Which is more likely.......
- Thread starter Dirty Shoez
- Start date
Math is not a man-made concept; it is a man-witnessed realization.
One of the fundamental laws (BEYOND a theory) of Science is that matter does not create matter; I cannot just summon my powers and create a cheeseburger or a mound of gold. So what the Big Bang is based on is even MORE unscientific: NON-EXISTANT matter creating ITSELF!
How you could believe nonexistant matter can simply say "Be!" and it is, it is beyond me. LITERALLY beyond my comprehension. This is why I choose to believe in God thus X+0=1 instead.
One of the fundamental laws (BEYOND a theory) of Science is that matter does not create matter; I cannot just summon my powers and create a cheeseburger or a mound of gold. So what the Big Bang is based on is even MORE unscientific: NON-EXISTANT matter creating ITSELF!
How you could believe nonexistant matter can simply say "Be!" and it is, it is beyond me. LITERALLY beyond my comprehension. This is why I choose to believe in God thus X+0=1 instead.
Until "x" is figured out and ultimately researched, there will always be people who say it's some great force out there like god. As long as something is unknown it's reasonable to expect people to put a face on it. There was a time when everyone was convinced that sun revolved around us, and until there was proof against it there would be no arguments. And until it was proven that the earth was round, there would be no arguments against its being flat. It's just how people work. In the absense of answers, people draw their own conclusions. "X" for me stands for " Data is missing at the moment.." A lack of information based on the technology of the people does not make for information supporting those on the other side of the argument. Before we could see to the stars, everyone was convinced that they were all on one layer in a multilayered canopy around the earth.
But it is perfectly acceptable to say, " I don't know. No one does. I'm not jumping to conclusions but this is sort of what I think.." I don't believe in a god, but I can't tell you where all that matter came from. For all I know, for a time beyond our comprehension the same bits of matter have been circulating in a massive vaccuum and recycling themselves in different forms randomly. I used to think the matter *was* God, or a god of sorts.
If you had no idea what gravity was, and you jumped in the air, you would think it was God pulling you back down to the ground. If you knew exactly what gravity was, and how it worked, you would probably be amused if someone told you it was God pulling you back down to the ground.
But it is perfectly acceptable to say, " I don't know. No one does. I'm not jumping to conclusions but this is sort of what I think.." I don't believe in a god, but I can't tell you where all that matter came from. For all I know, for a time beyond our comprehension the same bits of matter have been circulating in a massive vaccuum and recycling themselves in different forms randomly. I used to think the matter *was* God, or a god of sorts.
If you had no idea what gravity was, and you jumped in the air, you would think it was God pulling you back down to the ground. If you knew exactly what gravity was, and how it worked, you would probably be amused if someone told you it was God pulling you back down to the ground.
@ CannibalCrow
That was a great post.
But you must also know that we are beyond the Earth being round, and all these other things. We are now to the point of having this great model constructed for us, with the one major (and CENTRAL flaw): 0 plus 0 does not equal 1.
We will never prove whether or not God exists. This is a fact. 100 or 1000 years from now, we might DEFINITIVELY prove that Macroevolution is true...I don't know. But we will never be able to prove where the universe came from. It is simply not possible.
This is where `Evolution'/Macroevolution comes in. The only way you can POSSIBLY believe in it, is to pre-suppose that 0+0=1. Fact. Just the way it is. So the way it works is like this: "If you will submit and agree that 0+0=1, then we will fill in all the rest of the holes in your life, and explain everything in the universe to you, from the its creation to the history of Man."
Sounds a lot like religion to me! Let's see: "If you will submit and agree that God exists, then we will fill in all the rest of the holes in your life, and explain everything in the universe to you, from its creation to the history of Man."
Exact match.
The one, you proclaim an impossibility (and convert yourself into a madman in the process), and you are delivered the history of the world. The other, you proclaim a relative impossibility (and convert yourself into a hopeless optimist in the process), and are delivered a `fairy tale'.
If you want to be a madman....go ahead. But you and everyone else needs to understand that you have ZERO basis calling other people mad or crazy for their views on Macroevolution and man coming from Apes. 0.000000000000000...1 will ALWAYS be greater than 0. Just the way the game goes.
That was a great post.
But you must also know that we are beyond the Earth being round, and all these other things. We are now to the point of having this great model constructed for us, with the one major (and CENTRAL flaw): 0 plus 0 does not equal 1.
