To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Mathematics Disproves The Existence Of God
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

DuzmA
I hat to do this but someone has to make this point.

Mathematics suggests that no god exists. The fact that the universe exists suggests that god does not exist. Mathematical logic demonstrates the fact that god does not exist. I submit these statements and their meanings as evidence that god doesn't exist.
Cusa
Mathematics suggests the power of an orderly mind or Mind of God.
DuzmA
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 09:01 PM)
Mathematics suggests the power of an orderly mind or Mind of God.

No it doesn't. You have to either disprove my opening remarks or admit that you cannot. Admit that faith cannot answer some things. Faith must say that it doesn't know everything.
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 09:01 PM)
Mathematics suggests the power of an orderly mind or Mind of God.

You have yet to provide ANY support for this claim, yet continue to splatter it all over every thread you come in contact with! mad.gif

When will you learn, or will you ever, that you MUST provide EVIDENCE if you want any claims to be considered scientific? Hell, even simple LOGIC requires a more rigorous argument than you're providing before such a statement can even be considered! As it is, it can be dismissed out of hand.
AlexG
How many of these God threads do we need?

By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.

But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.
DuzmA
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2009, 09:14 PM)
How many of these God threads do we need?

By definition, God can do anything. If there is that which God cannot do, that means there is a force superior to God.

But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.

I made this thread to demonstrate the absurdity of the position taken by Cusa and his ilk. They cannot do anything either when the tables are turned and no logic is applied.

Reach out and touch faith smile.gif
Cusa
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2009, 09:14 PM)
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.

Good luck on your new math.

I am sure God is having a chuckle.
AlexG
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 04:18 PM)
Good luck on your new math.

I am sure God is having a chuckle.

So 1 + 1 never being equal to 3 is new math?

Maybe to you, but the rest of the world can count on their fingers.

You should learn how to do that. If you take off you shoes and socks, you could get all the way up to twenty before you get confused.
gmilam
QUOTE (AlexG+Mar 3 2009, 03:14 PM)
How many of these God threads do we need?

Maybe God can prove she exists by merging all these into one thread!

One people, one God, one thread!
Cusa
QUOTE (gmilam+Mar 3 2009, 09:34 PM)
Maybe God can prove she exists by merging all these into one thread!

One people, one God, one thread!

May I point out: You cannot seperate creation from evolution on this forum.

The creationists are meant to have a say.

I say god created the universe to create life through evolution. This evolutionary order is "predetermined" to borrow a word from Einstein.
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 09:40 PM)
May I point out: You cannot seperate creation from evolution on this forum.


Yes, you CAN. Evolution is how life CHANGES. Creation purports to explain how life STARTED. These ARE NOT the same thing, and DO NOT belong together!

QUOTE (Cusa+)
The creationists are meant to have a say.

Only if they bring EVIDENCE! Religious "feelings" aren't EVIDENCE, nor is any religious text! If you want Creation to be considered SCIENCE, you have to prove it SCIENTIFICALLY! And you HAVEN'T, and you AREN'T.
DuzmA
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 09:40 PM)
May I point out: You cannot seperate creation from evolution on this forum.

The creationists are meant to have a say.

I say god created the universe to create life through evolution. This evolutionary order is "predetermined" to borrow a word from Einstein.

I am not religious and I believe in "predetermination." I actually don't believe in free will in the sense that is most often implied by the statement. I am a determinist. That does not make me religious and my statements of believing in 'predetermination' certainly don't imply that I believe in god in any sense.
gmilam
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 03:40 PM)
May I point out: You cannot seperate creation from evolution on this forum.

The creationists are meant to have a say.

I say god created the universe to create life through evolution. This evolutionary order is "predetermined" to borrow a word from Einstein.

May I point out that I was not trying to separate anything. If anything, I was trying to unite.
Cusa
QUOTE (DuzmA+Mar 3 2009, 09:46 PM)
I am not religious and I believe in "predetermination." I actually don't believe in free will in the sense that is most often implied by the statement. I am a determinist. That does not make me religious and my statements of believing in 'predetermination' certainly don't imply that I believe in god in any sense.

Predetermination is the Absolute Order that God created forever.

