• 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?

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Okay, well, sorry about your car. Hope the insurance covers it; even if the complex web of causality linking the car, the incident, the damage and the cost, may not be as straightforward as it seems.

Oh its very straightforward, i went shopping, returned to the car and noticed a dent in the front wing (i think you'd call it a fender).

The car is just a french runabout, used for shopping, one more dent doesn't hurt it, in fact it adds to the history and character. No insurance claim or repair needed.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Same old same old with no references to support your assertions. References were provided and you did not respond.

Science nor I 'know' nothing.

Bullpoop. You are simply attempting to reverse my comments in a lame excuse for answer the real question, perhaps because you can't.

Or if you have provided references they should be easy for you to repeat. I'll wait
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
because to me atheism is as intuitively absurd, and as psychologically intolerable, as is solipsism.
How d'you figure that?

Your infantile responses provide me with evidence of the futility of the atheist perspective. Clearly not all atheists spend hours a day on Internet forums hurling insults in lieu of argument, but enough do to allow the casual observer to observe a pattern .

Dude! I am your foot, you are the rock, and Restless is the pain. It's beautiful if you really think about it, maaan.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Bullpoop. You are simply attempting to reverse my comments in a lame excuse for answer the real question, perhaps because you can't.

Or if you have provided references they should be easy for you to repeat. I'll wait

ullpoop. You are simply attempting to reverse my comments in a lame excuse for answer the real question, perhaps because you can't.

References provided. I detect an English comprehension issue.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
ullpoop. You are simply attempting to reverse my comments in a lame excuse for answer the real question, perhaps because you can't.

References provided. I detect an English comprehension issue.

I detect an ignorance and stupidity issue
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
That's funny, but it's also correct, and need not be. As you can see, presently, I'm involved in a discussion about why that happens and what is necessary to prevent it and instead, to make forward progress. It ought to be possible to come to some kind of resolution even if not agreement in every case, but only if there is dialectic. Points made need to be agreed with or if not, one's counterargument needs to be presented. All non-rhetorical questions asked need to be answered. How else is progress possible? The discussion I was just referring to above was a classic example. My experience was that another poster would make a comment, which I would rebut, which would be ignored, eventually leading back to the same place in the discussion where the same claim is made again.

You probably have more patience than I!

I'm sure you're familiar with the legend of the Hydra? You cut off one head and seven more spring out. And in this case one of the heads is the same as the one that was cut off.

Oh, I just remembered I didn't respond to your post when I had said I no longer labelled myself "atheist". I agreed with pretty much all you said, but my real point was that "atheist" comes with a lot of baggage, and people tend to assume you fit that mold exactly.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Man human UGGhhh. Natural man. UGGhhh. Says.... From man's history...get the idea message yet man?

God is the stone mass I stand on O zero. Zero mass is mass.

No numbers.

I then add to minus. So my numbers equated destruction even before I added. As numbers don't own 0.

I learnt no God when I made earth disappear into nothing sin holes. No God exists he says. I proved it didn't already. No God in a space.

No argument he says.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
ullpoop. You are simply attempting to reverse my comments in a lame excuse for answering the real question, perhaps because you can't.

References provided. I detect an English comprehension issue.

You cannot provide evidence and so fall back on condescending ignorance as is so typical. And i an not the first to notice this sad trait

There is no point in continuing with this childish idiocy. Goodbye
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The main problem that cosmology and astral physics faces is connected to a statement made by Einstein. Einstein said that that frames of references are relative. There are no absolute inertial frame of reference.

What we see in terms of the universe, through telescopes on or near our earth frame of reference, comes from a relative reference, and therefore is not universal. Another frame of reference, in a difference time and space will see a different observations for the very same universe. We do not have observational platforms all over the universe, so we can average this out. Any bold claims of the universe, made by these area of science, are nothing but relative frame nonsense. We can all see the same things to agree but this does not change the fact this is all relative and not absolute.

Different relative frames of reference, all over the universe, will come up with different energy balances for the universe. We observe everything in the universe moving relative to the earth, based on the red shift we see from our earth frame of reference.. Science has made the earth the observational center of the universe, simply because this frame being is our only observational frame of reference. All the arrogant statements from that frame are only good for our reference frame, but may not reflect the universe; collective delusion.

Einstein also said that the speed of light is the same in all frames of references. What that means is if you use the speed of light, anywhere in the universe, instead of an inertial frame of reference, like earth, this will allow one to have a frame that is not relative, but is universal.

