The Truth: The Mathematical Proof of God, The Holy Trinity.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hmmmmmmmmm

Might or might not prove any three based concept..

Might or might not prove the holy trinity of sausage, mash and gravy.

Factfinder

An once of doubt.  https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/statsci/

Barnardot

@KINGIYK I think that anyone who is prepared to believe such a shallow and flawed calculation is deluded and should get the appropriate mental health treatment.

marke

@KINGIYK

The universe proves God.  Calculators cannot prove God.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey marke.

@marke

marke said:

@KINGIYK

The universe proves God.  Calculators cannot prove God.

We think that the Universe is.

And some people think that a GOD is.

Such is thought.

marke

@Fredsnephew

Imagine the astronomical odds against the possibility that DNA accidentally invented itself with no help from God.

KINGIYK

Factfinder said:

An once of doubt.  https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/statsci/

I would love to see those four Authors make an attempt this disproving this One.

KINGIYK

Barnardot said:

@KINGIYK I think that anyone who is prepared to believe such a shallow and flawed calculation is deluded and should get the appropriate mental health treatment.

The presence of coherence in the work flaws your assertion and stamps this work as the product of a sane mind.

KINGIYK

marke said:

@KINGIYK

The universe proves God.  Calculators cannot prove God.

Mathematics is the very fabric with which the universe was fashioned.

Barnardot

@KINGIYK ;I would love to see those four Authors make an attempt this disproving this One.

That's not going to happen because they don't have to disprove something that isn't proven in the first place.

And the entire amateurish calculation is so full of holes and flaws that it isn't even worth challenging anyway. If someone is so gullible and naive to believe such nonsense, it is their problem. 

Factfinder

@KINGIYK

I would love to see those four Authors make an attempt this disproving this One.

As irrelevant as that statement is, You've still proven nothing that can be disproven as you've established nothing but your blind faith. Your assertion was in reading your article of fiction we would be persuaded beyond any doubt. "Proven" was the exact word you used. Well your assertion remains unproven unless you can produce this elf god of yours or its dna.

Factfinder

@marke

Imagine the astronomical odds against the possibility that DNA accidentally invented itself with no help from God.

Yet the universe is here, nature is here and god is regulated to the ignorance of imagination. As true knowledge grows, childish beliefs fade, fact of reality.

I just don't have the mental diminished capacity it takes to believe in elf gods, sorry.

MayCaesar

So, where is the mathematical proof?

Let me make one clarification: it is impossible to mathematically prove anything about the Universe. Mathematics is a self-contained language investigating consequences of assumptions about abstract objects. Mathematics can be used to formulate and test theories in natural sciences such as physics, biology or chemistry, but the actual proof that something holds is accordance of the observations with the theory, not a mathematical argument.

Factfinder

@marke

The universe proves God.  Calculators cannot prove God.

Except for the fact the universe doesn't prove god and your remarks have no value, you might of been on to something there, NOT!

21CenturyIconoclast

@KINGIYK


KINGIYK; 

If you're not going to be a pseudo-christian "wussy," like the "4 Stooges of Bible Stu-pidity," in being RickeyHoltsclaw, Just_LYING, Marke, and Bogin, do you have the nerve to talk about your Trinity Doctrine of your brutal serial killer Jesus as god?  YES?   Don't be SCARED like the aforementioned "Bible. Stu-pids," okay?

I'll begin with these allegedly biblical truths to begin with shown below, where there will be more as this discussion furthers itself along:

So, what you are saying relative to the Trinity Doctrine is simply, there are three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.  However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. (To be continued).

Thus far as shown above, am I correct or not, whereas, is the comical view of the Trinity Doctrine by the pseudo-christian like YOU, is it a paradoxical and an illogical concept? Or, do you swallow the Triune Doctrine without any logical questioning of it?


EXPLAIN:









.

Stephen

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@KINGIYK


KINGIYK; 

If you're not going to be a pseudo-christian "wussy," like the "4 Stooges of Bible Stu-pidity," in being RickeyHoltsclaw, Just_LYING, Marke, and Bogin, do you have the nerve to talk about your Trinity Doctrine of your brutal serial killer Jesus as god?








.

   "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" said Rabbi David Kimhi - " therefore, with reference to this god whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, -  that part which you call the Father must be prior to that which you call Son,  for if they were always coexistent would have to be called twin brothers.