Mitch Raemsch
DuzmA
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 09:49 PM)
Predetermination is the Absolute Order that God created forever.

Mitch Raemsch

Actually its the idea that the future is built on an unbroken chain of past occurrences and is what it must be based on those past occurrences.
MickDerry
QUOTE (gmilam+Mar 3 2009, 09:34 PM)
Maybe God can prove she exists by merging all these into one thread!

One people, one God, one thread!

LOL!

Honestly though, this is like watching two blind Thai boxers trying to kick/punch the crap out of each other.
Physfan
QUOTE
But the laws of mathematics say that 1 + 1 will never equal 3. So the laws of mathematics say that God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. If there is something that God cannot do, it is logical proof that God cannot exist.

Absolute proof.
Physfan
AlphaNumeric
Mathematics is not a description of the universe, but an abstract system built on the premise of logic and consistency. Proving something mathematically does not prove something physically. In physics, when mathematics is used, the logic and 'proof' is only as physically valid as the postulates of the system. If one of them in physically invalid, then the proof will be too. However, the mathematical validity of the proof is unaffected because the mathematics does not require physical validity to be right.

So saying mathematics proves or disproves the existence of God is completely flawed. At best you can make an argument about asthetics and order within the universe or mathematics, but noone would really be swayed by that. I'm a mathematician and my non-belief in God has nothing to do with the mathematics I know, though it might relate to my analytic view of some things. But my faith (or lack of) has not changed in the time I've spent learning mathematical proofs.
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 09:40 PM)
May I point out: You cannot seperate creation from evolution on this forum.

The creationists are meant to have a say.

I say god created the universe to create life through evolution. This evolutionary order is "predetermined" to borrow a word from Einstein.

Having your say means backing up what you believe.
So far you have not done that.

So please start having your say.
Start standing up to people. (by showing your evidence.)
You have a strong responsibility to do that.

You are letting both God and your fellow humans down by not doing so.
MickDerry
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 6 2009, 10:51 AM)
Mathematics is not a description of the universe, but an abstract system built on the premise of logic and consistency. Proving something mathematically does not prove something physically. In physics, when mathematics is used, the logic and 'proof' is only as physically valid as the postulates of the system. If one of them in physically invalid, then the proof will be too. However, the mathematical validity of the proof is unaffected because the mathematics does not require physical validity to be right.

So saying mathematics proves or disproves the existence of God is completely flawed. At best you can make an argument about asthetics and order within the universe or mathematics, but noone would really be swayed by that. I'm a mathematician and my non-belief in God has nothing to do with the mathematics I know, though it might relate to my analytic view of some things. But my faith (or lack of) has not changed in the time I've spent learning mathematical proofs.

A truly honest post AN.
DuzmA
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 6 2009, 10:51 AM)
Mathematics is not a description of the universe, but an abstract system built on the premise of logic and consistency. Proving something mathematically does not prove something physically. In physics, when mathematics is used, the logic and 'proof' is only as physically valid as the postulates of the system. If one of them in physically invalid, then the proof will be too. However, the mathematical validity of the proof is unaffected because the mathematics does not require physical validity to be right.

So saying mathematics proves or disproves the existence of God is completely flawed. At best you can make an argument about asthetics and order within the universe or mathematics, but noone would really be swayed by that. I'm a mathematician and my non-belief in God has nothing to do with the mathematics I know, though it might relate to my analytic view of some things. But my faith (or lack of) has not changed in the time I've spent learning mathematical proofs.

You are completely correct. The reason that I created this topic was to display the absurdity of Cusa's argument that math was evidence of the mind of god. I was displaying that such claims can be made in both directions when in an environment that utilizes no evidence.
Cusa
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 6 2009, 10:51 AM)
Mathematics is not a description of the universe, but an abstract system built on the premise of logic and consistency. Proving something mathematically does not prove something physically. In physics, when mathematics is used, the logic and 'proof' is only as physically valid as the postulates of the system. If one of them in physically invalid, then the proof will be too. However, the mathematical validity of the proof is unaffected because the mathematics does not require physical validity to be right.

