Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

Contra,

 

We understand something and nothing very differently. My assertion has always been that the absolute infinite unending thing is unfathomable which means that it is quite different and less tangible from anything we know. It is less tangible than an idea and it is still something. 

 

Listen, we can't here argue on the standards of proof. This is not a university and we are not doing peer review on either end. It has long been asserted that you can't get something out of absolute nothing. How can you? If there is nothing, not even ideas, then how can something come from it? That is a good as proof as any. You are just closing your eyes from it, or defining nothing differently than I am.

 

That is why I am saying that there always had to be something, which means it is infinite. 

 

And why does infinity *0 not equal 0. The reason is because infinity has undetermined properties so it is not restricted to the things that other things are restricted to. This is why I am saying that it is unknown with unknown properties. 

 

Not much to honestly argue on.

[Guest nat]

By the way, I did somewhat use division by 0 within my arguments, but it was a side point wherein the same point can be made without it.

 

What did I say?

 

I said that 0 treats all numbers equally. You don't need x/0= infinity for that. You can use X*0 = 0 to make the same point.

 

What else did I say?

 

I said that x/0=infinity would be a logical outgrowth of infinity * 0 =x (x being any number). 

 

Again, it is a side point, which is not inherently needed since infinity *0 is undetermined and can equal anything.

 

Aside from all that, x/0 does = infinity (either positive or negative) within the context of limits. You just have to say it carefully so that accepted math doesn't pounce on you. The correct way to say it is like this: let y = any constant unchanging number. the limit of y/x as x goes to 0 from the positive side is positive infinity and as x goes to 0 from the negative side is negative infinity.

 

We agreed to all this a while ago.

 

And I have never asserted that division by 0 is some mystical be all and end all to God. (But I did use the concept as a side point within my arguments.)

[Guest nat]

By the way, Contra, it is quite haughty for you to say that i was unsuccessful. Can you judge success and failure? This thread has more replies than the others and in much less time. Many people don't even reply. Do you know what everyone thinks? Even if one person thinks about these things a little bit more and realizes that sceince does not have all the answers, I see that as a success. Talking big is a small thing to do.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

ContraBardus gave a good explanation of infinity, and it's status as a well defined term. Not much I can add, especially given the number of times I have already explained why Nat's math is wrong.

Bhim,

 

Kind of easy of you to come back and make assertions quite a while after I refuted you and no one remembers. Where were you all this time? You don't remember that I refuted you that 0/0 is the same as infinity * 0. Easy of you to just forget that and assume you were right all the time. Also, if you go back a little, I was as clear as I could be on the math part, and it was fairly clear that it was correct. Now you come back and make claims.

This thread is a perfect metaphor of Science vs. Religion. Several well-trained mathematicians have explained why division by zero isn't done in math and why it doesn't prove fictional characters. That is the science. You respond by asserting your religion.

 

I've read the thread all the way through including every post. I suspect you are thinking of Bhim's comments on page 13 post 258, page 14 post 264 along with your responses in post 260, post 274 again on page 13 and 14. It wasn't forgotten but there is a very good reason why it isn't remembered as you refuting Bhim. You have been making very basic errors all the way through this thread and lashing out at those who take the time to try to help you. You certainly have not made a nobel-prize-worthy breakthrough. Congratulating yourself doesn't fix your errors.

 

By the way you are not the first believer to try division by zero to get to god. I can't tell you how many hours I wasted down that road. It's a pipe dream. It will never work.

 

 

You are just plain wrong. Division by 0 was a diversion way way back when. I clarified over and over that it was a diversion and I then stuck to the accepted way of doing it in the process of limits. As I last set out the math clearly, there was no refutation. Actually, there was some agreement. Why are you getting stuck on an actual division by 0 when I backed off from that in this thread because it was an unnecessary diversion. 

 

 

How does admitting that all your comments about division by zero were just a diversion on your part help?

 

You have been refuted all the way through the thread.  When it happens you pretend to not see it or act like you don't understand it.  The reason it was brought up again was because of your claims that you refuted Bhim and your posturing about your great math skills.  You mentioned the part of the thread where you claimed to refute Bhim and said everyone forgot about it.  But not everyone has forgotten.  It wasn't hard to look up page 13 and 14 and see that this was not the case.

