You can see the universe, right? Everywhere you look, there is the universe right? Do you have infinite vision? Not likely, so if you can see the universe, since you don't have infinite vision, the universe is not infinite... Son, you really stepped in that one...
Oh he can try if he wants... Math exists within God, and since God is everywhere, so is math... Two dimensional thinking is never going to be able to grok anything beyond two dimensions...
One dimensional? LOL! Yes, the God dimension which is everything, including all possible separate but within God dimensions... Just like the math dimension, unlimited within its range yet limited to a specific range within limitless range-less God...
so after that convoluted trail of nonsense that you just went through we are back to "because the bible tells me so"as your evidence?
I need only show your work Veyron. It's inconsistent. Yet you found no corresponding logical qualification problem with Existence. Math, Nature, Existence all have the âabsolute truthâ quality so why separate them for no apparent reason? Math is logical proof of âabsolute truthâ, Nature is and Existence is. You agreed Existence but for no justifiable reason you exclude Math and Nature for having qualification status. That is an example of your inconsistency. Inconsistency is not proof of anything other than inconsistency. The existence of the Universe is proven. God is not. The existence of the Universe provides other proofs about the Universe. God does not exist even as the Universe does and God provides no proofs. The Universe renders up knowledge and corroborative evidence and associated information which gives understanding about how the Universe itself may have come into existence. God's existence is not proved as the Universe is, God provides no proofs, although the Universe does and God renders no confirmable knowledge or information about It's own existence as the Universe does. That is a clear 3 - 0 to the Universe. You are starting at the wrong end. Simple organisms become complex, they don't start complex. Complexity from simplicity. Why do you assume the Universe conspired to produce complex bio-chemical engineering? There is inconsistency in that. You have to show your work! You can count on one hand the names of the elementary particles the Universe started out with at Big Bang. Thanks to Science (and math) you can follow the combination of those particles from 100th of a second after Big Bang right up to where we are now. Starting from complex to basic is the wrong approach. Start from simple/basic start and notice how the evolution of elemental particles arrive at complex bio-chemical results. No sign of, nor any requirement anywhere, for purpose or an intelligent director. In your argument above, complex things need a more complex thing to design them. So what designed the more complex designer? And what designed that? Your argument is not an explanation. It is question begging. In a range of 0 to 1 Evolution can be said to have a mathematical probability of 1. The process of tiny incremental changes over many generations which eventually develop into complex organisms by the best changes being those that can survive in the environment around them and reproduce. Thereby passing on those changes to the next generation. A giant mathematical probability is therefore totally unnecessary . All known life forms on earth, plant and animal, consist of the same single basic building block. The cell. There are no exceptions. From the same single basic start through to complex. Your mathematical reality is no such thing. Your argument has no legs. There is no intellectual honesty in the denial of science which shows how something from nothing works. Deductive reasoning is a fundamental of math. [0+0] = 0 is not proven to represent the Universe. Reason Deductively how it is so... "Show your work." ! Feynman shows in math and science how something comes from nothing. Your math[0+0] = 0 ( omg you must be joking surely?) does not disprove Feynman. No, you are doing no such thing. Your math does not show the Universe began from nothing. But even if it did, 0+0=0 is not the math the Universe itself shows is possible for something coming into existence from nothing. You can ignore the math and the science which does that, but it won't make it go away. Agreed. We can both use deductive reasoning to confirm the answer as "yes". It's reasonable then to now use that same deductive reasoning which confirms that answer "yes" is true, to similar questions. You cannot know that. It is not possible to furnish information of same or similar quality to question 2 as it is to question 1. Therefore you will have to supply overwhelming evidence to reason the answer "No" to that question. You're now deviating from the course where reliable and substantial answers can be justifiably made as in question 1. For instance Science demonstrates how Vacuum Fluctuation occurs. Something from nothing. For that reason you cannot therefore know the Universe did not "self-instantiate its own existence" without dismissing out of hand some of the same deductive reasoning which answers the first question with a "yes". Again you are deviating away from deductive reasoning which confirmed the answer in question 1. The Universe is understood to be expanding. You cannot know at this stage that it is not expanding infinitely. That is as infinite as infinite gets. Every time it expands, it would expand again. Infinitely. Your answer does not conform to the same standard used in question 1. Agreed. Would that be yet another absolute truth popping up? What do you mean by function? If you mean one element of the Universe or a given set of elements is associated or relates or combines with another element or set of elements, then yes. If you mean the procedure is purposely directed then No, the universe does not exhibit a purpose. That much can be established the same way answer 1 is. You have stated you intend to use logic and math to prove how your "proffer" is not faulty. It scored only 2 out of 5 when using the very fundamentals of both logic and math - deductive reasoning - essential to make your case initially stand up. It doesn't stand up so your claim that it's indestructible is plain wrong. Your whole argument is that there must be a Creator for the Universe to exist. Therefore, by your "math" and by your argument, there must be a Creator for the Creator to exist. Infinite regress. In the end, all Intelligent Design/Creationism will end up right there.
Let's play then but.....no, whoa right there. You are wrong from the outset. I defined Gilbert as being whatsoever God is +1. I also defined God as your invisible friend and Gilbert as mine. So if God is infinite and as God+1 = Gilbert, and Just as fractions have the same infinity and decimals have a larger infinity ,as Cantor established, so Gilbert has a larger infinity to God. There, mathematical proof for Gilbert to boot! So I've done nothing other than mathematically re-state God does not exist? Then I rest my case. I think you have the problem Veyron and the problem is Gilbert! And by the way I did state how Gilbert would anyway come into existence by +1, more than God. Then neither does your math work, for if God is not imaginary then neither is Gilbert. Thank you. The if youâve proved anything it's that if Gilbert is Null then so must God be. All your "math" , all your explanations all your typing, actually do nothing to explain or resolve that question begging - infinite regress problem - raised by it all. Could we deal with that first please, before you construct any further non mathematical non scientific Creationist assumptions about God's existence? Many thanks.