Intelligent Design is not creationism

Sorry, for not elaborating on that factor. The letter "N" is nothing more than my way of instantiating the use of a positive value strictly for the purpose of demonstrating that under the rules of our Universe, regardless of the mathematical operator used against zero [0], you always end up with the absolute value of zero, which is zero itself. So, you can re-write "N" as "I" if you will and simply call it, "Infinite." Of, course - not using the mathematical symbol for infinite, but only for the purposes of illustrating the differential between that which is infinite and that which is not. I hope that clears it up a bit.

No. Not even mathematically. I would never be so arrogant as to attempt to place limits on God. God is infinite, the Universe is not. So, the reason for my using [0+0] = 0, is to prove mathematically:

1) The Universe had to have a source and origin.

2) Only that which Infinite and Omnipotent could (mathematically) be the source and origin of that which is finite and limited.

In that, there are no boundary layers for God - thus, no limitations as we know them.

Mathematically, incorrect. Simply solve for "N" to get your answer and re-balance the equation. "N," ends up on one side of the equation standing alone and fully intact.

The point of fact here, is the Infinite existence of God. My use of "N" merely to instantiate that fact is really nothing more than a way of showing His Infinite reality.

Thus, from the Infinite, all things flow and that which does not exist has simply not be created by the Infinite.

 

Veyron,
There is no point of fact about an existence of God. Infinite or otherwise.

Simply stating "N" instantiates a fact, does not mean "N" does any such thing.

The Universe exists but you cannot show how God exists let alone how God could be infinite.
But it can be shown how the Universe exists and how math can demonstrate infinite .

I have a pencil on my desk that can easily prove its existence infinitely better than God ever does.

By definition God cannot logically be infinite and omnipotent. A thing that cannot do something cannot be all powerful.
Were there an infinite God, so that nothing could be added to it, then that is a limit - adding something would be impossible. God could not do it.

If you can have an imaginary friend called God, then I can have an imaginary friend too. Mine is called Gilbert.
Whatever your imaginary friend can do, mine can always do one more.
My imaginary friend is always one more powerful, one more greater than yours.

This is expressed as
God+1 = Gilbert.

An equation better deducted than your 0+N= this that or the other , and far more elegant I would say.

 

Where, is the inconsistency? You have to show your work.

But, that is not what the respondent said. The respondent did not say that "absolute truth exists implicitly and without qualification." The respondent said, "in mathematics and in nature." That is a logical qualification placed on the existence of absolute truth.

Unlike the Unbeliever and/or the Atheist, I'm not bound by the constraints of having no proof for what I believe in. There is more proof for the existence of God, than there is for modern science's theory of how the Universe came into existence. How much fantasy of thought does it require to believe that the Universe came into existence by way of random cosmic permutation (sequencing)? That's laughable, yet that is exactly the intellectual platform that modern science would have us stand on for the understanding of how we got here.

Recognize the complexity of the human cell? The human cell itself is so far beyond mere “complex design” than ALL combined technology mankind has ever produced, since he showed up on planet earth would never be enough to replicate it..

How did the Universe conspire to produce such and complex bio-chemical engineering masterpiece (on its own) out of total cosmic chaos after the "Big Bang" without any purpose behind the process, whatsoever? How do you derive a complex system of function, without purpose preceding its existence?

Have you looked at the mathematical probability for the formation of our solar system coming randomly out of cosmic chaos as a resultant permutation (factor) of the "Big Bang?" Or, what about the mathematical probability for placing a bomb under an Oak tree, allowing it to explode and then having a two (2) story, 7,000 square foot house randomly appear by the side of a lake with perfect southern exposure, all by chance? The probability of that house being formed out of such an explosion is at least 10 to the 80th power. And, that's just an inanimate object. The statistical probability for a single human cell to have redesigned its way into forming a fully corporeal/human being, is virtually not worth writing on a piece of paper, because the number of zeros in the Power would be embarrassingly to large to even contemplate.

I would argue that in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one might at least remain intellectually honest enough, long enough to admit that our Universe could not have possibly come into existence through mere random chance. The mathematics simply doesn’t bare that out. Yet, we do exist. And, that brings us right back to the reality that [0+0] = 0. Until the Unbeliever and/or the Atheist deals with that mathematical reality, he will forever be stuck in a Universe that can't possibly exist, that being the one he made up in his own mind.

Really? Well, ever hear of Occam's Razor?

All I'm doing is removing the logical wiggle room mathematically for anyone intellectually honest enough to accept it and then merely applying the very same rules that science uses when it wants to take the next logical step in its theory.

Funny, how the Unbeliever/Atheist hangs their hat on Occam's Razor and Science. But, when Occam's Razor and Science/Mathematics is used to demonstrate the probabilistic impossibility that our Universe and the life it contains could not have possibly come out of unintended consequences and random cosmic arrangement, they no longer want to apply their own tools of scientific proof. That’s a little rich.

