#### Tetsugaku

##### Well-known member

We disagree and think your proofs are terrible.I already proved it false. You need to move one. Evolution and billions is dead and gone.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date

We disagree and think your proofs are terrible.I already proved it false. You need to move one. Evolution and billions is dead and gone.

Terrible to you because I proved stupid evolution and billions of years false with those 2 infallible proofs.We disagree and think your proofs are terrible.

Lol. No you didn't and no it isn't.I already proved it false. You need to move one. Evolution and billions is dead and gone.

Cannot refute Them.Lol. No you didn't and no it isn't.

They have been over and over.Cannot refute Them.

try if you can.They have been over and over.

Wow what scholarship.They have been over and over.

They are irrefutable.

One used the law of non contradiction. The other mathematical induction.

Except that you failed to derive any contradiction from our answers about the universe, and have repeatedly been shown to have misused mathematical induction.One used the law of non contradiction. The other 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 proofExcept that you failed to derive any contradiction from our answers about the universe, and have repeatedly been shown to have misused mathematical induction.

You still haven't derived a contradiction. You're again just claiming you can. That's not a 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

Read the op.You still haven't derived a contradiction. You're again just claiming you can. That's not a proof.

Don't forget the irrefutable proof which used mathematical induction.

2 irrefutable proofs that God created all things to the computer simulation story.

The OP of this thread is a completely different topic.Read the op.

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

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 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.

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.#4 is not the same as my proof.

And the universe is not designed because it does not consist of just cell phones.The universe is not all edible because it does not consist of just candy bars.

But it is not the form where you royally screwed up. You do not understand MI.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.

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.But it is not the form where you royally screwed up. You do not understand MI.

And that is the error that you have and shows why you do not understand MI.Logical form is what determines validity. The error in my version is exactly the same as in yours.

And it also shows that no one can refute my proof my MI or by using the law of non contradiction.

Nope.Wow what scholarship.

They are irrefutable.

One used the law of non contradiction. The other mathematical induction.

Nope.Wow what scholarship.

They are irrefutable.

One used the law of non contradiction. The other mathematical induction.

Back to reality.Nope.

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.