Very simple math proves the existance of God

Number of gods known to exist in reality (outside of delusion) or that have any direct evidence at all indicating they exist = 0.

Therefore the "very simple maths" is not only irrelevant , but is a ridiculous strawman fallacy.

The question of existence could be a fascinating (philosophical) discussion, if people didn't insist on an anthropomorphic biblical moron or pretend that real science supports their fallacies.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Number of gods known to exist in reality (outside of delusion) = 0.

Therefore maths is irrelevant.

The question of existence could be a fascinating (philosophical) discussion, if people didn't insist on an anthropomorphic biblical moron or pretend that science supports their fallacies.

It seams like nowledge is like a Democracy. If the majority dont have the knowledge to understand why God must exist. Than God cant exist. Idiots will never understand this so move on to something simplified.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Number of gods known to exist in reality (outside of delusion) = 0.

Therefore maths is irrelevant.

The question of existence could be a fascinating (philosophical) discussion, if people didn't insist on an anthropomorphic biblical moron or pretend that science supports their fallacies.

It seams like nowledge is like a Democracy. If the majority dont have the knowledge to understand why God must exist. Than God cant exist. Idiots will never understand this so move on to something simplified.

Your delusion inspired ad hominem won't make your imaginary friend any more real.

originally posted by: spy66

It seams like nowledge is like a Democracy. If the majority dont have the knowledge to understand why God must exist. Than God cant exist. Idiots will never understand this so move on to something simplified.

"Something" could exist. It's your insistence that it certainly does exist, despite supporting this nothing but your belief, that is in question. It certainly isn't the biblical idiot if it does exist. This doesn't exist outside of religious delusion.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

That's a very long winded logical fallacy (almost a full on Gish gallup). You think it was made by an intelligence/god, so it must be..Yep, settles it...

Why in the world did you bother quoting, let alone my entire post, when you seem quite well practiced in making up your own unrelated statements and knocking them down all by your little proud self, as illustrated above.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Number of gods known to exist in reality (outside of delusion) = 0.

Therefore maths is irrelevant.

The question of existence could be a fascinating (philosophical) discussion, if people didn't insist on an anthropomorphic biblical moron or pretend that science supports their fallacies.

It seams like nowledge is like a Democracy. If the majority dont have the knowledge to understand why God must exist. Than God cant exist. Idiots will never understand this so move on to something simplified.

Your delusion inspired ad hominem won't make your imaginary friend any more real.

You have to deny a lot of Things to be right about Your claim.

People who dont understand sceince have no grounds to deny the existence of God or to use science as a argument.

- Do you think there is a Dimension that is infinite and that takes up all Space possible?

-If finite poped into finite existence out of nowhere. Would nowhere have to exist for that to happend?

- If it tok a finite amount of time to form finite, does that mean finite is infinite?

- If finite is not infinite what is than infinite ?

-What Properties would a Dimension that is infinite have? You should be able to know this if you know Math and physics.

If you know this you can ask Yourself: How did the infinite form finite?

originally posted by: spy66

People who dont understand sceince have no grounds to deny the existence of God

Which god? There's tens of thousands to pick from. Statistically speaking, the chances of it being your personal god are very slim.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: spy66

People who dont understand sceince have no grounds to deny the existence of God

Which god? There's tens of thousands to pick from. Statistically speaking, the chances of it being your personal god are very slim.

There can only be one. If you do the Math.

The Dimension that takes up all Space there is must be thee God. No other Dimension can take up all Space there is.

a reply to: spy66
This is going to be good.

You... show us some math!


You provided no explanation. You merely stated that it was not difficult to know how some god (your god) could have created the Universe, as if you have some insight into the metaphysical machinations of your own particular deity. And we all laughed...
The Big Bang is the earliest moment in our Universe. There is no before time, no higher-dimensional space-time, it exists as one point in the Universe just as the axial North Pole exist as one point on the Earth. There is no cause, other than being one point in the Universe, so one point is a necessary part of the Universe just as the North Pole is a necessary point on the Earth. There is no before the Big Bang, there is no outside the Universe. The Universe simply...is.

You may personally wish that your divine being brought this entire existence into being - and that is fine - but you have no tools to construct any proof of this. Again "show us the math". Cause and effect are simply concepts that exist within the Universe, where a well defined, time direction can be chosen. Attempting to apply this to the 4d Universe as a whole is futile, as you have no concept of time nor of time-ordering.

No "qualified" cosmologist will claim that "nothing lies beyond" the Universe, for in the classic Big Bang comsology, there is no such concept as "beyond the Universe". Even if finite in size, the Universe has no edge, no place from which to consider a "beyond". Such naive and ignorant thinking comes from layman "knowledge", not any form of understanding of General Relativity and relativistic cosmology.

No matter what measure of space-time is taken, the Universe most certainly does not have a radius of anything we know of. In fact, it is still quite possible from observation that the Universe is infinite in extent.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Which god? There's tens of thousands to pick from. Statistically speaking, the chances of it being your personal god are very slim.