 

If you had titled this thread "There might never have been a nothing" where you argue that for any time in existence a something must have existed then there would have been much more agreement here.  Perhaps there would have been no disagreement at all.  Instead you approach the topic backwards and you don't easily admit when you are wrong.  Being wrong about something doesn't make you a bad person.  There is no need to invest your ego into these ideas.  Fifty years from now most of the ideas we hold today will probably be overturned or refined by new evidence.  This is the nature of human learning.  We are always improving.

[ContraBardus]

Contra,

 

We understand something and nothing very differently. My assertion has always been that the absolute infinite unending thing is unfathomable which means that it is quite different and less tangible from anything we know. It is less tangible than an idea and it is still something. 

 

Listen, we can't here argue on the standards of proof. This is not a university and we are not doing peer review on either end. It has long been asserted that you can't get something out of absolute nothing. How can you? If there is nothing, not even ideas, then how can something come from it? That is a good as proof as any. You are just closing your eyes from it, or defining nothing differently than I am.

 

That is why I am saying that there always had to be something, which means it is infinite. 

 

And why does infinity *0 not equal 0. The reason is because infinity has undetermined properties so it is not restricted to the things that other things are restricted to. This is why I am saying that it is unknown with unknown properties. 

 

Not much to honestly argue on.

 

Right, infinity is magical, got it. It lives beyond the limits of everything and rooms with God outside of reality so it can exist outside the laws of the Universe. I guess they split the rent.

[mymistake]

 

Contra,

 

We understand something and nothing very differently. My assertion has always been that the absolute infinite unending thing is unfathomable which means that it is quite different and less tangible from anything we know. It is less tangible than an idea and it is still something. 

 

Listen, we can't here argue on the standards of proof. This is not a university and we are not doing peer review on either end. It has long been asserted that you can't get something out of absolute nothing. How can you? If there is nothing, not even ideas, then how can something come from it? That is a good as proof as any. You are just closing your eyes from it, or defining nothing differently than I am.

 

That is why I am saying that there always had to be something, which means it is infinite. 

 

And why does infinity *0 not equal 0. The reason is because infinity has undetermined properties so it is not restricted to the things that other things are restricted to. This is why I am saying that it is unknown with unknown properties. 

 

Not much to honestly argue on.

 

Right, infinity is magical, got it. It lives beyond the limits of everything and rooms with God outside of reality so it can exist outside the laws of the Universe. I guess they split the rent.

 

 

I have something in my hand, which means that my hand is infinite.

[ContraBardus]

By the way, Contra, it is quite haughty for you to say that i was unsuccessful. Can you judge success and failure? This thread has more replies than the others and in much less time. Many people don't even reply. Do you know what everyone thinks? Even if one person thinks about these things a little bit more and realizes that sceince does not have all the answers, I see that as a success. Talking big is a small thing to do.

 

Um, no. I'd say this is definitely a resounding failure. 19 pages and you've not provided a convincing argument, a compelling case, or even anything really new. That's pretty much fail any way you look at it.

 

"This thread has more replies than the others and in much less time."

 

 

Threads like this aren't unusual here. I'm not trying to be insulting, but topics like this one draw attention that's more like an accident on the side of the road that slows traffic down for miles behind it even when it's not blocking the road.

 

You shouldn't be surprised by the reaction here. You've obviously come here for an argument, and you've found one. I think perhaps you were expecting more acceptance of your ideas, but they honestly aren't very compelling. It's nothing we've not seen before.

 

Yes, we're pretty open minded and do honestly consider the arguments made first, but once it becomes apparent that nothing new is being offered, it becomes more a morbid entertainment to see how bad things get before it's all said and done. Threads with topics and titles like this one tend to behave like this one has normally. Don't let it go to your head.

 

I've been here a while, and I know the general temperament of the site on the whole. So, yes. I do have a pretty good idea how this thread is going over on the whole. I'm afraid you're being overly optimistic here. I seriously doubt anyone has seriously considered anything more than 'I wonder how bad this is going to get' beyond the first page or two of the thread. That's not to say they weren't trying to make sense of it, but hope that the thread would become more than a spectacle is likely tepid at best by now, having dwindled away over the course of the discussion for the vast majority of the forums. At the least, I'm pretty sure you've not convinced anyone to "think about these things a little bit more and realizes that sceince does not have all the answers".

