Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I never thought proof that God doesn't exist would be tl;dr.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God. This amazes me because in general all science students learn at least a little bit of philosophy of science. One of the most basic principles in philosophy of science is that of falsifiability. A statement is falsifiable if there is an observation (either experimental or logical) that can demonstrate that the statement is false. For example, the statement “all cats are black” can easily be disproven by finding a cat that is not black. Similarly, the statement “parallel straight lines meet at some point” is false by definition. However, statements such as “this cat ought to be black” are unfalsifiable because it is impossible to demonstrate what something ought to be. Another example of an unfalsifiable statement is “if I had been born in Nigeria, I would be two meters tall”. These statements are unscientific because they are unfalsifiable. Science cannot tell us anything about them. It can neither prove them nor disprove them. However, an unfalsifiable statement may be true. For example, “mothers ought to love their children” is unfalsifiable and unscientific, but may be true nonetheless. The existence of God is unfalsifiable. Therefore, science cannot tell us anything about it. Claiming that this is not so is demonstrating a profound ignorance of what science is and is not. Please share your thoughts on the matter.
Proving God is easy with simple arthmetic
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....
Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.
Potentially an infinite amount...
But in truth....
Only one number does exist
The number "1"
E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
That is because "1" explains itself and every other number.
In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".
Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.
For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".
50% =
1/2 =
0.5 OF 1
What's so special about "1" is it is also complete
1 = 100%
In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )
( <------bound, beginning
) <------end, finish
*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
5 x 4 = 20
One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.
(1) or (100%)
Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.
ANYTHING that can be calculated is.
Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).
∞ = infinity.
A concept not a number meaning boundless/endless
Unrestricted (beyond brackets)
This is what has come to be known as potential infinite, even though it's just studying the ∞ possibilities within (1).
If we accept (∞) as anything more it would be the greatest oxymoron in the history of mankind.
There is also another restriction of the number (1)
That is because by itself can not do much.
It needs a medium or a language to communicate.
multiple, divide, square root Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.
Addition and subtraction
+ -
Just like (1),
(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.
Example
(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)
So inside every (1) we have (+|-).
E.g
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself.
Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark
We can even say
Yin Yang for good measure
All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.
Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.
Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.
(+ -) within (1)
Now to make it interesting..........
Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.
My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say
everything = (100)
What would be
1 + (100) = ?
It can not be 101
Reason
Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)
Let me rephrase the question
from my brief explanation above what would be
1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)
????
It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called
Absolute (meaning 100%)
Infinity
∞
A CONCEPT (NOT A NUMBER) beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"
So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)
The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+|-) = ∞
Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.
What so special about this equation?
LETS GET INTO SCIENCE:
__________________
Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."
So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________
Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.
Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.
__________________
Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
The equation covers this aspect quite easily.
A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.
+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,
And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
__________________
RELIGION
It explain outside of our brackets
God is complete 1
100%
Yet he is incomprehensible
∞
It explains that we have the option of either choosing a + path or - negative
If on the day of judgment "=" (The day of TOTALLING/Tallying/equal sign)
our good deeds out way our bad
1 + ( + > - ) = + ∞
You will end up in eternal positive or heaven
Respectively
1 + ( + < -) = - ∞
Hell
God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+ - )
and he only gives + "good" to all creation
and everything (1) was made in pairs (+ - )
__________________
Prisca Theologia
+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta
(∞)=∞ Pantheist, the universe is God
(1)=∞ Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.
( 1 + (+|-) = ∞) Christianity,
father 1=∞
holy spirit +
son (+|-)
Exterior brackets trinity
(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son)
Even though Jesus can have potentially have an (∞) possibilities within him, he can never be God. That is why he always said the father ∞ is greater than I (1)
Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1
on all whom depend +
he begets not, (+)
nor is begotten (-)
(+|-)
and none is like him ∞
---->It is everywhere (on every page in every Surah) in the Quran .<--------
Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)
I'm merely saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed.
"Can science disprove the existence of God?" I'd say no, and I'm an atheist. I will acknowledge though that science often eliminates the necessity to believe. It provides more in depth and far more reasonable explanations than the simplistic myths offered up in Genesis. I will also say that scientists are not gearing their research to answer the god question. Do the results of experiments and resulting hypotheses, and theories, often fly in the face of biblical claims? Yes, but that is because Genesis does not mirror reality.I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God.
And as most of us will be dead, what will science do for us? We can fill our coffin with i-phones, lap tops etc...of what use?
Science is knowledge, my friend.
The more we know, the better off we are.
Science has created, and will continue to create medicine.
The type of which saves lives by the millions.
But, to answer your question, science sates my thirst for knowledge.
And it has also saved my life three times.
It will prevent my child from getting the vast majority of deadly diseases.
It gives me something to look forward to everyday.
It gives me a meaning to my life.
It gives us all something to turn to for facts that are actually facts.
Most of all, it helps make life that much easier.