More over, if the Son is the Father what of  Mary getting pregnant?  Is this not an incestuous congregation? The Father has sex with the mother to conceive the Son who is also the Father.....so technically the Son, who is also the father, had sex with his mother"... 

It's  all very -  Oedipus, isn't it ? 

Factfinder

@Stephen

It's  all very -  Oedipus, isn't it ? 

Delusional works for me.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey marke.

marke said:

@Fredsnephew

Imagine the astronomical odds against the possibility that DNA accidentally invented itself with no help from God.

@marke

Describe your GOD.

And tell me what are the odds of that.


Though, just to very briefly reiterate my thoughts on the GOD principle.

A super intelligence is a feasible hypothesis.

Nonetheless, a super intelligence was/is still subject to the same universal processes as you or I.


So as things stand, the astronomical odds for the possibility of DNA evolving from particulate matter, were clearly odds on.

A one horse race, as it were.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Kingy

KINGIYK said:

marke said:

@KINGIYK

The universe proves God.  Calculators cannot prove God.

Mathematics is the very fabric with which the universe was fashioned.

@KINGIYK

Mathematics is a devised computational system that allows an intellectual device to calculate space, time and all events that occur within.

Fabric if you like.

Doesn't prove a specific cause though...You have to rely upon imagination for that.

marke

@KINGIYK ; 
Mathematics is the very fabric with which the universe was fashioned.

I like math and logic.  They support what the Bible says about God.

AI Overview

Learn more

According to current scientific understanding, calculating the precise statistical odds of life originating solely by chance is extremely difficult, as we lack complete knowledge of the exact mechanisms involved in abiogenesis (the process of life arising from non-living matter), but many scientists consider it highly improbable due to the complexity of even the simplest life forms, with estimates often reaching astronomical odds like "one in a trillion trillion" or even higher; essentially making it practically impossible based on our current understanding. 

Key points to consider:

• Complexity of life:

  Even the simplest living cell is incredibly complex, requiring a vast array of precisely arranged molecules to function, making the idea of such an arrangement occurring purely by chance highly unlikely. 
• Unknown mechanisms:

  Scientists are still researching the exact conditions and chemical reactions that could have led to the emergence of life, making accurate probability calculations difficult. 
• "Fine-tuned universe" argument:

  Some argue that the physical laws and constants of the universe seem remarkably fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life, further complicating the probability calculation. 

• New Equation Tallies Odds of Life Beginning - Space.com

  Jul 8, 2016 — "We don't know the mechanism whereby nonlife turns into life, so we have no way of estimating the odds … It may be one ...

  

  Space.com
• Probability and Order Versus Evolution

  Since every single living cell is infinitely more complex and ordered than this, it is impossible that even the simplest form of l...

  

  The Institute for Creation Research
• Are We Alone in the Universe? Revisiting the Drake Equation

  Oct 29, 2024 — The result? By applying the new exoplanet data to the universe's 2 x 10 to the 22nd power stars, Frank and Sullivan fi...

  

  NASA Science
• Show all

marke

@Factfinder ;
 I just don't have the mental diminished capacity it takes to believe in elf gods, sorry.

The origin of the universe cannot be explained apart from God yet atheists are determined to reject God even though the fact of the universe proves His existence.

marke

@MayCaesar ; Mathematics can be used to formulate and test theories in natural sciences such as physics, biology or chemistry, but the actual proof that something holds is accordance of the observations with the theory, not a mathematical argument.

Mathematics shows the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis, but die-hard atheists are not yet giving up on the possibility that some day atheists may finally come up with a scientific breakthrough to support their godless abiogenesis speculations.

AI Overview

Learn more

While some argue that abiogenesis is statistically improbable due to the complexity of life, claiming it is "statistically impossible" is not accurate as there are ongoing scientific investigations and experiments attempting to understand how life could arise from non-living matter under specific conditions, making it a complex topic with no definitive answer regarding its absolute impossibility; however, the exact mechanisms of abiogenesis remain largely unknown. 

Key points to consider:

KINGIYK

@21CenturyIconoclast ;21CenturyIconoclast said:

@KINGIYK


KINGIYK; 

If you're not going to be a pseudo-christian "wussy," like the "4 Stooges of Bible Stu-pidity," in being RickeyHoltsclaw, Just_LYING, Marke, and Bogin, do you have the nerve to talk about your Trinity Doctrine of your brutal serial killer Jesus as god?  YES?   Don't be SCARED like the aforementioned "Bible. Stu-pids," okay?