 

I'm not suggesting that I can read minds, but I know this place pretty well. Most of the people here are Science wonks on some level, and we've got a much better understanding of it than you do based on the content of your previous posts. Those who aren't would probably not bother with this thread, and even if they did they would know that many of those who posted in it are trained experts and would trust their positions more than yours. [Kind of like how I don't trust your math, and those Youtube videos didn't convince me otherwise.] We have several Scientists who frequent here and a lot of the forum posters are very well educated.

 

A great many of us considered ideas like yours for ourselves. We didn't just drop things and shuffle off into a corner. We considered the weight of theistic arguments, searched for evidence and truth in them, found them wanting in both, and moved on. Most of us tried all sorts of ways to try and justify beliefs and faith. Some of us found other mystic ideas more appealing.

 

However, the crowd that frequents this section is more likely to have forgone spiritualism as a lost cause. A lack of evidence, support, and logic drove us away, not some weird anger at an eternal being. We were no longer convinced that such things were true, or that beings like that exist. We had to find answers elsewhere. To be honest, you're about as likely to convince most of the people who frequent this particular section of the forums of the existence of a 'God' as you are of the existence of Santa Claus. We don't believe in either one for pretty much the exact same reasons.

 

Science is how we find the answers. Mysticism is a dead end. I've yet to see a spiritual claim or statement provide an actual answer to any question ever. Quite frankly it's a rather ignorant claim to say that 'science does not have all the answers'. Not because I think Science does have all the answers, but because it implies that spiritual explanations are needed to supplement Science, and that's not the case.

 

Science works, I've yet to see anyone 'healed by God' of so much as a common cold. Yet I've seen cancer beaten by Science with my own eyes. I have a terminal disease, and it's not 'spiritual answers' that's keeping me alive, I find no comfort in mystical powers or promises of spiritual energies. I'm not afraid of death, and I can say that because I've died twice. My heart stopped for three minutes during a heart catheterization, and again two months later when my heart rate jumped to 180bpm and then stopped for another three and a half. I'm slated for a heart and lung transplant in a few years, I'm stable enough I don't need it now, but sooner or later I will have to replace my respiratory system. I've looked death in the face and laughed.

 

Science does not have all the answers, but trying to deter others from using it by suggesting spiritualism, religion, or mysticism to -find- the answers is horrible and evil. They've never provided answers, I've never seen any evidence that they ever do, and I know from experience that Science can and does provide the tools needed to find answers.

 

Spiritualism is just baseless wishful thinking. I would love for someone to prove otherwise, but I do not expect it to happen.

[Guest nat]

 

Quote

 

How does admitting that all your comments about division by zero were just a diversion on your part help?

 

You have been refuted all the way through the thread.  When it happens you pretend to not see it or act like you don't understand it.  The reason it was brought up again was because of your claims that you refuted Bhim and your posturing about your great math skills.  You mentioned the part of the thread where you claimed to refute Bhim and said everyone forgot about it.  But not everyone has forgotten.  It wasn't hard to look up page 13 and 14 and see that this was not the case.

 

If you had titled this thread "There might never have been a nothing" where you argue that for any time in existence a something must have existed then there would have been much more agreement here.  Perhaps there would have been no disagreement at all.  Instead you approach the topic backwards and you don't easily admit when you are wrong.  Being wrong about something doesn't make you a bad person.  There is no need to invest your ego into these ideas.  Fifty years from now most of the ideas we hold today will probably be overturned or refined by new evidence.  This is the nature of human learning.  We are always improving.

 

End quote

 

You are so off base. I did not admit that my comments about division by 0 were a diversion. I said that the way I originally expressed it ended up being a diversion. I had to say the same thing in a more complicated way to go beyond the current limitation of math. Beside that, my math arguments did not even need division by 0 as I mentioned in my previous post.

 

Secondly, people like you keep saying I have been refuted all throughout. You make claims and rely on others. Let me see you refute my arguments. I have made many mathematical points and I have shown them to be true. Disagree? Then let's see you refute them. 