That is fine, but can you give me the same answer in 50 years, and will I be around to read it? Of what use then is Science, except for making our lives more complex and live longer so we can pay more tax? A simple life is a happy life, for ignorance is bliss, the more you have the more you tend to want......desire is endless as long as science dangles the wriggling worm in front of you, billionaires can be very unhappy. Death is a fact, tomorrow or whenever..... science can only postpone very temporarily what is inevitable, and how profitable for our Rulers, as they garner the extra tax? Science is making our lives far more complex, drug use and depression is going through the roof, wars are constantly waging as Science marches forward, refugees from the ravages of science's products, are at a record scale. Police can hardly fight crime due to Domestic violence, wars are fuelled by Science, drones kill people thousands of miles away while their operators sit with their families having a beer.............what does Science do about that, what does Science do about atomic weapons, what answer does Science give us? Science has no answers on the unknown, it only extends the borders of the known. God is consciousness, as consciousness is the only reality and has need of NOthing...neither proof or it's opposite....it is the total absence of both, of all duality, until you make God a concept and idol of the mind or carved out of matter.
1) Irrational and complex numbersProving God is easy with simple arthmetic
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....
Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.
Potentially an infinite amount...
But in truth....
Only one number does exist
The number "1"
E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
What part of/what fraction of 1 is Euler's constant?For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".
Here I thought completeness required that all Cauchy sequences convergeWhat's so special about "1" is it is also complete
Nope.In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
The interval (0,1) has no end, as for any number in the interval we pick (e.g., .999999999999999999999999999999999), there are infinitely many numbers closer than this one to the number 1, and as () denote open sets, 1, isn't in this interval. Closed sets in R are denoted [a,b].In maths this is signified with brackets ( )
Boundaries and boundedness are different in mathematics and neither refers to the "beginning" of an open set (a,b) which by virtue of being open has no beginning and no end. It does have a l.u.b./supremum and a g.l.b./infimum.( <------bound, beginning
) <------end, finish
Brackets denote many things. Parenthesis do too.In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths.
How exactly do Dedekind cuts, nonlinear transformations in complex spaces, linear combinations of infinite dimensional function spaces, complex integration, Lebesgue integrals, Fourier transforms, differentiating under the integral, the axioms of ZFC, Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures, and so on, amount to "fancy and group methods of...addition and subtraction"?multiple, divide, square root Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.
Addition and subtraction
Path integrals calculated by addition and subtraction. Hmmm...Just like (1),
(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.
Funny scientists don't seem to be aware of this scientific fact.Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.
????Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
Cantor had trouble believing his own results (writing to Dedekind "I see [it], but I don't believe [it]"), having proved that there is a map from R to R2 as well as that there exist infinitely many distinct infinite sets, starting with countably infinite sets (the natural numbers, integers, rationals, etc.), the continuum (anything with cardinality equal to that of [0,1]), the power set of the continuum, etc. He didn't coin transfinite to make these distinctions, he proved them somewhat accidently and then had to develop a term to deal with his results.Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)
What is 0?And what about the number "zero"?
As I've said, science is knowledge.
How that knowledge is used is not up to science.
Atomic bombs, drones, etc.
It's a gigantic puzzle the likes of which cannot be comprehended.
It has no will or want, no mind to adhere to.
It's at the disposal of humans.
Whether it be used for politics, war, or medicine, it is the only constant stream of knowledge we have.
You seem to be stuck in an extremely pessimistic worldview, much like I am.
I agree that death is fact, inevitable in itself... Read my name, lol.
But, I disagree on God, as I am a hard atheist and apatheist.
I do not need, nor do I want God. I just want to live my life as enjoyable as possible then revert to nothingness.
Being some eternal slave, or constituting a superbeing of 'oneness', does not appeal to me.
It's only a way to escape reality, and I don't care to do that in such a mentally twisted fashion.
1) Irrational and complex numbers
2) There are more numbers in the interval [0,1] than there are "counting numbers", integers, even rationals. Not all infinities are equal. In fact, even though there are infinitely many rationals in every interval in R, they are a negligible set, so small that they can be basically ignored for many purposes (e.g., integration or probability, as the probability of selecting a rational number at random from any interval is 0).
What part of/what fraction of 1 is Euler's constant?
Here I thought completeness required that all Cauchy sequences converge
Nope.
The interval (0,1) has no end, as for any number in the interval we pick (e.g., .999999999999999999999999999999999), there are infinitely many numbers closer than this one to the number 1, and as () denote open sets, 1, isn't in this interval. Closed sets in R are denoted [a,b].
Boundaries and boundedness are different in mathematics and neither refers to the "beginning" of an open set (a,b) which by virtue of being open has no beginning and no end. It does have a l.u.b./supremum and a g.l.b./infimum.
Brackets denote many things. Parenthesis do to.
How exactly do Dedekind cuts, nonlinear transformations in complex spaces, linear combinations of infinite dimensional function spaces, complex integration, Lebesgue integrals, Fourier transforms, differentiating under the integral, the axioms of ZFC, Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures, and so on, amount to "fany and group methods of...addition and subtraction"?
Path integrals calculated by addition and subtraction. Hmmm...
