Mathematical Proof of God?

[rational experiences]

Another teaching law.

Natural.

Fallout science had unnaturally caused as void vacuum space had held frozen burning sun mass. Law statement.

So you ask is fallout a law?

No.

Reasoned.

As it is was stopped as it hadn't existed first. Therefore it's not law.

Freeze law saviour of God holding.

So light sacrificed of clear earth immaculate heavens was fixed. Natural order law natural light.

Reasoned only by living humans in the living human natural experience.

Natural law applied to everything.

Science by human choice man agreed tried to impose machine reactive laws upon natural law.

Was the legal review. Had changed natural law by man's choice. Hence it was illegal against highest greatest. Holding.

Given in law as legal had to impose status ....position god. Why God as one can be anything in its highest natural single stated position.

So one or single states had to be seen by human men. So they could own no argument in law about what position one meant. In the one self natural human life. Looking at one greatest highest any of all things.

Hence if you gave it a name as a word you were not legally allowed to alter it.

Therefore only alchemical built implements were allowed as the lesser change to gods body.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the same way we know (with high degree of certainty ) that the universe originated

The space-time continuum came into being somehow, yes.
But again: causality is a phenomena IN the universe.
You can't use phenomenon IN the universe and pretend they apply without the universe.

It's like trying to talk about biological metabolism in a setting where life doesn't even exist.

But you will not offer a fourth alterative

I don't require alternatives for strawmen.

, so unless you do provide another option the trichology will be taken as real.

BLATANT argument from ignorance.

No, all the alternatives that I provided are happy to accept that time is part of the universe.

Then they are self-contradictory, since they invoke temporal conditions.

But offered no solution to the point that I raised.

Fallacies don't require solutions. They only require pointing out.

“it doesn’t matter if the universe (including time) had a cause or if it´s eternal or if time is just man made subjective concept in all 3 cases simultaneous cause and effect have to be a reality.

Bare assertion.

And given that you offered no 4th alternative nor refuted any of the 3 points my point remains solid and valid.

Again, one does not require alternatives to fallacies and mistakes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody is denying that there is solid and conclusive evidence for the claim that humans and bananas have a common ancestor

All I am saying is that the claim is not falsifiable.

/facepalm

If there is evidence, then it is falsifiable.
Evidence is data that matches testable predictions of a hypothesis.

When there are testable predictions, there is falsifiability.

You can't have one without the other.

And the fact that you didn’t offered an example of something that would falsify that claim strongly suggest that I am right

If genomic comparison between both would reveal violations of the predicted nested hierarchy of genetic common ancestry, the claim would be falsified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't read page 2 through 12, so please forgive me if this is a meaningless response, but...

The idea of humans and bananas sharing a common ancestor is a conclusion from the idea of universal common ancestry--that all life on the planet shares a common ancestor. To prove that bananas and humans do not share a common ancestor, you must show that one or the other is not part of the family tree of this planet. A secret ancient laboratory with notes on the original creation of bananas, or finding evidence of bananas on another planet prior to their emergence on our planet would disprove this hypothesis of common descent for humans and bananas.

May I invite you to my secret banana laboratory?

None of that is actually required.

The idea of common ancestry makes testable predictions concerning genomic comparison. When things have genetic common ancestry, then that would be visible in comparative genomics as it would reveal nested hierarchies. If those nested hierarchies wouldn't exist, then that would be a violation of the prediction.

It's through the same principles that we can determine if someone is your actual biological sibling / cousin or not.

Genetic reproduction results in very specific genetic patterns.
When those patterns don't exist, it's evidence against the claim of common ancestry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok what would falsify the claim that bananas and humans share a common ancestor?

Biological reproduction results in specific genetic patterns known as nested hierarchies.
If such patterns aren't found through genetic comparison, then that's evidence against the claim of common ancestry.

It's by the same principles that we can determine that your sibling or cousin is your actual biological sibling or cousin.

 

[rational experiences]

/facepalm

If there is evidence, then it is falsifiable.
Evidence is data that matches testable predictions of a hypothesis.

When there are testable predictions, there is falsifiability.

You can't have one without the other.