 

I did refute bhim. Look it up. He said 0/0 is not the same and infinity * 0 and it is. I did not say I refuted everything he said. But I did refute him on that point and he could not admit it.

 

If you read the whole thread as you seem to indicate, why did you not notice how many times I backed away from the name of the thread which i did unassumingly. I did not know what i was getting into. I have throughout this thread come to show that something infinite and unfathomable exists. I am leaving open what exactly that is. I have my own beliefs, but that is not important here. I also gave a mathematical supports that something infinite and 0 can bring about all things. If you think about the past, we come across two things, something infinite and a lot of nothingness. Showing a math parallel how this can bring forth everything is valuable.

[Guest nat]

 

 

Threads like this aren't unusual here. I'm not trying to be insulting, but topics like this one draw attention that's more like an accident on the side of the road that slows traffic down for miles behind it even when it's not blocking the road.

 

You shouldn't be surprised by the reaction here. You've obviously come here for an argument, and you've found one. I think perhaps you were expecting more acceptance of your ideas, but they honestly aren't very compelling. It's nothing we've not seen before.

 

Yes, we're pretty open minded and do honestly consider the arguments made first, but once it becomes apparent that nothing new is being offered, it becomes more a morbid entertainment to see how bad things get before it's all said and done. Threads with topics and titles like this one tend to behave like this one has normally. Don't let it go to your head.

 

I've been here a while, and I know the general temperament of the site on the whole. So, yes. I do have a pretty good idea how this thread is going over on the whole. I'm afraid you're being overly optimistic here. I seriously doubt anyone has seriously considered anything more than 'I wonder how bad this is going to get' beyond the first page or two of the thread. That's not to say they weren't trying to make sense of it, but hope that the thread would become more than a spectacle is likely tepid at best by now, having dwindled away over the course of the discussion for the vast majority of the forums. At the least, I'm pretty sure you've not convinced anyone to "think about these things a little bit more and realizes that sceince does not have all the answers".

 

I'm not suggesting that I can read minds, but I know this place pretty well. Most of the people here are Science wonks on some level, and we've got a much better understanding of it than you do based on the content of your previous posts. Those who aren't would probably not bother with this thread, and even if they did they would know that many of those who posted in it are trained experts and would trust their positions more than yours. [Kind of like how I don't trust your math, and those Youtube videos didn't convince me otherwise.] We have several Scientists who frequent here and a lot of the forum posters are very well educated.

 

A great many of us considered ideas like yours for ourselves. We didn't just drop things and shuffle off into a corner. We considered the weight of theistic arguments, searched for evidence and truth in them, found them wanting in both, and moved on. Most of us tried all sorts of ways to try and justify beliefs and faith. Some of us found other mystic ideas more appealing.

 

However, the crowd that frequents this section is more likely to have forgone spiritualism as a lost cause. A lack of evidence, support, and logic drove us away, not some weird anger at an eternal being. We were no longer convinced that such things were true, or that beings like that exist. We had to find answers elsewhere. To be honest, you're about as likely to convince most of the people who frequent this particular section of the forums of the existence of a 'God' as you are of the existence of Santa Claus. We don't believe in either one for pretty much the exact same reasons.

 

Science is how we find the answers. Mysticism is a dead end. I've yet to see a spiritual claim or statement provide an actual answer to any question ever. Quite frankly it's a rather ignorant claim to say that 'science does not have all the answers'. Not because I think Science does have all the answers, but because it implies that spiritual explanations are needed to supplement Science, and that's not the case.

 

Science works, I've yet to see anyone 'healed by God' of so much as a common cold. Yet I've seen cancer beaten by Science with my own eyes. I have a terminal disease, and it's not 'spiritual answers' that's keeping me alive, I find no comfort in mystical powers or promises of spiritual energies. I'm not afraid of death, and I can say that because I've died twice. My heart stopped for three minutes during a heart catheterization, and again two months later when my heart rate jumped to 180bpm and then stopped for another three and a half. I'm slated for a heart and lung transplant in a few years, I'm stable enough I don't need it now, but sooner or later I will have to replace my respiratory system. I've looked death in the face and laughed.

