It is really quite weird that most amateur Christian apologists always use science or mathematics to prove the existence of a god. I thought they despised science? As ADParker, one of the members of the Richard Dawkin's Net Forum told me, "You know; some of these pseudoscience religious nutters are prety smart, and sometimes it is hard to find just where they "slipped the mickey" into their "scientific" or Mathematical argument. And other times the trick is pretty easy to see.This is not one of either of those times: This is a case of pointing out (and it WAS plagiarism if he did not tell you that he copied it from somewhere else) some bit of mathematics, and then making up some stupid story that didn't even use the mathematics mentioned really at all, and just claiming that he had proved something This is a blatant case of Baffling them with Bullshit!"
Anyway, here's a good example:
From a certain "Exequiel Pedro".
Now that I have effectively destroyed the core fundamental concepts underlying atheism, let us then now PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING LIVING GOD.
I don’t know if ATHEISTS are aware that in pure and applied mathematics there is such a HIGHLY TESTED mathematical foundational concept called BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE which means a function f from a set X to a set Y with the property that, for every y in Y, there is exactly one x in X such that f(x) = y. Alternatively, f is bijective if it is a one-to-one correspondence between those sets; i.e., both one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective). For example, consider the function succ, defined from the set of integers to , that to each integer x associates the integer succ(x) = x + 1. For another example, consider the function sumdif that to each pair (x,y) of real numbers associates the pair sumdif(x,y) = (x + y, x − y). A bijective function is also called a permutation. This is more commonly used when X = Y. It should be noted that one-to-one function means one-to-one correspondence (i.e., bijection) to some authors, but injection to others. The set of all bijections from X to Y is denoted as X Y. BIJECTIVE FUNCTIONS PLAY A FUNDAMENTAL ROLE IN MANY AREAS OF MATHEMATICS, for instance in the definition of isomorphism (and related concepts such as homeomorphism and diffeomorphism), permutation group, projective map, and many others.
LET US THEN NOW APPLY THIS MATHEMATICAL MODEL TO PROVE THAT A LIVING, EXISTING GOD REALLY EXISTS.
To start with, we are dealing with abstract quantities in contrast to absolute quantities like real numbers like 1, -1, 0! Being abstract quantities we need a FIXED SET OF LOGICAL STANDARD to solve the mathematical equation which we will then prove has BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE with our variables.
WHAT IS NOW THEN OUR MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACT VARIABLES?
For the sake of mathematical argument, let God be Set A which we will call SET GOD and let Crude Reality be Set B which we will call SET CRUDE REALITY.
WHAT WILL NOW BE THE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION GIVEN THE TWO SETS OF ABSTRACT VARIABLES?
Absolute quantities, constants and vectors alike, need some sort of UNIT OF MEASUREMENT for us to VALIDLY recognize the DEGREE OF MAGNITUDE of those given quantities e.g., mass in terms of grams as a constant, acceleration in terms of meter per second as a vector, etc.
God, being an abstract set variable must have some sort of a MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to identify set elements having VALID BIJECTION to Crude Reality which we already recognized here as SET GOD and SET CRUDE REALITY respectively for mathematical purposes. Let us now HEURISTICALLY consider the BIBLE as our MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to prove a MATHEMATICALLY VALID BIJECTION.
From a certain "Exequiel Pedro".
Now that I have effectively destroyed the core fundamental concepts underlying atheism, let us then now PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING LIVING GOD.
I don’t know if ATHEISTS are aware that in pure and applied mathematics there is such a HIGHLY TESTED mathematical foundational concept called BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE which means a function f from a set X to a set Y with the property that, for every y in Y, there is exactly one x in X such that f(x) = y. Alternatively, f is bijective if it is a one-to-one correspondence between those sets; i.e., both one-to-one (injective) and onto (surjective). For example, consider the function succ, defined from the set of integers to , that to each integer x associates the integer succ(x) = x + 1. For another example, consider the function sumdif that to each pair (x,y) of real numbers associates the pair sumdif(x,y) = (x + y, x − y). A bijective function is also called a permutation. This is more commonly used when X = Y. It should be noted that one-to-one function means one-to-one correspondence (i.e., bijection) to some authors, but injection to others. The set of all bijections from X to Y is denoted as X Y. BIJECTIVE FUNCTIONS PLAY A FUNDAMENTAL ROLE IN MANY AREAS OF MATHEMATICS, for instance in the definition of isomorphism (and related concepts such as homeomorphism and diffeomorphism), permutation group, projective map, and many others.
