Very simple math proves the existance of God

God and other energies like spirits should become physics laws or true facts and it should be accepted by every scientists.
I hate fanatical mindless atheists who thinks they know everything and deny a superior force whitout a solid proof.Big scientists like Einstein aproved that God exists but in other forms,he said that God means the whole physical laws in the universe and that he didnt used logic in some of his discoveries.
The way God is described in religions has a primitive concept of him so we humans as an evolved species in this universe should change this whole primitive concepts about God using rational thoughts and some psychological facts.

a reply to: PaulTheDuke

In order to become "physical laws" or "true facts" there would need to be even a single shred of objective evidence. None exists.

a reply to: GetHyped

Well,that is a good point but i still believe that there is no unnexplained things,but there is only "soon-to-be-explained" things in the universe and God is one of them even if there is no objective proofs...there will be....

originally posted by: PaulTheDuke

God and other energies like spirits should become physics laws or true facts and it should be accepted by every scientists.
I hate fanatical mindless atheists who thinks they know everything and deny a superior force whitout a solid proof.Big scientists like Einstein aproved that God exists but in other forms,he said that God means the whole physical laws in the universe and that he didnt used logic in some of his discoveries.
The way God is described in religions has a primitive concept of him so we humans as an evolved species in this universe should change this whole primitive concepts about God using rational thoughts and some psychological facts.

The burden of proof is on those that claim god DOES exist to prove it, not the other way around. Why would god be accepted by every scientist when there is no evidence? That goes against science. Non existence for something with no evidence is the logical choice. Einstein absolutely did not prove god exists. I agree that most religions are out of date and need to be updated into the modern era, but stubborn fundamentalists who take the holy books as absolute literal truth are the ones ruining it. I'm an agnostic atheist myself but I respect other people's beliefs until they start denying science to advocate them.

there is no"god" didn't Jesus say "ye are all gods and ye don't even know it!"

there are higher beings, much much higher than us

thing is we are those higher beings but they erased our memories and enslaved us as humans on this planet

i want to go home ET

a reply to: Barcs

I have to tell you that im not one of those fanatic religious peoples who take the holy books as literal truth,i am also an agnostic and you have to approve that you missunderstood me a bit....I didnt take Einstein point of view about God as a fundamental thought of mine,it was just an example that came out in my mind.I have to approve that i went too far about telling that scientists should accept God whitout a proof of him...but as i said in a previous reply to another member that there is no unnexplained things in the Universe but there is only "soon-to-be-explained" things,and God is included here...

Soooo. 0+0=1 is incorrect, therefore; God exists?

a reply to: Collateral

Soooo. 0+0=1 is incorrect, therefore; God exists?

No. Let's state this algebraically:

0 + x = y

Given that "y" is "everything", solve for "x".

And anyone who tells you that they know, for a fact, what "x" is, whether theologian or scientist, is lying to you.

a reply to: adjensen

So:

Y - 0 = X

Everything minus nothing equals something.

Edit.
Well technically I guess X = Y.

So something equals everything. What is the 0 again?

a reply to: Collateral

What is the 0 again?

Nothing.

The universe, existing in time, cannot be eternal, therefore, there was once a time when there was nothing.

So, nothing plus something ( 0 + x ) equals everything ( y ).

Figure out what the "x" is, and you'll likely be honoured as the greatest thinker of all time. Larry Krause took a stab at it with 2012's A Universe From Nothing and made a serious embarrassment of himself, Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists.

Care to have a go at it?

originally posted by: adjensen
The universe, existing in time, cannot be eternal, therefore, there was once a time when there was nothing.

Why? How would you know that?

Do you realise that the concept of creatio ex nihilo isn't even mentioned in the creationists holy book? As far as we can really go back (about 10^-44 seconds after the proposed big bang) or make observations, time, space (obviously) and everything in our universe (in one form or another) already exist. If you could truly go back further and really demonstrate that there was literally "nothing" before this, you could expect to be a Nobel laureate yourself.