Funny scientists don't seem to be aware of this scientific fact.
????
Quantum mechanics is problematic PRECISELY because it is incompatible with special relativity in that it DOESN'T allow for the creation or annihilation of particles, hence quantum field theory.
Cantor had trouble believing his own results (writing to Dedekind "I see [it], but I don't believe [it]"), having proved that there is a map from R to R2 as well as that there exist infinitely many distinct infinite sets, starting with countably infinite sets (the natural numbers, integers, rationals, etc.), the continuum (anything with cardinality equal to that of [0,1]), the power set of the continuum, etc. He didn't coin transfinite to make these distinctions, he proved them somewhat accidently and then had to develop a term to deal with his results.
They are described and defined by mathematics. The problem is that they don't conform to your "everything can be explained in terms of 1" approach. Otherwise, you could demonstrate how.Irrational and complex numbers are still restricted by governing laws of mathematics
This isn't math, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy, or metaphysics. It's just not meaningful, but is demonstrably wrong from a mathematical or philosophy of mathematics perspective.meaning they are only the infinite possibilities within 1
Not only can infinite concepts be defined, but differing such concepts can be and have been.and not an actual infinite concept which can't be defined.
What is the basis for this claim?they can never be absolute infinite cause they are defined
You didn't provide any actual equations. You just wrote down a bunch of nonsense notation surrounded by nonsense descriptions of mathematics.This equation is explaining the Absolute Infinite beyond any restricting and governing laws.
It's not infinite at all. It's representation requires an actual infinite, but it is an infinitesimal point.Using Pi as an example we can easily see its restricted to itself and only potentially infinite.
There are infinitely many circles, not "the circle", and the relationship you describe yields a number which requires an ACTUALLY INFINITE amount of information.To explain, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and is restricted to the circle's circumference.
I'm loosing interest. Normally, I'll use any excuse to introduce topics from mathematics, but there is a limit to how much nonsense I'll wade through to do this.It is within a 100% complete and enclosing "circle".
I didn't reference, mention, or otherwise point to any paradox. You've read into what I've written that which isn't present.For example take the hilbert hotel paradox, It is still within a hotel.
And oranges are peas, hotels are dogs, and numbers are buttons. Wake me when you get to the demonstrations concerning "Dedekind cuts, nonlinear transformations in complex spaces, linear combinations of infinite dimensional function spaces, complex integration, Lebesgue integrals, Fourier transforms, differentiating under the integral, the axioms of ZFC, Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures, and so on" (and path integrals, which I believe I mentioned too).Also 3.1415926535... is basically (1)+(1)+(1)
What is 0?
Please explain
Cause if you mean something was there and then wasn't then it never can be 0 and if it never existed we wouldn't know the 0 of it exists
Something that exist can not "not" exist because it has existed.
If the entity is removed it is the absence of an existence, not uncreated.
Nothing can only exist because it was something.
Something can never become nothing because it was once something and nothing can not be subtracted unless it becomes an additional something.
As soon as we label it nothing, it becomes something even if there is nothing there. The reason is when we identify its nothing, we give a no value (even if its nothing) within mathematical laws.
This doesn't only apply to physical or tangible entities.
For example we can create (or add on) using our imagination. The unique imaginative something that we created exists at a certain time within your space so even if forgotten and never remembered again, it can never become nothing, only the addition it supplied is removed.
However even this imaginative something is still restricted and can only be created because of our experiences.
We can not imagine what someone else imagines nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.
E.g
Say I dreamt of monster in my childhood.
Did that monster ever exist?
Actually yes, even though I just imagined it subconsciously it existed and was definable at that present time, even if none of the details can be remembered or is totally forgotten.
I.e it must be recorded for that particular time of my space
More so, for me just to give the above example I am creating something.
I've defined a nonexistent for example purposes so even if I never had any dreams of a monster in my life, it still exists because of my example.
Hence we can never identify "Absolute Zero" for as soon as we label "it" , "it" becomes the absence of something rather than becoming from nothing.
You are entitled to think that. One's point was that "God" is not a personal being, but a concept for most people. One considers "God" to be "consciousness" not a thought, idea or an image, but pure awareness without a subject or object in view, never a thing in time and space, beyond what is understood through the senses sensorially. Of course our sensorial constructed reality, that is so overwhelmingly convincing, despite illusions of sight, and new theorems like the Quantum world. No doubt the metaphysical development of philosophy may ask questions, that Science cannot answer and even dialectically disprove......like for example, Nagarjuma, Candrakirti that that can bring our sensorial world to the guillotine..... that is so to speak. bring it to a head. Our Science is no more exact than our Religious theology, as they are all based on invalid assumptions. according to it's own incredible fabrications of the mind. Not even our mind can be demonstrated to exist in a sensorial way, or even an observer that observes an experiment...........all of this is conceptual based on information from our 6 senses to be infallible..... there is no direct evidence our senses are infallible.It is just a belief like God.
Science is only valid if our senses are infallible.
I am amazed at how many high-calibre scientists are out to demonstrate that science disproves the existence of God.