I am the only one in science, conceptual doing this right. I am the only one asking what happens at the speed of light and what does one see at this reference, where math become discontinuous due to infinity? Einstein disproved the entire approach of relative reference astral physics and cosmology by showing its pitfall as being only good for our frame but not the universe. I am here to help.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Practical example;

Let me show you the problem with an example. Say we have a man on a train heading toward the train station. His twin brother is waiting for him, sitting, at the train station. The train is moving at velocity=v.

If we could only depend on our eyes for observations, it would hard to tell which frame is moving, since both men would see the other moving at velocity=v. This is relative motion like in the universe. We both appear to see a valid observation in terms of motion.

The problem that appears is although we both can see the other moving, each frame will calculate a different energy balance. A moving train has more mass and therefore more kinetic energy at velocity=v than a small train station in a remote rural town; velocity=v. One frame will appear to have extra energy and the other frame will appear to have less energy. Only one will have the correct absolute energy.

We need something more than just the sense of sight, to figure out who is moving, in absolute terms. We need a second sense to break the relative nature of only visual observations. Relative reference and the sense of sight cannot give us an absolute energy balance. If we chose wrong we add or take away energy, and all theory become bogus, ever if what we see, is seen by all. The sight only method of science, used by cosmology and astral physics can be fooled, because of relative reference affects.

What is missing for the energy balance is mass, so we can calculate kinetic energy. Sight relies on photons which has wavelength and frequency; distance and time. The eyes do not see mass. We only see the light reflects off objects with mass.

Mass needs the sense of touch, so we can feel something and how it changes inertia, even with your eyes closed. The man on the train can feel changes of inertia and the velocity vector, based on his body mass moving and triggering internal senses of inner touch, in his organs and skin. Sight by itself can be deceptive since all references can appear valid in space and time due to photons, only. But touch, which is connected to mass and inertia allows us to sense if we are moving or not and can be used to define mass, even with your eyes closed. When we place a weight on a scale, the scale responds to the touch of the mass and gravity.

Currently the sense of sight, alone; distance and time, tells us that there is no center to the universe. If this is true how do you get a center of mass to calculate the true GR of the universe? Science tries to simulate touch, with visuals by looking at gravity waves. But sight alone can be deceptive, when it comes to relative frames of reference. It is not enough. This is why you need to use the only absolute frame in the universe; c so all frame in the universe can agree.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The main problem that cosmology and astral physics faces is connected to a statement made by Einstein. Einstein said that that frames of references are relative. There are no absolute inertial frame of reference.

What we see in terms of the universe, through telescopes on or near our earth frame of reference, comes from a relative reference, and therefore is not universal. Another frame of reference, in a difference time and space will see a different observations for the very same universe. We do not have observational platforms all over the universe, so we can average this out. Any bold claims of the universe, made by these area of science, are nothing but relative frame nonsense. We can all see the same things to agree but this does not change the fact this is all relative and not absolute.

Different relative frames of reference, all over the universe, will come up with different energy balances for the universe. We observe everything in the universe moving relative to the earth, based on the red shift we see from our earth frame of reference.. Science has made the earth the observational center of the universe, simply because this frame being is our only observational frame of reference. All the arrogant statements from that frame are only good for our reference frame, but may not reflect the universe; collective delusion.

Einstein also said that the speed of light is the same in all frames of references. What that means is if you use the speed of light, anywhere in the universe, instead of an inertial frame of reference, like earth, this will allow one to have a frame that is not relative, but is universal.

I am the only one in science, conceptual doing this right. I am the only one asking what happens at the speed of light and what does one see at this reference, where math become discontinuous due to infinity? Einstein disproved the entire approach of relative reference astral physics and cosmology by showing its pitfall as being only good for our frame but not the universe. I am here to help.

Its no problem, its well understood..



Just a note, the speed of light is only constant in vacuum. If travelling through various mediums gas, water, liquid sodium etc it's speed reduces considerably.

Around 23 years ago scientists succeeded in reducing its speed to around 38 miles per hour by passing laser light through extremely cold liquid sodium.

Scientists slow speed of light to crawl; research had Stanford underpinnings
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
So god came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang? Interesting...
Apparently, you do not the recall the post to you last month in which I listed about eight questions that you had ignored in the previous post, in which I told you that I wasn't waiting for your replies any longer and just answered them all myself. I think that after that, you gave your answer to one of them. I also mentioned to you that in the future, I would be examining posts before sending them to you with no question marks in them at all, because you don't answer them.

Funny that you can’t still quote a single point that was ignored. If you made an argument /question based on a straw man then obviously I shouldn’t be expected to address that question, all I have to do I explain that you are making a straw man




Or, you could just go to the post you just answered and find what was in it that you disregarded in your reply. There are about six paragraphs of content, the last five of which got only your comment above as a reply. No mention of the previous discussion, no mention of whether you even looked at the link and argument already presented, and of course, still no interest in what the other guy wants or discussion of the topic. I told you that I lost interest in such discussions
.
In my opinion it is valid to focus on a specific point. Why would there be something wrong with that?