As far as we know, the universe in it's present form had a beginning. But a singularity itself is not "nothing" and the notion is gradually being discarded by science anyway (both Hawking and Penrose seem to have discarded it long ago), nor does it necessarily mean that literally "nothing" preceded it. It means that no one knows.

Why couldn't Hawkings' ideas about time be true?

How would you disprove the following (from a Professor of Theoretical Astrophysics)..?

A Universe with matter or radiation totally has a singularity at time t=0, but — and this is very, very important — an inflating Universe does not! In fact, we can take the inflating, exponentially expanding Universe back arbitrarily far, and what do we find? It never reaches a size of zero! If you want an inflating Universe to have a singularity, you need to go back an infinite amount of time!

.....the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.

scienceblogs.com...

Larry Krause took a stab at it with 2012's A Universe From Nothing and made a serious embarrassment of himself, Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists.

Lol.

So by exploring possibilities, at least within the parameters of genuine science, this is making a fool of yourself?

Perhaps it is to the faux philosophers and pseudo scientists (ie. sky fairyists) who begin their musings with such assumptions as above and also the assumption that a magical sky Elf exists...and go from there.

a reply to: adjensen

The problem is you can' t just assign a single algebraic value to "everything" as it is obviously FAR more complicated than that. You also have no proof that "nothing" ever existed. It's a nonsensical equation on both sides of it and any mathematician or scientist would be laughing his head off reading that silliness. The only way to prove god is through objective evidence, not some 3rd grade level math equation that completely over simplifies reality as we know it and essentially makes up variables. I mean have you seen the equations involved in relativity or string theory? And you think you can sum all that up with plain old X or assign a numerical value to infinity? No chance.

originally posted by: adjensen

So, nothing plus something ( 0 + x ) equals everything ( y ).

Lol.

Sounds legit. Proof for a creator/god if ever there was any.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: adjensen

The problem is you can' t just assign a single algebraic value to "everything" as it is obviously FAR more complicated than that. You also have no proof that "nothing" ever existed. It's a nonsensical equation on both sides of it and any mathematician or scientist would be laughing his head off reading that silliness. The only way to prove god is through objective evidence, not some 3rd grade level math equation that completely over simplifies reality as we know it and essentially makes up variables. I mean have you seen the equations involved in relativity or string theory? And you think you can sum all that up with plain old X or assign a numerical value to infinity? No chance.

Agree. The whole conversation is redundant, yet some seem to be taking it very seriously.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Why? How would you know that?

Because, while the universe can have an infinite future, it cannot have an infinite past, or this moment would never have arrived.

So by exploring possibilities, at least within the parameters of genuine science, this is making a fool of yourself?

Dawkins made a fool of himself by claiming in the book's afterward that Krause's claims would be seen one day to be as revolutionary as Darwin's. But it only took a few months for David Albert to demonstrate that Krause had shown that Krause's "proofs" were that something can come from something, not that something can come from nothing. Krause's response was to belittle "moronic philosophers" who don't understand his genius, but no one seems to be making that "as huge as Darwin" connection any longer.

a reply to: Barcs

The problem is you can' t just assign a single algebraic value to "everything" as it is obviously FAR more complicated than that.

Fine. Let "y" be "something". Make it a quark or a lepton.

Both of you seem to be labouring in the belief that I think that this "proves God" -- I don't. I think it's a pretty stupid argument, as a matter of fact. But I think that it's equally stupid to dismiss it and say that the philosophical issues that it raises are irrelevant, because some of the deepest thinkers ever have pondered it and come up short.

So, feel free to explain how something can come from nothing. Prove it, and you'll be "as big as Darwin", lol.

originally posted by: adjensen
Fine. Let "y" be "something". Make it a quark or a lepton.

Both of you seem to be labouring in the belief that I think that this "proves God" -- I don't. I think it's a pretty stupid argument, as a matter of fact. But I think that it's equally stupid to dismiss it and say that the philosophical issues that it raises are irrelevant, because some of the deepest thinkers ever have pondered it and come up short.

So, feel free to explain how something can come from nothing. Prove it, and you'll be "as big as Darwin", lol.

