Stop lying. I gave you one concrete example, and I’ve pointed to it several times:
God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God
yet, The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit ≠ 0
This does not follow the rules of mathematics, thus it is not mathematics, nor logic, and is nonsensical. There. Once again, I provided an example of your abysmal logic.
Here is another one, where you apply an association fallacy.
So again: pretty please (with sugar on top) fucking stop lying.
@kingiyk, do you actually know what the symbol ≠ means?
Except there is no foundation, the original followers of the Way, did not even believe that the Jesus figure was divine. The detachable penis (holy spirit) was a much later story inserted at the beginning of Luke and a different version in Matthew, probably in the Second century to cement the idea of the Jesus figure’s supposed divinity. .
The whole mess was tied up by Tertullian into the Trinity dogma to hide the obvious questions/contradictions raised in the NT and to please his Roman masters.
Your premise has no merit at all. Your study is superficial and your thought process vacuity in extremis.
I find that a dubious proposition at best, though I genuinely could care less, since opinions don’t change facts, unless someone is particularly biased or stupid, and who cares what those people think. For people with any objectivity and integrity, able to reason, facts change opinions, and the facts here speak for themselves. Like the comedy gold of you claiming to have a proof of a deity, and not knowing what a proof is, or a basic understanding of logic.
That’s a lie, here is your so called “proof” in post 57, note I pointed out immediately as did others you were using a begging the question fallacy by assuming your conclusion in your opening premise, here:
I numbered the premise 1 for you, as you clearly don’t even know how to create a simple syllogism.
This has also been pointed out many times since, and as anyone can see you have refused to honestly address your error, so liar liar pants on fire is the only apropos response… 
Another lie, your so called proof uses a faith based belief in mysticism called numerology, it was pointed out in the first half dozen posts by @Old_man_shouts_at_cl , and many times since. You seem to be pulling your own pants down, and spanking yourself for us now, pretty funny.
We have a word for things that “transcend rational constructs” the word is irrational. Again it saves us all a lot of time and trouble, when you destroy your own comical claims, by firstly making a grandiosely comical claim to have a proof, then claiming it is irrational, and not understanding what this means, but even though this comedy gold is lost on you, it isn’t lost on many others, so thanks.
What objective evidence, if any, can you demonstrate that any deity exists, or is even possible? What people may note is that you have dodged this question from the very first. Do you even know what it means? I have to say I am dubious given your responses.
What you have offered is consistent anyway, consistently unevidenced assumptions, and logical fallacies, laced with the mythical unevidenced hokum of numerology, sadly repetition won’t make this nonsense any less risible.
Oh I think we all know that’s all he has left, let him lie his pants on fire, it’s hilarious.
Which is why all he has left is handwaving and sophistry. It’s still funny to watch him stamp his foot, and repeat his irrational unevidenced mantra, as if it is actually meaningful.
Now those are some good darts sir.
We are dealing with someone who doesn’t know that a mathematical proof must be logical, and has even stated unabashed, that it “transcends rational constructs”. This is comedy gold…
It may not adhere to conventional mathematical rules, yet this equation was derived without omitting a single step (refer to the proof for full illustration).
Perhaps it is time to broaden your understanding of what constitutes a proof. By rigidly demanding tangible, observable evidence, you have effectively precluded the possibility of God revealing His essence through the elegant union of His divine Word and mathematics, should He so choose. Such a perspective, I must say, is both narrow and rooted in ignorance, veiled by arrogance.
Examine the proof and reflect on how an equation as profound as:
God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God
could have been made manifest.
Then it’s not a mathematical proof, it can’t be, dear oh dear.
Nor does your argument adhere to the principles of logic of course. So a double fail there. 
Fuck me that’s funny, don’t forget to include that when you publish…
Or perhaps you should have done some cursory research about what constitutes a mathematical proof, before making a complete fool of yourself.
Another straw man fallacy, the claim a deity exists is yours, it is for you
Possibility needs to be demonstrated, how many times have I asked you if you can demonstrate any objective evidence a deity exists, or is even possible? If you could do this, then you would do this, and you have not, it’s clear you don’t have a clue about the epistemological burden of proof your claim incurs, or about the fundamental difference between objective evidence, and a bare claim.
Quoting the bible no more objectively evidences it’s claims, than quoting a spell from a Harry Potter novel, objectively evidences wizardry.
One more time then, numerology is not mathematics, nor can it constitute a valid mathematical proof. All mathematical proofs must adhere to the principles of logic. Oopsy, a double fail for your verbiage then. Not to worry, you still have sophistry and hyperbole, you seem to enjoy those.
Oh, fuck me, uh oh oh, an irony overload… 
You have no proof, give it up man, show some dignity, even if you can’t muster integrity.
That is laughable nonsense, please tell me this is a windup? You can’t demonstrate a shred of objective evidence that a deity is even possible. You haven’t even tried…
I can see that you state that, but you are simply put dead wrong. @Sheldon already covered it, but I’m repeating it here for good measure:
Your attempt at a proof checks both points above (among other things, you abuse mathematical notation and make erroneous claims about equality, and you use both formal and informal logical fallacies). Thus, it is neither mathematical nor logical. Even if you derive it “without omitting a single step”, it is dead wrong as long as at least one of those steps are wrong. Simply put, when you make such mistakes, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. As a bonus, you have no empirical data that shows that a god exists, or is even possible.
In other words, all you’ve got is delusional wishful thinking.
Here is an explanation of the word proof, in the context of a mathematical/logical proof:
(Proof | Reasoning, Validity, Argumentation | Britannica)
Note the formulations “rigorous deduction” and “well-formulated formulas (generated in accordance with accepted formation rules)”. Your attempt fails on both counts. Thus, what you have is not a proof. And you don’t get to redefine the meaning of words, just because you wish for something to be true. And just because you wish for something to be true doesn’t make it true.
YOU claim that your god exists and/or is possible. It is YOUR task to bring forth evidence or proof to support your claim. It is not my or our job to do it.
I (and others) have presented arguments, with examples, that show clearly why your “proof” is not a proof. I can only explain it to you, I cannot understand it for you.
Your constrained worldview has blinded you to an essential truth: the denial of a deity is, in itself, a claim—a claim that cannot hold unless substantiated with evidence.
Allow me, despite the meager compensation of a penny, to teach you the art of critical thinking.
The default answer must be God.
Why? Because we have yet to witness something emerge from absolute nothingness. Until such evidence presents itself, reason and common sense compel us to recognize that every creation we observe in this material world necessitates a creator. This very website is the result of deliberate creation, as is every artifact of human endeavor.
If we apply this consistent logic—that nothing cannot produce something and that all creations require a creator—then it naturally follows that the universe itself, in all its complexity and order, must have a Creator, a God.
Consider this lesson in reasoning my gift to you, an act of generosity untainted by charge.
Side Note: The God Equation Remains:
God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God
(See proof for full illustration)
Repeatedly spamming the thread with your made up shit, doesn’t stop it being made up shit.
You don’t have a “god equation”, you have numerological bollocks paraded in a fake costume of formal derivation. You’re merely yet another rectally self-inserted mythology fanboy engaging in bad cosplay of actual thought. Willard Van Ormand Quine would laugh at your inanity.
I have denied nothing, merely disbelieved your unevidenced and irrational superstitious claims.
That’s the opposite of critical thinking, it is presuppositional thinking, and it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, I also made no claims about “nothingness”, so it’s also a straw man fallacy. Well done champ…
Tell me “critical thinker”, where did you get “nothingness” from to test what could, and could not come from it? Is nothingness even possible? How did you establish that? You are so far out of your depth it’s cringeworthy.
Wrong again, that’s the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, since it claims something is true until it is disproved or an alternative explanation found.
Indeed, and we know this because we can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for the things humans design, and they never ever occur randomly in nature, so what you have produced is a false equivalence fallacy. You’re consistent in your irrationality, I will give you that.
An hilarious tautological circular reasoning fallacy. Care to demonstrate some objective evidence that a deity created anything? Or even offer an argument that isn’t irrational / fallacious? Give it a go…even as blinkered and uncritical a theists as you must have learned something about the logical fallacies explained to you by now.
It isn’t logical, logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, you keep violating those principles, and seem entirely ignorant of them. Do you really imagine you can bluff? Theists and apologists think they can tack words like fact and logic onto claims and this lends their assertions some gravitas among atheists, it is simply hilarious to watch them make such simple and appalling errors in reasoning.