Occam's Razor, tells us that I can do exactly what any scientist does after making his offer of proof. If the proof is sound, then the application of Occam’s Razor is the next logical step. That’s all I’ve done here.

Thus, if [0+0] = 0 and [0+N] = N (where, "N" represents a positive value), then obviously, N represents a very unique Domain without boundary. A unique mathematical singularity (N) that contains all other values. Apply Occam's Razor, and by logical definition you end up with no other possibility for the instantiation of our Universe's source and origin, other than having its existence owed to the Infinite Singularity, God.

Thus, creation becomes a mathematical certainty and not merely a theory.

I just did. The mathematics is profoundly simple. You asked for "conciseness." Well, there it is. Now, debunk the mathematics that I've outlined here. Let's see a mathematical explanation that debunks the proof that I outlined here, please?

Merely saying so does not make it so, remember – that’s what you wrote a while back. Let's see the math the breaks the logic?

Does the Universe exist? Yes.
Did the Universe self-instantiate its own existence? No.
Is the Universe Infinite? No.
Does the Universe exhibit intelligence? Yes.
Does the Universe exhibit function? Yes.

If the Universe is set to a positive value let’s use “U1” and you apply the results from these five questions to “U1” and then solve for the source or origin of “U1”, what do you logically end up with? Answer: That “U1” must have a source and origin extending outside of itself.

How? Loop-back to the very first question about “U1” in the list above which is: Does the Universe exist? If it is [absolutely] true that the Universe does exist and all other answers to the remaining five questions are correct (for which they are), then that can only leave one possible scenario for the source and origin of our Universe; that is was created. It would be mathematical suicide to conclude otherwise.

If not, then [0] = U1 (which is false). Trying to argue that U1 (a positive vale) can be derived from the absolute value of nothingness, is not a very wise thing to attempt in public. The instantiation of U1, implies a source and origin for said instantiation. Therefore, it U1 declares as its absolute Domain everything in our known Universe, then our known must have been fully contained by something greater than AND outside all possible subsets of U1. That demands a mathematical Constant, by definition, which is Infinite. The process of instantiating that which cannot self-instantiate requires that which is Infinite. The finite, cannot produce as a byproduct the Infinite. Thus, [U1-U1] = 0. So, N, must reside outside of U1 as the source and origin of U1’s instantiation.


This is why the question about absolute truth is so critically important. Why? Because the absolute truth about the Universe is what? Answer: That it exists! If it exists, then it had to have been created, because it cannot create itself.

Really?

I've offered you, albeit extremely simple, a mathematical proof that has not yet been shown to be false. Therefore, continuing to argue against that which has been proven mathematically, is a bit odd for the Unbeliever, is it not?

What's the other alternative? That nothingness brought forth everything in existence? How much proof is there for that theory, mathematical or otherwise?

Nor, was it ever intended to do such a thing.

What's been given here is what I specified in my very first post on this subject: “That logical evidence does exist for the proof that God exists and that God created the Universe.” I've given mathematical/logical proof. All I’m asking for is similar rebuttal.

None was ever taken.

 

And, this is mathematical rebuttal?

Rebut the math, not me. I'm holistically unimportant, here.

Find flaws in the mathematics and then post it. Until then, I've shown logical and mathematical proof that God exists AND that He must have created this Universe.

This is where it always ends up with the Atheist - personal attacks mixed a non-adherence to the question put forth.

All I'm asking for is a mathematical counter argument. If you make one that is logical, I'll admit the same.

 

I've posted a small mathematical proof that argues otherwise, thus far, with zero mathematical rebuttal.

Occam's Razor, used by science, dictates otherwise. Read the proof again. Given, was the logical extension for the absolute mathematical need for the Constant, Infinite.

Supporting a theory that allows for the proposition that a thing, incapable of self-instantiation, is likewise dually capable of existing absent a source & origin for its existence, is like trying to argue that you exist, absent the source and origin or your parents. No one in the right or left mind would ever make that claim.

Look down at the ground. See a cigarette butt laying on the sidewalk. It does not take much intellectual capacity to understand that it has a particular construct associated with its existence. If half smoked, it contains half of its tobacco, all of its filter, most of its color and trim and possibly part of its logo. You don't have to take the partially smoked cigarette to know that it had both function and purpose.

Mathematically, both Function and Purpose are a subset of Intelligence. How could they possibly be anything else! If Design is the primary Domain of both Function and Purpose, then mathematically the cigarette had to have both a source and origin, which by logical extension demands a Creator, as the cigarette cannot self-instantiate, nor can it provide its own function and/purpose.

Mathematically, it plainly looks like this: [0+0] = 0.

Does the Cigarette Butt exist? Yes.
Did the Cigarette Butt self-instantiate its own existence? No.
Is the Cigarette Butt Infinite? No.
Does the Cigarette Butt exhibit intelligence? Yes.
Does the Cigarette Butt exhibit function? Yes.

