MORHAMMAD v CHRIST

[attofishpi]

Did GOD use words and speak the heavens and the Earth into existence?

If a man says that he is God, how will he prove to us that he is the one who created the universe? Do you really expect us to believe his word salads just because you do? Christians always seem to forget that not everybody is as gullible as they are.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You state you find the Torah very truthful. My question to you is, does it sound truthful that GOD used words to speak the universe into existence?

[godelian]

My question to you is, does it sound truthful that GOD used words to speak the universe into existence?

So, if I simply repeat what he said, then we will end up with two universes? Is that how it is supposed to work?

[attofishpi]

My question to you is, does it sound truthful that GOD used words to speak the universe into existence?

So, if I simply repeat what he said, then we will end up with two universes? Is that how it is supposed to work?

Have you been smoking something? Let's just keep this conversation obvious and simple..

Personally, I don't believe that GOD spoke the universe into existence. Nor do I believe GOD spoke the 'heavens and Earth' into existence, indeed, I don't believe any words were used by GOD to form anything.

So, again, do you believe GOD spoke the heavens and Earth into existence? <-- it's a simple question.

[godelian]

So, again, do you believe GOD spoke the heavens and Earth into existence? <-- it's a simple question.

I don't know. I would have to ask him.

Why do you even want to know? Are trying to learn how to create universes, so that you can bamboozle us into believing that you are the new fake Son of God or his equally fake Uncle?

[attofishpi]

So, again, do you believe GOD spoke the heavens and Earth into existence? <-- it's a simple question.

I don't know. I would have to ask him.

Him? What would be the point, he wouldn't answer a non-believer. I just asked it, slight tap on my LEFT knee, NOT RIGHT.

Why do you even want to know?

It should be obvious, I am analysing you not GOD.

So U R happy to just sit on "I don't know"..

The question then is, does it sound rational that GOD would require to use words to form the heavens and Earth?

[godelian]

So U R happy to just sit on "I don't know"..

Of course, I am. I obviously do not know the answer to most questions; especially in a sense of being able to justify the answer. I am perfectly fine with that, because I do not even need the answer to most questions. I don't care about them, especially if they do not make me money or cost me money.

Do you really believe that you can say "Let there be light!" and then hope that there will be light? There won't be anything. A man cannot do that. Not even the fake Son of himself or his single mother. How can anybody even believe in that bullshit?

[attofishpi]

So U R happy to just sit on "I don't know"..

Of course, I am. I obviously do not know the answer to most questions; especially in a sense of being able to justify the answer. I am perfectly fine with that, because I do not even need the answer to most questions. I don't care about them, especially if they do not make me money or cost me money.

Do you really believe that you can say "Let there be light!" and then hope that there will be light? There won't be anything. A man cannot do that. Not even the fake Son of himself or his single mother. How can anybody even believe in that bullshit?

I don't think most Christians believe such nonsense either. I don't believe GOD as PAN to the universe spoke the planet Earth into existence.

If you think the Torah, opening Genesis statement is referring to Christ floating in some void and speaking the heavens and the Earth into existence, is on par with common "Christian" belief, you are wrong.

What sort of nonsense did MorHamMAD come up with?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I've got a fry-up going on lowest heat, under cover. Sausage, black puddin' and bacon. In one big pan. Difficult.

[attofishpi]

I've got a fry-up going on lowest heat, under cover. Sausage, black puddin' and bacon. In one big pan. Difficult.

YUM!

It's about time you said something sensible.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That was a w/e special. Back to muesli with milk and plain yoghurt.

[attofishpi]

That was a w/e special. Back to muesli with milk and plain yoghurt.

It's difficult to get decent black pudding in Oz, it tends to be rather flavourless.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Just finished some remote working. Hungry!

[godelian]

If you think the Torah, opening Genesis statement is referring to Christ floating in some void and speaking the heavens and the Earth into existence, is on par with common "Christian" belief, you are wrong.

This proposition is not part of Christian doctrine but it is part of the deductive closure of Christian doctrine:

DeepSeek: In terms of predicate logic, is the following valid? "God created the universe. Jesus is God. Jesus is a man. Hence, a man created the universe."

In predicate logic, the validity of the argument can be analyzed using first-order logic with equality. The argument is:

- **Premise 1:** God created the universe.
- **Premise 2:** Jesus is God.
- **Premise 3:** Jesus is a man.
- **Conclusion:** Therefore, a man created the universe.

