Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[shunyadragon]

I made no claim, just offering your own words back to you.



Your most recent thread made claims which required your own assertions to be accepted before any evidence is presented.

Regarding "independence", yes, limiting your threads to copy-paste is a great way to avoid independence.

Not the subject of the thread, and you did make confusing and contradictory claims.

Again . . .

Your self-centered egocentric claims are not the subject of the thread. So far in this forum, I have never offered independent proof for anything. Logical proof are problematic because they are most often circular and are used to justify what one believes without evidence

I do endorse the proofs and math reasoning as tools of everyday use, science, and the applied sciences:

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Docume...Education-Internships/Proof-and-Reasoning.pdf

You apparently like playing Duck, Bob, and Weasel and not the subject of my post and the thread.

 

[dybmh]

Logical proof are problematic because they are most often circular and are used to justify what one believes without evidence

I see you editted your post.

I agree about the often circular logic employed by the critic of scripture.

details are ignored <-- because --> my faith is in wikipedia <-- because --> details are ignored

 

[dybmh]

Not the subject of the thread, and you did make confusing and contradictory claims.

In this thread? Not true. Your most recent thread? It wasn't a claim, it's proof by defintion.

If A then B. If B is false A can still be true. The truth value of A is not dependent of the truth value of B. That is the definition of a "sequence of events".

The argument you were making was completely illogical. Challenging the events in the book of Joshua does not set up an unresolvable historical problem in Exodus. And since you haven't read the book of Joshua, and you are reluctant to do so, there is no reason to take what you are claiming seriously anyway. You don't know what's in the book. You would believe whatever you see online that matches your preconceived notion.

And that's why you should reread your own statement and apply it.

There is no proof unless 'some' may accept your assertions to begin with. In other words, it is only proven to yourself what you believe.

If you have no real facts of your own, only a belief about the book of Joshua, or perhaps a faith in the scholar because they identify as "atheist", or perhaps the demonization of the religious person outside of your own faith, THEN

You are simply convincing yourself of what you already believe. Perhaps you are "preaching to a choir" of others who share your faith. But it's no different from your own critique of the OP.

your self-fulfilling circular argument that does not represent proof beyond what you believe is true.

It's exactly what I see in your own threads. Especially about ugarite. I brought you bucckets and buckets of evidence, even showed you your were referencing a church website, not an acreditted academic institution. None of that mattered.

All that mattered was "what YOU believe".

You apparently like playing Duck, Bob, and Weasel

You keep repeating this. It indicates to me that you have nothing of substance to offer. I'm putting you on ignore so you can post your beliefs without challenge.

Goodbye.

 

[shunyadragon]

In this thread? Not true. Your most recent thread? It wasn't a claim, it's proof by defintion.

If A then B. If B is false A can still be true. The truth value of A is not dependent of the truth value of B. That is the definition of a "sequence of events".

The argument you were making was completely illogical. Challenging the events in the book of Joshua does not set up an unresolvable historical problem in Exodus. And since you haven't read the book of Joshua, and you are reluctant to do so, there is no reason to take what you are claiming seriously anyway. You don't know what's in the book. You would believe whatever you see online that matches your preconceived notion.

And that's why you should reread your own statement and apply it, and not respond to the subject of the thread at hand.



If you have no real facts of your own, only a belief about the book of Joshua, or perhaps a faith in the scholar because they identify as "atheist", or perhaps the demonization of the religious person outside of your own faith, THEN

You are simply convincing yourself of what you already believe. Perhaps you are "preaching to a choir" of others who share your faith. But it's no different from your own critique of the OP.



It's exactly what I see in your own threads. Especially about ugarite. I brought you bucckets and buckets of evidence, even showed you your were referencing a church website, not an acreditted academic institution. None of that mattered.

All that mattered was "what YOU believe".



You keep repeating this. It indicates to me that you have nothing of substance to offer. I'm putting you on ignore so you can post your beliefs without challenge.

Goodbye.

Nothing relevant to this thread. You apparently like dragging around a bag of bowling balls

 

[LuisDantas]

The "real" world compared to the "mental" abstraction is like "hand-in-glove". It's best evidenced in olfactory perception. The model is "key-in-lock". It used to be considered the geometric configuration of the compound which "fit" with the receptors in the nose. But now it is considered the chemical bonds themself which "fit". It's a quantum phenomena which is "congruent" with the quantum phenomena in the brain. It's "hand-in-glove" or a "cinderalla-fit". This explains the strong connection between scent and memory.

