proof that god exists..

UKDave

sponger wrote:

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

0 and 1 are simplified labels / explanations made up by man to justify our theories, none of this has been proven beyond doubt, it is purely current theory / thinking so the argument at the start of the thread is built on assumption of truth which is therefore inconclusive and can not be taken as proof in itself... :eek: ouch...!!

sponger

I think some people are interpreting this as the moment of truth or something to that effect. Who cares if anything can to proven or disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.

UKDave

sponger wrote:

I think some people are interpreting this as the moment of truth or something to that effect. Who cares if anything can to proven or disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.

:rolleyes: because the thread is titled PROOF that god exists...!! :rolleyes:

sponger

UKDave wrote:

:rolleyes: because the thread is titled PROOF that god exists...!! :rolleyes:

Yes, I know, and I admitted that was a poor choice of wording on my part. Actually, I was just copy/pasting from the board I borrowed this from, so it wasn't really a choice. It was more like an act of conformity.

UKDave

sponger wrote:

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.

Ah... missed this one... ok, with ya on that one...

Puck78

sponger wrote:

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

the thing that i wrote referred to the bold part of your sentence

sponger wrote:

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.

anyway, all of this is logic for children. With a bit of sophism you can say that 0 is not "nothing" but is that something between -1 and 1. You can't prove energy or god with those simple arguments.

catefrances

so let's say for the sake of argument that God DOES exist. what was he doing before he created the universe and everything in it?

dunkman

catefrances wrote:

so let's say for the sake of argument that God DOES exist. what was he doing before he created the universe and everything in it?

he was building a death star.... or doing the worlds hardest sudoku thingy... errrrrr.....

obviously not working on his plans for the earths crust... shoddy workmanship there god... people are dying because god didnt create the earth correctly... he's so loving


what did he do between dinosaurs and humans??? 7 days to make the earth, 350 million years rest... thats a shift system i'm interested in!

farfromglorified

Your "proof" is based on the assumption that there ever was a zero. Furthermore, it is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are infinitely static.

The first, most likely, is a faulty assumption.

The second is questionable.

Regardless, to prove the non-logical through logic is a fool's errand.

pushmepullme

It hurts my head to think of things like this. But I had the flu last year and was thinking some wildly outlandish thoughts and was convinced that I knew the answer to this based on simple physics and a little bit of theory, however before i had the chance to write it down, i got better and forgot. But I'd have been famous and it would've been called 'The Willsher Theory' after me.

Puck78

farfromglorified wrote:

Furthermore, it is based on the assumption that the laws of physics are infinitely static.

well, no, they vary with the scale, this is known. Of course to even smaller scales and to even higher energies they might vary in a different way than predicted, but this is what we have and the tools that we can use to make science. Without those (or without searching for new good ones) we would be priests, not scientists

know1

So the basic premise is that, because there are bad things that happen on earth, God must not exist?

That's extremely small minded, in my opinion. What if we introduce the thought that only a very tiny fraction of our existence is about our life on earth?

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

What if we introduce the thought that only a very tiny fraction of our existence is about our life on earth?

That's fine. And proceeding with that particular vein of logic we can say that life on earth is merely a prelude to something else, and that therefore we can undervalue it, and disregard the importance of the environment which sustains it, in the name of some higher, albeit abstract, ideal.

dunkman

know1 wrote:

So the basic premise is that, because there are bad things that happen on earth, God must not exist?

well... explain why the earth is poorly constructed?

and as a result of this amateur global jigsaw being so crappily made it has been spewing forth hot magma over the years killing thousands of people and 250,000 deaths caused via an underground earthquake forming a giant tsunami... and you know that some of the victims of these events didnt havr time to truly accept god so now they reside in hell... and god caused them to be in hell, because he didnt give them 'time' to accept him...

thats pretty fucked up

VINNY GOOMBA

farfromglorified wrote:

Regardless, to prove the non-logical through logic is a fool's errand.

I like that, and I think that explains it all, for everyone... I don't think you can logically explain God's existence. You can't prove or disprove really. It's a matter of faith, whether you believe or not.

farfromglorified

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I like that, and I think that explains it all, for everyone... I don't think you can logically explain God's existence. You can't prove or disprove really. It's a matter of faith, whether you believe or not.

Precisely. The original poster actually refers to this:

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

He/she then proceeds to try to "prove" something beyond the bounds of logic within the confines of 0/1 logic.

There is no logical proof for God. Similarly, there is no logical disproof for God. Proofs require the confines of rules which in turn invalidates omnipotence.

Believers of all stripes need to stick to their bread and butter: faith. For better or for worse.

farfromglorified

dunkman1974 wrote:

well... explain why the earth is poorly constructed?

I love how you equate death with the earth being "poorly constructed".

If a creator God does exist, I doubt it shares your standards.

darthvedder81

Whatever side you come down on, the origin of the universe eventually becomes a matter of faith and not science. Science needs to be observed and studied and hopefully reproduced. Until someone events a time machine we aren't going to be able to scientifically deduce anything.

What I always wonder about the big bang is how did all that matter that exploded and made everything get there? What caused caused it to "explode" in the first place? If there's one thing that the laws of thermodynamics teach us it's that there are definite cause/effect relationships in the natural world so why should that be any different during the formation of the universe?

At some point, whether you believe in intelligent design or not, you have to come to terms with the fact that the world had no true beginning and that time is infinite—and that's not a scientific thing that's a belief thing.

anarchist_grunger

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.

have you ever heard about the sophist movement in ancient greece...you should check them out...the thing you posted is what a philospher calls a "sophism"...it's not a proof that god exists, it's just a proof that, by using common logic you can demonstrate any crap possible

dunkman

farfromglorified wrote:

I love how you equate death with the earth being "poorly constructed".

If a creator God does exist, I doubt it shares your standards.

thanks... high standards are a thing of mine, now if you'll excuse me i have to go back through all of my 8,000+ posts to check for comma mistakes...

laters