So saying mathematics proves or disproves the existence of God is completely flawed. At best you can make an argument about asthetics and order within the universe or mathematics, but noone would really be swayed by that. I'm a mathematician and my non-belief in God has nothing to do with the mathematics I know, though it might relate to my analytic view of some things. But my faith (or lack of) has not changed in the time I've spent learning mathematical proofs.

There is the abstract realm of math that is exact and there are real world curves that can only be approximated by The Calculus.

Einstein's belief in exactitude can only be confined to the abstract realm of polynomial equations.
Derek1148
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - (Bertrand Russell)
rpenner
Warn level decreased.
AlexG
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 7 2009, 03:36 AM)
Warn level decreased.

I find these a bit enigmatic.

Who's warning level has been decreased?

Is this like the Homeland Insecurity colored threat levels? tongue.gif
Cusa
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 3 2009, 09:01 PM)
Mathematics suggests the power of an orderly mind or Mind of God.

There is one equation in particular that suggests the Mind of God and that is E=MC^2.


Granouille
QUOTE (Report This Post+)
Please, please, please!

Remove the troll?


Please? sad.gif
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 7 2009, 10:01 PM)
There is one equation in particular that suggests the Mind of God and that is E=MC^2.

That is only part of the equation, and as such is only valid under special circumstances.
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 7 2009, 11:15 PM)
That is only part of the equation, and as such is only valid under special circumstances.

If you factor it you can solve for Universal C.

Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 7 2009, 11:22 PM)
If you factor it you can solve for Universal C.

Mitch Raemsch

Please demonstrate in full detail.

I predict that if you do, your warn level will go down drastically.
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 7 2009, 11:25 PM)
Please demonstrate in full detail.

I predict that if you do, your warn level will go down drastically.

Ok Ill go for it.

C=srqt(energy/mass)

Granouille
Sorry, buttershug. It looks like your original bet came in first.

I get a picture of a caramel-covered lens, somehow... sad.gif laugh.gif
Cusa
Einstein began E=MC^2

Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 7 2009, 11:43 PM)
Ok Ill go for it.

C=srqt(energy/mass)

Not much detail.
I don't even see any units.
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 8 2009, 12:07 AM)
Not much detail.
I don't even see any units.

There are only three factors; two dimensionless.
The relationship between mass and energy comes through C squared.
Thus the square root is necesary.

C=Light speed (limit)
E represents energy
M is mass

Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 12:13 AM)
There are only three factors; two dimensionless.
The relationship between mass and energy comes through C squared.
Thus the square root is necesary.

C=Light speed (limit)
E represents energy
M is mass

Mitch Raemsch

How can it be an equation of three factors where two are dimensionless?

Each side must have the same dimensions or it's not an equation.
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 8 2009, 12:40 AM)
How can it be an equation of three factors where two are dimensionless?

Each side must have the same dimensions or it's not an equation.

E=mc^2 factored becomes C=SQRT(Energy/Mass)

This equation is eternal no matter how it is arranged.
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 12:43 AM)
E=mc^2 factored becomes C=SQRT(Energy/Mass)

This equation is eternal no matter how it is arranged.

That does not explain how one side of an equation can have dimensions but not the other side and still be an equation.
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 8 2009, 12:53 AM)
That does not explain how one side of an equation can have dimensions but not the other side and still be an equation.

E=mc squared in every form or variation is a Universal Relationship. You are not going to get dimensions with it or its rearangement(C=SQRT(E/M))
AlexG
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 7 2009, 07:53 PM)
That does not explain how one side of an equation can have dimensions but not the other side and still be an equation.

Mitch does not know what you mean by dimensions.

Mitch does not know what you mean by units.

Mitch simply applies 9th grade algebra to the only equation he knows how to write and claims he's found something new.

Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 12:57 AM)
E=mc squared in every form or variation is a Universal Relationship. You are not going to get dimensions with it or its rearangement(C=SQRT(E/M))

Cusa. Seriously.

C is a SPEED, measured in DISTANCE over TIME.
M is MASS
E is thus (MASS * (DISTANCE^2)) / (TIME^2)

You cannot apply this equation WITHOUT these units.

