Mathematical Proof of God?

[Kharisym]

Interesting, i thought people hade given up on white holes decades ago

lol. I don't have the paper (though its probably on arxiv), but I wonder if he's just doing philosophical self cuddles or if he's the last person on the planet who still holds out hope for white holes.

 

[ChristineM]

lol. I don't have the paper (though its probably on arxiv), but I wonder if he's just doing philosophical self cuddles or if he's the last person on the planet who still holds out hope for white holes.

I truly though they had been handed over to sci-fi authors years ago.

Still if i can get the paper i will give it a read

 

[Kharisym]

I truly though they had been handed over to sci-fi authors years ago.

Still if i can get the paper i will give it a read

Its a 2022 so its prepublish. Here it is on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.03183.pdf

 

[ppp]

Read the reference. No other apologetic was cited in the articles to support the proof of the existence of God.

The reference does not look like proof of what you say to me. If you cannot articulate the connection then there is no point in your replying.

 

[ChristineM]

Its a 2022 so its prepublish. Here it is on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.03183.pdf

Yes i got it thanks

 

[Sheldon]

Speak for yourself. I understand. Don't project your ignorance off on me.

Oh I think that would be an irony overload.

 

[Sheldon]

I already addressed this and as far as im concerned, what I said stands.

No you didn't, and I don't care what you think stands. If you can't understand a simple word definition then your strident bombast is laughable, as of course strident bombast usually is. A beginning, by definition requires the existence of space time.

beginning
noun

1. the point in time or space at which something begins.

 

[Sheldon]

Again, I already addressed this.

Again, no you didn't, your strident fallacious bombast is not addressing anything. Your posts have a superficial facile understanding of first cause arguments. Risible really...

 

[Sheldon]

You already admitted that time began to exist

No I didn't, I invite anyone to see I have precisely stated several times that a beginning when time itself does not exist, is a rational contradiction. You seem to be struggling to grasp this.

 

[Sheldon]

We dont need to see outside of the physical universe to know that the cause of physical reality cannot itself be a product of physical reality.

This is elementary school logic.

And yet you persist in claiming the opposite, ironic really. You clearly don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the KCA, though that was clear from the first of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Now, you can believe things pop into being uncaused out of nothing, but i don't have enough faith to believe that nonsense.

Your desperation cannot be more manifest than when you make up straw man claims. then falsely assign them to me. It is you, and not me, who claims something can exist ex nihilo. Would you like a quote where you claimed your imaginary sky fairy did just this, it's in this thread?

 

[Sheldon]

I stand by those claims.

Good, it would be tedious to have you deny those logical fallacies you asserted.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon
Like your contradiction that something can have a beginning even though time didn't exist, nice own goal.

I already addressed this. Your anger and smugness isnt allowing you to gain the correct reading comprehension.

No you didn't, I am not angered at all, and there will likely not be a pane of glass left in your glass house if you start accusing others of smugness. almost as funny as your angry ad hominem about reading comprehension.

Physician heal thyself...

 

[Sheldon]

Or, maybe the computer popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Why not?

Or maybe we have objective evidence for computers being designed, and created. What a lame version of Paley's watchmaker fallacy, another theistic non starter you seem unable to understand.

 

[Sheldon]

Professor Dawkins? Who is that??

I don't understand the question sorry?

 

[Sheldon]

Ohh, I remember...isnt that the guy who has been ducking WLC in a debate for over a decade?

Oh I don't think WLC could have convinced RD to share a stage if WLC had a thousand years, though it's hilarious you think RD needed to duck someone who has no scientific credentials whatsoever, and who has the philosophical prowess of an angry teenage boy. It does explain some posts on here, as some seem to be modelling their guff on WLC's risible apologetics.

 

[Sheldon]

Whatever happened to the fella? I haven't heard from him since John Lennox gave him an intellectual spanking in their debate.

Not the debate I watched, but then theists seem to enjoy fantasies where they ignore reality and facts, so I am not surprised when they misrepresent facts so hilariously.

 

[Sheldon]

Not all Christian theists are young earth creationist..

No indeed, and they don't all use such laughable straw man fallacies.

So what we have here is a failed "gotcha" moment.

Indeed, but someone seems to have missed the irony.

Hahaha

Bless...

 

[Sheldon]

Lets trade one superstition for another..

Well that's up to you of course, but I have no time for superstition.

My superstition: A dead man, by the power of God, was resurrected from the dead in a physical body.

Well great, at least you recognise it is superstition.

I like my superstition

Yes, the crutch of superstition does seem to have some appeal to theists.

 

[Sheldon]

But the difference is, the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense.