proof that god exists..

sponger

...something I read on another board. I am an atheist, but who cares.

0 can never equal 1

This is a simplest form of the case for God. 1 represents something, 0 of course represents nothing. Nothing can not spawn something. But apparently this has happened. One day energy just existed. this equation shows that this is impossible. However if you consider a supernatural being, not bound by the laws of the universe, it becomes possible. Our existence today proves this to be true. 0 can not multiply, it can not become one, it can only be 0. 1 however is a representation of the existence of energy. it can mean both one proton, or 1 can mean all of the matter within the universe.. both are equally impossible.

Ahnimus

That is some pretty flawed logic. :rolleyes:

sponger

Well, let's hear why you think that.

Ahnimus

Ok, it's like the intelligent design theory. The rule is only applied to ourselves. If we are here we must have came from something. That is supposed to mean god exists, but applying that same logic to God's existance means something existed before god. Most people argue that human logic does not apply to God.

With intelligent design the theory is that since we are so complex that we must have been created, like a watch. But God is the most complext entity of everything. Does that mean God must have been created?

If something can't be zero so it must be one. That does not prove God. It is logical to believe that matter never stops existing but only changes forms. This is the current perception of the universe. There is not begining or end, everything just is. Personally I think the big bang theory is kind of far-fetched for the evidence it's based on.

At any rate, the current scientific theory is that there always has been something. Energy always has been and always will be. It's the fabric of space and time. God may or may not fit in there somewhere. I just don't think dividing boolean numbers is the answer. Especially when that level of logic can only be applied to us and not God.

69charger

Just remember folks...

Child molesters, cancer, genocide, anal rape, murder, hippies...

All part of God's Plan.

dunkman

69charger wrote:

Just remember folks...

Child molesters, cancer, genocide, anal rape, murder, hippies...

All part of God's Plan.

add in volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, AIDS and boybands

dunkman

sponger wrote:

...something I read on another board. I am an atheist, but who cares.

you start a thread that states PROOF god exists and then finish off your opening lines with "i'm an atheist"

how do you expect us to believe the theory you've posted when you dont believe it yourself

sponger

I don't really expect people to believe the theory, but I'm interested in hearing what people think of it.

The board that I pulled it from didn't get any responses that directly addressed the actual argument at hand. A lot people just went on and on about evolution, creationism...

But, I was looking to see if anybody out there can give me their take on situation as it relates to this very simple approach to explain the inexplicable.

We can all just simply say that it's wrong. But, I think it can be challenge to actually try to put into words just why it's wrong, or why it's right. So far, I haven't really seen anything that definitively challenges the notion at hand.

Kann

sponger wrote:

I don't really expect people to believe the theory, but I'm interested in hearing what people think of it.

The board that I pulled it from didn't get any responses that directly addressed the actual argument at hand. A lot people just went on and on about evolution, creationism...

But, I was looking to see if anybody out there can give me their take on situation as it relates to this very simple approach to explain the inexplicable.

We can all just simply say that it's wrong. But, I think it can be challenge to actually try to put into words just why it's wrong, or why it's right. So far, I haven't really seen anything that definitively challenges the notion at hand.

Well the argument is flawed :
even using the big bang theory (and it may be far-fetched like said Ahnimus) you can't be sure there was nothing at the begining. When you consider the singularity wich caused the big bang, laws of physics break down so :
- 0 might equal 1, there are no laws at that moment of time
- we have no idea (yet) if there was no matter at all or something really small, really heavy

69charger

dunkman1974 wrote:

add in volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, AIDS and boybands

Thanks!

I forgot...

Creed, herpes, ALS (That shit Stephen Hawking has), plane crashes, and conspiracy theorists.

If you can think of more feel free to chime in

dunkman

69charger wrote:

Thanks!

I forgot...

Creed, herpes, ALS (That shit Stephen Hawking has), plane crashes, and conspiracy theorists.

If you can think of more feel free to chime in

sure thing

famine, public transport, old people who smell of piss, brussel sprouts, nuclear jam and monkeys with 3 cocks..

i made some up for dramatic effect... famine??... i mean what the fuck is famine?

sponger

Kann wrote:

you can't be sure there was nothing at the begining.

That's what the argument is saying. It's saying that there can't be a big bang because the big bang assumes there was nothing at the beginning. And with zero not being equal to 1, one would have to assume that there exists something that is not bound to the laws of mathematics.

- 0 might equal 1, there are no laws at that moment of time

You say might. I don't disagree. But, might is not definitive. That's what makes this worthy of discussion, IMO.

- we have no idea (yet) if there was no matter at all or something really small, really heavy

again...we have no idea. It's easy to say look it's just not conclusive enough.

But, I appreciate your input. It was interesting.

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, it's like the intelligent design theory. The rule is only applied to ourselves. If we are here we must have came from something. That is supposed to mean god exists, but applying that same logic to God's existance means something existed before god. Most people argue that human logic does not apply to God.

With intelligent design the theory is that since we are so complex that we must have been created, like a watch. But God is the most complext entity of everything. Does that mean God must have been created?

If something can't be zero so it must be one. That does not prove God. It is logical to believe that matter never stops existing but only changes forms. This is the current perception of the universe. There is not begining or end, everything just is. Personally I think the big bang theory is kind of far-fetched for the evidence it's based on.

At any rate, the current scientific theory is that there always has been something. Energy always has been and always will be. It's the fabric of space and time. God may or may not fit in there somewhere. I just don't think dividing boolean numbers is the answer. Especially when that level of logic can only be applied to us and not God.

And some of us settle for a cup of coffee first thing on a Monday morning! :rolleyes:

69charger

sponger wrote:

However if you consider a supernatural being, not bound by the laws of the universe, it becomes possible.

1. Couldn't this answer be used to explain any untested or untestable hypothetical?

2. Why does that supernatural being have to be God?

3. Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when equal proof exists for the existance of both as the Creator of the Universe?

sponger

Even though the title of this thread says "Proof that god exists", I'm not actually trying to say that it's proof that god exists.

I agree that it makes more sense to say that it's a matter of time before science proves the big bang theory or whatever else. Of course it is utterly silly and proposterous to say that anything we can't fully explain now MUST be evidence of the almighty one.

But, until then, theists are going to be using every angle they've got to convince people to "see the light".

Know thine enemy. That's actually what this thread is about.

Puck78

sponger wrote:

...something I read on another board. I am an atheist, but who cares.

0 can never equal 1

This is a simplest form of the case for God. 1 represents something, 0 of course represents nothing. Nothing can not spawn something. But apparently this has happened. One day energy just existed. this equation shows that this is impossible. However if you consider a supernatural being, not bound by the laws of the universe, it becomes possible. Our existence today proves this to be true. 0 can not multiply, it can not become one, it can only be 0. 1 however is a representation of the existence of energy. it can mean both one proton, or 1 can mean all of the matter within the universe.. both are equally impossible.

well, this is not true anymore when you consider quantum mechanics and the uncertainity principle

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

well, this is not true anymore when you consider quantum mechanics and the uncertainity principle

care to divulge?

Puck78

sponger wrote:

care to divulge?

it is not very easy, but the principle is the following: when you go to microscopic scales (less than 10^-33 m) physics is governed by quantum mechanics, not by the normal physics laws that we experience every day. Quantum mechanics is bases on the particle-wave dualism, than means that at these scales particles behave like waves and vice-versa.
One consequence of this is that there are some conjugate variables that you can't determine at the same time.
One consequence of this is that you can have fluctuations of the vacuum (due to the fact that you can't determine the properties of the "vacuum"), that could create an universe.
This is all at the primitive stage of theories, however, so that religion can still be a "personal feeling": we can't still predict through physics or logic the existence or unexistence of god.

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

it is not very easy, but the principle is the following: when you go to microscopic scales (less than 10^-33 m) physics is governed by quantum mechanics, not by the normal physics laws that we experience every day. Quantum mechanics is bases on the particle-wave dualism, than means that at these scales particles behave like waves and vice-versa.
One consequence of this is that there are some conjugate variables that you can't determine at the same time.
One consequence of this is that you can have fluctuations of the vacuum (due to the fact that you can't determine the properties of the "vacuum"), that could create an universe.
This is all at the primitive stage of theories, however, so that religion can still be a "personal feeling": we can't still predict through physics or logic the existence or unexistence of god.

So what are you trying to say with that? How does that make 0 equal to 1.

chopitdown

I dont' think that you can PROVE that God exists. That being said it's almost more difficult to PROVE that God doesn't exist. You can examine the scientific and natural world and you can use sources from that world to make the claim that God exists and you can say b/c of what I see, I don't believe that it could arise from chance or without an supernatural being.

wiki has some interesting reading on ontological and teleological proofs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Collin

chopitdown wrote:

I dont' think that you can PROVE that God exists. That being said it's almost more difficult to PROVE that God doesn't exist. You can examine the scientific and natural world and you can use sources from that world to make the claim that God exists and you can say b/c of what I see, I don't believe that it could arise from chance or without an supernatural being.

Why would it be more difficult to prove he doesn't exist?