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

[Dan From Smithville]

Amazingly, 'Smoke on the Water's' first three notes are the ones I was thinking of!

I was able to do that with no notes at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Amazingly, 'Smoke on the Water's' first three notes are the ones I was thinking of!

To be fair, most people are thinking "Smoke on the Water". It's just that great a song.

 

[Revoltingest]

Video proof. It rules.

Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but after Abbot and Costello, there was a bunch of video clips about Karens and then a whole bunch of bad driver videos and cops pulling people over for no particular reason. I got caught up.

I know how it goes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you need to prove it? Whom are you trying to convince, yourself or others? I always wonder this about Christians .. why the need for apologetics and proof. Isn't your faith enough?

It is for me, but I haven't locked myself into an untenable position that forces me to deny a whole bunch of experience-based reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why do you need to prove it? Whom are you trying to convince, yourself or others? I always wonder this about Christians .. why the need for apologetics and proof. Isn't your faith enough?

He probably knows only his imagined God will believe him - but best be prepared anyway. As in, I fought the good fight, etc.

 

[viole]

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

The following proves that God Almighty is the Creator of all things.

Suppose that you had never seen a modern cell phone or knew of its existence. You find such a device. An examination of its incredible uses and how intricately it was made would prove the existence of the intelligent makers of that phone. Now consider a large modern city. There are very many cell phones in it and a huge host of other things and activities that make that city and its inhabitants function. An analysis of that city proves the existence of the intelligent beings that made, run, and function in that city. This is even more sure than just the cell phone. Now look at all of civilization. It consists of very many cell phones, many cities, and many other things. An analysis of that civilization proves the existence of the intelligent beings that made that civilization. This is even more sure than in the city example. Finally look at all living things in the world. The intricacies of living things (DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, organs, reproduction, the interconnected food chain etc) and their irreducible mutual complexity is way beyond anything that man has made and by an enormous amount. All people have done so far is try to understand how living things work and even now are just scratching the surface. Thus, an examination of all living things and how they interact with the rest of the creation proves the existence of Almighty God the Creator of all things. And this surety is way beyond than even the civilization example. So, here is yet another irrefutable proof that God Almighty, the Creator exists and the He created all things.

Thus, the enormity of the following less winded statement as found in the Bible should be clearly apparent to all the world.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Rom 1:19-20

Since this wisdom, written about 2000 years ago, comes from the word of God, it proves the Bible is the true word of God. There are many things which prove the Bible is the true word of God. Now the Bible predicted that knowledge shall be increased in the last days. But with all the great advances in biology, the passage in Romans 19-20 has not only withstood the scrutiny of science but has been immensely verified by it.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. – Daniel 12:4

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.

It can go even faster:

C>=0 where C is the number of intelligent creators

Which is trivially true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I see your point but to keep with the MI proof, I stuck the just intelligently objects.
The cell phone has all the characteristics of a intelligently designed object. It has smootness, symmetry, functionality that if a person who never used one could easily discover. It also intricate.

These are arbitrary designations. A pebble can be smooth, symmetrical and have a great intricacy and functionality, but we don't assume they're designed. There are also things that ARE designed that are not smooth, or symmetrical, or intricate, or even functional. These things do not signify or indicate design.

And of course over 1 billion cells phones and trillions of other man made objects are intelligently created.

Sure. But trees are more complicated, and they are not designed. That's the point. We don't identify design as an innate facet of something's qualities, we identify design by contrasting it with nature.

Now I stayed away from non-living, non-man made objects for 2 reasons. It is a bit harder to prove that they are intelligently designed and they are not needed for the proof.

But they are, because you're trying to demonstrate that all non-man made objects ARE designed. That's the basis of what your argument is trying to demonstrate. It would be a bit like me saying that caves must be man-made by comparing caves to houses. The fact that houses are designed does not demonstrate that caves are designed. The argument is nonsensical.

The tree falls on the intelligently designed living things category. Its design characteristics dwarf the cell phone. So who made tree and did the tree make the cell phone or other objects.

Except we know trees occur naturally and grow in nature. We don't assume a person designed them in the same way or for the same reasons we assume a cell phone is designed. So your argument fails.

Simple observation rules out both. And who made the intelligent creators of civilization?

Nobody. They can be a result of natural processes. You need to demonstrate that that can't be true.

Obviously an intelligent Creator whose intelligence and power dwarfs all of the above.

You need to demonstrate that. Your argument doesn't.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

These are arbitrary designations. A pebble can be smooth, symmetrical and have a great intricacy and functionality, but we don't assume they're designed. There are also things that ARE designed that are not smooth, or symmetrical, or intricate, or even functional. These things do not signify or indicate design.


Sure. But trees are more complicated, and they are not designed. That's the point. We don't identify design as an innate facet of something's qualities, we identify design by contrasting it with nature.


But they are, because you're trying to demonstrate that all non-man made objects ARE designed. That's the basis of what your argument is trying to demonstrate. It would be a bit like me saying that caves must be man-made by comparing caves to houses. The fact that houses are designed does not demonstrate that caves are designed. The argument is nonsensical.