I'll begin with these allegedly biblical truths to begin with shown below, where there will be more as this discussion furthers itself along:

So, what you are saying relative to the Trinity Doctrine is simply, there are three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.  However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. (To be continued).

Thus far as shown above, am I correct or not, whereas, is the comical view of the Trinity Doctrine by the pseudo-christian like YOU, is it a paradoxical and an illogical concept? Or, do you swallow the Triune Doctrine without any logical questioning of it?


EXPLAIN:









.

You find the concept of The Trinity implausible because you try to use your finite, limited and bounded mind to comprehend the infinite, the boundless, the eternal, and by so doing, erroneously limit the Power of God. When expending your thoughts on the matters of God, you must start with a clean slate. Rid your mind of all ideas and begin with the knowledge that God is capable of being all things and doing all things. He wouldn't be God if He lacked such capability. The Proof in the web page listed above will aid your understanding of such a God. Have a go at it and testify thereafter.

MayCaesar

marke said:

Mathematics shows the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis, but die-hard atheists are not yet giving up on the possibility that some day atheists may finally come up with a scientific breakthrough to support their godless abiogenesis speculations.

Of course not: mathematics cannot show such a thing. What is true is that the mechanisms that have been proposed for abiogenesis seem improbable according to the modern understanding of chemistry - which suggests that we have a lot more to learn before we can propose a feasible mechanism that can be tested in the lab.

Seeing that something is unlikely or impossible according to current models is pretty much the status quo of science. This is what pushes it forward: we observe something that contradicts our theories, and then correct our theories so as to resolve the contradiction.

Science is not religion where if you disagree with something your local religious authority says, you are a sinner and all bets are off. In science the running assumption is always that all of our theories are temporary and will be improved in the future. We never stop our investigation. Because we are intellectually curious and our minds are free, not enslaved by dogma.

Factfinder

@marke

The origin of the universe cannot be explained apart from God yet atheists are determined to reject God even though the fact of the universe proves His existence.

Sure it can, nature did it. And there is evidence in nature that supports the idea. 

You say "my magical elf god did it" but have no evidence at all. The universe explained and your elf god is nowhere in sight.

marke

@MayCaesar ; What is true is that the mechanisms that have been proposed for abiogenesis seem improbable according to the modern understanding of chemistry - which suggests that we have a lot more to learn before we can propose a feasible mechanism that can be tested in the lab.

Hope springs eternal for atheists seeking for but not finding scientific support for godless speculations about the origin of life on earth.

marke

@Factfinder ; 
Sure it can, nature did it. And there is evidence in nature that supports the idea. 

Intolerant and inflexible atheist bigots claim they can see atheism in their research of God's miraculous nature but what the atheists think they see does not eliminate God like they would like.

Factfinder

@marke

Intolerant and inflexible atheist bigots claim they can see atheism in their research of God's miraculous nature but what the atheists think they see does not eliminate God like they would like.

Your desire to kneel at the crotch of a fictious masculine god forever doesn't make your childish claims true. One can not eliminate that which can not be established. Where is your fairytale elf god?

MayCaesar

marke said:

Hope springs eternal for atheists seeking for but not finding scientific support for godless speculations about the origin of life on earth.

The scientific support for abiogenesis having happened is overwhelming, and the fact that the very detailed mechanism by which it happened is unknown is something that sparks real hunger in anyone with intellectual curiosity and ability to do research in the field.

This is what distinguishes science from religion and other epistemological trash. In science, people ask questions and seek answers, and the more difficult the search is, the more fun it is. In religion, people give answers and dismiss questions, and the easier the answers are (supremely, "god did it"), the more comfortable it is.

Science is about seeking the truth. Religion is about placating one's ego.

marke

@MayCaesar ; 

Abiogenesis speculations without scientific support do not disprove the Biblical record of God's creation of original life on earth.

MayCaesar

@marke

Agreed. Fortunately, we are talking about informed guesses with serious scientific support - versus an old fantasy story with zero support. I know where I will place my bet. Choose wisely, Dr. Watson.