Statistically speaking, the chances of religion telling you the truth about tens of thousands Gods is ALSO very slim...

Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.

After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.

Mathematical Probability that Jesus is the Christ

"Perhaps the most compelling of evidences demonstrating that the Bible is the word of God is its unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details. Specific prophesies are conspicuously absent from the 26 other religious books that claim to be scripture, including the Muslim's Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, and Buddhist writings. This in itself should be a major eye-opener to the honest skeptic. " Accuracy Of Prophecy

The chances of just 48 out of the 456 prophecies being fulfilled in one person are 1 in 10 to the 157 power.

That's — 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

"According to Emile Borel, once one goes past one chance in 10^50, the probabilities are so small that it is impossible to think that they will ever occur..." LINK

a reply to: flyingfish

The explanation:

Our uiverse, the singularity is finite. Right?

If Our universe/The singularity is finite, than everything within it is also finite. Right? That means it is not infinite?

It took a finite amount of time to form the singularity. In other Words it must have taken a finite amount of time to compress energy into the energy mass that became the singularity.

If Our universe, the singularity is a comessed energy mass. And it took a finite amount of time to compress the energy mass and form the singulairty. The compressed mass can not be compressed indefenetly right?

Probably not since the compressed energy mass have been expanding and after about 13,798 +- 0,037 billion years have formed Our known universe.

Our universe can not be larger than the expansion time of the singularity 13,798 +- 0,037 billion years. That means Our iniverse can not be infinite. Because it dosent take up all Space possible.

The singularity must be at least 3D. It must be because it is not infinite. The radius of the observable universe is about 46 billion light years in radius.

These observations suggest that the Universe has been governed by the same physical laws and constants throughout most of its extent and history.

If Our universe the singularity is a 3D compressed mass. There exists a infinite lager Dimension out side the singualrity "Our universe" The Dimension that is infinite larger than Our singularity must have fomred the singularity.

My question to you: How did that infinite Dimension form the singularity that after 13,798 +- 0,037 billion years formed Our universe?

I know you dont have the knowledge to answer that question so i will give you a hint.

- The singularity "the energymass" was fomred by a compression.

Can you answer how did the infinite compress it self to form the singularity?

It can not have been by randomnes, because the infinite is not a isolated state. It is a infinite open dimesion.

The singularity didnt exist until it was formed. So there were no finite energymass in existence until the singularity was formed.

originally posted by: nightlight7


Why in the world did you bother quoting, let alone my entire post, when you seem quite well practiced in making up your own unrelated statements and knocking them down all by your little proud self, as illustrated above.

I was impressed somewhat by the length of it. Bravo.

I also find it fascinating the lengths people will go, to try and give their imaginary god an existence. Understandable, as he has been steadily running out of places to exist and his domain has been steadily shrinking for centuries! All attempts to show god exists amount to more of an attempt to justify personal belief and disguise logical fallacies (and the usual false analogies) than anything else. Believe whatever you wish, but yours is no different.

There are no religious gods in this universe. A direct experiment that shows otherwise would suffice, but that will never happen.

originally posted by: spy66

You have to deny a lot of Things to be right about Your claim.

People who dont understand sceince have no grounds to deny the existence of God or to use science as a argument.

- Do you think there is a Dimension that is infinite and that takes up all Space possible?

-If finite poped into finite existence out of nowhere. Would nowhere have to exist for that to happend?

- If it tok a finite amount of time to form finite, does that mean finite is infinite?

- If finite is not infinite what is than infinite ?

-What Properties would a Dimension that is infinite have? You should be able to know this if you know Math and physics.

If you know this you can ask Yourself: How did the infinite form finite?

Spy, from experience this will amount to page after page of rhetoric and questions/claims made by yourself, despite having nothing to back it up with other than your personal logic and belief, with the further belief that all who might disagree are simply ignorant, ipso facto.

You are confused if you think you can back your claims with rhetoric and questions. The basic idea of even our most complex theories of cosmology and biology/evolution can usually be summed up very simply in a paragraph. Generally speaking, if you can't do this, you probably don't understand it yourself. How about you try this first? Then people can go into it deeper and debate you if they wish.

If you claim there is a god, it's up to you to provide something...

a reply to: spy66

If Our universe/The singularity is finite, than everything within it is also finite. Right? That means it is not infinite?

No... it means you haven't a clue about what I have explained.

Please do not abuse terminology in which you have no understanding. You are under some bizarre impression that because we may never be able to understand precisely why the Universe is here, that this somehow implies the need for some type of magical creator being.

I know you dont have the knowledge to answer that question so i will give you a hint. The singularity "the energymass" was fomred by a compression.

It seems you've read some layman's explanations of cosmological science, and you've gotten all cocked up and think you know something..Yes?
And now you're gonna come here and learn us all about what you know?