To formalize this in predicate logic, we use the following:
- Let \( g \) be the constant representing God.
- Let \( j \) be the constant representing Jesus.
- Let \( C(x) \) represent "x created the universe."
- Let \( M(x) \) represent "x is a man."

The premises and conclusion can then be written as:
- **Premise 1:** \( C(g) \) (God created the universe).
- **Premise 2:** \( j = g \) (Jesus is identical to God).
- **Premise 3:** \( M(j) \) (Jesus is a man).
- **Conclusion:** \( \exists x \, (M(x) \land C(x)) \) (There exists a man who created the universe).

### Validity Check
The argument is **valid** because the conclusion logically follows from the premises in standard first-order predicate logic with equality. Here is the step-by-step reasoning:

1. From **Premise 2** (\( j = g \)), we can substitute \( j \) for \( g \) in any context due to the properties of equality.
2. Applying this substitution to **Premise 1** (\( C(g) \)), we derive \( C(j) \) (Jesus created the universe).
3. From **Premise 3** (\( M(j) \)) and step 2 (\( C(j) \)), we have \( M(j) \land C(j) \) (Jesus is a man and Jesus created the universe).
4. From \( M(j) \land C(j) \), by existential generalization, we conclude \( \exists x \, (M(x) \land C(x)) \) (There exists an x such that x is a man and x created the universe).

Thus, if all premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The validity relies on the rules of equality (substitution) and existential generalization, which are standard in predicate logic.

In summary, the argument is valid in predicate logic.

The hallmark of a bullshit belief system is that it rejects its own deductive closure.

DeepSeek: Turns the proposition into a script in first-order format (fof) for use by the Vampire theorem prover.

To represent the argument in First-Order Form (FOF) for the Vampire theorem prover, we formalize the premises and conclusion using TPTP syntax. The key steps include:
- Declaring constants for "god" and "jesus"
- Defining predicates: `created` (created the universe) and `man` (is a man)
- Using equality (`=`) to represent identity
- Negating the conclusion (as required for theorem proving)

**FOF Script for Vampire:**

Code: Select all

```tptp
fof(premise1, axiom, created(god)).         % God created the universe
fof(premise2, axiom, jesus = god).           % Jesus is God
fof(premise3, axiom, man(jesus)).            % Jesus is a man
fof(negated_conclusion, conjecture,          % Negate: "a man created the universe"
    ~? [X] : (man(X) & created(X))).         % (No man created the universe)
```

**Explanation:**
1. **Premise 1:** `created(god)`
- `god` is a constant; `created` is a unary predicate.
2. **Premise 2:** `jesus = god`
- Uses equality to state Jesus and God are identical.
3. **Premise 3:** `man(jesus)`
- Applies the `man` predicate to Jesus.
4. **Negated Conclusion:** `~? [X] : (man(X) & created(X))`
- Asserts there exists **no** `X` who is both a man and created the universe.

**Validity Verification:**
- Vampire will derive a **contradiction** from these axioms:
1. Substitute `jesus` for `god` in `created(god)` (using `jesus = god`), yielding `created(jesus)`.
2. Combine `created(jesus)` and `man(jesus)` to prove `? [X] : (man(X) & created(X))`.
3. This contradicts the negated conclusion, confirming the original argument is **valid**.

**Output Expectation:**
Vampire will return `THM` (theorem proven), verifying that the conclusion follows logically from the premises.

You can run the Vampire theorem prover on the TPTP/FOF script mentioned above to prove that Christianity is a steaming pile of excrement. Seriously, there are very valid and very justified reasons to spit, pee, and shit on Christianity.

[attofishpi]

You can run the Vampire theorem prover on this script to prove that Christianity is a steaming pile of excrement. Seriously, there are very valid and very justified reasons to spit, pee, and shit on Christianity.

..such vigorous analysis, and total bollocks.

PS. Keep freaking your_self out about the implications of CHRIST.

[godelian]

You can run the Vampire theorem prover on this script to prove that Christianity is a steaming pile of excrement. Seriously, there are very valid and very justified reasons to spit, pee, and shit on Christianity.

..such vigorous analysis, and total bollocks.

PS. Keep freaking your_self out about the implications of CHRIST.

According to your own claim, the deductive closure of Christianity is full of bullshit. That necessarily means that Christianity is simply a bullshit belief system.