Even then, E=MC^2 is the SPECIAL form of the equation, and is thus NOT UNIVERSAL.
Cusa
I claim I have found a variation of E=mc^2 where by the speed of light limit in the universe is defined by the square root of energy divided by mass.
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 12:57 AM)
E=mc squared in every form or variation is a Universal Relationship. You are not going to get dimensions with it or its rearangement(C=SQRT(E/M))

But you said there were three factors and two were dimensionless.

That means one has dimensions.
That means one side has dimensions but not the other side.

I'm only going by what YOU told me.
Were you wrong?
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 01:05 AM)
I claim I have found a variation of E=mc^2 where by the speed of light limit in the universe is defined by the square root of energy divided by mass.

Cusa. Seriously.

You haven't FOUND anything, you've just rearranged Einstein's equation - something anyone in first-year algebra could do.
Cusa
QUOTE (Argyll+Mar 8 2009, 01:07 AM)
Cusa. Seriously.

You haven't FOUND anything, you've just rearranged Einstein's equation - something anyone in first-year algebra could do.

The equation says that the speed of light limit in the universe is mathematically associated with the square root of energy/mass. This is a universal relationship and as such cannot be argued against.

Mitch Raemsch
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 01:10 AM)
The equation says that the speed of light limit in the universe is mathematically associated with the square root of energy/mass. This is a universal relationship and as such cannot be argued against.

Mitch Raemsch

First of all, we're not arguing against the equation, we're arguing against you claiming to have found something new, to have accomplished something.

Second of all, anything can be argued against. For example, your claim that the equation is universal can be argued, because the form you are using only applies when there is no relative velocity.
Cusa
The speed of light has no kinetic energy. Light's energy is in its frequency.

Defining light speed is about an energyless light flow constant known as C

C=SQRT(ENERGY/MASS)

Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 01:29 AM)
The speed of light has no kinetic energy. Light's energy is in its frequency.

Defining light speed is about an energyless light flow constant known as C

C=SQRT(ENERGY/MASS)

Mitch Raemsch

You still havn't explained how two of the three factors can be dimensionless in an equation.

I'm simply repeating what you said and asking for you to explain what you said.

I'm offering you a golden oportunity to show what you know.
AlexG
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 7 2009, 08:05 PM)
I claim I have found a variation of E=mc^2 where by the speed of light limit in the universe is defined by the square root of energy divided by mass.

Mitch, you're an idiot.

You haven't found a 'variation' of anything. It's 9th grade algebra.
Argyll
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 8 2009, 01:33 AM)
I'm offering you a golden oportunity to show what you know.

And he is!
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 8 2009, 01:33 AM)
You still havn't explained how two of the three factors can be dimensionless in an equation.

PLease apply your question to the original Einstein E=MC^2

Does it apply?

If not then the argument is settled.
AlexG
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 7 2009, 08:35 PM)
PLease apply your question to the original Einstein E=MC^2

Does it apply?

If not then the argument is settled.

rpenner, ban this troll.
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 01:35 AM)
PLease apply your question to the original Einstein E=MC^2

Does it apply?

If not then the argument is settled.

But I can't know that until you explain how you can have three factors and have two dimensionless and still have an equation.

Please explain.

I can't even find 'my "oringinal question".

Can you please point it out?
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 8 2009, 01:44 AM)
But I can't know that until you explain how you can have three factors and have two dimensionless

If it is unnecesary for E=MC SQUARED it is also unnecesary for C=SQRT(E/M)
They are the same equation.
Perhaps you could demonstrate it for the original Einsteinian equation?
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 01:48 AM)
If it is unnecesary for E=MC SQUARED it is also unnecesary for C=SQRT(E/M)
They are the same equation.
Perhaps you could demonstrate it for the original Einsteinian equation?

But every equation needs to have the same dimensions on both sides.
Otherwise it can't be an equation.
Cusa
The new version of Einstein's Energy equation demonstrates the Mind of God just the same as the original.

Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 01:52 AM)
The new version of Einstein's Energy equation demonstrates the Mind of God just the same as the original.

Mitch Raemsch

And both the original and your new improved form, need to have the same dimensions on both side of the equals sign.

How is that possible if two out of three factors are dimensinoless?
Cusa
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 8 2009, 01:55 AM)
And both the original and your new improved form, need to have the same dimensions on both side of the equals sign.

