Maths Proof: God Created the Universe

a reply to: TheLamb
Your image is too small for me to make out any details, unfortunately.

You'll see a familiar one or two if you're a physicist.

Are you a physicist?

a reply to: TheLamb

No i don't think so. You are putting your personal interpretation of that text, written 2000 years ago when they thought sacrificing animals made the harvests bring crops.

No maths involved -- you've completely made this up.

Science and religion do not mix.

Came for useless proof, anticipated another TheLamb's diagrams, wasn't dissappointed.

10/10, would *cringe* again.

a reply to: TheLamb

Your bible is only a collection of stories and tales -- nothing more. It is not a real depiction of anything that actually happened. There is nothing magical or illuminating about the "tale" of Genesis. It was a fabrication, made up by people when they had no idea how the world around them worked.

No one put secret/hidden meanings in there.

You're reaching now, trying to find ANYTHING to help justify your belief and faith. It's really kind of sad.

I'm surprised god wasn't killed when he created the big bang to start it all off, or can he really move that fast?

a reply to: TheLamb

oh dear mental gymnastics at its finest.

Firstly in his equations god M saw the light, then it conviently becomes mc^squared to try to stretch to Einstens
formula.

More to the point how can god have mass and occupy the same space as us, they say its a spirit when we cant see
it.
Sorry epic FAIL

A junior high student can see the breakdown in his logic no maths required,,,

Wheres the OP gone? Missing in action?

Here is mathematical evidence that a universal, mathematical order and pattern exists that is the manifestation of a transcendental intelligence:
smphillips.8m.com...
You will need to take time and to make the necessary effort to understand and to assimilate the research presented there. Some of you will fail and give up. But those who persist to master the ideas and to understand the discoveries presented there will find their efforts rewarded. They will learn that the sacred geometries of certain religions embody this universal pattern. They will encounter the transcendental intelligence that is behind it, creating a mathematically perfect harmony between number and geometry. The stunning isomorphism displayed by these sacred geometries, now revealed for the first time, has no logical explanation other than it emerged from the universal Truth that mystics of these religions separated by thousands of miles and years encountered and represented in their teachings in what has now been shown to be equivalent ways. Equally inexplicable in a conventional way is the amazing connection between the group mathematics of SO(32) and E8xE8 underlying superstring theory and the properties of these sacred geometries, as well as the patterns of intervals between the notes of the seven diatonic scales, which form as the "church musical modes" the historical basis of European music. A profound connection exists between religion and science that no one anticipated up till now because no one knew how to look at their interface in the correct, mathematical way. Religious and scientific insights are ultimately inspired by the same source. When properly understood, number has a sacred aspect or quality that enables a unique type of geometry to reveal information about the ultimate nature of reality found only in journals of theoretical physics as the results of rigorous, mathematical analysis. What is commonly described on websites as "sacred geometry" is nothing of the sort. Real sacred geometry uncovers the true meaning of the word "sacred." You will discover it at the above website.

Although I must say, I don't understand the math nor do I believe it to be an accurate representation of how a creator could or did create this physical place that we inhabit....I will say this...

None of you, absolutely none of you, have the right to tell this individual his own beliefs and opinions are incorrect. When you can absolutely, without a single shred of doubt, 100% PROVE that the existence of a creator is IMPOSSIBLE...then maybe...until then...accept the fact that people are going to have different opinions.

As for the OP, please refrain from stating your opinions as "proof" when they are in fact conjectures.

So, first step in finding real answers...admitting you don't yet have them.

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Bro, it's not the one who doesn't believe in God that needs to prove the inexistence of God, it is up to the believer to prove the existence of God, and the OP failed miserably.

Let me try it out:
God = Universe
Therefore, Universe = God.

Now if I may, 2+2= 4, am I correct?
Who created numbers? God
Who created Addition? God
Who created Equality? God
So 2+2= 4 = God

GOD EXISTS

a reply to: WhiteWine

Incorrect.

If you have an opinion, it is up to you to prove that your opinion is valid...therefore if you believe that there is/is not a creator...you must show me why you believe such things....both sides must bear the burden of proof for their own opinions...neither is immune

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

It's a basic precept in logic that you cannot prove a negative. Therefore, the burden of proof always lies with the one make the claim of existence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I understand, but logically speaking, if you make ANY claim...you need to back it up. In other words, put up or shut up.

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Saying you lack belief in something isn't making a claim for belief though. There would no reason for the one without belief to say they didn't believe in the object if it weren't for someone else having said they do believe in it. Demanding that someone prove their disbelief is forcing a shift in the burden of proof away from the party making the original claim. That way the original party can turn around and say, "See you couldn't disprove it, therefore it's real!" But that's circular reasoning. It's using someone's inability to prove the negative of a claim that you didn't prove in the first place as proof that it is real.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure it is. If I say that I don't believe in dinosaurs...you're just going to call me a nut job and not ask me WHY?

