Very simple math proves the existance of God

Still a theory, not a fact. Will never be anything but that. Evolution is changes overtime = new " species ". 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? they aren't..... Every little change in a species is not " Evolution " its called "species variation" and it has a ceiling, organisms too far from the norm die off...Mutations are never benficial they almost always result in death of the organism....it's a horrible joke that I'm sad people have bought into. Until all the people of the world that are smarter than you and me come and agree evolution is a fact I would not state it as so...its ignorance a reply to: roth1

originally posted by: signalfire
The atheist's version of creation: "In The Beginning, There Was Nothing. Then It Exploded."

When you get right down to it, all the bible does is add another unknown, the god, whose origin is unexplained, because apparently He/She/It can make something (itself) out of nothing. Or has always existed, because... god... or something.

See the problem here?

It's just easier to basically say to hell with it, you can get through life without knowing every darn detail of who, what, why, how and when, can't you? Can you agree that your finite brain can't figure out everything?

This is quite true. Our brain is finite and could only think to a certain extent. The more reason to believe in the existence of the Higher Power since we can't really decipher everything. The theory of evolution by Charles Darwin have some lackings. Cause he was a human to start with and we're forever looking for the reason to every single thing and in the end, there's a dead end you need to jump over but you can't calculate just how high it is. I guess. But you have a good point there.

a reply to: azalea

Surely you have a better reason than that...

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Nobody plus nothing equals everything.

Doesn't that prove that only agnostic see the truth. We just don't have enough variables to know either way.


Couldn't "Nobody plus nothing equals everything" be applied to theist as well?

If God can come from nothing why can't the universe?
Looks like he brought himself down why trying to bring down his enemy with that formula.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

If we entertain the saying that; Finite existence poped into existence from nothing. Dont that emply that nothing must exist?

If you look at the properties of nothing. What properties would nothing have?

Nothing would have only one property and that property is nothing. If not it would not be nothing, it would be finite property + nothing.

Scientifically it would be one finite + nothing.

Nothing would be the very first dimension because a finite can not ever create a nothing. It must be the other way around. Nothing must have created something. Because nothing is infinite.

What would be the mathematicall properties for nothing?

Nothing would be absolute neutral. It would be a absolute constant. Its timeline would be absolute consatnt. It is the only property that can take up all space there is as the state of nothing. A finite can not do that.

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Still a theory, not a fact. Will never be anything but that.

You are confusing a theory, which is a proposed explanation based on conjecture and still subject to experimentation for purposes of verification, with a scientific theory which is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Synonyms for a scientific theory include principle, law and doctrine.

Evolution is changes overtime = new " species ".

No, evolution is a biological process and the sum of genetic and morphological changes and adaptations over a period of time until the present and continuing long after we die and aren't here to study these changes. You are confusing speciation for evolution.

Would you say humans that developed black skin to help them cope with hot temperatures in Africa is evolution?

No, because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that darker pigmented skin is a recent adaptation. On the other hand, Caucasian skin tones are a relatively new phenomena with potential genetic markers indicating it was a result of making very nice friends with the Neandertal ladies.

If so, then why aren't black people defined as a different species of human? they aren't..... Every little change in a species is not " Evolution " its called "species variation"

and it has a ceiling,

could you describe that ceiling and why it exists?

organisms too far from the norm die off

I'd love to see a citation supporting that statement! Just out ofcuriosity, what exactly is "the norm" ?

...Mutations are never benficial they almost always result in death of the organism

Not at all true. In fact not only are most mutations not harmful, the vast majority of them are completely neutral or environmentally dependent. For example, the arctic fox has adapted quite nicely to its cold and chilly environment. Consequently, it's mutations are neutral or beneficial in that environment. The desert fox likewise is well suited to its rather hot environment. Switch the environments for these animals and those previously beneficial mutations will result in a hasty exit to the afterlife.

Here's a little light reading to help familiarize yourself with the concept- www.talkorigins.org...

....it's a horrible joke that I'm sad people have bought into. Until all the people of the world that are smarter than you and me come and agree evolution is a fact I would not state it as so

So its a fact then by that criteria. I can't think of a single biologist, geneticist, anthropologist, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist... you get the idea... that thinks that modern evolutionary synthesis is anything but fact. But I'm always eager to entertain the notion that I'm wrong and learn from my error so feel free to provides a citation from anyone working and publishing in any of those fields or a related one who disagrees.

...its ignorance

And so is making statements of fact while not giving our old friend 'due diligence' a call to ascertain just how factual they are.

originally posted by: azalea

This is quite true. Our brain is finite and could only think to a certain extent. The more reason to believe in the existence of the Higher Power since we can't really decipher everything.

I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you...are you saying that if you don't or can't or won't understand something then the only explanation is "god" ?

