This is a Baha’i article I came across. Please kindly share your views. I had it sent to me by email so there is no link to it so I had to screenshot it if that’s ok.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It makes two assumptions: that a cause is required for V, and that the cause is a God. This proof can be defeated by eliminating the assumption that V was caused.Isn't this a variation Kalam Cosmological argument? "V is not self-caused" is essentially the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused. And the conclusion is that the universe V must have a cause that is not V or an element of V, is also in Kalam.
I don't find this argument compelling, but lets stipulate to this proving that the universe has an uncaused cause. Why does this cause need to be a god? The multiverse hypothesis fits this formulation as well. Craig makes the same error in his Kalam argument - simply assuming multiple characteristic about this cause that point to the god he believes in without acknowledging much less excluding other potential first causes.
God is proven by the math concept of infinity.
Nobody in math or science has ever seen infinity. It is a conceptual place, predicted by math, as functions reach their practical limits but never quite get there.
Infinity is where the laws of physics; our material realm, break down since the functions stop meaning anything. At the end of the rainbow of infinity there is a pot of gold. This can be described as space-time breaking down into separate time and separate space.
There, one can move in time without the restrictions of space and/or move in space without the restrictions of time. The latter is classically called omnipresence. Infinity is the math portal to the other side. Science does not yet know how to get there to open the door, since all they assume is finite, and space-time does not apply there.
If we take 1 and divide by 0 we will get infinity. We start with one thing; primordial atom, divide it by nothing, and we get an infinite universe of infinite parts??? How do we mechanically divide something by zero to get infinity? The math defies current laws of physics and all modern engineering skills. It suggests the need for a new path that is not from our material world. It will take planning and not just dice; brooding over the deep.
God is proven by the math concept of infinity.
Nobody in math or science has ever seen infinity. It is a conceptual place, predicted by math, as functions reach their practical limits but never quite get there.
Infinity is where the laws of physics; our material realm, break down since the functions stop meaning anything. At the end of the rainbow of infinity there is a pot of gold. This can be described as space-time breaking down into separate time and separate space.
There, one can move in time without the restrictions of space and/or move in space without the restrictions of time. The latter is classically called omnipresence. Infinity is the math portal to the other side. Science does not yet know how to get there to open the door, since all they assume is finite, and space-time does not apply there.
If we take 1 and divide by 0 we will get infinity. We start with one thing; primordial atom, divide it by nothing, and we get an infinite universe of infinite parts??? How do we mechanically divide something by zero to get infinity? The math defies current laws of physics and all modern engineering skills. It suggests the need for a new path that is not from our material world. It will take planning and not just dice; brooding over the deep.
Isn't this a variation Kalam Cosmological argument? "V is not self-caused" is essentially the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused. And the conclusion is that the universe V must have a cause that is not V or an element of V, is also in Kalam.
I don't find this argument compelling, but lets stipulate to this proving that the universe has an uncaused cause. Why does this cause a need to be a god? The multiverse hypothesis fits this formulation as well. Craig makes the same error in his Kalam argument - simply assuming multiple characteristics about this cause that point to the god he believes in without acknowledging much less excluding other potential first causes.
Nonsense.God is proven by the math concept of infinity.
F=Gr2m1M2
In which G is the universal constant, with the value G = 6.674 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.
Okay, that's not actually God, that's gravity. But in the end, we either see God
or nowhere. How sad, to see only in black and white; to lift a corner of the veil and see only an old man pulling levers
Brilliant, that also proves the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster .... NOT!This is a Baha’i article I came across. Please kindly share your views. I had it sent to me by email so there is no link to it so I had to screenshot it if that’s ok.
View attachment 65231 View attachment 65232
The reality is we see no God(s) anywhere. Our physical existence is a very dynamic natural existence and not in black and white.
The estimate of the universal constant is simply an estimate of the universal constant from the human scientific and math perspective.
If the 'Source' some call God(s) exists the attributes of God are reflected in the Creation of a very natural physical existence we perceive through science.
We cannot see the 'Source' but we can see the reflection of the 'Source' in the nature of our physical existence if we believe.
I am a Baha'i, but I do not buy this argument.
It goes without saying that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. Darkness presupposes light and imperfection - perfection. If there was no Perfect Being, imperfect beings could not exist. The painting presupposes the painter. Because our minds cannot comprehend God does not mean He does not exist, only that our finite minds are limited.
We do not know all there is to know so it is premature to say there is no God just from our tiny experience in this world which is equivalent to a grain of sand in all the universes in existence.
To divide 1 by 0 is actually undefined, rather than infinity.Can anyone demonstrate how, in layman terms, how to divide 1 by 0 and get infinity?
Can anyone demonstrate how, in layman terms, how to divide 1 by 0 and get infinity? Can anyone give an example using a knife? As an engineer this procedure has baffled me in the lab. Why is this allowed by science and math, without any proof of concept?
If we plug the speed of light into Einstein's equations for Special Relativity, we get division by zero. Relativistic mass, time, and distance all become infinite. Mass, space and time all become values that are beyond our inertial universe, since our universe is finite. This place us at a dividing line.
This has resulted in theories like infinite universe and multi-universe, which all go beyond proof. Physics is nevertheless trying to explain what lies beyond our own universe, when the functions connected to the law of physics break down, since they cannot reach infinity in terms of any proof.
The simplest way to explain this, with simple math, is for space-time to become disconnected. Instead, each variable now can only work as independent variables, in terms of the math. Space-time places limits for the law of physics. Once space-time is disconnected, these old limits do not apply. There is a new set of rules.
That's not really an "engineering perspective" anyway.This is vague unsound arguing from ignorance.' The engineering perspective is 'mechanistically limited only applied science' and really not relevant to the basics of math and science
That is not correct.In current theory it assumed that there was an early inflation period of the universe, where the universe did travel faster than the speed of light.