Site-Wide Activity

_Robert_ wrote:
I consider it just a mythological motif, many predating Jesus. Egypt’s Osiris, Greece’s Dionysus, the Near Eastern Tammuz/Adonis, and Hinduism’s Ganesha were all resurrected as well.

You could have your work cut out for you by formulating a proof for Osiris, Dionysus or Ganesha, that is empirically and mathematically roote…[Read more]

@King Iyk –  I reject Trinitarianism, not because I am an atheist but because I have studied the Bible. The word “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. The fully formed doctrine of ‘one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons’ as described to me in Catholic school, is not explicitly stated in either the Old or New Testamen…[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

Here is the magic: A + B + C + D = A, using modulus arithmetic. It’s beyond circular stupidity.

You will respond with further supposed objections. B…

[Read more]

@Robert – you’re assuming that the Bible is proposed as proof of God’s existence, when that may be too much burden.  Maybe the Bible is not supposed to make sense, but God does.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Proof for Dracula.

Excellent. Now endeavor to obtain an explicit affirmation that your proof is grounded in empirical and mathematical certainty, and that it is both accurate and valid—just as mine did from every artificial intelligence developed by atheist scientists.

If you are unable to, you should ask yourself w…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
The thing is, it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, by logic or any other means, in this world we have. Evidence would be nice; failing that, it’s unprovable either way.

It’s not an atheists’ task to disprove a claimed god, but when contradictory claims are made about a god, that particular version of tha…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

Here is the magic: A + B + C + D = A, using modulus arithmetic. It’s beyond circular stupidity.

You will respond with further supposed objections. But one thing you w…[Read more]

The thing is, it’s impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, by logic or any other means, in this world we have.  Evidence would be nice; failing that, it’s unprovable either way.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

Exactly. Here this pattern is supposed to teach us that circular logic proves itself, LOL. That’s so fucking brill…[Read more]

I am going to called this “Rube Goldberg” theology. Finding a pattern after the fact doesn’t explain anything. Your post-hoc pattern mining can make any number appear special if you look long enough.

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

DeepMind has spoken. The answer’s 42.

In the mid 2020’s we find theists doing all sorts of backflips to find evidence for their magic cults. Typically, it’s the “something had to c…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Divine significance to Digital Root Mechanics is often characterized as pseudomath or numerology by the scientific community.

DeepMind has spoken.  The answer’s 42.

_Robert_ wrote:
Not impressed with your silly AI. You can get AI to say anything if you ask the right way.

Then do it:

Do the same.

Produce any proof of God; from any worldview; that claims empirical and mathematical certainty rather than faith, symbolism, or metaphor.

Then:

• Formalize it into axioms, Define its operations, State its fal…[Read more]

King Iyk wrote:
the validity of the proof

Can you run it past a “theorem prover”?  I’m told they exist, for proving mathematical theorems.

Have you published this rehashed nonsense in a real physics journal for peer review by secular scientists? Your god(s) are not supposed to be a math model or logical construct. They are claimed to interact in physical ways. Causing plagues, killing babies, you know all the fun stuff.

Not impressed with your silly AI. You can get AI to say…[Read more]

The brightest human minds created an intelligence system (AI) that attested to the validity of the proof. I was able to get all prominent AI to attest to the validity of this proof. Strip this proof of its unique claim: the only empirical, mathematical demonstration of God, formalized and attested by all AI with Q.E.D., grounded in history’s i…[Read more]