So according to you E=MC^2 is invalid understanding it without dimensions?
No you are wrong. It has meaning independent of dimensions. The same with my version because they are the same equation.


I understand that equation Einstein's way and my way. Can you then invalidate their importance?

Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:00 AM)
So according to you E=MC^2 is invalid understanding it without dimensions?
No you are wrong. It has meaning independent of dimensions. The same with my version because they are the same equation.


I understand that equation Einstein's way and my way. Can you then invalidate their importance?

Mitch Raemsch

But all equations must have the same dimensions on both sides.

Are you saying that Einstiens equation is invalid?

Or are you saying that equations don't need the same dimensions on both sides?
If so how is that possible?

I did say I wanted an explaination in detail didn't i?
Cusa
See ya.

Mitch Raemsch
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:07 AM)
See ya.

Mitch Raemsch

Typical response when he knows he's beat.

What a troll.
Cusa
QUOTE (Argyll+Mar 8 2009, 02:11 AM)
Typical response when he knows he's beat.

What a troll.

Show me where I am wrong. Otherwise see you too!

Mitch Reamsch
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:13 AM)
Show me where I am wrong. Otherwise see you too!

Mitch Reamsch

Einstein's equation is not dimensionless. I've already said what dimensions (units) each term has.
Cusa
E=mc^2 stands as truth and the Mind of God all on its own.

My version also.

Please demonstrate your dimensionality of the equation before you go on.

Mitch Raemsch
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:07 AM)
See ya.

Mitch Raemsch

But you said you would.

1/(sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2))) is dimensionless and explains why c is the "cosmic speed limit".

E, M, and C all have dimensions which must be understood to fully apreciate the equation as an equation instead of tricking yourself into thinking you understand it.
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:24 AM)
E=mc^2 stands as truth and the Mind of God all on its own.

My version also.

Please demonstrate your dimensionality of the equation before you go on.

Mitch Raemsch

I've done so already, here if you could be bothered to read the posts in this thread.

As for the "Mind of God" crap, you haven't proven anything - hell, you haven't even BEGUN to demonstrate how that statement is anything but a non sequitur.
Cusa
QUOTE (Argyll+Mar 8 2009, 02:30 AM)
I've done so already,

As for the "Mind of God" crap, you haven't proven anything -

You mean this nonsense

C is a SPEED, measured in DISTANCE over TIME.
M is MASS
E is thus (MASS * (DISTANCE^2)) / (TIME^2)


Your Energy factor is Fudge.

Since one thing is wrong the whole can't be taken as valid.
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:37 AM)
You mean this nonsense

C is a SPEED, measured in DISTANCE over TIME.
M is MASS
E is thus (MASS * (DISTANCE^2)) / (TIME^2)


Your Energy factor is Fudge.

Since one thing is wrong the whole can't be taken as valid.

Which of those factors do you think has dimension?
You said two were dimensionless, which two?
Cusa
My version of Einstein's equation will be important in the math of physics because as math it is eternally true. And nobody can invalidate it as such.
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:42 AM)
My version of Einstein's equation will be important in the math of physics because as math it is eternally true. And nobody can invalidate it as such.

But which two factors are dimensionless?
Argyll
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:42 AM)
My version of Einstein's equation will be important in the math of physics because as math it is eternally true. And nobody can invalidate it as such.

Your failure to understand why your claim is invalid doesn't make it not invalid.
buttershug
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 8 2009, 02:37 AM)
You mean this nonsense

C is a SPEED, measured in DISTANCE over TIME.
M is MASS
E is thus (MASS * (DISTANCE^2)) / (TIME^2)


Your Energy factor is Fudge.

Since one thing is wrong the whole can't be taken as valid.

But that is the same equation that you gave.
There is no energy fudge factor there.

But Einstein did postulate a fudge factor he called the universal constant.
Later he called it his biggest mistake.

What I want to know was Einstein wrong when he said he was wrong about it, or was he right that he was wrong?

I've read some people think that he was wrong about being wrong and that he was right about the universal constant.
AlexG
QUOTE (Cusa+Mar 7 2009, 08:52 PM)
The new version of Einstein's Energy equation demonstrates the Mind of God just the same as the original.

Mitch Raemsch

rpenner, ban this poster
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.