 

Science does not have all the answers, but trying to deter others from using it by suggesting spiritualism, religion, or mysticism to -find- the answers is horrible and evil. They've never provided answers, I've never seen any evidence that they ever do, and I know from experience that Science can and does provide the tools needed to find answers.

 

Spiritualism is just baseless wishful thinking. I would love for someone to prove otherwise, but I do not expect it to happen.

 

A lot of hubris. 

 

Science can not and never will have all the answers because the more you know the more you don't know. Science also keeps skirting upon the "real" answer to the origins of life, but they only go so far. Science has an attitude against spiritualism, but spiritualism and quantum laws and dark energy might be the same thing in other words. There are dimensions that play by other rules. We can be talking about the same thing but using different names.

 

You say that I have failed, but you don't know that. You also think you have refuted me with your long posts, but I can keep on making the same long established proofs and you just avoid it.

 

I keep saying that you can't get something out of absolute nothing. You can't refute that. 

[Guest nat]

When I say science does not have all the answers I mean a lot more than just not knowing yet. The finite world has inherent limitations on the ability of our knowledge. There are things that work beyond our laws and beyond our reason. Science can go only so far. 

[mymistake]

I did not admit that my comments about division by 0 were a diversion. I said that the way I originally expressed it ended up being a diversion. I had to say the same thing in a more complicated way to go beyond the current limitation of math. Beside that, my math arguments did not even need division by 0 as I mentioned in my previous post.

 

Secondly, people like you keep saying I have been refuted all throughout. You make claims and rely on others. Let me see you refute my arguments. I have made many mathematical points and I have shown them to be true. Disagree? Then let's see you refute them. 

 

I did refute bhim. Look it up. He said 0/0 is not the same and infinity * 0 and it is. I did not say I refuted everything he said. But I did refute him on that point and he could not admit it.

 

If you read the whole thread as you seem to indicate, why did you not notice how many times I backed away from the name of the thread which i did unassumingly. I did not know what i was getting into. I have throughout this thread come to show that something infinite and unfathomable exists. I am leaving open what exactly that is. I have my own beliefs, but that is not important here. I also gave a mathematical supports that something infinite and 0 can bring about all things. If you think about the past, we come across two things, something infinite and a lot of nothingness. Showing a math parallel how this can bring forth everything is valuable.

 

1.  I don't understand the difference between "originally expressed it ended up being a diversion" and the other.  But it's not my point.  The point was how is the diversion status relevant.  It seems like you are trying to dance around the fact that you were wrong while you set yourself up as being right.  Division by zero is just one of your math errors.  You have made many more as has already been pointed out by many people.  Maybe you should stop digging.  You are only getting yourself deeper into that hole.

 

2.  I've already demonstrated that 'something' isn't 'infinite'.  See post 381.  Others have already covered the other items.  I would only be repeating what they wrote.  I'm drinking from a glass that has something in it.  Thus it's an infinite glass!  Uh, no.  Perhaps you were mixing up time with mass?  However I'm not even sure if cosmologists can agree if our universe is infinite in either time or matter.  You kind of missed some steps there.

 

3.  Your "refuting of Bhim" consisted of posting a couple of vids which you admitted that you didn't fully understand but then asserted that they made him wrong.  He explained it to you again on page 14 but if you won't listen then how much of his time should he waste?  Bhim knows more about math than you and I put together.  Can't you see that?  You should be asking him questions instead of pretending you are his teacher.

 

4.  I did notice that you back peddled on division by zero.  Back peddling is a common tactic in your posts.  Unfortunately you also bragged about the time you refuted Bhim so we had to go back to page 13 and look at what that was about and it also included your division by zero stuff that you keep going to it.  The proper thing to do when you blunder is to admit it's a blunder and then drop the blunder like it's a disease.  Don't keep going back to it.

 

Something infinite and unfathomable does exist.  It's the number strawberry.  See I just proved it?  You can't disprove the mighty number strawberry because unicorns love the number strawberry.  The number strawberry can be applied to any other number through the operation "short cake".  And that unlocks the mysterious magic.

 

This kind of talk is religious rather than science.

[Bhim]

Bhim said that the undetermined forms of infinity *0 and 0/0 are not equal. I posted 2 videos where it clearly shows how to easily convert infinity *0 into either 0/0 or infinity/infinity. It is done in the same way 6*3 is the same as 6 divided by 1/3. In the same way, 0*infinity is converted into 0 divided by 1/infinity, which becomes 0/0 (all in the context of limits).