Then, by definition, an Infinite constant is required to explain the existence of the Cigarette Butt. So, if the Cigarette Butt is explained this way, then so to is the Universe.

This is not rocket science. This is extremely easy to understand. I've removed the logical wiggle room leaving only ego in the way of understanding.

Really?

Then explain where U1 comes from in light of the five questions above that must be answered in order to determine source and origin of the Universe which you just said does exist?

Are any of the answers to the five questions above incorrect? If so, which one(s) are in error. If non are in error (and none of them are) then you must account for failure to self-instantiate in any mathematical paradigm you attempt to apply that explains the source and origin of U1.

Can you do that, please?

But, in your lost post you said that both math and science does not exist. Now, you are saying that "math can demonstrate" how the Universe exists.

Furthermore, you continue to argue against modern scientific principle. You just said that the Universe is infinite. It is not and has already been proven as such. Please post a link to any serious Cosmologist today that clings to Hoyle? If the Universe is Infinite, that means it never had a beginning. In such a Universe, you would find an even distribution of cosmic events throughout its entire span - we do not. For example, we do not have the even distribution of matter in the Universe. We do not have the even distribution of super massive stars in the Universe. We do not have the even distribution of lower level radiation throughout the Universe and so on, and so on. The problems with the theory of Steady State are well documented. So, an Infinite Universe cannot be the answer and both mathematics and physics proves.

Yet, you never put forth the mathematics that shows how. All I am asking for, is some mathematical proof of what you say. Put forth a mathematical equation or proportionality that reveals the truth about what you argue, instead of merely making the argument with words.

I'd like to see the unbreakable math behind the Infinite Pencil Theory, or IPT.

Excuse me? Did I miss a previous post where you gave a differential between Infinite and Omnipotent?

Infinite by definition means also Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent. All powerful. All knowing. In all places at the same time. The only thing can possibly instantiate all other things, would by logical extension have to be Infinite. Else, it would not be the creator of all thing. Why? Because that which can be created can only be created by that which was never created and has always existed.

That which is Infinite, has the power to do all things.

He already has. Its is called U1! What do you think the Universe is, if not an extension of Himself? Mathematically, there are Infinite is limitless! So, how can you say that an "Infinite God," therefore, has "limits?"

That is circular logic.

The Infinite = zero limit.
The Infinite = limit.

Statement = Circular.

The difference here is that my so-called "imaginary friend" comes with a completely logical mathematical proof for being Infinite, while Gilbert, the created one, does not.

Distinction, defined an coupled to reality.

OK. Let's play out this math. But, before we do, let's recognize that you never defined either God or Gilbert as being Infinite. In other words, you never made any declarations about what they are - therefore, you math will never resolve. But, let's continue anyway, shall we:

God + 1 = Gilbert

Now, solve for Gilbert to obtain:

God - God + 1 = Gilbert - God

1 = Gilbert

Or, just Gilbert without God.

So, you've done nothing mathematically other than re-state our position that God does not exist. The problem with this is that you have not stated how Gilbert came into existence in the first place. Nor, have you stated how you came into existence given that you created Gilbert in your own imagination, which means that the imagined came from a source yet undefined. In mathematics, we call that Null. Which means your math does not work.

Now, I did not merely say it is so, I proved it solving for your Gilbert mathematically.

Your equation came out Null. If you consider Null equations to be "eloquent," then that's fine with me. However, it does not explain how Gilbert, an imaginary figure of that which was also never defined in the equation (you), ever came into existence.

If you wish to claim that Gilbert is now Infinite and that Gilbert created you, then that is a horse of another color and would then turn our attention to locating proofs for Gilbert having created you. At that point, we could then compare the empirical, historical manuscript evidence that Gilbert left behind, to prove his existence AND that he created you.

Now, are you willing to set Gilbert as infinite? If not, then I have just demonstrated your Gilbert Theory to be Null.

Either way, the proof for Gilbert and his having created you, is going to come to the surface, one way or the other.

 

no... and it is infinite btw... regardless of the strain that puts on "modern theories"... it just bounced one more time a couple eons back... {yawn}

 

I am not sure what you are saying Veyron, so this is too advanced reading for me. You say god is infinite, and that is why your math is right. Then stu is saying god can not be infinite and omnipotent. That is true because if god is infinite that is saying he can not be finite. If god is omnipotent, then god could make himself finite if that god want to do that. So in math can infinate change to finate because someone wants that, or more likely because infinate was not true in the beginning?

 

hoyle, steady state have been buried alright... standard model's next... smellin the coffee yet peabrain... an infinite universe does by no means imply nor require even distributions of anything...

 

That is true because if god is infinite that is saying he can not be finite.

Who said God can't be both infinite and finite simultaneously.

God by definition is not bound by the limits of human logic, human thinking, space, time, etc...

LOL!

 

to rebut anything, i'd need to see some proper maths from u first peabrain... just jotting a few symbols on e-paper and powdering with a bit of farty semantics doesn't cut it... only works with ID/C fodder i guess... the litmus test