I never claimed it could of course, but are you a theoretical physicist now? Please link your peer reviewed research, so we can all see the citations that provide a broad consensus to this paradigm shifting scientific discovery, only the scientific world seem unaware that you have put this one to bed.
On the other hand this type if lazy irrational and ignorant rhetoric, is floated by religious apologists all the time, it seems they are taught to absorb such nonsense uncritically, and for fairly obvious reasons.
No it doesn’t actually, that’s another lazy assumption. So lets do a quick recap:
All you have is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, using a god of the gaps polemic, and the creation myth in the bible can’t even get the basic chronological order of the formation of our solar system right. So much for it being the inerrant word of an infallible deity.
Try actually thinking critically for real, and understanding what the phrase means, instead of just repeating words others here have used, and using them as rhetoric, like a child repeating an insult back at someone.
Start questioning the unevidenced superstitious claims you’ve been fed by your religion, to believe with the uncritical blinkers of faith. Or don’t, your call either way, but you won’t sway people who know how to actually think critically, especially with the ignorant subjective irrational nonsense you’re posting, and especially as we have seen it all countless times before, or did you really imagine you’re the first?
I already knew how to think poorly and irrationally and uncritically, using religious faith, the Christian religion taught me this as a child. I grew up, and no longer accept irrational and unevidenced and erroneous superstition, as my threshold for credulity is a demonstration of sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence. That’s why I remain an atheist.
It’s not a proof, the claim is laughable. I almost feel sorry for someone that ill-informed, but it’s wilful ignorance on your part, so not too sorry.
No amount of repetition is going to help you, as your arguments are irrational, your claims unevidenced, you haven’t even tried to evidence them, and your grasp of logic and reason non-existent.
I shall repeat @CyberLN’s question, what do you hope to achieve here? You might ask yourself that, as endless repetition will be shot down in the same fashion, and for the same sound reasons. Maybe a pulpit or a revival tent would better suit your preaching than a debate forum, places where your irrational unevidenced superstitious claims will be accepted uncritically, not subjected to critical scrutiny, which of course they can never survive.
We have yet to observe any supernatural causes or deities, by your irrational rationale this would rule them out.
False dichotomy fallacy, my apologies for missing that one. Other hypothetical options to choosing an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic, would be:
There are likely more, but these will suffice to illustrate why false dichotomy fallacies are rejected as poor / weak reasoning.
How many logical fallacies is that? I don’t mean in total, I mean how many different logical fallacies has @kingiyk used?
Is it 6 different logical fallacies? I don’t think it is a record, but it has to be pretty close, and he may not be done yet, he’s branching out in that last post, from hokum mysticism of numerology, to first cause arguments. We might need to keep a tally.
That’s both hilarious and ironic coming from you. You’re the one who joined an Atheist website and are just preaching god claims without offering compelling evidence to convince us that your sky father is real. You cannot deny something that already doesn’t exist. If you want to convince me it is real, offer me scientific evidence. Not more anecdotal bs based off of your beliefs.
He also claimed his arguments for a deity exist outside of “rational constructs”, and implied it doesn’t need to be objectively evidenced, by asserting others should “alter the way they define evidence”. That sounds like someone constraining their worldview to me, a worldview that must encompass a deity, no matter what.
You’re right about it being hilariously ironic. Even after all these years to see religious apologists project their own failures in reasoning onto others, is still amusing.
I think there are grounds to say that he also used a formal logical fallacy, namely an association fallacy. Which would increase your count.
So it’s seven, maybe eight, as I think I can see a hasty generalisation fallacy in there as well.
Don’t forget abuse of mathematical notation, not following mathematical rules (the “A+B+C+D = A; B+C+D ≠ 0” part).
He’s like that obsessive kid at school coming up with every excuse why he believes Santa Claus is real. He just wont let it go. At some point, it gets ridiculous trying to talk some sense into that person.
Oh, I gave that up quite early in the thread. I’m mostly just explaining his mistakes to the casual reader (while stylistically addressing OP). Bullshit exists to be gainsaid.
Eight then, and counting.
