The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He’s on his way to atheism. Right now it’s bothering him that god is not scientifically provable.

Yep. When he says he believes in god, he is lying to himself out loud. That's what these dog and pony shows are. Same for Bond and his pride parades. Ding, too.

Thus these silly attempts to trick people into wrangling woth regressive arguments. Example forthcoming.

 

[Ringtone]

Baby talk. You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.

Can you put that into a mathematical equation? Or at least quantify it?

Can you tell me, precisely, what that and it are, you know, the things you wish to see in an equation or you wish to see quantified?

 

[Ringtone]

no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
hahahahahahahahah

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.

so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite

You insult and mock. I tell the truth, hypocrite.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Motion is impossible. Zeno successfully argued this with a regressive argument. Argue against his regressive argument. And i don't mean, show me something in motion to contradict his conclusions. I mean, argue against the argument by undermining its premises or showing its logic to be invalid. It cannot be done. That is the poison of a regressive argument. For any counterargument you present, i will just direct you the the next turtle down. And so on and so forth, forever. The fraud OP is saying this failure to counter his regressive arguments shows God exists. Nothing more. He is an amateur putting window dressing and 50-cent words on a regressive turd. It's no different than claiming the failure to counter Zeno's paradox of motion with argument demonstrates conclusively that motion is impossible. It's a charlatan's trick that is older than dirt.

 

[harmonica]

no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
hahahahahahahahah

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.

so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite

You insult and mock. I tell the truth, hypocrite.

..and you haven't proved there is a god
hahahahhahahahahahahah

 

[Ringtone]

Yep. When he says he believes in god, he is lying to himself out loud. That's what these dog and pony shows are. Same for Bond and his pride parades. Ding, too.

Thus these silly attempts to trick people into wrangling woth regressive arguments. Example forthcoming.

Imbecile Alert! The troll with no longer be fed. Ignore.

 

[Ringtone]

no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
hahahahahahahahah

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.

so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite

You insult and mock. I tell the truth, hypocrite.

..and you haven't proved there is a god
hahahahhahahahahahahah

Imbecile Alert! The troll will no longer be fed. Ignore.

 

[harmonica]

no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
hahahahahahahahah

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.

so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite

You insult and mock. I tell the truth, hypocrite.

..and you haven't proved there is a god
hahahahhahahahahahahah

Imbecile Alert! The troll will no longer be fed. Ignore.

and still, no proof

 

[Ringtone]

Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?

I've already said I don't know.

Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical. Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what ontological nothingness means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?

It's your OP, I'm asking you.

Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?

You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.

Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?

Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?

I didn't run away from anything in the first place. Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?

As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation: I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity—i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating. That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place. In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.

Moving on. . . .

An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!

Or, stated another way:

Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!

I ask you once again:

Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?

It's a yes/no question.

 

[harmonica]

Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?

I've already said I don't know.

Actually, you hadn't already said that, and that response is nonsensical. Did you fail to answer this yes/no question because you don't know what ontological nothingness means or because you don't know what you believe in this wise?

It's your OP, I'm asking you.

Are you asking me because you think I can read your mind, because you didn't read the OP, or because you're prevaricating?

You are running away as hard as you can. Oh well.

Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?

Here's another one to run from. Are gods part of the universe?

I didn't run away from anything in the first place. Are you making this ridiculous claim because you didn't read the OP or because you're prevaricating?

As a sane human being who observes the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science relative to sufficient reason and causation: I hold that such a thing is not possible, that such a thing is an absurdity—i.e., inherently contradictory or self-negating. That's the whole point of the OP, so you shouldn't be asking your ridiculous question in the first place. In fact, if you didn't watch the videos or read the text in the OP, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread in the first place.

Moving on. . . .

An ontological nothingness, which is the absence of being, caused something to exist?!

Or, stated another way:

Something cased itself to exist before it existed?!

I ask you once again:

Is it your belief that the Universe just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness?

It's a yes/no question.

theists are the ones who believe in idiotic magic--you believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'''--like a Star Trek energizer
hahahahhahahahahahahah

 

[Hollie]

To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.

What, precisely, are you saying here, Hollie, and why is cnm giving you a thumbs up for this incoherency? Are you saying that God should be able to do the absurd or impossible?

You should take the time to proofread what you write or what Craig writes. It is the hyper-religious who are claiming that their gods do the absurd, (absurd in terms of the contingent reality most of us live in). The term ‘impossible” doesn’t provide for much equivocation so I must leave it the supernaturalists to describe what their gods can and cannot do. I would suggest, however, that before describing the various attributes and limitations of your gods, you might want to make a rational case for those supernatural gods.