The singularity, is a "point" at which our modelling of spacetime becomes undefined. It is no more an object than the North Pole, which is also a singularity.

If we have a multidimensional space-time of M/String-Theory, then the time dimension of our Universe is inherited from the time-dimension of the larger space-time. If this is the case, there will be a temporal ordering of events, such as the collision of two branes that catalyze the "beginning" of our Universe. But there will be no singularity, just a region of space that undergoes rapid expansion owing to the collision. Still we have an infinite space-time and no possible "point" of creation.

Alternatively, there could be no larger space-time in which our Universe exists. The singularity may be a point of topology change. Such topology changing points are not always handled well within classical General Relativity, and this is why the basic mathematics breaks down at this point. So we have a finite space-time, yet still no possible "point" of creation.

In any case, we still have no "cause" of the Universe. The Universe just "is". And causes are things entirely constrained to be within these Universes.

May I suggest you gain an understanding of General Relativity and cosmology first, and then perhaps you wouldn't look quite so foolish. Get yourself a copy of Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, and get back to me in a couple of years.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Evolve, or face extinction..

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Would you say humans that developed black skin to help them cope with hot temperatures in Africa is evolution? If so, then why aren't black people defined as a different species of human?ignorance a reply to: roth1

Given that it's been proven that Home Sapiens originated in Africa, isn't it more likely that humans all had black skin and lighter skin evolved by those that moved to colder climates and no longer needed the protection from the sun???

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah.

He seems to have overlooked the fact that it's all mythology/make believe and the very existence of his "messiah" has no basis in historical fact to begin with lol.....which somewhat offsets his calculations.....What he should concentrate on are the odds that an ape could evolve a consciousness so at odds with reality, as to believe in such nonsense. Those odds must be staggering!

"Perhaps the most compelling of evidences demonstrating that the Bible is the word of God is its unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
I also find it fascinating the lengths people will go, to try and give their imaginary god an existence. Understandable, as he has been steadily running out of places to exist and his domain has been steadily shrinking for centuries!

There was no 'god' mention at all in my post, much less one cowering in some shrinking domain. You seem to be using canned responses copied out of a FAQ from alt.sceptics or talk.origins or some such, without reading at all what you imagine you are "debunking".

My post was about the emerging algorithmic & computational approach to modeling universe at all levels, from pregeometry underlying fundamental physics to biological and social systems (that's actually quite the opposite from the alleged "shrinking domain").

Neo-Darwinism squirming with its 'just so' stories in an ever shrinking domain, remains, of course, more irrelevant and ridiculous today than ever. This warmed over 19th century mechanistic relic, a cult venerating 'aimless randomness' deity, not only adds no useful insights to the subject, or any subject, but it has morphed in recent years into an outright science stopper as much any medieval dogma, with a priesthood as thuggish as any inquisition in defense of its turf.

Your knee jerk response points to someone afflicted by their binary view of the world virus -- either you are one of us bowing down to our 'aimless randomness' deity or you are one of them Hebrew god worshipers. Namely, computer programs or algorithms, being goal oriented processes, are indeed a deadly sacrilege against the neo-Darwinian 'aimless randomness' deity, hence, through their binary lens, it can only be yet another trick from those sneaky Hebrew god worshipers. Yep, what else can it be?

originally posted by: nightlight7
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
I also find it fascinating the lengths people will go, to try and give their imaginary god an existence. Understandable, as he has been steadily running out of places to exist and his domain has been steadily shrinking for centuries!

There was no 'god' mention at all in my post, much less one cowering in some shrinking domain. You seem to be using canned responses copied out of a FAQ from alt.sceptics or talk.origins or some such, without reading at all what you imagine you are "debunking".

My post was about the emerging algorithmic & computational approach to modeling universe at all levels, from pregeometry underlying fundamental physics to biological and social systems (that's actually quite the opposite from the alleged "shrinking domain").

Neo-Darwinism squirming with its 'just so' stories in an ever shrinking domain, remains, of course, more irrelevant and ridiculous today than ever. This warmed over 19th century mechanistic relic, a cult venerating 'aimless randomness' deity, not only adds no useful insights to the subject, or any subject, but it has morphed in recent years into an outright science stopper as much any medieval dogma, with a priesthood as thuggish as any inquisition in defense of its turf.

Your knee jerk response points to someone afflicted by their binary view of the world virus -- either you are one of us bowing down to our 'aimless randomness' deity or you are one of them Hebrew god worshipers. Namely, computer programs or algorithms, being goal oriented processes, are indeed a deadly sacrilege against the neo-Darwinian 'aimless randomness' deity, hence, through their binary lens, it can only be yet another trick from those sneaky Hebrew god worshipers. Yep, what else can it be?

So my first response was correct then...

a reply to: flyingfish

It is you who cant argue against what i am saying.

You dont have a argument to come With just insults.

Insulting me wont change my mind. If you cant correct me properly With a Counter argument you are usless.

You are nothing but spam.