The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[james bond]

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.

>>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.<<

Sounds like a fairy tale.

The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.

 

[Hollie]

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.

>>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.<<

Sounds like a fairy tale.

The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.

So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

>>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.<<

Sounds like a fairy tale.

The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.

So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.

Jesus arose, which goes far beyond anything any other supposed "gods" ever accomplished. And there is plenty of evidence Jesus existed in a particular place at a particular time and that HIS life was even prophesied a millennium and hundreds of years before HE was even born.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jesus arose, which goes far beyond anything any other supposed "gods" ever accomplished.

The resurrection story was plagiarized from other religions before it. And Tom Brady just won his first Super Bowl.! No other QB has ever done this!

This is the science section, Nipskee. Your authoritative, magical declarations hold zero weight, here. Head over to the religion section for that. There you will find the mods enforce a "special" set of rules to protect the feelings of you little Napoleons and protect you from the ridicule and echoing laughter your magical claims deserve.

Here in the science section, you're just another crazy person on the corner with a bullhorn, claiming his houseplants told him the lizard people are about to take over.

 

[james bond]

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.

>>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.<<

Sounds like a fairy tale.

The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.

So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.

The science, math, and logic that supports the Christian God has been provided in this thread or did you miss that like all the others? We also found out what is gonna happen to abu afak . Same as Walter M. Fitch.

 

[james bond]

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 ...

Just as I thought. You can't. It's because of the laws of physics. You have been caught in a lie or are wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were wrong .

 

[Hollie]

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.

>>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.<<

Sounds like a fairy tale.

The lengths the atheists/ags will go to to discredit God, science, math, logic, and rhetoric is unbelieveable.

So then, tell us about the science, math, logic that support your gods. This thread has been among countless claiming ''incontrovertible evidence'' of various gods yet they all have suffered from the same failings; no evidence.

The science, math, and logic that supports the Christian God has been provided in this thread or did you miss that like all the others? We also found out what is gonna happen to abu afak . Same as Walter M. Fitch.

I somehow missed the science, math, and logic that supports the Christian Gods. Could you point me to the post that lays out the science supporting your gods? I’ll take a look at the science part supporting your gods and circle back™ to the math part.

Thanks.

The post number or numbers for the science?

Thanks.

 

[ReinyDays]

Just as I thought. You can't. It's because of the laws of physics. You have been caught in a lie or are wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were wrong .

Do you know what closure is? ... didn't think so ...

 

[james bond]

The post number or numbers for the science?

See the OP, #11, (one of the dumbest af posts I've ever read #15; just point it out for ), #48, etc. The rest of the questions are answered in the Bible.

 

[james bond]

Just as I thought. You can't. It's because of the laws of physics. You have been caught in a lie or are wrong. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were wrong .

Do you know what closure is? ... didn't think so ...

You don't have it nor infinity in the universe. Everything is finite in nature. Physics proves it is, but you either cannot admit it or are wrong .

 

[james bond]

hahahhahahahahahahh
......same old shit--we've been over this a million times:
YOU have to prove your claim--I don't have to refute anything until it is proven.....this is basic common sense--like a court--the court has to prove guilt--not the other way around

God has provided an answer for you. He and the creationists have the last word and lol

Evidence will never overcome obstinance.

 

[Hollie]

The post number or numbers for the science?

See the OP, #11, (one of the dumbest af posts I've ever read #15; just point it out for ), #48, etc. The rest of the questions are answered in the Bible.

I saw posts you identified. There is no science of math pointing to any gods.

I have a question not answered in the Bibles. Why are there vestigial structures in humans and other animals?

 

[james bond]

I have a question not answered in the Bibles. Why are there vestigial structures in humans and other animals?

You should start this as a separate thread. Name a few and why you think they are useless. Is it based on fake evolution?

 

[ReinyDays]

You don't have it nor infinity in the universe. Everything is finite in nature. Physics proves it is, but you either cannot admit it or are wrong .

Physics relies on closure ... go ahead and learn what that means ... you seem ignorant of basic smoothness tests ...

 

[james bond]

You don't have it nor infinity in the universe. Everything is finite in nature. Physics proves it is, but you either cannot admit it or are wrong .

Physics relies on closure ... go ahead and learn what that means ... you seem ignorant of basic smoothness tests ...

So you admitted you were wrong about infinity in nature and now want to change the subject. Go ahead an explain how "physics relies on closure," so we can understand what you are trying to say. It's one of those subjects I don't want to explain.

 

[ReinyDays]

So you admitted you were wrong about infinity in nature and now want to change the subject. Go ahead an explain how "physics relies on closure," so we can understand what you are trying to say. It's one of those subjects I don't want to explain.

Do you understand that directions are closed ... between any two different directions, there exists yet a third direction? ... it doesn't matter how close the directions are, there will always be another direction in between? ... without exception ...

Thus ... we can say there are an infinite amount of force vectors between any two other force vectors ... all of which exist in nature ... the same is true for time intervals, velocities, stress tensors, torques ... there's a few exceptions, but not that many ...

 

[james bond]

So you admitted you were wrong about infinity in nature and now want to change the subject. Go ahead an explain how "physics relies on closure," so we can understand what you are trying to say. It's one of those subjects I don't want to explain.

Do you understand that directions are closed ... between any two different directions, there exists yet a third direction? ... it doesn't matter how close the directions are, there will always be another direction in between? ... without exception ...

Thus ... we can say there are an infinite amount of force vectors between any two other force vectors ... all of which exist in nature ... the same is true for time intervals, velocities, stress tensors, torques ... there's a few exceptions, but not that many ...

Oh, I thought you were going to present something new. Instead, it's just the same argument that was disproved. Our universe is closed, so we cannot have more than what was there to begin with. The physics laws of conservation of energy proves it. Thus, your directions of any force vector is limited by SLOT. Look it up and learn.

 

[Hollie]

I have a question not answered in the Bibles. Why are there vestigial structures in humans and other animals?

You should start this as a separate thread. Name a few and why you think they are useless. Is it based on fake evolution?

I see. You made a statement not understanding that you might be tasked with supporting said statement so you’re left to drop ten, drop another ten and skedaddle.

 

[ReinyDays]

Oh, I thought you were going to present something new. Instead, it's just the same argument that was disproved. Our universe is closed, so we cannot have more than what was there to begin with. The physics laws of conservation of energy proves it. Thus, your directions of any force vector is limited by SLOT. Look it up and learn.

Please post a citation from a credible scientific source ... or you're lying ... my citation comes from the first few pages of any calculus textbook ...

And learn what closed means ... obviously you're clueless as to this ... direction is not quantized, it's smooth ...

 

[james bond]

Oh, I thought you were going to present something new. Instead, it's just the same argument that was disproved. Our universe is closed, so we cannot have more than what was there to begin with. The physics laws of conservation of energy proves it. Thus, your directions of any force vector is limited by SLOT. Look it up and learn.

Please post a citation from a credible scientific source ... or you're lying ... my citation comes from the first few pages of any calculus textbook ...

And learn what closed means ... obviously you're clueless as to this ... direction is not quantized, it's smooth ...

Let's not go upon a tangent. You think my science is based on religion, but so is yours. Will you agree that science and religion are two sides of the same coin?

If yes, then will you agree that your science has to have an infinity that violates the laws of physics, i.e. SLOT, for it to remain in the natural or nature realm?

ETA: My position is there was a contradiction found to your argument for infinite force vector directions in nature. Nothing infinite can exist in a closed system.