I really don't know how to be clearer about why I'm done, and also, my regret. Imagine how much more enjoyable it would have been for BOTH of us had every issue been acknowledged and addressed rather than almost none as has happened here again. I don't know how to reach you, and I've told you that as well with zero feedback.



My suggestion is,

1 quote a single question that you think ignored (just one)

2 I will address that specific point
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Funny that you can’t still quote a single point that was ignored.

That's incorrect. I've lost interest repeating myself. So typical that after I mentioned a post with about eight questions in it that you ignored until I requoted them altogether, at which time you addressed one, you have nothing to say about that, and repeat yourself as if you never read those words. If you had, we'd be discussing the matter. Even had you said as little as that you don't remember that, I might have gone hunting for it. Or had you expressed any concern about doing that. You simply NEVER respond to what is of interest to me. And you still haven't made any reference to the long discussion on KCA that we already completed an to which I linked you. What do you think I'm here for? To play T-ball with you, setting up balls for you to hit? Or maybe you think we're bowling, and I'm here to set the pins for you. No. I'm here to bowl, too.

And to add to it, you still don't seem to get it that I'm not interested in repeating myself. We're not in a negotiation phase any more - if you'll just do this I'll do that. You won't, you've made that clear, and so I won't give you what you want, either, which is to repeat my argument so that you can ignore it again.

In my opinion it is valid to focus on a specific point. Why would there be something wrong with that?

Really? That's you're read on my comment about you only answering one in eight questions to you in a post, and even then, only after me pointing out these eight and providing my own answers to them? This is another impediment. For some reason, you missed my complaint or are indifferent to it.

My suggestion is,
1 quote a single question that you think ignored (just one)
2 I will address that specific point

You don't listen. We're past that. Look at what you're asking for. Why would I want to do what you ask? Do you deserve to have the things you want treated with respect? You give nothing back. I wrote, "Or, you could just go to the post you just answered and find what was in it that you disregarded in your reply. There are about six paragraphs of content, the last five of which got only your comment above as a reply. No mention of the previous discussion, no mention of whether you even looked at the link and argument already presented, and of course, still no interest in what the other guy wants or discussion of the topic. I told you that I lost interest in such discussions" You ignored all of that again. You needed to go back to those five paragraphs and give them the attention they deserved. I don't know why that wasn't obvious to you. You're pleading to keep the discussion going as if it has value to you, but when told what you need to do, not only don't doit, don't even acknowledge that you understood those words.

The only thing I'm willing to do for you is to help you modify your posting etiquette so that others will enjoy their experience of the discussion as well, rather than tell you they aren't interested, but I can't make any progress there without your cooperation, which simply is never forthcoming. Think about this: you have not shown any interest in anybody's words but your own. I have already pleaded with you at least twice to consider what the other guy gets out of the discussion, and as always, no response. That's what you do. It is inexplicable to me why. I simply cannot conceive why you don't try to comply, but you don't, and so fare thee well. What your about your posting is useful for has not been its logos (meaning, content), but rather, trying to understand how somebody could respond - or more correctly, fail to respond - the way you do given how clear and simple the request is and how important it is to me that you modify your replies if we are to continue - something you seem to want. How is that possible? I don't know, and presume that I never will. Maybe if I could hypnotize you and ask you questions about your choices, you might answer them. You might actually tell me whether you read my words, or if you do, whether you understand them, and if you do, why you disregard them. I might get my answer which of these things is the problem here, but asking you without hypnosis has been pointless.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Give a real-world example

(
context
related to simultanous cause and effect
)
.



There are many possible (debatable examples) but I don’t need a real observable example in order to show my point. As an analogy you can’t show an example of life coming form none life, but we know that necessarily at some point (somehow) this event happened.


Cause and effects can be simultaneous there is no other option.

There are only 3 options

Ether time had a cause or time has always existed form infinite past or time doesn’t exist (please let me know if there is a fourth option)

1 If time has a cause, then both the cause and the effect began to exist at T=0

2 if time has always existed form infinite past then and cause that occurred an infinite amount of time ago would be simultaneous with its effect (for example Kant talks about a heavy ball resting on a couch form infinite past causing a curvature in the couch ) the cause (ball resting on the couch) and the effect (the curvature) are simultaneous there is no period of time where the caus existed and the effect didn’t

3 if time doesn’t exist and it is just a human construct, then time is subjective and I can apply any rules that I personally like, including simultaneous causation


So no matter what your view is, simultaneous cause and effect have to be real
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That's incorrect. I've lost interest repeating myself. So typical that after I mentioned a post with about eight questions in it that you ignored until I requoted them altogether, at which time you addressed one, you have nothing to say about that, and repeat yourself as if you never read those words. If you had, we'd be discussing the matter. Even had you said as little as that you don't remember that, I might have gone hunting for it. Or had you expressed any concern about doing that. You simply NEVER respond to what is of interest to me. And you still haven't made any reference to the long discussion on KCA that we already completed an to which I linked you. What do you think I'm here for? To play T-ball with you, setting up balls for you to hit? Or maybe you think we're bowling, and I'm here to set the pins for you. No. I'm here to bowl, too.

