It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Very simple math proves the existance of God

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Anyone who pretends to be this convinced,



apart from your imagination...


by the miniscule knowledge available in regards to this subject matter,
even if fully possessed? Is BSing themselves alone.



We, we, we.... it is all about us, isn't it?


And if it isn't about us, then who?



What created them,


God is the causeless cause.




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Dolour



what was prior to the singularity?


'Prior' is an inappropriate term in this context.

'Prior' has to do with time. If 'time' does not exist, there is no 'prior' there is no 'after', there is no 'now'. Existence can be defined as a "sequence of events". If there are no events, there is no existence. Time is a function of existence, existence and time are intertwined such that the sequence of events express time. Since the Big Bang is the beginning of space-time; that is the beginning of existence, there is no 'prior' to the big bang. It just makes no sense to talk about 'prior to the Big Bang' because time did not exist before the Big Bang.

On the other hand, there is another way to look at it. The concept of the Big Bang is the consequence of tracking time backwards using General Relativity. But General Relativity is intimately tied up with discussing space/time, so it is of no use whatsoever in discussing non-space/non-time. In this way, the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe so much as the end of General Relativity. Something other than GR is required to discuss non-space/non-time. Who knows what that might be?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: wyrmboy12



Evolution is changes overtime = new " species ".


Close but no cigar.

Evolution is "change over time". Full stop. Nothing to do with necessarily creating a new species. Some "change over time" results in a new species given enough time, but not necessarily.

Biologists don't talk much about species any more. There just aren't any hard and fast rules that distinguish closely related organisms into one species or another. They used to talk about organisms not being able to breed or being able to produce only sterile offspring that defined a species boundary. Too many exceptions to that rule demonstrated that it wasn't a very useful rule - so 'species' isn't all that relevant anymore.

The terms "Species" and "Speciation" are still used, because they retain a conceptual understanding that is useful, but it is not formally accurate. In the same way that the term 'race' is still used to categorize differences in the appearance of human groups, even though 'race' has no biological meaning what-so-ever in the human context.


edit on 23/7/2014 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

A bit geocentric today, aren't we?

It is just too hard to imagine vast cosmos created for humans, but us 'mean reason for cosmos existence' being created after 14 billions of years since cosmos was created... Interesting...



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog




A bit geocentric today, aren't we?


Alright maybe.

But the number you're tossing around there isn't
exactly confirmed either.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: SuperFrog

God is the causeless cause.



....and this is why nobody takes you seriously.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




....and this is why nobody takes you seriously.


You mean nobody that tries to claim an infinite number
retro generations is possible?

So.....



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The number we have is not 'exact' number, but closest we can get by studying star movements in computer model. Still much better then believing world is only 6K years old...

Very complicated math proves all stars are going away since Big Bang, but that is bit hard for some to even imagine...

It is much easier to imagine someone built it over 6 days...



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
And if it isn't about us, then who?


No one. Why does it have to BE about anyone anyways? Can't it just BE?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: canucks555

Atheists don't believe in anything.

Js

edit on 23-7-2014 by PageLC14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: PageLC14

So now you gonna try to prove you know nothing about atheist as well?

Just to prove you wrong, I do believe world started with Big Bang, as I've read books about it, explaining different experiments and after they also found background radiation that points to BB. I also believe that after process of abiogenesis, evolution through million so years lead to walking bit less hairless ape that we all call humans today, but it does not ends here, we are still evolving, and probably with space exploration we will speed up that process a bit, as human body will react to different surroundings in different ways...

There is many things that we believe, including that Sun was not placed here by god, and that Moon is not another source of light, but mere reflection of sun... now do you still believe what bible said about moon?

Ignorance is a bliss..



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix

nobody plus nothing equals everything.


For one thing, that's not math. Math is relationships using numbers "nobody" and "everything" are not numbers. It's also nothing resembling science.

From your source:



Gohmert did not elaborate on how he leapt from something to nothing to everything to the "Lord we know" rather than to, say, a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Gohmert also neglected to explain who would have created the Lord he knows, or whether the Lord created Himself before He existed.


He's a simple-minded idiot. He leaps from his silly "math" to "it must be god!" And then calls it proof. And poor suckers all over the country agree with him...

Imagine if he had been making fun of the beliefs of Jews, Christians or Muslims. But going after atheist's beliefs is applauded.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Imagine if he had been making fun of the beliefs of Jews, Christians or Muslims. But going after atheist's beliefs is applauded.


Well if he had done that then a different group would have posted this thread and high fiving each other and a different group of people would be picking it apart.
edit on 23-7-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

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?


It would be easier for you.... if you let go of the concept of time!



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog




There is many things that we believe, including that Sun was not placed here by god, and that Moon is not another source of light, but mere reflection of sun... now do you still believe what bible said about moon?


Yes, because I live in the desert. And when there is no
moon in the sky at night? It's friggen way darker than
when there is a moon. So no matter how the moon
accomplishes being a source of light? It is a source of light.
You people aren't ashamed of splitting hairs like that?



edit on Ram72314v282014u05 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well if he had done that then a different group would have posted this thread and high fiving each other and a different group of people would be picking it apart.


In the world of ATS, that's true. But I was speaking about a wider audience than ATS. If he had been speaking of Christians instead of atheists, the country would have been demanding an apology for his insults attacking a religion.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Nah. I doubt it. Sure some Christian groups would be making ridiculous demands for it, but I'm sure public pressure wouldn't be so high that it would force him to cave. There are plenty of people who attack Christianity and say things bad about it on a regular basis and they aren't ridiculed and shamed into submission. Even the ones who make dumb statements about it.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Imagine if he had been making fun of the beliefs of Jews, Christians or Muslims. But going after atheist's beliefs is applauded.

You honestly believe that atheists don't make fun of the beliefs of Jews, Christians and Muslims? And that hordes of their followers don't applaud it?

Are you from the past?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
Something other than GR is required to discuss non-space/non-time. Who knows what that might be?

That's the "event horizon" between physics and philosophy.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: rnaa
Something other than GR is required to discuss non-space/non-time. Who knows what that might be?

That's the "event horizon" between physics and philosophy.


This is one of the problems discussing physics with philosophical "believers". Unless you are willing to leave behind every preconception you have ever had about the physical world... you will learn nothing.
I have learned, you need to leave behind those misconceptions and allow yourself to be blown away by just how bizarre and amazing this reality really is...

Philosophy will only get you so far, It's more about merging- general theory of relativity and quantum physics into a unified theory. Currently there is no accepted unified field theory, and the search for the consistent physical theory of this unification is at the heart of much of modern theoretical physics.




top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join