The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Ringtone]

You're ill-informed angry fundie.

One moment, please...

ehistory.osu.edu

The Library of Alexandria – destroyed by an angry mob with torches? Not very likely.

Why do little girls adore martyrs so much? Perhaps it’s preparation for marriage. In my elementary school, the book on Jeanne d’Arc was one of the most heavily worn and pawed over volumes in our small library, and my fingerprints are over every page, if the tattered book still exists at all. The...

bookhaven.stanford.edu

And the world’s amusements, its diversions, abound!​

Sought by pale hands, chased by wooden feet:
Candy-coated rainbows that calm and feed the head
Or illicit, well-used harpies that slip into your bed . . .
Charms that lift you or drop you into a cold sweat.

 

[ReinyDays]

And the world’s amusements, its diversions, abound!
Sought by pale hands, chased by wooden feet:
Candy-coated rainbows that calm and feed the head
Or illicit, well-used harpies that slip into your bed . . .
Charms that lift you or drop you into a cold sweat.

How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...

 

[Hollie]

You're ill-informed angry fundie.

One moment, please...

ehistory.osu.edu

The Library of Alexandria – destroyed by an angry mob with torches? Not very likely.

Why do little girls adore martyrs so much? Perhaps it’s preparation for marriage. In my elementary school, the book on Jeanne d’Arc was one of the most heavily worn and pawed over volumes in our small library, and my fingerprints are over every page, if the tattered book still exists at all. The...

bookhaven.stanford.edu

And the world’s amusements, its diversions, abound!​

Sought by pale hands, chased by wooden feet:
Candy-coated rainbows that calm and feed the head
Or illicit, well-used harpies that slip into your bed . . .
Charms that lift you or drop you into a cold sweat.

I agree. You're utterly befuddled.

 

[Ringtone]

Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.

And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:

"Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."

Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.

Let’s review that again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .

Yeah, Fort Fun Indiana is completely full of feces.

The law of identity was formally elucidated by Aristotle shortly after Plato elucidated the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle by any school of philosophical thought. So when Fort Fun Indiana denied that the other two laws of logic are inherent to the law of identity, as Western philosophers came to realize after Andreas made that very extrapolation, he was literally just talking out of his ass due to his little knowledge as he conflated the law's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the literature and its formal elucidation in the literature. In fact, he wasn’t even aware of the latter’s historicity in the scheme of things until I pointed it out to him. Simultaneously, he seemed to think that the laws of logic, in and of themselves, didn't even exist in human consciousness before they were formally elucidated in the literature.

Clearly, Fort Fun Indiana has ZERO formal training or any real understanding about . . . well, about anything in this wise, let alone any real understanding of just how incredibly stupid he is.

And he poo-pooed the notion that the Logos—originally conceived by the Greeks as the eternally immutable and universal principle (or reason) for the existence and organization of the cosmos, a concept applied to the Living Word of God by John the Apostle—may be varyingly surmised by me as the Universal Principle of Identity entailing the fundamental laws of thought imprinted on the mind of humanity by God, a.k.a., the Imago Dei.

Hot damn his intellectual bigotry and ignorance is hilarious!

It's the same imbecility that Ringtone has exposed over and over again about this punk: everything that conclusively demonstrates God's existence is false in his tiny cranium, and he's oblivious of the fact that he's a grubby little pissant of a bucked-tooth, nose-picking doofus.

A pure intellectual fraud!

Fort Fun Indiana is an amateur who keeps exposing himself for what he is. Even when he tries to use Google, he can't get it right. Every time he opens his yap, his panties fall down and expose his little tee-tee as he spouts a torrent of drooling stupidity, ignorance, rank falsehoods, ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and grammatical monstrosities.

 

[Ringtone]

How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...

Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present. In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.

Are you with me so far?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, he is completely full of shit. The "law of identity" is much more recent than the other two laws of thought he mentioned. So when he said they were extrapolated from the law of identity, he was literally just talking out of his ass and clearly has had the benefit of ZERO formal training in these subjects. He clearly has no real understanding of these concepts whatsoever.

And he just said "for all x: x=x" is the Word of God. GotDAM that is hilarious. It's the same bullshit con, reiterated:

"Everything is conclusive evidence for the very specific gods i prefer, and nothing can ever be evidence against."

Pure intellectual fraud. This guy is an amateur who keeps exposing himself. Whenever he strays from copy/paste, his tirades degrade into barely legible assaults on the English language.

Let’s review that again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .

Yeah, Fort Fun Indiana is completely full of feces.

The law of identity was formally elucidated by Aristotle shortly after Plato elucidated the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle by any school of philosophical thought. So when Fort Fun Indiana denied that the other two laws of logic are inherent to the law of identity, as Western philosophers came to realize after Andreas made that very extrapolation, he was literally just talking out of his ass due to his little knowledge as he conflated the law's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the literature and its formal elucidation in the literature. In fact, he wasn’t even aware of the latter’s historicity in the scheme of things until I pointed it out to him. Simultaneously, he seemed to think that the laws of logic, in and of themselves, didn't even exist in human consciousness before they were formally elucidated in the literature.

Clearly, Fort Fun Indiana has ZERO formal training or any real understanding about . . . well, about anything in this wise, let alone any real understanding of just how incredibly stupid he is.

And he poo-pooed the notion that the Logos—originally conceived by the Greeks as the eternally immutable and universal principle (or reason) for the existence and organization of the cosmos, a concept applied to the Living Word of God by John the Apostle—may be varyingly surmised by me as the Universal Principle of Identity entailing the fundamental laws of thought imprinted on the mind of humanity by God, a.k.a., the Imago Dei.

Hot damn his intellectual bigotry and ignorance is hilarious!

