# Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (mankind is one likely type)

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at **Atheist Republic**, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.

PGJordan,

I see nothing wrong with Nyarlathotep's calculation. Time to move on!

There exists, quite a many integral-bound paradigm strings, unbeknownst betwixt thine/Nyarlathotep, as is observable amid the definite/indefinite-aligned nescience instance, of Nyarlathotep, prior:

I thereafter, maintain, that Nyarlathotep has but misapplied the aforesaid lemma of mine; for there persists an error sequence amidst that of the computation/interpretation of thine, vis a vis TRcS.

INTIMATION: My lemma collapses said process, such that a MONO-line-construction occurs.

PGJordan,

Pardon my comment, but it seems to me that you are talking with a mouthful of marbles! Nyarlathotep's proof that your lemma fails for certain constant values is as clear as day to anyone who understands calculus. He used the stuff you posted, so how did he misapply your lemma? We do understand something about mathematics, so spare us these irrelevant, esoteric paste jobs.

Give us a real explanation as to how Nyarlathotep "misapplied" your lemma, not another cloud of smoke and fog which has no pathway. Show us the step, if there be any, where Nyarlathotep made a computational error. Your clouds of smoke and fog are empty at their core and give no support to your naked opinion.

I have not any opinion/belief/faith.

See my utmost response 'Trig Rule Collapser Sample [0]', regarding Nyarlathotep's misapplication, in tandem with a rather non-abstruse sample, betwixt my lemma.

Albeit, I shan't any further resolve Nyarlatothep's errors/non issues.

NOTE: I had long applied TRcS-aligned logic amidst this scratch written artificial neural network of mine.

Such a neural network ACCURATELY reduces :

(i) xor configuration sequences...

(ii) digit recognition...

The program initializes amidst cycle (i).

Cycle (i) computes trivially amidst minimum magnitude machines, whilst cycle (ii) computes abound machines of profound extent.

You see the beauty of mathematics is: no amount of word salad, mental gymnastics, new discoveries, or excuses is ever going to make 0.26667 equal 0.43701. Your "lemma" is false, and it always will be.

Albeit, I had long applied TRcS-aligned logic amidst this scratch written artificial neural network of mine.

Such a neural network ACCURATELY reduces :

(i) xor configuration sequences...

(ii) digit recognition...

SEE SOURCE CODE VIA PRIOR URL.

Perhaps thereafter, that of the knowledge of thine, is insufficient, such that said 0.43701 is erroneously derived.

NOTE: It is rather quite clear, that there had but predominantly persisted, failure of acknowledgement of prior errors of/via thine; whence my reduction of said errors had but been emanated by silence...

PGJordan,

Are you going to show us where he "erred" or do we get yet another cloud of smoke and fog encompassing no pathways. His calculation looks good to me and, yes, I do have a degree in mathematics.

PGJordan,

I have to agree with Nyarlathotep that you are just tossing salad.

I have not any degree in mathematics.

Albeit, I had known:

..in tandem with separately apparently quaint integral-bound sequences...

ENLIGHTENMENT: Standard math-study (of quite profound scope), is but not of the utmost description.

See my utmost response 'Trig Rule Collapser Sample [0]', regarding Nyarlathotep's misapplication, in tandem with a rather non-abstruse sample, betwixt my lemma.

INTIMATION/Trig Rule Collapser Sample [0]:

See the default problem/problem solution, via this intmath.com trig link

See separately quintessentially existent integral-bound succedaneum, of non-irregular descent.

.

.

.

Edition: ...quite the silence, quite the irony.

You might notice that in this example the integrand is a simple function of x.

In the page you linked with your "lemma" you give 3 examples where the integrand is a product of 2 functions of x (one of which was an exponential!). That is why it failed; and one of the many reasons I knew it was wrong with just a glance.

Don't forget: you claimed you proved this failed idea. Which means you are either a liar or a lunatic. I'm going with the latter.

@ PGJordan

Let me guess your answer to Nyarlathotep's post:

- "There exists, quite a many integral-bound paradigm strings, unbeknownst betwixt thine/Nylartothep, as is observable amid the definite/indefinite-aligned nescience instance, of Nylartothep, prior.

I thereafter, maintain, that thou has but misapplied the aforesaid lemma of mine; there persists an error sequence amidst YOUR computation/interpretation."

Am I close?

('A')

As I had initially priorly mentioned, you had but misapplied my lemma; whence TrigRuleCollapaserSet is multi-frame aligned.