If genomic comparison between both would reveal violations of the predicted nested hierarchy of genetic common ancestry, the claim would be falsified.

To test.

A man human.

No science exists.

He decides he wants to practice science as natural everything already exists. What's not science is natural.

He builds a machine he pretends is his copying. Yet no copy exists.

So he says I design. As a human.

Thinks. Draws. Cannot apply that separate ideal unless you are a human. Thinking. Wanting. Pretty basic natural advice.

Everything he believes is as a human thought. Makes stories. Wants to cause. Change is what his ideal is.

Says his machine fits that ideal.

So why are you mind contacting by AI mind contact program of studies. About a God heavens belief. A humans creation by another's humans story?

One human about the other one human.

No reaction exists. As everything you believe or want to believe you think upon. Is your choice. You constantly think and use a machine to cause what you cannot as human biology.

Present human biology does all choices and actions.

Testifiable evidence. You lie.

You test. The test is chosen. You do it by a machine. What a machine is applied as isn't any human.

One human is to one human.
One human to machine already says destroyed body of other human.

You prove you could change both a humans conscious choice and biology by a machine. By pre human mind studies chosen and studied.

Proving some other cause is involved. The atmosphere being the other cause.

In the test...you however did not invent my being. Preceding test is a story that is a belief...how someone says something other existed. Yet only a human says so.

The intent constantly present is a pre choice by the human to change by the test. As if they accepted natural you would not test.

Evidence legal....I am born to two adult humans as humans. Adult humans who had sex.

Machine test claims by human thought ....I'm playing around with what created you.

I'm human. I'm an adult. I was a baby. My parents before me Multi times adult human. Of course your quote I'm playing around with you before you existed.

As sperm ovary was my pre existence. An adult human was before those types.

My body adult human is what preceded sperm ovary. You attack my adult human body. What is termed second.

Instead if you said one and one equal. Where no test is accepted by answer equals. You give my life secondary preference. Meaningless in other terms to your status of one.

Why legal was imposed against evil human Theist behaviours.

Why theists before us were proven human liars.

An ape. Two of known by observation human as apes.

Theist said a God. Apes had sex. What isn't seen. What science isn't involved with. A baby. Continuance.

I'm a human. Science observes my life being their equals answer already to theirs...a human life. They choose not to accept my answer. Legal says it is the answer.

 

[Kharisym]

None of that is actually required.

The idea of common ancestry makes testable predictions concerning genomic comparison. When things have genetic common ancestry, then that would be visible in comparative genomics as it would reveal nested hierarchies. If those nested hierarchies wouldn't exist, then that would be a violation of the prediction.

It's through the same principles that we can determine if someone is your actual biological sibling / cousin or not.

Genetic reproduction results in very specific genetic patterns.
When those patterns don't exist, it's evidence against the claim of common ancestry.

Oh I agree, there are more nuanced and realistic things that could disprove common ancestry, but I chose examples that are more easily understood and pose less risk of the listener dismissing it due to preconceived bias. Genetics is messy, complicated, and religious folk have existing opinions about it. "Space Bananas" may be unrealistic, but it does refute an argument that common ancestry cannot be falsified, and is simple enough that someone who doesn't understand genetics can understand an repeat it.

 

[rational experiences]

If a fruit owns types of conditions that a human eats to supplement their owned organic human life.

Then the fruit a banana was created to exist with human life to supplement it. By genetic compatibility.

As we die if we don't eat.

Hence we quoted particular types of bugs we can eat. Fruit on trees. Animals flesh. What was bio compatible.

Only known by a living human making all the claims.

I look at a banana it's on a tree.

I'm a human. I don't reproduce life on a tree.

Pretty basic a human compared living detail to teach a baby that didn't own adult psychic healer natural awareness until they were grown.

About survival.

It wasn't about why it existed. Teaching was about why it was compatible in a humans life support only.

Hence it was important as a humans life

Theists don't think correctly you think destructively.

 

[leroy]

I didn't read page 2 through 12, so please forgive me if this is a meaningless response, but...