Primitve thinkers did not have the tools, knowledge, understanding, that modern people have in this regard. It was considered "wise" and "enlightened" to "realize" that the mind is abstracting sensory perception. And in a way it is. But the truth is much more complex than those primitive ideas. Some take these primitve ideas to extremes and apply them literally and make fools of themself.

Anytime a person drives a car safely in traffic they are confirming the near miraculous accuracy of sensory perception in real-time. Anytime a toddler learns to speak proves it. Teaching them to play catch. Watching them develop. If one has not had the opportunity to raise a child, then, these sorts of analogies will be lost on them. The primitive philosophers who were strongly attached to these notions didn't seem to value procreation.

And that's why "how many fingers?" is a test for lucidity.

You may be unconvinced or even unaware of it somehow, but the reality of facts does not map at all perfectly to our mental constructs. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few independent mechanisms which differentiate the two fields, sometimes in very drammatic ways.

 

[dybmh]

You may be unconvinced or even unaware of it somehow, but the reality of facts does not map at all perfectly to our mental constructs. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few independent mechanisms which differentiate the two fields, sometimes in very drammatic ways.

Not true. They do indeed map perfectly. And I am prepared to debate it. The evidence of imperfect matching is impariment. The fact that the predictive nature of perception can be impaired is just that. It's no different than closing one's eyes, putting their head in the sand, or taking DMT.

From Anil Seth, neuroscientist. Perception is a "prediction engine".

The prediction engine works BECAUSE it is accurate. Baseball is popular in Brazil. Hitting a ball with a bat that is pitched at that speed REQUIRES ACCURATE predictive perception. If the sensory feedback was not perfectly matched, no one would be able to drive a car safely. Those who try to prove otherwise with science make absolute fools of themself. - See below, here is a link: LINK

 

[LuisDantas]

Not true. They do indeed map perfectly. And I am prepared to debate it. The evidence of imperfect matching is impariment. The fact that the predictive nature of perception can be impaired is just that. It's no different than closing one's eyes, putting their head in the sand, or taking DMT.

From Anil Seth, neuroscientist. Perception is a "prediction engine".

View attachment 83010

The prediction engine works BECAUSE it is accurate. Baseball is popular in Brazil. Hitting a ball with a bat that is pitched at that speed REQUIRES ACCURATE predictive perception. If the sensory feedback was not perfectly matched, no one would be able to drive a car safely. Those who try to prove otherwise with science make absolute fools of themself. - See below, here is a link: LINK

View attachment 83011

We're done again. There is no point in telling you that your dellusions are indeed dellusions.

 

[dybmh]

We're done again. There is no point in telling you that your dellusions are indeed dellusions.

That's funny. Because if your perception is not accurate, then you cannot accurately evaluate a delusion. You cannot accurately evaluate reality. This is why the claim is nothing but foolish baby-babbles.

It is ultimately self-defeating. And yet another example of an atheist denying evidence. This time it's science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not true. They do indeed map perfectly. And I am prepared to debate it. The evidence of imperfect matching is impariment. The fact that the predictive nature of perception can be impaired is just that. It's no different than closing one's eyes, putting their head in the sand, or taking DMT.

From Anil Seth, neuroscientist. Perception is a "prediction engine".

View attachment 83010

The prediction engine works BECAUSE it is accurate. Baseball is popular in Brazil. Hitting a ball with a bat that is pitched at that speed REQUIRES ACCURATE predictive perception. If the sensory feedback was not perfectly matched, no one would be able to drive a car safely. Those who try to prove otherwise with science make absolute fools of themself. - See below, here is a link: LINK

View attachment 83011

Scientists in reality DO NOT try to prove either way. There is no such thing as proof in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's funny. Because if your perception is not accurate, then you cannot accurately evaluate a delusion. You cannot accurately evaluate reality. This is why the claim is nothing but foolish baby-babbles.

It is ultimately self-defeating. And yet another example of an atheist denying evidence. This time it's science.

AHHHH! So you're bringing in your religious bias against atheists. How revealing concerning your aggressive posting in various threads.

