Suave
Simulated character
My bad! I should not have abbreviated fast radio burst (FRB)
Fast radio bursts last less than a fraction of a second, unlike the Wow signal which lasted for 72 seconds.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mathematical Proof of God?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
My bad! I should not have abbreviated fast radio burst (FRB)
Fast radio bursts last less than a fraction of a second, unlike the Wow signal which lasted for 72 seconds.
Personal subjective assertions of belief do not resolve the question of whether God exists or not.
Facts need to be verified by objectively verifiable evidence.
It may be well intentioned, but it has some problems in the initial assumptions.
First when trying to prove something exists, such as God, you shouldn't start with something that cannot be proven to exist, such as atoms. Scientists have been trying to find out what atoms are and to verify that they are objects, but the atom remains mostly empty space and the rest of it mostly unknown. Like magnetism we can use atoms but cannot say that they are real. Saying that they are definitely real is unscientific. Scientifically we have hypothesis about them such as that maybe they are real or that maybe they are hollow or shadows or that they are transient. How can you, based upon that, then say that because you know atoms are real that God must be. The argument makes a bad assumption.
The second assumption is the assumption that 'Causation' is understood. It is not. In particular Mathematicians have attempted to explore through geometry what is beginning and what is ending. Instead they have found that geometries exist for things which become themselves: such as the Klein bottle geometry. This means that we cannot presume that causation has a beginning. It is a hypothesis only. Suppose that time is in some shape that leads back to its own beginning? The argument presumes that time doesn't, but this presumption is without basis. In nature there are many cycles. Why can't time be one of them? I'm not saying it is, but I can't prove it isn't either.
The third assumption that has a problem is the assumption of composition. Are atoms truly separate items, or are they linked items? There is enough evidence to hypothesize that they may not be separate items. In fact they seem to be linked in the past when it appears that they were all compressed together into a small space. How they are linked or separate is unclear. That they are real and not some unreal construct is also unclear. What is real? The evidence does not provide an answer. It provides only models of reality.
The fourth, the principle of limitation, ignores how dynamic systems operate. Sometimes dynamic systems operate cyclically, seemingly self caused. Usually they have a beginning, however that may not always be true when we are talking about 'Reality' outside of laboratories and proofs of God. If God were merely part of nature then that would be another thing, but God isn't part of nature at least not the one we are talking about nor is reality subject to laws of nature necessarily.
Discovering reality seems a lot like a logical puzzle, however many times logical puzzles cannot be solved despite appearances. Consider a minesweeper game. You can always solve most of a minesweeper puzzle, however you may get a puzzle that has a bomb hidden in one of several tiny places which can only be found by taking a chance of getting blown to pieces. Then logic fails. So it is with proofs of God -- so far.
I'm having trouble deciding if you meant this sarcastically or sincerely.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, I took the help of libraries (I am a DIY person, so no advisors). Found that there is no evidence for any God, soul, garden or light.
Go back to the original bogus proposal for a 'proof of God' and see how references the engineering perspective concerning the philosophical, scientific, and religious questions, which the engineering perspective does not compute.
Your statement remains confusing at best: 'ie, good for modeling the real world, but not the real world,'
rational experiences
Veteran Member
O earth. Energy of various forms held bound as a planet type in space. The natural law. Separation types variations within mass.
O earth the only place an egotist named a human lives.
The egotist owns two heavens type. One advice supports biology living existing as alight terms.
One clear and dark. Both natural bodies temperate.
You are just a human owning two mind experiences. Living in alight heavens mass and a dark clear heavens mass that exists first.
You are only passing in a conscious experience so you quote my presence is meaningless as compared to the great bodies.
Said so by your awareness.
Maths science doesn't exist. It was chosen by egotism to be expressed as you weren't as great as the body mass you contemplated.
O earth the only place an egotist named a human lives.
The egotist owns two heavens type. One advice supports biology living existing as alight terms.
One clear and dark. Both natural bodies temperate.
You are just a human owning two mind experiences. Living in alight heavens mass and a dark clear heavens mass that exists first.
You are only passing in a conscious experience so you quote my presence is meaningless as compared to the great bodies.
Said so by your awareness.
Maths science doesn't exist. It was chosen by egotism to be expressed as you weren't as great as the body mass you contemplated.
Just something I came across thought I’d share it.
An uncaused cause would mean infinite or eternal. Never caused or born but an existence not affected by change.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
That is based on observing things so far away we will never be able to duplicate it in the lab. It is full of fantasy that has to back other fantasy. The other day I watched a NOVA program about black holes and how they evaporate over trillions of years. A group of scientists then discussed a wide range of mutually exclusive theories about the implications of this theory for the future of the universe. Nobody could prove anything, since all options are still on the table. You get to pick the one you like.
If we disconnect the mathematical construct of space-time into two variables that are separate; space and time variables, you can make the same predictions. The rower variables of space and time are placeholders like any variable.
If you could move in space without time, you can appear to move faster than the speed of light. Light is part of space-time, but reference affects such as above can be explain with distance potential or space that is not fully connected to time. The simplest explanation is the best.
When atoms give off photons, we start with matter going less than the speed of light; hydrogen atom, and without any pause, we can get an acceleration to the speed of light; emitted photon. Time is frozen with a displacement in space noted.
Not sure a bacterium is even bothered about measuring, however it is still finiite
The law of causality, like all fundinental laws in this universe, did not exist until after the BB so at that time an uncaused cause is a possibility.
This is fundamentally not true, and a subjective religious claim. The 'objective verifiable evidence demonstrates that Natural Laws and natural processes are the cause of everything in our physical existence. There is no evidence that our physical existence is eternal or temporal, or infinite or finite. These are open questions that will likely never be answered. Based on our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics our physical existence is potenially. boundless, eternal, and infinite. Beyond this, any claim otherwise is a vague subjective 'arguing from ignorance.'
Actually, 'change' within the constraints of Natural Laws and processes is fundamentally part of the nature of our existence.
There is no evidence that the 'fundamental laws' of our existence did not exist before the Big Bang. At present, our knowledge of the origins of the universe is based on the fundamental laws of Quantum Mechanics the universe forms from a singularity, or possibly cyclic in a greater reality we call the multiverse. The uncaused cause would be Natural Laws and processes in a boundless Quantum World.
What did not exist before the Big Bang was a Quantum World without the dimensional time/space nature of our universe and any possible universe. In the Quantum world, we have Quantum time only on the scale of the basic particles of matter.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I think you have got a Ph.D. in Physics. Unfortunately, a lay man lime me cannot understand your high flying Physics, where you can separate space, time and energy.
@shunyadragon, 'physical energy' is Ex-nihilo. There can be no other answer, IMHO. Would like to hear from you.
Last edited:
To re-phrase...
Our mathematical models of the real world
reflect our understanding of it. This understanding
is imperfect, ie, the real world reserves the right to
behave differently in unforeseen ways.
Not is there any evidence that they did.
The fact that everything we know about the universe breaks down prior to 10e-43 of a second after the bb and several hypothesis considering the fundinental laws of our universe began to coalesce after 10e-43 and did not fully form until 10e-32 second after t=0 indicates i am correct in my assumption.
Oh please do publish your paper explaining what did and didn't exist before what is know
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
In other words: it's guilty of the fallacy of the assumed conclusion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Assertion. What's the proof?