The comments above are intended to be applicable in, for example, philosophy or theology. They are not applicable in a scientific disvussion because science can only proceed on the basis of rationality as it pertains to the universe and on the basis of evidence. If the Gods can do anything at any time in any way they like, then science becomes impossible <—— there’s that pesky adjective again. Science proceeds within the constraints of reason and rationality as opposed to your presuppositions that angels dance on the heads of pins and absurdities are to be believed because that’s how the supernatural operates.

ID’iot creationers assume that “belief” is evidence of their God's irrational, unnatural actions - the Flood, supernatural creation of species, a young earth, etc. as literal events. In doing so, by trying to treat these absurdities, empirically inadequate and completely unsupported notions as worthy of reasoned debate, they must assume the role of the person with the “kick me” note taped to his back.

 

[Hollie]

no proof..you haven't proved anything except you can babble a lot
hahahahahahahahah

You haven't refuted anything, let alone proved anything, except your imbecility.

so you believe in god/etc--but you insult people = you are a hypocrite

You insult and mock. I tell the truth, hypocrite.

“Twoofs” of religious extremists tend to derive from alternate realities.

 

[Ringtone]

Can't be since models have shown that the universe will contract and implode itself. God is not the creator to anyone but those with a very limited scope.

Nonsense! In the cosmological terms of science, contract and implode mean the same thing, and it has been shown that a cyclically inflating universe, which is what you're apparently alluding to, cannot be past eternal either: Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

Indeed, cyclically inflating models have been proposed against the imperatives of logic and mathematics for decades, and have been scientifically falsified, one after the other, for decades, before the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem.

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

The Universe began to exist!

And I don't know what James is talking about, as 0 + 0 = 0, not infinity; and nothing + nothing does equal nothing. There's no should about it. Further, Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for creation out of nothing) is a theological term of art that means creation out of no priorly existing substance, not creation out of an ontological nothingness.

 

[Ringtone]

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.

False! The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not proceed from the presupposition of God's existence at all. It proceeds from the first principles of ontology and sufficient causation.

That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.​

The Universe began to exist.​

The Universe has a cause of its existence.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.The Universe began to exist.The Universe has a cause of its existence.

This is called, "pure garbage". That's the proper term. Unfalsifiable premises, circular begging, self insistence.

 

[cnm]

This is called, "pure garbage". That's the proper term. Unfalsifiable premises, circular begging, self insistence.

 

[Ringtone]

You should take the time to proofread what you write. . . .

I'll give you one last chance to be civil and sensible.

Are you saying, then, that you did in fact know what I meant to say but instead of simply pointing that out, you made a big deal out of nothing? or are saying that God should be able to do the impossible?

I went back and read the origin excerpt from my article and agree that the observation I made is poorly expressed. Thank you for pointing that out.

Revision:

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms could possibly exist in the first place.​

Better?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is called, "pure garbage". That's the proper term. Unfalsifiable premises, circular begging, self insistence.

Anyone can play.

That which never began does not have a cause.
The universe never began.
Thus the universe has no cause.

Or

That which makes rainbow ice cream in the 6th dimension must also make Volkswagens in the 8th dimension.
Rainbow unicorns make rainbow ice cream in the 6th dimension.
Therefore, rainbow unicorns make Volkswagens in the 8th dimension.

 

[BULLDOG]

Baby talk. You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.

Wow. Somebody got a new Thesaurus for Christmas.

Actually, it looks like somebody learned some new words. Stick around and I'll teach you some more, but keep you're dictionary handy as, unlike those with adult vocabularies, you'll have to look them up.

The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible. Seems like you prefer to put on aires over effective communication. It's a common mistake among those who have recently gained only. a small amount knowledge. Take a speaking course. It will help keep you from sounding like an insufferable ass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The purpose of language is to communicate in the most effective way possible.

The purpose of Ringtone's regressive parlor tricks is to beguile, obfuscate, and to create perpetual uncertainty. The bait and switch in the cheap parlor trick is switching "we don't know" with "therefore, god". Interestingly and ironically enough, and probably unbeknownst to our charlatan OP, these arguments were all created by people trying to defeat their own powers of reason in order to believe in a magical sky daddy. So this entire thread concept is merely an exercise, where the guy on the ledge is begging someone to give him a reason not to jump, knowing already he is going to jump regardless.