I shall thereafter enlist priorly erroneous presumptions of THINE:

1) dx/dθ subsumbes (symbol x =√ aⁿ · trig(θ))

2) ∫ [ xⁿ · dx/dθ · dx ] is STRICTLY composite. (..in contrast, "xⁿ · [...]" metamorphoses abound √ tⁿ ± tⁿ)

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('B')

Albeit, that of the misuse of THINE, of the lemma of MINE, ALTERS NOT the ACCURATE APPLICATION of MINE, OF THE AFORESAID, as priorly stipulated:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('C')

A separately erroneous sequence of ignorance of thine faces:

..in tandem betwixt discussions of prior...

........

........

........

........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('D')

ENLIGHTENMENT: As is priorly postulated:

1) You know not of the entirety, amidst calculus.

2) You know not of non-knowns, of which THINE is ignorant. (As is priorly observed)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

('E')

EXTENDED-INSTRUCTION :

1) You need purge all beliefs.

2) You need doff the expression of the sequence "impossible". [..Particularly on the boundary of ('D').]

..for such is perhaps a bounder on intellect.

Jordon, you have already admitted you are not a mathematician. Why do you continue to argue with them as if you are one? Your posts are not even entertaining.

ENLIGHTENMENT: The instance of the absence of university bound mathematics certificate of mine, is but INCONSEQUENTIAL; for standard math-study (of quite profound scope), is but NOT of the UTMOST description.

Again, I didn't apply your "lemma". I used your example where you had already applied it; so if anyone misapplied it, it was you!

There exists NOT any prior 'RESULT' stipulation of mine; for there persisted SOLELY FRAME|TEMPLATE distributions, as priorly mentioned.

Thereafter, there existed merely NON-COMPUTABLE-EXAMPLES of FRAMES vis a vis the aforesaid trigonometric rule collapser set. I had presented NOT, any EXAMPLE, but rather sample frames, of NON-REDUCIBLE DESCENT, ***ABSENT COMPUTABLE ENUMERATION sequences***: ∫[xⁿ·dx/dθ·dx],∫[xⁿ·dx/dθ·dx],∫[xⁿ·(dx/dθ·1/secnθ)·dx].

Now you are just lying. Below is the result you wrote, that you just told us does not exist:

('A')

I maintain my priorly promptly expressed stipulation.

RESULT DEFINITION:

RESULT SAMPLE (Such entails computable numbers; for a=1 & n=1.):

THUSLY, an OUTCOME had but transpired.

.

.

.

.

('B')

PRIOR STIPULATION OF MINE (NON-RESULT):

∫[xⁿ·dx/dθ·dx]

THUSLY, **NO** OUTCOME had but transpired.

.

.

.

Right, and that statement is false. I proved it is false by contradiction. No amount of your bullshit will ever change that.

I maintain my priorly promptly expressed stipulation.

A result is but an outcome sequence.

'∫[xⁿ·dx/dθ·dx]' is starkly NOT such.

'∫[xⁿ·dx/dθ·dx]' RATHER persists as quite the apt **outcome GENERATION** methodology.

(1) One need not a university-bound certificate par Quantum Mechanics, such that one shall cognize that of the **MODUS OPERANDI**.

(2) Separately, one need not a university-bound certificate par Quantum Mechanics, such that one shall cognize an **OUTCOME**.

.

.

.

.

there as of the current time no scientific explanation for a existence of a supernatural being called god.it is a totally ridiculous premise.

Not 3 months ago weren't you were telling us that god had been proven to exist (or something like that)? It seems you have changed your mind; which is a good thing! But that being said, would you be willing to admit now that you were lying for Jesus back then? Once something has been proved it can never be false; so clearly you must not believe it was proved. Or could you at least address this change you seem to have undergone? I'm always curious how people undergo this transition.

believe in naturalist reasoning for the explanation of life. After further examination I decided in a scientific approach called naturalism I have studied the physicist the late victor stenger and sean carroll as for me I like what science has to offer which is not only the past but the future.While the bible is a closed book nothing is being added to it, it is the same old arguments, it is stale I like to see prosperity for humanity medical discoveries and to make life easier with new technologies.theres no telling how much more science will discover given the time and financial support.

I maintain my priorly promptly expressed stipulation.

A result is but an outcome sequence.

'∫[xⁿ·dx/dθ·dx]' is starkly NOT such.

'∫[xⁿ·dx/dθ·dx]' RATHER persists as quite the apt **outcome GENERATION** methodology.

(1) One need not a university-bound certificate par Quantum Mechanics, such that one shall cognize that of the **MODUS OPERANDI**.

(2) Separately, one need not a university-bound certificate par Quantum Mechanics, such that one shall cognize an **OUTCOME**.

.

.

.

.

@Nyarlatothep is rather daft, on the boundary of that of the metamorphosing non issues that engender :)

## Pages