The idea of humans and bananas sharing a common ancestor is a conclusion from the idea of universal common ancestry--that all life on the planet shares a common ancestor. To prove that bananas and humans do not share a common ancestor, you must show that one or the other is not part of the family tree of this planet. A secret ancient laboratory with notes on the original creation of bananas, or finding evidence of bananas on another planet prior to their emergence on our planet would disprove this hypothesis of common descent for humans and bananas.

May I invite you to my secret banana laboratory?

To prove that bananas and humans do not share a common ancestor, you must show that one or the other is not part of the family tree of this planet.

And how can someone do that?

What discovery would show that bannanas and humans belong to a different tree?

A secret ancient laboratory with notes on the original creation of bananas

And how woudlyou prove that this laboratory really did created bananas? Perhaps they are lying,

 

[leroy]

The space-time continuum came into being somehow, yes.

Well that is what it is meant by “the universe (space time) has a cause”

If you think that the word “cause” is inappropriate because of your “temporal stuff arguments” then feel free to use a different word.

The thing is that you are accepting the conclusion of the KCA you just don’t like the specific words and vocabulary that the argument uses,

 

[leroy]

/facepalm

If there is evidence, then it is falsifiable.
Evidence is data that matches testable predictions of a hypothesis.

When there are testable predictions, there is falsifiability.

You can't have one without the other.

Sure you can have on without the other.

There is evidence that no president of the USA has been a woman (they all look like men) but you cant falsify the claim “there have never been women presedents in the USA” (maybe some presidents where trans)

If genomic comparison between both would reveal violations of the predicted nested hierarchy of genetic common ancestry, the claim would be falsified.

Violations in the NS are expected, there are many mechanisms that can cause this violations (like horizontal gene transfer for example)


Besides, worst case scenario // all you have to do is put bananas in a different branch , if there are many violations then maybe all you have to do is move the time line back little bit, but the claim that we share a common ancestor would be unfalsified.

 

[Kharisym]

And how can someone do that?

And how woudlyou prove that this laboratory really did created bananas? Perhaps they are lying,

I don't consider these questions to be valid. Laboratories and other planets are real objects that we could potentially find and therefore should be sufficient to answer the intent of your question. The questions you're asking for now are scenario specific. If we ever *actually* find space bananas or an ancient banana laboratory, then we can ask these questions based on those specific findings. Until we have a space banana or a banana lab to study, there are countless ways these questions *could* be answered. TL;DR: Your moving the goalpost.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well that is what it is meant by “the universe (space time) has a cause”

If you think that the word “cause” is inappropriate because of your “temporal stuff arguments” then feel free to use a different word.

"Cause" is indeed inappropriate because it implies temporal conditions. That is not "my stuff", but "physics stuff".

The thing is that you are accepting the conclusion of the KCA you just don’t like the specific words and vocabulary that the argument uses,

No. KCA requires a cause where there can't be one.
The universe is uncaused.

 

[leroy]

Biological reproduction results in specific genetic patterns known as nested hierarchies.
If such patterns aren't found through genetic comparison, then that's evidence against the claim of common ancestry.

/QUOTE]
There is a big difference between “evidence against a claim” and “falsifying the claim”

It's by the same principles that we can determine that your sibling or cousin is your actual biological sibling or cousin.[

Irrelevant but that is a lie

 

[leroy]

I don't consider these questions to be valid. Laboratories and other planets are real objects that we could potentially find and therefore should be sufficient to answer the intent of your question. The questions you're asking for now are scenario specific. If we ever *actually* find space bananas or an ancient banana laboratory, then we can ask these questions based on those specific findings. Until we have a space banana or a banana lab to study, there are countless ways these questions *could* be answered. TL;DR: Your moving the goalpost.

Again the claim is that common ancestry is not falsifiable not that there is no evidence

A space laboratory that affirms to have created bananas and humans independently would count as evidence against common ancestry but it wouldn’t falsify it

 

[leroy]

"Cause" is indeed inappropriate because it implies temporal conditions. That is not "my stuff", but "physics stuff".



No. KCA requires a cause where there can't be one.
The universe is uncaused.

The KCA concludes that the universe (space time) came to be somehow, and you already accepted that claim.

Everything else is secondary and irrelevant, for sake of discussion “you win” the term cause is not appropriate apologetics should use a different word (any suggestion)

But these are all secondary semantic issues.