 

Honestly, I didn't watch the videos.  Chances are I won't at any point.  One thing I learned even as a Christian, when arguing with Christians more deluded than myself, is that watching videos and reading long articles advocating for a heterodox point of view is an endless process.  At the end of the day, if someone isn't willing to alter their position on the basis of evidence to the contrary of their current belief, then they don't believe in the law of non-contradiction and thus can't be reasoned with.  Despite this I'm happy to read your posts and respond.  But watching videos is an investment of time that I simply don't think will be productive.  I'm not opposed to people posting videos in general; they can be instructive and illustrative.  But if you're trying to post videos which tell me that everything I learned in four years of undergraduate work is wrong...well, would you watch those kinds of videos?  If I posted videos on why Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, would you watch those?

 

Regarding the indeterminate forms 0/0 and infinity*0 being the same, this is also not correct.  A simple illustration can be made by way of the function f(x) = x/x.  In the limit as x->0, it is indeterminate of the form 0/0.  It can also be written as (1/x)*x, which is indeterminate of the form infinity*0.  On the other hand, since x is never allowed to actually reach 0, I can just go ahead and perform the algebraic division and say that f(x) = 1, and that there is no indeterminate form.  Would you say that 0/0 = 1?  Would you say that infinity*0 = 1?  I know you already think that the latter can be anything.  So what you're saying sounds to me like a statement to the effect that indeterminate forms can't be classified at all.

 

The problem here is that every time I do anything to a mathematical expression, I must make assumptions about the values of the variables.  In saying that x/x = (1/x)*x, I have to assume that x is not 0.  So there's no "indeterminate form" to work with yet.  Saying that these two indeterminate forms are the same is a meaningless statement.

 

Anyway, I've told you what I know to be correct based on my mathematical training.  Now you've got a couple of options.  You can believe me, or you can essentially get a "second opinion" by contacting a professor of mathematics at a nearby college or university like I suggested.  What you should not do is simply dismiss what I've said and go on claiming that you are correct in spite of your lack of mathematical education.  You simply are not correct about anything here.  By talking nonsense you're really giving a bad name to the Jewish tradition of respect for academics and scholarship.

[Bhim]

You have been refuted all the way through the thread.  When it happens you pretend to not see it or act like you don't understand it.  The reason it was brought up again was because of your claims that you refuted Bhim and your posturing about your great math skills.  You mentioned the part of the thread where you claimed to refute Bhim and said everyone forgot about it.  But not everyone has forgotten.  It wasn't hard to look up page 13 and 14 and see that this was not the case.

Thank you for looking up the relevant posts.  These discussions can indeed get confusing when they reach twenty pages!

[ContraBardus]

A lot of hubris. 

 

Science can not and never will have all the answers because the more you know the more you don't know. Science also keeps skirting upon the "real" answer to the origins of life, but they only go so far. Science has an attitude against spiritualism, but spiritualism and quantum laws and dark energy might be the same thing in other words. There are dimensions that play by other rules. We can be talking about the same thing but using different names.

 

You say that I have failed, but you don't know that. You also think you have refuted me with your long posts, but I can keep on making the same long established proofs and you just avoid it.

 

I keep saying that you can't get something out of absolute nothing. You can't refute that. 

 

 

Provide evidence of the existence of spiritual anything. You go on about what Science doesn't know, yet you have no idea what Science is, how it works, and have no clue about the Scientific method.

 

Sure, spiritualism, quantum laws, and dark energy 'might' be the same thing, and monkeys also 'might' fly out of my butt. I mean that's totally actually physically possible. Yeah, the wave-particle duality of energy and how it reacts to matter, and the behaviors of photons, neutrons, and electrons is totally where magic comes from. God must be in there somewhere I'm sure. I mean how can he not exist in a non-zero energy state?

 

Yeah, that totally makes all kinds of sense. I'm sure you've got all sorts of good reasons why those things are totally magical energy and a part of some infinite source that might be God, but we're not sure. While you're showing us your proof of that, let me see how many times it takes me to drop a rubber ball so that it's atoms miss and pass by the atoms of the floor so that it falls through the core of the Earth to hit some Australian guy in the balls.

