PROOF! No God :)

Whoa!

Slow down there, papa...

When did I set your ass on fire, man?

Haven't we been allies?

Why the sudden torching?

 

Allies would imply we share the same outcome.

I have enjoyed some of your posts, but i see an
unhealthy obsession with christianity in you.

I dont like to see people invest so much into
something so negative.

So you think you've reached an enlightenment,
then take it and move one, but you are turning
your lack of belief into a religion too man.

You dont have to have a god to have a religion.
So dont attack people for doing what you are doing, preaching.

I dont like the Biblical god, I dont like many Christians, and I
completly oppose the Right in their political agenda, but i am
not out attacking people for their beliefs, or their gods. Wars
have been fought over belief and lack of, so you are fighting
in the name of religion just like the Muslims and Christians and Jews
have done for all their histories.

Im not attacking you personally, just trying to let you know what you sound like.

 

Geez, even more so than Fuzzy?

No, I understand ya. And I do this for the fun of it mostly, but if you really want to know a little bit more about why I jump Christianity mostly check out the "True Confessions" forum, thread entitled "The Other Closet".

You seem like an intelligent fellow. I've agreed with much of what you say, myself.

I'd like to have your opinion because I value it.

 

But energy and mass do go to infinite.. What cannot be infinite in anything being infinite? Infinite is infinite and therefore, well, infinite... And so Ah fuck, you wou'll never understand. It's quite simple though, it's all in the true concept of infinity.

 

Right again, Soulless. As always.

I just don't know how I would exist without you.

Btw, as I stated, I borrowed this. It's not mine.
And furthermore, it was a bit of humor.

PRAISE BOG!!

 

A few things:


1. I am agreeing that conservation of energy IN THIS UNIVERSE and infinite ammounts of energy are impossible. But as I say, it is only impossible according to our limited view of the universe.

As I said before, the physical laws are merely decriptions of the way the universe works according to the observations we have made.

It would be a big task to do so but we can count the observations we have made. What about the oberservations we haven't made.

Once you get to a certain stage in physics it stops saying "This isn't possible" but "Scrap that, we are struggling to think of anything that is definately impossible."

This is why I am a skeptic of using science to disprove god.

Other than that, I have to give you credit - despite dodgy presentation etc etc the jist of your physical arguement of infinate energy mixed with conservation of energy is fairly solid.

Hang on - I'm going to continue this later, gotta go to a psychology class.

seb

 

Libertine, You could've just made a thread named "PROOF! No God " and put 4 words in it:

"Virgins can't give birth"

or 5 words:

"People can't walk on water"

Would you think you were smart if you did that? The whole point of God existing is that He is not bound to humanly restrictions! That's what makes God, GOD!

 

"God" outside the bounds of human comprehension.
"God" outside the bounds of logic.

Yet, somehow, some way a bunch of people who "feel" with their "heart" "know" "he" exists.

I admit this quite baffles me.

 

People should be delt with person by person, rather than attacking the whole in general.

I agree there fuzzy, im not about to turn the other cheek, like i said, i can rip them open if need be.

But that applies to anyone, not just Christians. I have made other pagans cry too.

 

I've been there.

I've made a lot of people cry.

Some are still crying.

 

Not necessarily. Particles are created and destroyed constantly, popping in and out of existance. Where do they come from? If it's just a local gathering of energy, it seems we are in, permeated by, and ARE, this energy field (remember, we're made of particles too). This energy field would be everywhere, and everything (in about 4% of the universe, condensed as matter. The rest is dark matter and dark energy, which are just theoretical terms, as no one has seen them).

Besides, why must this energy be destructive?

There is new science out there that is starting to say that consciousness creates the universe, rather than it being just a bunch of random particles. Quantum physics has shows that view to be wrong anyways, particles don't *really* exist. Perhaps consciousness is this energy field.

 

Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

And heron, where's this journal I'm supposed to read?

 

Its in the Journal section, or just click the link in my profile.

 

But if we were to stick strictly to what is currently within our grasp, science would not have so far advanced now would it? Excercise your head some, find some wildly incomprehensible concept and force your mind to conform. Perhaps eventually you'll see the greater logic once your mind has strecthed to accomodate it? Or maybe you'll find logic is but a trivial thing. And really it's not so odd to acknowledge the existence of something beyond your powers to fully understand.. Math does it a fair bit if I'm not mistaken, and what could be more logical than that?

 

Did that come from your "heart"?

 

Let's talk about the burden of proof a bit.

Numerous searches of the loch in Scotland have been made and no monster has ever been found. And the "evidence" for the monster has been shown to be fake or caused by natural phenomena. *We can reasonably assume that there is no Loch Ness Monster.

In my world of thinking: This is the most reasonable way to see things.