We both agree that the universe came to be someone and that is all what the KCA aspires to show

 

[Kharisym]

Again the claim is that common ancestry is not falsifiable not that there is no evidence

A space laboratory that affirms to have created bananas and humans independently would count as evidence against common ancestry but it wouldn’t falsify it

I don't think you understand what falsifiability means, but I'll humor you. If a claim cannot be falsified, then evidence against it cannot exist. Since you admit here that evidence against common ancestry can exist, it stands to reason that common ancestry could be falsified.

 

[Kharisym]

The KCA concludes that the universe (space time) came to be somehow, and you already accepted that claim.

Everything else is secondary and irrelevant, for sake of discussion “you win” the term cause is not appropriate apologetics should use a different word (any suggestion)

But these are all secondary semantic issues.

We both agree that the universe came to be someone and that is all what the KCA aspires to show

I've never found the KCA convincing because a claim of the cause of the universe being intelligent is not supported by the argument and intelligence is not necessary to cause a thing. If the cause of the universe is not intelligent, then its not a god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure you can have on without the other.

There is evidence that no president of the USA has been a woman (they all look like men) but you cant falsify the claim “there have never been women presedents in the USA” (maybe some presidents where trans)

1. that "there has been 'no' president that...." is a negative claim
2. you seem to be confusing the act of falsification with the principle of falsifiability.

You CAN falsify the claim that all presidents were males, by finding records / evidence of female presidents.
It's that simple. That no such evidence exists or can be found only means that you can't falsify the claim. That doesn't mean it is therefor unfalsifiable.

Violations in the NS are expected, there are many mechanisms that can cause this violations (like horizontal gene transfer for example)

I said: "...of the predicted nested hierarchy of genetic common ancestry,"

That means that known exceptions, such as the ones that can be caused by known mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer, are taken into account.

Not any violations can be explained with HGT.
You should read up. Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

It's like in geology. There are standard expectations of how the geological columns form, how rivers cut out canyons, etc. There are phenomenon that can cause deviations from those standard expectations and geologists are able to recognize those.

Young Earth Creationists like to ignore such things also and then try and argue that "see???? geology is wrong!".

It's ridiculous and just arguing from a position of (willful?) ignorance.

Besides, worst case scenario // all you have to do is put bananas in a different branch , if there are many violations then maybe all you have to do is move the time line back little bit, but the claim that we share a common ancestor would be unfalsified.

No, you can't do that.
If you had the slightest clue, or a speck of intellectual honest (not sure which it is here), you'ld know that it doesn't work that way.

It's in fact the nested hierarchy that tells you on which branch it is. So your comment here is just a demonstration of your ignorance on the topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...

Try fixing your quotes

There is a big difference between “evidence against a claim” and “falsifying the claim”

/facepalm

As @Kharisym already brought to your attention....
When something is unfalsifiable, it means that there CAN NOT BE evidence AGAINST the idea. Not even in theory. Not even on principle.
So this comment is again quite absurd....

If there can be evidence AGAINST a claim, then pretty much by definition said claim is falsifiable...



An example of an unfalsifiable claim is that there is an undetectable extra-dimensional dragon that follows you around everywhere you go.

Irrelevant but that is a lie

It's not.

We genetically determine kinship through our understanding that DNA is inherited by off spring and that it forms a family tree (nested hierarchy). We can estimate the level of kindship based on the level of shared DNA.

We can graph it out and the branches of the tree are then revealed.
It looks for matches in genetic markers, entire sequences etc.

It's what every paternity test is based on. It's how the genographic project works (look it up).
This is how we can genetically determine the level of relatedness between individuals, organisms, entire species,...

It's how we tell your bio brother from your distant cousin.
It's how we tell your uncle from your dad.
It's how we determine Y chromosome adam and mitochondrial eve.
It's how we know we are more closely related to chimps then to gorillas.
It's how we know we are more closely related to gorillas then to elephants
It's how we know we are more closely related to elephants then to crocodiles.
It's how we know we are more closely related to crocodiles then to banana's.
...


Every new genome sequenced, is a test of common ancestry.