Factfinder

@marke

Abiogenesis speculations without scientific support do not disprove the Biblical record of God's creation of original life on earth.

Meaningless as your elf gods biblical record doesn't prove elf god fantasy creation stories of original life on earth as no scientific evidence supports that notion. 

MayCaesar

@marke seems to assume that there is some kind of a serious dispute between science and religion going on... There is not. It is the same kind of "dispute" as that between people who believe that storks deliver babies, and doctors delivering babies. The fact that someone disagrees with something does not imply that there is a dispute. More often than not it is just a bunch of weirdos believing in weird things for the sake of believing in weird things.

That is how Christianity also started out: a bunch of pilgrims in ragged clothes mumbling to themselves. Essentially a few homeless people who have come up with a smarter way to beg for food and money than just standing there with an extended hand. One Roman emperor saw something behind their ramblings, and then the entire Europe started rambling, plunging the Western civilization into the dark age for centuries to come.

Same is the case today. The only dispute between science and religion happens on the battlefield - ironically, using inventions of science. Religion has never produced a tank, but it has certainly caused a lot of tank shots.

marke

@MayCaesar ; 

Agreed. Fortunately, we are talking about informed guesses with serious scientific support - versus an old fantasy story with zero support. I know where I will place my bet. Choose wisely, Dr. Watson.

No, there is no significant scientific support for abiogenesis speculations and there is no significant scientific support that refutes the Biblical record of God's creation of original life on earth.

marke

@MayCaesar

Science does not significantly support the Biblical record any more than science gives atheists any significant support for refuting the Biblical record.

marke

@MayCaesar

Science does not significantly support the Biblical record any more than science gives atheists any significant support for refuting the Biblical record.

marke

@MayCaesar
Same is the case today. 

 Science neither proves nor disproves the Bible and science does not prove speculations that contradict the Bible.

MayCaesar

There is no astrophysicist who will even seriously consider the idea that the Earth came before the Sun, as the Bible claims. Science very firmly refutes Biblical claims. Say goodbye to your favorite fantasy story, mate: it is not coming back.

marke

@MayCaesar ;
 There is no astrophysicist who will even seriously consider the idea that the Earth came before the Sun, as the Bible claims. 

There is a wide gap between what atheists suppose and what they can scientifically prove.

MayCaesar

@marke

It is not atheists. You will find the same consensus among scientists in any Muslim-country, in any Christian-majority country, in the only Jewish-majority country, in any Buddhist-majority country, in any Hindu-majority country.

The finding that the Sun is older than the Earth is over two centuries old. Get off your farm, kid, and do some exploration and reading. Your cows can only teach you so much physics.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Sad thing is your opponent supposedly is 70 yrs old and studied the bible for 50 years. Has no evidence of support. I mean that alone tells you myths aren't true one would think.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Some people are naturally curious about the world and happy to evolve as thinkers, so they get wiser and more knowledgeable as they get older. Other people are rigid and narrow-minded, and they only get ingrained in their poor thinking patterns as they grow old... Sad fate indeed.

marke

@MayCaesar

It took secularists nearly 70 years to provide some evidence of the solar nutrino they invented to allow them to assume that nuclear reactions fuel the sun.  I don't think they can prove the sun is older than the earth.

MayCaesar

"Solar nutrino", oh my... Introducing new cool concepts right here. I like it!

Factfinder

@marke

 I don't think... 

Agreed.

21CenturyIconoclast

@KINGIYK

KINGIYK, the runaway from simple grade school questions to him!!!

YOUR EMBARRASSING RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION THAT I ASKED OF YOU!!!:   "You find the concept of The Trinity implausible because you try to use your finite, limited and bounded mind to comprehend the infinite, the boundless, the eternal, and by so doing, erroneously limit the Power of God."

What has your inept refutation shown above have to do with me asking you a question upon the Trinity Doctrine that you have comically swallowed in the 21st Century?!



KINGIYK, To relive your embarrassment again in front of the membership and Jesus as god (Hebrews 4:13), I asked you the following question relative to the Triune Doctrine that you are running away from because you are obviously not a  Christian!

GRADE-SCHOOL QUESTION ONCE AGAIN FOR YOU TO ADDRESS:  "So, what you are saying relative to the Trinity Doctrine is simply, there are three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.  However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. (To be continued)."

