Quote from stu:
There is no point of fact about an existence of God. Infinite or otherwise.
I've posted a small mathematical proof that argues otherwise, thus far, with zero mathematical rebuttal.
Quote from stu:
Simply stating "N" instantiates a fact, does not mean "N" does any such thing.
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.
Quote from stu:
The Universe exists but you cannot show how God exists let alone how God could be infinite.
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?
Quote from stu:
But it can be shown how the Universe exists and how math can demonstrate infinite.
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.
Quote from stu:
I have a pencil on my desk that can easily prove its existence infinitely better than God ever does.
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.
Quote from stu:
By definition God cannot logically be infinite and omnipotent.
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.
Quote from stu:
A thing that cannot do something cannot be all powerful.
That which is Infinite, has the power to do all things.
Quote from stu:
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.
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.
Quote from stu:
If you can have an imaginary friend called God, then I can have an imaginary friend too. Mine is called Gilbert.
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.
Quote from stu:
This is expressed as God+1 = Gilbert.
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.
Quote from stu:
An equation better deducted than your 0+N= this that or the other , and far more elegant I would say.
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.
