Atheist or Agnostic

Except that you failed to derive any contradiction from our answers about the universe, and have repeatedly been shown to have misused mathematical induction.
Sure did. Assume no God the intelligent Creator of all things. That leads to many other contradictions including that living creatures do not exist. But they do. So the assumption of no God is false. Therefore God created all things. end proof
 
Sure did. Assume no God the intelligent Creator of all things. That leads to many other contradictions including that living creatures do not exist. But they do. So the assumption of no God is false. Therefore God created all things. end proof
You still haven't derived a contradiction. You're again just claiming you can. That's not a proof.
 
You still haven't derived a contradiction. You're again just claiming you can. That's not a proof.
Read the op.
Don't forget the irrefutable proof which used mathematical induction.
2 irrefutable proofs that God created all things to the computer simulation story.
 
Read the op.
The OP of this thread is a completely different topic.

Don't forget the irrefutable proof which used mathematical induction.
Already disproved here:

1. A candy bar is edible (n=1)
2. K candy bars are edible (n=k)
3. K+1 candy bars = K candy bars + 1 candy bar - both are edible, so K+1 candy bars are edible
4. The universe is more than K+1 candy bars
5. Therefore the universe is edible

This is not mathematical induction, and yet it is the exact same formal structure as your claimed proof.
 
The OP of this thread is a completely different topic.


Already disproved here:

1. A candy bar is edible (n=1)
2. K candy bars are edible (n=k)
3. K+1 candy bars = K candy bars + 1 candy bar - both are edible, so K+1 candy bars are edible
4. The universe is more than K+1 candy bars
5. Therefore the universe is edible

This is not mathematical induction, and yet it is the exact same formal structure as your claimed proof.
#4 is not the same as my proof. You have a false analogy. Why?
The universe is not all edible because it does not consist of just candy bars.

So you have not refuted my proof that God created all things through mathematical induction.
nor the one that used the law of non contradiction.
 
It is identical in formal structure, thus proving your proof invalid.


And the universe is not designed because it does not consist of just cell phones.
But it is not the form where you royally screwed up. You do not understand MI.

Here is your failed attempt at MI.
1. A candy bar is edible (n=1)
2. K candy bars are edible (n=k)
3. K+1 candy bars = K candy bars + 1 candy bar - both are edible, so K+1 candy bars are edible
4. The universe is more than K+1 candy bars
5. Therefore the universe is edible

#4 is not the same as my proof. You have a false analogy. Why?
The universe is not all edible because it does not consist of just candy bars.

So you have not refuted my proof that God created all things through mathematical induction.
nor the one that used the law of non contradiction.
 
Logical form is what determines validity. The error in my version is exactly the same as in yours.
And that is the error that you have and shows why you do not understand MI.
And it also shows that no one can refute my proof my MI or by using the law of non contradiction.
 
Back to reality.

Here is your failed attempt at MI.
1. A candy bar is edible (n=1)
2. K candy bars are edible (n=k)
3. K+1 candy bars = K candy bars + 1 candy bar - both are edible, so K+1 candy bars are edible
4. The universe is more than K+1 candy bars
5. Therefore the universe is edible

#4 is not the same as my proof. You have a false analogy. Why?
The universe is not all edible because it does not consist of just candy bars.

So you have not refuted my proof that God created all things through mathematical induction.
nor the one that used the law of non contradiction.

I have a few more coming.
 
Back
Top