The theory of evolution by Charles Darwin have some lackings. Cause he was a human to start with

I guess it's a really good thing that the current understandings of what is referred to as 'modern evolutionary synthesis' while having its roots firmly grounded in the starting point outlined by Darwin, have moved far beyond the original postulations as published in 1859 and has advanced greatly with recent scientific developments such as DNA, radiometric dating and of course the multitude of new fossils and ever expanding family tree of humanity. Darwin was just the starting point. What we know compared to what Darwin thought, is a completely different realm of understanding.

It doesn't necessarily have to be God. Do not emancipate higher power as just merely God, or a human embodied entity. It's getting a little too shallow for people to discriminate the idea of a higher power to just God whom they loathe and compare to humans. Mine is just a point of view. There could be many others and the probability of my idea to be exclusive is rather thin. And please, there is a reason why humans multiply and vary in the thinking capacity. Some does the thinking, some does the talking and most absorb ideas...execute, manipulate and goes on living. Some sleep well even without such large capacity of knowledge. If everyone is doing the same thing, wouldn't that be monotonous with just one idea passed around. 11 x 2 football players might as well have similar ball each and run to the opposite goals on their own. I appreciate the role you play here. It's fun to get a good discussion and a mind teaser every now and then.

Recent findings...? Do share some with me. Perhaps I could decipher it from your aspect. My knowledge is quite limited and goes only as far as genetic studies in pre-U. And the radioactive-dated anthropological findings as well. It's been a while since I left the paleotology lecture room.

Thanks in advance.



a reply to: peter vlar

Sure I do. Haha! Just doing the thinking so I won't be blurting out nonsense. We are discussing, right? If I just blurt out every single stuffs that goes through my head, I might as well say that I'm listening to Cyndi Lauper and Kylie Minogue at the same time while laughing and replying your wonderful reply to my previous post. Just kidding. No offense.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Watchfull
200 year old book of fairy tales + gullible = religious fanatic

which book is that? and who gave you the stars?

hawking said, "because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will make itself out of nothing."
The Grand Design.

can anyone figure the logic of that out?

S&F OP.

What say you ATS, could our present understanding of math and science back up and support the possible existence of God?

of course it can.

since science cannot explain how the universe started or why.
they get all twisted up, like stephen.

and it is said that there are only 2 options to pick from, God or science.
one "side" already has their answer.

An internet user on a conspiracy forum criticizing a world renowned physicist on his own area of expertise. But you won't do it to his face, will you?

yeah, let me at him!

you got his address or skype #?

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: Watchfull
200 year old book of fairy tales + gullible = religious fanatic

which book is that? and who gave you the stars?

hawking said, "because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will make itself out of nothing."
The Grand Design.

can anyone figure the logic of that out?

S&F OP.

What say you ATS, could our present understanding of math and science back up and support the possible existence of God?

of course it can.

since science cannot explain how the universe started or why.
they get all twisted up, like stephen.

and it is said that there are only 2 options to pick from, God or science.
one "side" already has their answer.

An internet user on a conspiracy forum criticizing a world renowned physicist on his own area of expertise. But you won't do it to his face, will you?

yeah, let me at him!

you got his address or skype #?

I'm sure that if the information is available, you can find it on Google. But there's no guarantee that he has the time to argue with you about what you think you know. It's got to be tiring, being a genius, and it would only be more tiring to spend time with people who think they are more genius than you are.

originally posted by: azalea
Sure I do. Haha! Just doing the thinking so I won't be blurting out nonsense. We are discussing, right? If I just blurt out every single stuffs that goes through my head, I might as well say that I'm listening to Cyndi Lauper and Kylie Minogue at the same time while laughing and replying your wonderful reply to my previous post. Just kidding. No offense.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Some people don't have a better reason than that. Which irks me, because believing in anything without reason isn't really all that different from believing in nothing at all. You can't stand if the slightest breeze pushes you over. *shrugs*

originally posted by: azalea
It doesn't necessarily have to be God. Do not emancipate higher power as just merely God, or a human embodied entity. It's getting a little too shallow for people to discriminate the idea of a higher power to just God whom they loathe and compare to humans. Mine is just a point of view. There could be many others and the probability of my idea to be exclusive is rather thin. And please, there is a reason why humans multiply and vary in the thinking capacity. Some does the thinking, some does the talking and most absorb ideas...execute, manipulate and goes on living. Some sleep well even without such large capacity of knowledge. If everyone is doing the same thing, wouldn't that be monotonous with just one idea passed around. 11 x 2 football players might as well have similar ball each and run to the opposite goals on their own. I appreciate the role you play here. It's fun to get a good discussion and a mind teaser every now and then.

Recent findings...? Do share some with me. Perhaps I could decipher it from your aspect. My knowledge is quite limited and goes only as far as genetic studies in pre-U. And the radioactive-dated anthropological findings as well. It's been a while since I left the paleotology lecture room.

Thanks in advance.

a reply to: peter vlar

Someone mentioned to me recently that in a conversation with someone else, they were told to imagine the most powerful, all-knowing, pervasive form of existence they could. And that, they were told, is the weakest possible incarnation of God.