Thus far as shown above, am I correct or not, whereas, is the comical view of the Trinity Doctrine by the pseudo-christian like YOU, is it a paradoxical and an illogical concept? Or, do you swallow the Triune Doctrine without any logical questioning of it?"
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/201396/#Comment_201396

EXPLAIN:


For comedy relief, if you need help on answering my simple question above, that is only a start upon this topic with you, then call out to the ever so biblically dumbfounded RickeyHoltsclaw, Just_LYING, Marke, or Bogin to possibly help you!  Understood?  Yes?  LOL!


KINGIYK, TRUST ME, YOUR TOPIC OF THE TRIUNE IS NOT GOING AWAY WITH YOU WHATSOEVER, SO CHAIN UP!



.

21CenturyIconoclast

@marke

MARKE, YOUR REVEALING QUOTE OF ADDMITING THAT YOUR JESUS AS GOD IS A BLATANT MURDERER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN AND AS AN ABORTIONIST, PRAISE!!!: "Mathematics is the very fabric with which the universe was fashioned.I like math and logic.  They support what the Bible says about God."

Lets use the "logic" part of your quote above, where logically within the scriptures, the following verse below, as in your terms; "they support what the Bible says about god," praise Zeus!

"Hosea speaks the words of the lord herewith: “Samaria will be punished for turning against me. It will be destroyed in war— CHILDREN WILL BE BEATEN AGAINST THE ROCKS, and pregnant women WILL BE RIPPED OPEN.” (Hosea 13:16)

Marke, since you remain a primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age pseudo-christian, and since your brutal serial killer Jesus as god is biblically said to be ever loving (Romans 5:8) and forgiving (Luke 5:21), how can Jesus as god be these two entities when Jesus had INNOCENT little children dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped open, murdering said woman which equals Jesus as an ABORTIONIST!!!
EXPLAIN:


Membership: shhhhhhhh, Poor Marke has ran away from this topic many times and went into hiding never to address it like RickeyHoltsclaw has done as well, therefore, lets see this time if Marke can find his "big boy pants" since he has already said that logic supports what the Bible says about God, where you can't get anymore LOGICAL than the verse Hosea 13:18 shown above where Jesus MURDERS innocent children and fetus' within the wombs of women as an abortionist!!! 



.

marke

@MayCaesar  "Solar nutrino", oh my... Introducing new cool concepts right here. I like it!

Solar neutrino problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The solar neutrino problem concerned a large discrepancy between the flux of solar neutrinos as predicted from the Sun's luminosity and as measured directly. The discrepancy was first observed in the mid-1960s and was resolved around 2002.

21CenturyIconoclast

@marke

Marke, oh, oh, here you go again in running away from disturbing bible verses regarding your blatant and brutal serial killer god named Jesus!!!

Here is the post that you are running away from in the link below:
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/201524/#Comment_201524

What happened Marke, the logic that your god Jesus gave you can't handle the FACT that your Jesus is a brutal serial killer where you can't defend him and remain intelligent looking in the 21st Century?  Is that it BIBLE DUNCE?!


AS READILY SEEN AT ALL TIMES, "MARKE" CANNOT ACCEPT THAT HIS CHRISTIANITY IS JUST ANOTHER MYTH OF THE BRONZE AND IRON AGE, THEREFORE TO SAVE FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT, HE HAS TO RUN AWAY FROM BIBLICAL AXIOMS AS SHOWN ABOVE! ...... LOL!




.

21CenturyIconoclast

@marke

Marke, oh, oh, here you go again in running away from disturbing bible verses regarding your blatant and brutal serial killer god named Jesus!!!

Here is the post that you are running away from in the link below:
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/201524/#Comment_201524

What happened Marke, to afraid to follow your Jesus' words in the following passage relating to you not being able to RUN AWAY from Jesus' true words as blatantly shown in the link above?!  

JESUS SAID: "Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us." (Titus 2:7-8)
 


AS READILY SEEN AT ALL TIMES, "MARKE" CANNOT ACCEPT THAT HIS CHRISTIANITY IS JUST ANOTHER MYTH OF THE BRONZE AND IRON AGE, THEREFORE TO SAVE FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT, HE HAS TO RUN AWAY FROM BIBLICAL AXIOMS AS SHOWN ABOVE AND GO INTO HIDING AGAIN! ...... LOL!











.