And to add to it, you still don't seem to get it that I'm not interested in repeating myself. We're not in a negotiation phase any more - if you'll just do this I'll do that. You won't, you've made that clear, and so I won't give you what you want, either, which is to repeat my argument so that you can ignore it again.



Really? That's you're read on my comment about you only answering one in eight questions to you in a post, and even then, only after me pointing out these eight and providing my own answers to them? This is another impediment. For some reason, you missed my complaint or are indifferent to it.



You don't listen. We're past that. Look at what you're asking for. Why would I want to do what you ask? Do you deserve to have the things you want treated with respect? You give nothing back. I wrote, "Or, you could just go to the post you just answered and find what was in it that you disregarded in your reply. There are about six paragraphs of content, the last five of which got only your comment above as a reply. No mention of the previous discussion, no mention of whether you even looked at the link and argument already presented, and of course, still no interest in what the other guy wants or discussion of the topic. I told you that I lost interest in such discussions" You ignored all of that again. You needed to go back to those five paragraphs and give them the attention they deserved. I don't know why that wasn't obvious to you. You're pleading to keep the discussion going as if it has value to you, but when told what you need to do, not only don't doit, don't even acknowledge that you understood those words.

The only thing I'm willing to do for you is to help you modify your posting etiquette so that others will enjoy their experience of the discussion as well, rather than tell you they aren't interested, but I can't make any progress there without your cooperation, which simply is never forthcoming. Think about this: you have not shown any interest in anybody's words but your own. I have already pleaded with you at least twice to consider what the other guy gets out of the discussion, and as always, no response. That's what you do. It is inexplicable to me why. I simply cannot conceive why you don't try to comply, but you don't, and so fare thee well. What your about your posting is useful for has not been its logos (meaning, content), but rather, trying to understand how somebody could respond - or more correctly, fail to respond - the way you do given how clear and simple the request is and how important it is to me that you modify your replies if we are to continue - something you seem to want. How is that possible? I don't know, and presume that I never will. Maybe if I could hypnotize you and ask you questions about your choices, you might answer them. You might actually tell me whether you read my words, or if you do, whether you understand them, and if you do, why you disregard them. I might get my answer which of these things is the problem here, but asking you without hypnosis has been pointless.
Again these all sounds like a 12yo excuse not to respond to the actual arguments and questions.

My offer is there ether take it or ignore it

1 select a specific point or question that you think I ignored

2 I will respond to that

Of course you are unable to complete this task because you are just making false accusations, ………you literally had the time (and the willingness) to make a 5 paragraph long post expaling why I am not “worthy of your time” but for some mysterious reason you don’t have time (or willingness) to simply quote a question that I ignored.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You cannot provide evidence and so fall back on condescending ignorance as is so typical. And i an not the first to notice this sad trait

There is no point in continuing with this childish idiocy. Goodbye

References provided. I detect an English comprehension issue. There is no dialogue until you read the references and provide references to support your vague subjective4 assertions,

See post #83 for the references you failed to respond to for the beginning of a constructive dialogue.
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Yes.

A cause produces an effect. "produces" has temporal value.
First a cause happens, then an effect occurs.




Give a real-world example.

Laws describing the quantum world are time symmetric, in the sense that they can be used to describe the same processes run forward or backward. While retrocausal theories tend to provoke more than a few incredulous stares, physicists keep revisiting this area.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
References provided. I detect an English comprehension issue. There is no dialogue until you read the references and provide references to support your vague subjective4 assertions,

See post #83 for the references you failed to respond to for the beginning of a constructive dialogue.

The delusion is strong in you, say ot often enough and you will probably believe it. and i think you have your repeat button stuck.

Post 83 links to newsworthy fragments of various selected hypothesis and sensationalised to grab the unwary, they are not evidence of actual events which are as yet unknown. I told you this. I certainly would not call them references but links to popular media. This is an example of what i would call a reference

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Revisiting your second link, it clearly states.
About attempts to understand the beginning of our universe using different approaches to quantum gravity

Maybe you forgot to read that bit.
 
Top