When I say "I don't believe dinosaurs existed"...I'm making the claim "Dinosaurs didn't exist".... therefore my belief is "dinosaurs didn't exist".... It sounds extremely redundant but that's really what it is....

When one individual says "I don't believe in a creator"...and I ask them "Well, why is that?", they will have reasons to defend their conclusion. Just as is true for those that do believe in a creator.

We all have reasons for what we believe...or what we don't believe...

I don't believe in unicorns....my reason for that is because there are no fossils...
I don't believe in leprauchauns....my reason for that is because i think the irish are just a bunch of drunks who imagine things...
I don't believe the Kansas City Chiefs will ever win another superbowl for atleast the next 20 years...my reason for that is statistics....

A2D

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To put it another way...

Most intellectually inclined atheists do not merely "lack" belief, such as a dog or a cat would lack belief...but often times, they will directly state "there is no god"...

A direct claim...a direct belief...not just a "lack"...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure it is. If I say that I don't believe in dinosaurs...you're just going to call me a nut job and not ask me WHY?

When I say "I don't believe dinosaurs existed"...I'm making the claim "Dinosaurs didn't exist".... therefore my belief is "dinosaurs didn't exist".... It sounds extremely redundant but that's really what it is....

In this case though, the burden of proof was fulfilled by the existence of fossils. They are clear, objective evidence (in other words it can't lie) of existence. So your disbelief garners questioning because you first need to refute the evidence being presented for existence before you can go back to disbelief.

When one individual says "I don't believe in a creator"...and I ask them "Well, why is that?", they will have reasons to defend their conclusion. Just as is true for those that do believe in a creator.

The difference here is that all evidence for god is subjective in nature. He said she said. And for proper scientific analysis, subjective evidence isn't good enough as a measure of existence. It may be useful as something that builds on objective evidence, but it can't just stand alone like that. Therefore the burden of proof required by the people making the original claim has never been met.

We all have reasons for what we believe...or what we don't believe...

I don't believe in unicorns....my reason for that is because there are no fossils...

But if you had never heard of a unicorn before, would you still be able to say you don't believe in it?

I don't believe in leprauchauns....my reason for that is because i think the irish are just a bunch of drunks who imagine things...
I don't believe the Kansas City Chiefs will ever win another superbowl...my reason for that is statistics....

A2D

Aw comeon y'all got The Walrus now! He doesn't give you hope?

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

In those particular cases they are being slightly intellectually dishonest. I know why they do it, but to definitely state non-existence based on a lack of evidence is also unwise. Existence just becomes exceedingly unlikely.

I think OP is missing some basic math...

Humans + Creativity = God

God + Organization = Religion

Religion / Time = Human Disaster and no Progress

It is really sad that this sub-forum is misused for propagation of THE SAME idea over and over...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just to name few...

I believed there was something in rules against this kind of abuse...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
None of you, absolutely none of you, have the right to tell this individual his own beliefs and opinions are incorrect. When you can absolutely, without a single shred of doubt, 100% PROVE that the existence of a creator is IMPOSSIBLE...then maybe...until then...accept the fact that people are going to have different opinions.

So if you can't 100% prove that the existence of FSM is impossible, we should accept people's opinions that he exists with no scrutiny? Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person who asserts the claim, not on the folks that call it BS. As you said the numbers he used were complete conjecture, so people have every right to call him out for it when his thread title said, "Math proof". If his thread title said, "Why I believe in god" it would be a complete different story, because he would have presented his opinion as an opinion, instead of fact.

To me, the lack of evidence justifies my lack of belief in any type of god. Nobody has ever provided objective evidence to suggest a creator or god exists, so non existence is the logical default.

Most intellectually inclined atheists do not merely "lack" belief, such as a dog or a cat would lack belief...but often times, they will directly state "there is no god"...

I rarely see anybody state it as fact like that. They say like I said above, there is no evidence for god, therefor no reason TO believe. The people on the other side are saying god absolutely exists and using confirmation bias to justify it. To suggest existence for anything logically, you need evidence. You don't need to prove it doesn't exist. Your example with the dinosaurs is silly because there is scientific evidence that directly conflicts with that view, so belief in dinosaurs is logical. Belief in god is not.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Aw comeon y'all got The Walrus now! He doesn't give you hope?

What do you mean? I haven't stated anything about or concerning my own beliefs, except as an example to add clarification....and what in the world is "The Walrus"...