Except we know trees occur naturally and grow in nature. We don't assume a person designed them in the same way or for the same reasons we assume a cell phone is designed. So your argument fails.


Nobody. They can be a result of natural processes. You need to demonstrate that that can't be true.


You need to demonstrate that. Your argument doesn't.

Nothing but strange speculations against the facts.
There should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why?
They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?
The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing but strange speculations against the facts.

You think "trees grow in nature" is a "strange speculation"?

Meanwhile, your argument that "everything can be accurately compared to cell phones" is a fact?

There should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why?

What are we talking about now? Since when were we debating common ancestry?

They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

This thread isn't about common ancestry. Where is this coming from?

There should be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?

I've already explained this in threads about evolution. Why are you bringing it up here?

The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

So, you've now completely dropped your initial "irrefutable" argument?

I guess that means I refuted it. Maybe I'm God?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You think "trees grow in nature" is a "strange speculation"?

Meanwhile, your argument that "everything can be accurately compared to cell phones" is a fact?


What are we talking about now? Since when were we debating common ancestry?


This thread isn't about common ancestry. Where is this coming from?


I've already explained this in threads about evolution. Why are you bringing it up here?


So, you've now completely dropped your initial "irrefutable" argument?

I guess that means I refuted it. Maybe I'm God?

The odds against all those missing chains of missing links still missing is very vast. So gradual evolution never happened and hopeful monsters (jumps) are impossible. So according to the fossil record, evolution could not have happened at all.
The very vast odds against holds for the fact that although all individuals of all species should have partially developed organs, etc if evolution is gradual, nut such is not the case.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The odds against all those missing chains of missing links still missing is very vast.

That's nonsense, and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why have you changed the topic?

So gradual evolution never happened and hopeful monsters (jumps) are impossible.

Again, we were discussing the idea of design vs. nature. Why have you now jumped to evolution?

So according to the fossil record, evolution could not have happened at all.

Nope, according to the fossil record, evolution is the only possible explanation. Not that it matters, because that's a different topic.

The very vast odds against holds for the fact that although all individuals of all species should have partially developed organs, etc if evolution is gradual, nut such is not the case.

Why are you derailing your own thread?

My guess is that you realise that your OP is now false and thus you have had to change the subject. So, do you admit that my argument refuted yours?

 

[LuisDantas]

You can't prove anything about the real world using mathematical induction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing but strange speculations against the facts.
There should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why?
They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?
The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

We have been over this. You couldn't justify your claim. Or even properly define your terms. You are fractally wrong here.

Why do you think that there should be "millions of chains of missing links"?

You need to prove that. But you won't be able to because you are wrong.

Why do you think that " all are missing"? They aren't. We have more than enough to confirm evolution.

Do you think that fossils are the only evidence for evolution? Oh wait, you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Here is something that you clearly don't know. Even if fossilization never happened we would still know that evolution is a fact. So why do you only talk about one small part of the evidence that you do not understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The odds against all those missing chains of missing links still missing is very vast. So gradual evolution never happened and hopeful monsters (jumps) are impossible. So according to the fossil record, evolution could not have happened at all.
The very vast odds against holds for the fact that although all individuals of all species should have partially developed organs, etc if evolution is gradual, nut such is not the case.

Well it is a good thing that they are not all missing then.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Nothing but strange speculations against the facts.
There should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why?
They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should be partially developed organs and systems in all individual creations that exist today and have eve existed. There are none. Why?
The odds against the above 2 facts are so vast that it is more than the odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence coming into being by natural processes.

There are countless "missing links." They aren't that hard to find. Aron Ra probably has entire playlists devoted to it. I love him to death but his videos can be a bit long, LOL.

Are you kidding? There are vestigial organs everywhere.

The problem with mindlessly parroting bad apologetics is that even a brief contact with reality, such apologetics would be immediately falsified.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

There are countless "missing links." They aren't that hard to find. Aron Ra probably has entire playlists devoted to it. I love him to death but his videos can be a bit long, LOL.

Are you kidding? There are vestigial organs everywhere.

The problem with mindlessly parroting bad apologetics is that even a brief contact with reality, such apologetics would be immediately falsified.

name one

 

[Subduction Zone]

name one

Are you particular as to what it is a link between?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Are you particular as to what it is a link between?

Please give a missing link if you can.
I bet you will use an assumption and a false one at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please give a missing link if you can.
I bet you will use an assumption and a false one at that.

Oh no, now you have to define "assumption" properly.

By the way, I do not use assumptions, that is what you do when you assume that your book of myths is true. I use scientific evidence and the scientific method. Now you can deny those, if you wish, but if that is the case you should not be using the fruits of the scientific method.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Oh no, now you have to define "assumption" properly.

By the way, I do not use assumptions, that is what you do when you assume that your book of myths is true. I use scientific evidence and the scientific method. Now you can deny those, if you wish, but if that is the case you should not be using the fruits of the scientific method.

Please use science to answer the following questions. One, you will use assumptions. Two, you will not be using science.
Why? Because you do not even have a valid answer to the origin of anything. Just circular reasoning.