My argument, in return, was that Thor, Mars, Athena, and Isis were not omnipotent or all knowing. They were not representative of the universe at large. They were capable of being killed. But they were regarded as gods because they were superhuman. That's all it took. Which is why when someone says "god", it conveys more a concept or idea than an actual living being or entity. More like truth than a dog, for instance. Because gods have met so many different parameters over the centuries, there's no telling what qualifies anyone as a god except for being superhuman. And in that case, a tornado is a god. A hurricane is a god. A tsunami is a god. A volcano is a god. And indeed, gods have represented all of these forces. Because they're stronger than us.

And that's a really vague qualifier for a deity. Unless a superhuman entity must also exert its authority over a community. Then again, in most stories, they don't have to. Disgustingly enough, people will throw themselves at its feet. Survival? Ambition? Who knows?

a reply to: azalea

What does this thread have to do with evolution? It's talking about the big bang (incorrectly at that, but still)

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Hilarious. Those creationists really think they've figured everything out. Instead of scrutinizing their own beliefs they attempt to pigeon hole atheism into a belief system. Just because the cause of the universe is not god, does not mean everything came from nothing and generalizing atheists as naturalists doesn't prove god. What a joke!

I mean creationists are essentially the ones that believe everything came from nothing. They can't explain how god got there. If god can be eternal, so can the universe. Explaining god through math is pretty much like dividing by zero. It doesn't work no matter how you look at it. If the universe is required to have an origin, then so is god.

Creationist equation: Infinite / 0 = Everything. Explain that one. How did god arise from nothing?

originally posted by: LightningStrikesHere
Does not every creation have a creator ?

Sure. Now all you have to do is prove the universe is a creation.

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information

a reply to: tsingtao

Do you not have an understanding of physics? Gravity, in the oversimplified way that I understand it from a college-level Astronomy class is a force that makes objects with lower mass go towards (or gravitate, if you will) towards objects of higher mass.

The logic goes like this:

If there is a law of gravity, blah blah blah objects move towards those with higher mass (read above).
Over hundreds of millions and billions of years, the universe will form.

If you can't follow the jump, it goes something like this: atoms bind together to make up gas clouds; gas clouds bind together to make stars, planets and other astronomical phenomena; stars bind together to make galaxies; galaxies bind together to make galaxy clusters; galaxy clusters go on to make superclusters; superclusters go on to make what we know of today (or a variant, if we're talking about a different universe).

Beats me. It just came up with the conversation. Can't talk about the Big Bang without suddenly trapped into anthropological discussion. I don't know about anyone else. My understanding of the Earth's History only goes back as far as 4.3 Ga. And it had nothing to do with humanity. Yet. a reply to: Krazysh0t

Haha! That's pretty narrow. But really, it made me question; not in a sarcastic or skeptic way (which means I sincerely wonder with no expectation of triumph over the wrong), how people used to think. Their way of thinking must've been different. And like you just said, you wondered if Thor, Mars or Athena were not omnipotent or all-knowing cause, they can be killed, right? You got me wrong for thinking that I was aliking the Higher Power to these human-excuse of Gods.

I guess, at that certain time long ago, anything that causes unavoidable circumstances are deemed as God; personification of just about anything. With each stories, they just grew more extravagant. People haven't questioned stuffs yet. Why is this person different? Maybe he'd kill me if I'm a threat? Something like that. I guess. But, it is rather shallow to just throw yourselves that someone's feet just cause they have some sort of super power. Still, that's just a personification.

I don't really mind people regarding my idea of the Higher Power as vague or anything like that. Cause, that's what I believe anyway. But I do agree, from the opposite direction of your idea, that these 'persons' with superpowers, are not Gods. Why do they have to have a personal God for every single 'bizarre' thing? Why does everything have to have a guardian or a deity controlling it? Where there's scientific explanation, science still haven't answered as just why. Things seem to be limited to just how. There's an open end to every answer. And when they come up with a why, it's always related to another scientifically explained mechanism. Maybe I'm just relentless about certain things I understand but not satisfied with. None of the answers satisfy me enough if I don't think there's a 'motion' or 'will' of some sort that 'move' a certain body of energy. But then, it's just a thought. Thanks for sharing your

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Beats me how they get to that point. But that's how things go around in just one head; which is yours. Others may think differently. I may think that, there's no such thing as believing in something without a reason. And that's different than believing in nothing at all. Define believing in nothing. Define reasons to believe. These stuffs, if you question somebody about it, they most probably won't satisfy you cause, their mind is set on a different understanding. We live in different standards; which as in no way means that one of us is of lower standard than another (no, no, no). Like standard procedures of AST and BST in hydrometers. They're just different by scale but revolves around the same thing. OR, the digestion of soils before elemental analyses; there are several methods available. People think differently. That's how they come up with different methods. But you're not wrong in what you say. Cause when you have a say that you stand up for, you have a principle and understanding of your own.



a reply to: AfterInfinity