I agree that it's a stupid argument, but it's primarily because the equation doesn't hold water. There are too many unknown variables. We have no clue the intricacies involved with inter dimensional physics, so to simplify it into a 3 part equation is nonsensical. That is why it is dismissed. We don't know that "nothing" ever existed. We don't even know that this universe is everything. If you want to talk philosophy that's fine, but keep in mind that it has no bearing or relevance in real world science.

Feel free to prove that "nothing" ever existed, you'll be known as the greatest scientist of all time. Scientists aren't the ones that believe in something spontaneously forming out of nothing. This is the other side of the coin. The people who say the universe has to have a cause, and they say the cause is god. But when that same scrutiny is applied in asking about the cause of god they backtrack or make up an explanation like "he always was there". Okay, terrific, so god came from nothing, then right? That same exact equation can actually disprove god as well, that's the funny part. Set Y to equal god instead and you get the same result. How can anything possibly come from nothing (including god)?

The cause is not God. It's mathematics itself. Mathematics is mental the universe is always mental. What evolves is mental complexity. Unconscious mathematical entities Monads grow more complex through trial and error(start as just feeling then to thinking) Nothing or zero is not a state of void as people think it's potential, infinite mental potential that will be actualized God is the end of that potential. Mathematical entities(monads) are free to be wrong and irrational within a dimensional mathematical arena of strict mathematical laws, the laws of physics.

Euler Formula. Nothing is something(infinite)
Fourier Mathematics. Mind/matter duality. Frequency domain(dimensionless) spacetime domain(dimensional)
Complex numbers
Monads
Conscious/Unconscious duality.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Because, while the universe can have an infinite future, it cannot have an infinite past, or this moment would never have arrived.

I already know that is what you are claiming. While I can certainly understand the logic you are using, what I asked is how you know this and if you could demonstrate it? No one seems to have been able to, so far at least.

As science is showing us, there is much that can clash with our logic and intuitive thought. The linked Prof. of Astrophysics showed (using real maths) that it can have an infinite past, at least mathematically. Though in the end no one really knows.

Dawkins made a fool of himself by claiming in the book's afterward that Krause's claims would be seen one day to be as revolutionary as Darwin's. But it only took a few months for David Albert to demonstrate that Krause had shown that Krause's "proofs" were that something can come from something, not that something can come from nothing. Krause's response was to belittle "moronic philosophers" who don't understand his genius, but no one seems to be making that "as huge as Darwin" connection any longer.

That is quite a subjective opinion itself and just depends how you see it. I doubt Dawkins opinion amounts to making a fool of himself at all. How do we know that this area of science isn't revolutionising, or won't revolutionise how we view our universe? It does seem amazing.

Krauss also seemed to define quite clearly and scientifically what he was describing as "nothing". While I agree that the principles of quantum physics themselves are not "nothing", it was never claimed to be the Albert type "nothing" of the philosophers. He was obviously giving an alternate science based scenario to the "god made it" version.

I also think that if people like in the op bothered to learn more, instead of propping up their position with strawman fallacies that lack any sort of intelletual integrity, they might find that most atheists are open to the idea that there could be "something" (as in some fundamental cause). Though for many reasons discount religious type gods (as portrayed) apart from having nothing to genuinely indicate they exist (which is a good reason in itself).

I can even see that it might be possible to have some sort of personal knowledge or relationship with such a thing if it exists (it makes logical sense IMO), but as yet there doesn't seem to be any scientific reason to think it does and even these personal experience type of claims have other explanations.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Most atheists argue against the Bible rather than the concept of a creator. Personally I can't fathom the idea of something coming from nothing or of something always existing, so I'm a bit of a fence sitter in the creationist vs atheist view.
There are people much smarter than me that may be able to think in those terms, or say they can, but I can't even wrap my head around the time spans involved in the evolution of our planet let alone the universe.

I don't think that atheists necessarily think that something came out of nothing. It's obviously all on a level far above our understanding and thinking capabilities ... For now.

I just don't attribute everything I don't understand to an invisible man in the sky.