It's the same imbecility that Ringtone has exposed over and over again about this punk: everything that conclusively demonstrates God's existence is false in his tiny cranium, and he's oblivious of the fact that he's a grubby little pissant of a bucked-tooth, nose-picking doofus.

A pure intellectual fraud!

Fort Fun Indiana is an amateur who keeps exposing himself for what he is. Even when he tries to use Google, he can't get it right. Every time he opens his yap, his panties fall down and expose his little tee-tee as he spouts a torrent of drooling stupidity, ignorance, rank falsehoods, ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and grammatical monstrosities.

My, that was a special little tantrum, full of errors, that nobody will read. Hey crybaby, my argument wins:

All ice cream must be made by someone else.

God is ice cream

Thus, God was made by someone else.

Look, i just successfully neutralized your tired old arguments without 20 pages of plagiarization! Work smarter, not harder.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present

And motion is impossible, too! Same exact regressive argument as Zeno's regressive paradoxes, with a sprinkling of magnanimous thesaurus-wringing meant to beguile the audience, but which mostly confuses its author.

 

[ReinyDays]

How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...

Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present. In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.

Are you with me so far?

Infinites exist ... why do you say they are impossible? ... how many real numbers are there between 1 and 2? ...

the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present

Do you have proof of this claim? ... why must there be an origin and how are you proving this origin? ... what experiment can we conduct to show evidence of an origin? ...

Let's start with negative infinity ... walk me through this step by step ... why is this mathematical state impossible? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you have proof of this claim?

Don't do it. You are leaping into the regressive trap. His argument is a regressive argument that is designed to be impossible to counter, as all valid regressive arguments are. That's the game this charlatan is playing. He wants to thesaurus-puke on you for ten pages, then declare victory. And he does this to soothe his own insecurities. Spare yourself.

Think of the example i gave: Zeno's paradox of motion.

 

[Ringtone]

How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...

Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present. In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.

Are you with me so far?

Infinites exist ... why do you say they are impossible? ... how many real numbers are there between 1 and 2? ...

the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present

Do you have proof of this claim? ... why must there be an origin and how are you proving this origin? ... what experiment can we conduct to show evidence of an origin? ...

Let's start with negative infinity ... walk me through this step by step ... why is this mathematical state impossible? ...

First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds, and it's impossible for an infinite regress of causal events to be traversed to the present. See the second video in the OP. Then, as a prologue, I'll share a verbal explication of the difference between potential and actual infinites before I get into the calculi of infinity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.

You can't even go one sentence without trying to sneak by a dubious premise. You don't know the truth of this. All of your horseshit (that isn't a copy/paste of someone else's hard work) is circular or based on dubious premises nobody could possibly know the truth of. Cheap charlatan.

 

[Ringtone]

I agree. You're utterly befuddled.

You don't even understand your own citation.

 

[Hollie]

How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...

Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present. In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.

Are you with me so far?

I think I understand what you intended to convey but only managed to stumble, mutter and slog your way through. Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of impossibility, you're claiming an actual infinite is impossible except for the gods being an infinite because impossibility is not an attribute of the gods.

Super!

That confounds your earlier comments but let's not make the mistake of holding religious extremists to a consistent argument.

 

[Hollie]

I agree. You're utterly befuddled.

You don't even understand your own citation.

You don't understand your inability to form a coherent argument.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...

Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present. In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.

Are you with me so far?

I think I understand what you intended to convey but only managed to stumble, mutter and slog your way through. Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of impossibility, you're claiming an actual infinite is impossible except for the gods being an infinite because impossibility is not an attribute of the gods.

Super!

That confounds your earlier comments but let's not make the mistake of holding religious extremists to a consistent argument.

God cannot do the impossible, per Ringtone !

Except for when God does the impossible, per Ringtone !

 

[Ringtone]

I agree. You're utterly befuddled.

You don't even understand your own citation.

You don't understand your inability to form a coherent argument.

A chorus of crickets roll their eyes​

And dance beneath the cloudy skies.

 

[Ringtone]

How you coming on that mathematical derivation? ...

Well, first, you need to understand that the crux of the matter comes down to the impossibility of an actual infinite, namely, the impossibility that an infinite regress of causal events can be traversed to the present. In general, this is the essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There has to be a first, unchanged cause of origin that stands and stays from eternity.

Are you with me so far?

I think I understand what you intended to convey but only managed to stumble, mutter and slog your way through. Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of impossibility, you're claiming an actual infinite is impossible except for the gods being an infinite because impossibility is not an attribute of the gods.

Super!

That confounds your earlier comments but let's not make the mistake of holding religious extremists to a consistent argument.

I have cravenly suffered the sentimental drivel of the career politician—​

The pandering fop, the trailer-trash clone,
The glib picaro who would do anything at all to be somebody,
Except be somebody who would do anything useful.
I have felt his pudgy fingers foraging in my pockets—
The easy smile, the evasive speech, the beguiling eyes

that woo the timid sheep . . .​

The stuff and the skinny of Orwellian nightmares.

 

[ReinyDays]

First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds, and it's impossible for an infinite regress of causal events to be traversed to the present. See the second video in the OP. Then, as a prologue, I'll share a verbal explication of the difference between potential and actual infinites before I get into the calculi of infinity.

What is your proof of this claim ... or are you asking us to assume this is true? ...
Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you prove it is not? ...

I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, an actual infinity, in and of itself, is an idea that only exists in minds, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or as a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. Actual infinities do not exist outside of minds, and it's impossible for an infinite regress of causal events to be traversed to the present. See the second video in the OP. Then, as a prologue, I'll share a verbal explication of the difference between potential and actual infinites before I get into the calculi of infinity.

What is your proof of this claim ... or are you asking us to assume this is true? ...
Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you prove it is not? ...

I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..

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.

 

[ReinyDays]

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 proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...