LET US THEN NOW APPLY THIS MATHEMATICAL MODEL TO PROVE THAT A LIVING, EXISTING GOD REALLY EXISTS.
To start with, we are dealing with abstract quantities in contrast to absolute quantities like real numbers like 1, -1, 0! Being abstract quantities we need a FIXED SET OF LOGICAL STANDARD to solve the mathematical equation which we will then prove has BIJECTION or ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE with our variables.
WHAT IS NOW THEN OUR MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACT VARIABLES?
For the sake of mathematical argument, let God be Set A which we will call SET GOD and let Crude Reality be Set B which we will call SET CRUDE REALITY.
WHAT WILL NOW BE THE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION GIVEN THE TWO SETS OF ABSTRACT VARIABLES?
Absolute quantities, constants and vectors alike, need some sort of UNIT OF MEASUREMENT for us to VALIDLY recognize the DEGREE OF MAGNITUDE of those given quantities e.g., mass in terms of grams as a constant, acceleration in terms of meter per second as a vector, etc.
God, being an abstract set variable must have some sort of a MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to identify set elements having VALID BIJECTION to Crude Reality which we already recognized here as SET GOD and SET CRUDE REALITY respectively for mathematical purposes. Let us now HEURISTICALLY consider the BIBLE as our MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION for us to prove a MATHEMATICALLY VALID BIJECTION.
Now...that was long...but did you see the problem?
He didn't gave us a mathematical proof of God (shame on him...tsk!tsk!tsk!). All he did was put together some statements (which he shamelessly plagiarised from Wikipedia) so it will just sound something "eh" intelligent. Hmmmmm...that's not a suprise, majority of Christian readers will never know the difference.
In the Bible, which is our mathematical function, we can read a certain God saying in the book of Genesis chapter 1 verses 20 to 22;
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, Be FRUITFUL, and MULTIPLY, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl MULTIPLY IN THE EARTH.”
IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE VERSE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY REFERRING TO ORGANIC REPRODUCTION WHICH IS A CLEAR ELEMENT OF SET B OR SET CRUDE REALITY WHICH IS A VERY CLEAR SCIENTIFIC FACT AND NOT JUST A FAULTY HYPOTHETICAL THEORY JUST LIKE EVOLUTION BECAUSE ORGANIC REPRODUCTION CAN BE READILY VERIFIED SCIENTIFICALLY OR EVEN BY JUST APPLYING SIMPLE OBSERVATION, THUS, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION IS AN ELEMENT OF SET CRUDE REALITY.
Is this a joke?
Maybe Exequiel Pedro can explain what the Inverse function of the Bible is. In order to have a bijective function, both ƒ and and it's inverse ƒ-1 must be functions across the entire domain of both. For instance, some functions and their inverse do not have the same domains (sin, cos, tan, cotan, parabola, hyperbola, etc).
He just went from defining two sets and suddenly jumping to a conclusion that one element of one set corresponding to another element of another set means that he have 1:1 correspondence.
Reading Exiquiel Pedro's post, minus all those plaglirized mathematical mumbo-jumbo...the argument is as simple as:
Let see...Horses have hooves and tails and ears and lots of other horsey things
A "tikbalang" have all of those too...So that's Bijection!
Therefore "tikbalangs" are real!
So is my conclusion logical ?
Remember that one correlation does not make a Bijective function and a correlation even if it was to the extent of Bijection would not mean that therefore they are both real!
HEURISTICALLY considering the Bible as our mathematical function, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION can now be validly considered as an element of SET GOD by applying CAUSE AND EFFECT scientific principle because by using the Bible as our mathematical function, we can DIRECTLY ASSOCIATE organic reproduction to God, THUS, A VALID MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF A VALID BIJECTION OR ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE.
In the Bible, which is our mathematical function, we can read a certain God saying in the book of Genesis chapter 1 verses 20 to 22;
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And God blessed them, saying, Be FRUITFUL, and MULTIPLY, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl MULTIPLY IN THE EARTH.”
IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE VERSE THAT IT IS ACTUALLY REFERRING TO ORGANIC REPRODUCTION WHICH IS A CLEAR ELEMENT OF SET B OR SET CRUDE REALITY WHICH IS A VERY CLEAR SCIENTIFIC FACT AND NOT JUST A FAULTY HYPOTHETICAL THEORY JUST LIKE EVOLUTION BECAUSE ORGANIC REPRODUCTION CAN BE READILY VERIFIED SCIENTIFICALLY OR EVEN BY JUST APPLYING SIMPLE OBSERVATION, THUS, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION IS AN ELEMENT OF SET CRUDE REALITY.
Is this a joke?
Maybe Exequiel Pedro can explain what the Inverse function of the Bible is. In order to have a bijective function, both ƒ and and it's inverse ƒ-1 must be functions across the entire domain of both. For instance, some functions and their inverse do not have the same domains (sin, cos, tan, cotan, parabola, hyperbola, etc).
He just went from defining two sets and suddenly jumping to a conclusion that one element of one set corresponding to another element of another set means that he have 1:1 correspondence.
Reading Exiquiel Pedro's post, minus all those plaglirized mathematical mumbo-jumbo...the argument is as simple as:
A. In the Bible, God is said to have instructed humans to "be fruitful
and multiply".
B. We observe organic reproduction in the real world.
C. Therefore God exists.
Let see...Horses have hooves and tails and ears and lots of other horsey things
A "tikbalang" have all of those too...So that's Bijection!
Therefore "tikbalangs" are real!
So is my conclusion logical ?
Remember that one correlation does not make a Bijective function and a correlation even if it was to the extent of Bijection would not mean that therefore they are both real!
HEURISTICALLY considering the Bible as our mathematical function, ORGANIC REPRODUCTION can now be validly considered as an element of SET GOD by applying CAUSE AND EFFECT scientific principle because by using the Bible as our mathematical function, we can DIRECTLY ASSOCIATE organic reproduction to God, THUS, A VALID MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF A VALID BIJECTION OR ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE.
Capital letters won't save Mr. Exequiel Pedro's arguments.
And the Bible as a mathematical function? Apparently he thinks that just because the Bible mentions that animals gives birth to offspring (Duh...that's not a suprise!) and just asserts that God made that happen, that it's suddenly a mathematical marvel. I mean come on!
He has to prove that they ALL correspond on a one-to-one basis.
One-to-one correspondence has to apply to every single variable in the set, not just one.
In conclusion, by us using SET THEORY which is a validly recognized part of mathematical knowledge particularly in ALGEBRA and CALCULUS, WE HAVE NOW A MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF A LIVING GOD AND WE HAVE ONLY USED A MINUSCULE FRACTION OF OUR MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION WHICH IS THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE ARE MANY STATEMENTS IN THE BIBLE COMING FROM THIS CERTAIN GOD WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY PROVEN TO EXIST BY APPLYING A HIGHLY TESTED MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE!
Rambling non-sense doesn't save his argument . He just mentioned something from set theory, then rambled off some complete nonsense, and hoped readers would be too dazzled to notice.
John the Atheist
In conclusion, by us using SET THEORY which is a validly recognized part of mathematical knowledge particularly in ALGEBRA and CALCULUS, WE HAVE NOW A MATHEMATICAL EVIDENCE PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF A LIVING GOD AND WE HAVE ONLY USED A MINUSCULE FRACTION OF OUR MATHEMATICAL FUNCTION WHICH IS THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE ARE MANY STATEMENTS IN THE BIBLE COMING FROM THIS CERTAIN GOD WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY PROVEN TO EXIST BY APPLYING A HIGHLY TESTED MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE!
Rambling non-sense doesn't save his argument . He just mentioned something from set theory, then rambled off some complete nonsense, and hoped readers would be too dazzled to notice.
John the Atheist
P.S.
I would like to thank those guys at Richard Dawkin's Forum from pointing out to me the errors of Mr. Exequiel Pedro's arguments. Special mentions to ADParker, arugula and Matthew Bailey.
0 comments:
Post a Comment