Methodological Naturalism is indifferent to religious belief or the lack of.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's funny. Because if your perception is not accurate, then you cannot accurately evaluate a delusion. You cannot accurately evaluate reality. This is why the claim is nothing but foolish baby-babbles.

It is ultimately self-defeating. And yet another example of an atheist denying evidence. This time it's science.

Sure. Whatever. Just don't expect to convince anyone.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not true. They do indeed map perfectly. And I am prepared to debate it. The evidence of imperfect matching is impariment. The fact that the predictive nature of perception can be impaired is just that. It's no different than closing one's eyes, putting their head in the sand, or taking DMT.

From Anil Seth, neuroscientist. Perception is a "prediction engine".

View attachment 83010

The prediction engine works BECAUSE it is accurate. Baseball is popular in Brazil. Hitting a ball with a bat that is pitched at that speed REQUIRES ACCURATE predictive perception. If the sensory feedback was not perfectly matched, no one would be able to drive a car safely. Those who try to prove otherwise with science make absolute fools of themself. - See below, here is a link: LINK

View attachment 83011

You are off on the Yellow Brick Road, changing the topic here and there, and about again. Hope you find a brain in the Emerald City.

Still have the bag of bowling balls tied to your waist?

 

[dybmh]

Sure. Whatever. Just don't expect to convince anyone.

Convince them of what? How many fingers? This is child's play Luis. Denying that there are 3 fingers is ... like a 3 year old repeatedly asking "why?"

Not having children and not watching them develop as a parent means one does not have the opportunity to understand how the juvenile mind of a "denier" operates.

But there are religions which are fixated on this idea of denying. Bound to it in holy matrimony. Ironically they are the ones who claim to value detachment.



How many fingers, Luis? How many?

 

[John53]

The supposed errors are actually done on purpose by God to give Satan extra stuff to deceive.

So your God is a liar. Interesting.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So your God is a liar. Interesting.

I never said that.

What was the first living thing?

 

[John53]

I never said that.

I quoted where you did. Why the deception?

What was the first living thing?

I've answered that several times. Perhaps you should talk to someone about your memory problem.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Suppose that you had never seen a modern cell phone or knew of its existence. You find such a device.

This is a reworked version of the watchmaker argument. Perhaps someone has pointed out by now.

But the thing about the watchmaker argument is that it never purported to be an irrefutable proof of God's existence. It was merely put forth as evidence of a designer (possibly God).

This proof uses mathematical induction. Thus, the proof is irrefutable.
n = intelligently designed objects.
n=1 is just one cell phon, an intelligently designed object
n=k is many cell phones and all other intelligently designed objects.
n>0 -> C>=0 where C is the number of intelligent creators.

I understood your post just fine until I got to this part. I'm not proficient with or knowledgable about how mathematical induction works. Would you mind walking me through how this proof works in layman's terms? Others might benefit from a more granular explanation as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a reworked version of the watchmaker argument. Perhaps someone has pointed out by now.

But the thing about the watchmaker argument is that it never purported to be an irrefutable proof of God's existence. It was merely put forth as evidence of a designer (possibly God).



I understood your post just fine until I got to this part. I'm not proficient with or knowledgable about how mathematical induction works. Would you mind walking me through how this proof works in layman's terms? Others might benefit from a more granular explanation as well.

One does not need an understanding of induction. One only needs to see the error of his premises. He has a false premise. A false premise is on that is not universally accepted. His claim of "intelligent design" is denied by almost every scientist in existence. That makes the rest of his argument nonsense even if his "induction" is correct.

 

[vulcanlogician]

One does not need an understanding of induction. One only needs to see the error of his premises. He has a false premise. A false premise is on that is not universally accepted. His claim of "intelligent design" is denied by almost every scientist in existence. That makes the rest of his argument nonsense even if his "induction" is correct.

Yeah but I'm willing to make the assumption that all his premises are true... as postulates...

I'm just curious how the argument works in the case when I grant him that... because I don't understand the form or any of the expressions in the argument.

 

[McBell]

Just an FYI for those that do not know this yet...

The word 'Godhead' in the above verse, is the same as the word 'Atom' we use today.

Source please.

I ask because the King James Concordance, Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, and Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary all seem to disagree with you.