However, in those who appeal to ignorance: "Well, you can't disprove (whatever), so it may exist." And futher it by Pascal's Wager: "Since you can't disprove it and it may exist, due to the consequences, it is most reasonable to assume it does."

Christianity has locked these two fallacies into a complete philosophy in order to mess with people's heads.

When the truth is that the burden of proof is on the claimant, and it until there is valid reason to believe in these things (God, fairies, etc.), it is most reasonable to lack belief in them and dismiss such nonsense.

 

About Nessie - as a celt myself I would be disinclined to dismiss Nessie as rubbish just because there is no reasonable explaination.

You see we Celts love story, the narrative imperative is, for many, what makes the world go round and I strongly believe this is not a bad thing. Heros inspire us to fight for our dreams, is this such a bad thing, just because we can't reasonably justify that these heros ever existed?

At the end of the day, I believe happiness is the most important thing, much more important than reason, and if someone includes God in how they become happy I have no quibble with that.

It was Einstein, who said "Intuition is the master, intellilect is the servant. Yet despite this we rever the servile and ignore the master."

Blessings

Sebbi

 

Praise Bog!!

I have converted to Bogianity. No rules, just believe. Wish really hard and it'll come true. If it does, you know Bog answered your prayer. If not, it was not Bog's will. Same as my other deities: four-leaf clover and lucky rabbit's foot.

 

Surely you can't contain the omnipotent, omnibenevolent God in an equation.

So explain how you arrived at the conclusion that you must use the equation of relative mass. Surely God, is not constrained by such limitations of mass or the speed of light. For instance, if God (being all-powerful and all knowing) certainly would have an energy that would equal infinity. Although, this equation only works for relationships in the PHYSICAL reality. If the Creator has actually designed this reality, tell me, why would He be constrained (by a mass or by particles of light) by the physical ?...how can one put a mathematical equation to faith, thought, feeling, emotion and experience?

Lets say (just to play along) we were to use E=MCsquared for a moment here and use it in a completely abstract form (for an essence, rather than an actual physical occurance - I use this because God can not be compared to anything that is actually a PHYSICAL entity...have you seen Him?).

"Energy and mass, form and substance, waves and particles, ideas and realities, mind and matter, are terms for the same on-off, yin=yang relationship ..they are parallel, analogous, and interchangeable ways of describing a singular, circular relationship.
Because e=mc2 represents a set of universal opposites, it also represents a set of universal diameters. A pair of opposites (energy and mass, etc.), or any two points, creates a diameter of a circle.

Since everything's a diameter of some circle,the circle is conserved . Everything's a circle or the circle is in everything. We can prove this by drawing a circle in our mind around anything we come into contact with, animate or inanimate. E=mc2 describes a circle (because energy and mass have a circular relationship).

Since everything's a circle, everything holds Pi within. Pi is the constant created by the relationship of every diameter to its circle. Through Pi all entities connect.

Because Pi connects them, all entities in all times and spaces are equivalent. Pi in everything proves there is a 'something' in everything.

Through this something, Pi, all entities know and understand each other. We understand the dynamics of every entity because we share them. All dynamics are circular.
Because everything turns into its opposite eventually, the circle is preserved (a diameter is created drawing a circle in time). There are too many circles to even think about. The number of circles means nothing. They all collapse into one (through Pi).

Form becomes substance, creating energy and mass, in time and space.

Energy, mass, time, space, form and substance are all imaginary because they are all temporary and relative to each other (within the circle). Only the circle survives.

All entities (including us) are doing the circle's bidding." (taken from http://www.popularphilosophy.com/emc2/)

According to this, it says that E=MCsquared is only a figurative (and circular) expression when it comes to abstract thought...(of course it can be applied mathematically to explain things that can be measured numerically..so tell, me can God be measured in that sense?...I think not)
The last time I checked a circle is infinite, if we draw a circle infinitely large and try to find the circumference of that circle this would be Infinity = pi x Rsquared...if this circle is infinitely large, then the diameter (which is 2 x the radius would be infinitely large as well...)... So if this is true, then God would = pi (which is infinite) x infinity...Which only proves that God is more infinite than imagininable or even acheivable by any calculator or even mind...No circle (even drawn in the mind) can contain such an ernormously large "equation of God"...Words themselves (let alone numbers) can't hold such a powerful source of "Energy" and we use this term loosely.

But putting all mathematics aside, (which arent entirely necessary, but used just for the fun of it) the Lord can not be calculated (because He doesnt possess a physical 'mass'...). Let's just say, it's more difficult to prove that God does not exist, and if some of the great philosophers (ie Anselm, Descartes, Clarke, Paley) can't do it, I don't think a mathematican could acheive it.

 

You are correct, but only for the reason that there is no evidence for such a being in the first place.