinyDays]

Thanks. I saw the t ≠ 0 argument and found that suspicious but didn’t have the time available to drill down and research why he chose that argument.

It's a fairly simple proof ... though it's not worth my time to chase it down for this IDiot ... it's a back-of-the-book section in most any calculus textbook ...

 

[Ringtone]

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.

And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...

Nonsense. t = 0, and what's negative time? LOL!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and what's negative time? LOL!

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.

And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...

Nonsense. t = 0, and what's negative time? LOL!

Wow, you don't even understand the basic concept of a number line.

 

[Hollie]

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.

And the assumed restrictions he's placing on the matter are not substantiated by the math involved ... even the physics doesn't necessarily back it up ... he assumes t ≠ 0 and that's not been established ... indeed the math is fine with t ≤ 0 ...

Nonsense. t = 0, and what's negative time? LOL!

Nonsense, Your phony math still does nothing to support the existence of your gods. LOL!

 

[ReinyDays]

Nonsense. t = 0, and what's negative time? LOL!

Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...

 

[Hollie]

Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...

Another meaningless non-argument.

You know the drill. . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

Meaningless chatter.

 

[abu afak]

Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...

Another meaningless non-argument.

You know the drill. . . .

The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

Meaningless chatter.

He keeps linking to his own OP.
5 of the 6 deleted by Moderator.
Now he's doing it AGAIN.
The thread needs to be shut down.
Clearly he (the last-wording OCD Child) has NOTHING else to say.

`

 

[james bond]

Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...

He keeps linking to his own OP.
5 of the 6 deleted by Moderator.
Now he's doing it AGAIN.
The thread needs to be shut down.
Clearly he (the last-wording OCD Child) has NOTHING else to say.

I think the creationists have won this argument. It was logically proven that one cannot have an infinite anything in nature except in mathematics. It can be scientifically proven, too.

 

[Hollie]

Whatever you choose it to be ... we have the math to handle it ...

He keeps linking to his own OP.
5 of the 6 deleted by Moderator.
Now he's doing it AGAIN.
The thread needs to be shut down.
Clearly he (the last-wording OCD Child) has NOTHING else to say.

I think the creationists have won this argument. It was logically proven that one cannot have an infinite anything in nature except in mathematics. It can be scientifically proven, too.

I’m not clear what you believe the creationers have won. The fraudulent thread title claims incontrovertible evidence for a version of gods and there is no such evidence.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think the creationists have won this argument. It was logically proven that one cannot have an infinite anything in nature except in mathematics. It can be scientifically proven, too.

It's not an argument ... it's an assumption ... pay attention ... there exists infinite directions a force vector can point ... nature ...

But I'll bite ... show me your proof ...

 

[james bond]

pay attention ... there exists infinite directions a force vector can point ... nature ...

Can you prove that?

 

[james bond]

I’m not clear what you believe the creationers have won. The fraudulent thread title claims incontrovertible evidence for a version of gods and there is no such evidence.

There are no creationers. Only creationists haha.

Maybe there are evolutioners like you?

 

[james bond]

`
View attachment 456690



`

Interesting Fitch died after writing that book. I think the atheist scientists start suffering right away while in Hades (like the rich man who mistreated Lazarus) because they carry more weight and have a greater burden of proof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One hypothesis about the beginning of time in our universe is that time "unfurled"with space itself prior to the Big Bang. This hypothesis has theoretical support and consistent mathematics.

Without getting into the weeds, this hypothesis has a special connotation for our timeline. Specifically, if one would travel backwards in time, that one would never reach a "boundary". I.E., for anyone in our universe, time has NO beginning. You could travel backwards in time forever and never reach the beginning.

To someone outside our universe looking in, time would appear to have a beginning.

While this hypothesis may or may not be true, it clearly undermines the allegedly "incontrovertible" mathematical arguments put forth in this thread, per the thread title.

"Incontrovertible", they are not.

 

[Hollie]

I’m not clear what you believe the creationers have won. The fraudulent thread title claims incontrovertible evidence for a version of gods and there is no such evidence.

There are no creationers. Only creationists haha.

Maybe there are evolutioners like you?

There are creationers, haha.

Not surprising, haha, that there is no creationer comment on the fraudulent thread title, haha.

 

[ReinyDays]

pay attention ... there exists infinite directions a force vector can point ... nature ...

Can you prove that?

Simple closure proves continuity ... read the first few pages of your old calculus textbook ... we can split the difference forever ...