 

Your ignorance of Science astounds. It does not have an 'attitude against spiritualism'. It has refuted many spiritual and mystical claims with evidence that suggest that they are not true. [i.E. testing psychic claims in a controlled environment, dating religious relics, ghost hunting, etc.] It isn't 'working against' spiritual claims. It comments on what the evidence supports, and there's absolutely no evidence that spiritual claims are true. Any attempt to investigate such claims has come up with either no conclusion, or strong evidence of hoax. More often than not, the latter. There's nothing to gain by lying and trying to hide the existence of spiritual anything. Science uses whatever works, whatever explanation best suits the evidence. It does not care if the evidence supports a spiritual claim and would accept it if it did because it would be the best answer.

 

There is no global conspiracy against religion by scientist. They aren't an organized group, but many independent entities that independently and impartially check each others work. There's no council of scientist, or secret society. It's just a bunch of independent labs with nothing to gain by supporting a false conclusion or hiding evidence. In fact, doing such things would actually work against them and make their work more difficult.

 

It was set up that way intentionally, as such an environment makes fraud and hoax extremely difficult. It creates an environment where there is no advantage to supporting false positives, and those individuals who have tried in the past were quickly caught and exposed as frauds.

 

Whoever told you this BS about science having some sort of attitude is a lying asshole. It has no sense of humor, it has nothing to gain by being dishonest, and supporting false claims or hiding positive results would only serve to hurt it. There's no reason to believe such stupid claims as 'Science has an attitude against' anything. It's not a person and doesn't have feelings. Sure, Scientist are human, but generalizing scientist with such a foolish and unfounded accusation is pretty insulting and only serves to expose your own ignorance on the subject.

 

Here, I'll make it simple:

 

 

That's it. That's what Science is. So feel free to explain how it's 'biased', has 'an attitude', or go into detail of how and why it can't be used to investigate spiritual claims. Saying that it's 'unknowable', 'beyond whatever', or other such cop out excuses that don't really provide a reason isn't acceptable by the way. It's just more BS posturing that explains nothing. Also, explain to us what a better method would be, because I really don't see how you're going to go about it any other way. This is pretty much the best possible method for investigating anything, spiritual or not. If you think not, I'm sure you've got a better idea, right?

 

You've not 'established proofs'. These 'long established proofs' you claim don't exist anywhere but in your mystically warped mind. You haven't proved a single thing in any of your posts, and you've said so yourself multiple times. Saying these are established proofs is the same thing as saying you've proven yourself correct. So, you're either an idiot, or a liar because I can point out several points in your previous post where you clearly stated that you didn't prove anything and weren't trying to prove anything in the first place. You were deliberately avoiding committing to any sort of direct claim or strong assertion to keep from getting nailed down by it. You did make several such strong assertions, but backed off quickly once confronted by claiming that you weren't trying to prove anything and were merely being philosophical. It's pretty obvious that wasn't your intent and that it was just an excuse to cover up error on your part. Now you're going on about 'other dimensions' and other insane unverifiable claims as if it's irrefutably proven and you don't have a single shred of evidence to support any of it. We've seen this kind of stupid BS many times before from other theist, and we're not dumb enough to buy it from you either.

 

Again, you contradict yourself repeatedly. On the one hand you say you don't know and no one can understand, but on the other you know of the "'real' answer to the origins of life", and have insight to all sorts of Universal truths and secrets beyond our [but not your] comprehension. Sure, you -say- you don't understand, but then you go on about these things as if you do have some deeper understanding than the rest of us and that it's just a given that you're correct. Which is of course a complete fabrication.

 

Also, I don't have to refute it, you've got to show that it's correct, and you can't. Trying to toss the ball back at me isn't a valid rebuttal because negatives can't be proven. You're just staggering because you can't back your claims and are now trying to toss the fail off on someone else. Sorry, it's yours and it can't be passed off to someone else. You totally own 100% of that.

 

[Guest nat]

Bhim,

 

Your confused math is not becoming of what you claim to know. 