We will never prove whether or not God exists. This is a fact. 100 or 1000 years from now, we might DEFINITIVELY prove that Macroevolution is true...I don't know. But we will never be able to prove where the universe came from. It is simply not possible.
This is where `Evolution'/Macroevolution comes in. The only way you can POSSIBLY believe in it, is to pre-suppose that 0+0=1. Fact. Just the way it is. So the way it works is like this: "If you will submit and agree that 0+0=1, then we will fill in all the rest of the holes in your life, and explain everything in the universe to you, from the its creation to the history of Man."
Sounds a lot like religion to me! Let's see: "If you will submit and agree that God exists, then we will fill in all the rest of the holes in your life, and explain everything in the universe to you, from its creation to the history of Man."
Exact match.
The one, you proclaim an impossibility (and convert yourself into a madman in the process), and you are delivered the history of the world. The other, you proclaim a relative impossibility (and convert yourself into a hopeless optimist in the process), and are delivered a `fairy tale'.
If you want to be a madman....go ahead. But you and everyone else needs to understand that you have ZERO basis calling other people mad or crazy for their views on Macroevolution and man coming from Apes. 0.000000000000000...1 will ALWAYS be greater than 0. Just the way the game goes.
You could just as easily apply this same logic for X in your equation;
0+0 does not equal X anymore than 0+0=1.
Your logic something(X) plus nothing equals something is flawed until you can tell where the X came from without just putting it in the equation...
I believe CannibalCrow stated it best X= "Data is missing at the moment"
0+0 does not equal X anymore than 0+0=1.
Your logic something(X) plus nothing equals something is flawed until you can tell where the X came from without just putting it in the equation...
I believe CannibalCrow stated it best X= "Data is missing at the moment"
I will agree with that.
In my lifetime I do not expect to see anyone discovering the origin of matter, or proving with any percentage of accuracy how this universe came into being.
I am for the x+0=1 statement, but as I said before.. the "x" is simply in place of facts we are not aware of yet. I have my own ideas, but I assume nothing.
In my lifetime I do not expect to see anyone discovering the origin of matter, or proving with any percentage of accuracy how this universe came into being.
I am for the x+0=1 statement, but as I said before.. the "x" is simply in place of facts we are not aware of yet. I have my own ideas, but I assume nothing.
The Universe before the Big Bang/Creation is represented by 0. The force that created the Universe is represented by either X (God) or 0 (It created itself). 0+0=X makes no sense in this scenario, because it does not yield a 1--the Universe that, today, exists.
Now that i think about it though, you could have done: X+0=1, and turned it into: X-1=0, and said that without the Universe, God doesn't exist. That would have been interesting.
Any way you slice it, the poll is 12-1 for a reason, and that reason is that deep down inside, we all believe a God-like force created the universe. The question is how we explain our views to others: science, or faith.
Now that i think about it though, you could have done: X+0=1, and turned it into: X-1=0, and said that without the Universe, God doesn't exist. That would have been interesting.
Any way you slice it, the poll is 12-1 for a reason, and that reason is that deep down inside, we all believe a God-like force created the universe. The question is how we explain our views to others: science, or faith.
All debate aside, I find it fascinating to try to think about the universe. I cannot justify a god in the universal picture because I cannot justify one in my daily life.
The universe is very vast. Huge. You cannot comprehend it. At least I can't.. There are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than I am, who can sit down and think about this stuff.
To me, saying God created the universe from nothing is like saying 0+0=1. God created matter that was not there before. So God made 0+0=1. Nothing was there. Boom. He made it there.
x+0=1 seems to be the scientific statement to me, as "x" is merely representing the facts and data that scientists have yet to uncover with our primitive tools.
Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but the universe is essentially made of all the same elements on our periodic table. Am I right..? We've discovered a lot of elemts, but basically the entire universe is composed of the same matter? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be recycled into different forms?
It absolutely blows my mind. Even still, I am looking for the scientific explanation that may never come in my lifetime.
The universe is very vast. Huge. You cannot comprehend it. At least I can't.. There are a lot of people out there who are a lot smarter than I am, who can sit down and think about this stuff.
To me, saying God created the universe from nothing is like saying 0+0=1. God created matter that was not there before. So God made 0+0=1. Nothing was there. Boom. He made it there.
x+0=1 seems to be the scientific statement to me, as "x" is merely representing the facts and data that scientists have yet to uncover with our primitive tools.
Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but the universe is essentially made of all the same elements on our periodic table. Am I right..? We've discovered a lot of elemts, but basically the entire universe is composed of the same matter? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be recycled into different forms?
It absolutely blows my mind. Even still, I am looking for the scientific explanation that may never come in my lifetime.
The Big Bang Theory is enough of a stretch (rimshot please?). Saying the universe has existed in perpetuity is even crazier. Having studied the small amount i have studied, the BBT definitely makes the most sense.
Allow me to back up a bit.
X, God slash the Unknown Force slash the Creator.
Y, The state of being before the Universe was created/came into existance.
1, the Universe as it currently exists.
BBT states that Y is represented by a tremendously super-concentrated clump of atoms. But as we know, matter does not create matter and matter does not create itself. Science as we know it would fall apart without this simple logic. (Side note: If the day did come along where we learned how to make matter out of thin air, this would in fact be MORE evidence for the proof of God, rather than less, IMO. He could easily have created this world, and then made Himself imperceptible to Human beings. Any man capable of making 0+0=1 is surely capable of this.)
So then we realize that these atoms weren't real matter--they were a place holder, a marker, a void...an imagination, even. The BBT does not theorize who created this void, so the only presumption we have is that the void created itself, thus Y+0 and Y=0. Then somehow, an impossibility took place--0+0=1--and here we are.
The moral of the thread is, don't be so quick to call someone a dumbfuck for not believing in Evolution. (Macro, Micro, ANY form of it). I agree that science is more important to teach to young people than religion--we should definitely increase science spending, teaching and scholarships in schools--but there are ways to go about it.
I.D. belongs in schools. Darwinism belongs. Teleological Evolution belongs. And as more and more children grow up atheist--Creationism belongs, with limited emphasis on the Biblical/Quranic God and more on the Philosophical God/Force. (I cannot fucking believe I just capitalized force. And no, I am not a Star Wars fan!)
Edit: Ahhh...now I see what you're getting at. Yes, X+0+0 would have been better, but for simplification purposes, I just kept it at X+0. Hope that clears at least one part up.
Allow me to back up a bit.
X, God slash the Unknown Force slash the Creator.
Y, The state of being before the Universe was created/came into existance.
1, the Universe as it currently exists.
BBT states that Y is represented by a tremendously super-concentrated clump of atoms. But as we know, matter does not create matter and matter does not create itself. Science as we know it would fall apart without this simple logic. (Side note: If the day did come along where we learned how to make matter out of thin air, this would in fact be MORE evidence for the proof of God, rather than less, IMO. He could easily have created this world, and then made Himself imperceptible to Human beings. Any man capable of making 0+0=1 is surely capable of this.)
So then we realize that these atoms weren't real matter--they were a place holder, a marker, a void...an imagination, even. The BBT does not theorize who created this void, so the only presumption we have is that the void created itself, thus Y+0 and Y=0. Then somehow, an impossibility took place--0+0=1--and here we are.
The moral of the thread is, don't be so quick to call someone a dumbfuck for not believing in Evolution. (Macro, Micro, ANY form of it). I agree that science is more important to teach to young people than religion--we should definitely increase science spending, teaching and scholarships in schools--but there are ways to go about it.
I.D. belongs in schools. Darwinism belongs. Teleological Evolution belongs. And as more and more children grow up atheist--Creationism belongs, with limited emphasis on the Biblical/Quranic God and more on the Philosophical God/Force. (I cannot fucking believe I just capitalized force. And no, I am not a Star Wars fan!)
Edit: Ahhh...now I see what you're getting at. Yes, X+0+0 would have been better, but for simplification purposes, I just kept it at X+0. Hope that clears at least one part up.
Because if God has existed forever, then science and time both have no basis. Science and time are officially light-switches that can be turned on and off whenever God feels like it. Everything you `know' now (x amount of days in a year, distance from the sun, etc.) means nothing, and is only what God has wanted you to believe all along.
The same can't be said for a Godless, science-driven universe. You are REQUIRED to explain how the first matter was created. You ARE NOT allowed to simply say that it "existed", otherwise, all other science (well, astronomy, biology and most everything but math) implodes.
The same can't be said for a Godless, science-driven universe. You are REQUIRED to explain how the first matter was created. You ARE NOT allowed to simply say that it "existed", otherwise, all other science (well, astronomy, biology and most everything but math) implodes.