 

The fact is that the indeterminate form of infinity times 0 is converted into either 0/0 or infinity/infinity. It is done all the time in order to afterwards apply Lhopital's rule. It is done very simply the same way 6*3 is the same as 6 divided by 1/3. 0*infinity is similarly changed into 0 divided by 1/infinity which becomes 0/0. This is done all the time. Look at the videos and you will see. 

 

You make these confusing arguments that have no relation to reality. x/x -> 0 is an indeterminate form that can equal anything depending on the situation. Sometimes it equals 1, sometimes it equals other things. It depends on how each one is reaching to 0. If they go at the same speed then it equals 1. With Infinity *0 you often don't know what the answer is. With 0/0 you can use l'hopitals rule. That is why you convert one into the other.

 

You are wrong on this one.

[Guest nat]

It is impossible to adequately comment on these long posts which only confuse.

 

I can keep this very simple. Can you?

 

There are certain realities we know by its results, not by knowing it itself.

 

The infinite is such. There is proof to something infinite because we see the result. We see the world. How did it get here? If there was absolute nothing, not even ideas or quantum laws, then there would not be something afterward. Long confusing posts that don't answer this have little value.

 

Therefore, there had to always have been something infinite. There can never have been absolute nothing. 

 

So we know something infinite was always there. This infinite thing is also beyond comprehension, because nobody has or ever will understand how something could always have been here.

[Guest nat]

By the way, I have consistently said that some things are provable and other things I am saying are my own beliefs. You, Contra, want to lump it all together in your long confusing posts. I have been clear on what i can show proof to and what can be correlated to and what are my own particular beliefs.

 

There is no one "science."  There are many scientists who believe in God. I was only pointing to a tendency of many scientists to only believe things only within the limitations of science without recognizing that those limitations need other valid venues of expression.    

[ContraBardus]

Words cannot express...so...

 

 

 

 

 

This is no longer a discussion, and you've completely lost it. 'There is no one Science'? Seriously? Simplicity =/= correct. 'Keeping it simple' does not make your statements any more sane or rational.

 

I'm done here, it's going nowhere, and you're clinging to your ignorance like a starving squirrel who has found the last acorn on the planet. You are only getting more insane and your 'arguments' [bald assertions] are only getting dumber.

 

Good luck with your magic sparkles, mystical quantum mechanics, and have fun with all that 0 and infinity stuff. I'm sure that'll work out for ya.

 

Later.

[mymistake]

It is impossible to adequately comment on these long posts which only confuse.

 

I can keep this very simple. Can you?

 

There are certain realities we know by its results, not by knowing it itself.

 

The infinite is such. There is proof to something infinite because we see the result. We see the world. How did it get here? If there was absolute nothing, not even ideas or quantum laws, then there would not be something afterward. Long confusing posts that don't answer this have little value.

 

Therefore, there had to always have been something infinite. There can never have been absolute nothing. 

 

So we know something infinite was always there. This infinite thing is also beyond comprehension, because nobody has or ever will understand how something could always have been here.

 

Fail.

 

Your short post doesn't answer.  It would be great if you could actually demonstrate your claim even if that required more space.  However after twenty pages you still can't demonstrate.  Where is this proof of infinite?  So far you have offered none.

[BlackCat]

I have been following this thread as it is very thought provoking.   My maths is very basic, so basic that I thought 10 divided by 0 was 10.    Thanks to this thread and looking this up,  I now understand why it's 0. 

 

All I have been able to understand or appreciate from your reasoning Nat, is that 'something' must have always existed.  This seems the most logical understanding of matter/energy.  If matter/energy could have always existed then why not a 'God'?  This is something I often think about. I am left with the thought that God is everything in existence: matter/energy.  That seems to be as far as I can go in trying to understand all this amazing stuff.  I don't see how we can 'insert' 'God' into an equation.  That seems a crazy idea to me..............  

 

Great discussion guys.

 

I found this link which helped me understand 'infinity' as used mathematically and what Bhim has been explaining:

 

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html

[sdelsolray]

It is impossible to adequately comment on these long posts which only confuse.

 

I can keep this very simple. Can you?

 

There are certain realities we know by its results, not by knowing it itself.

 

The infinite is such. There is proof to something infinite because we see the result. We see the world. How did it get here? If there was absolute nothing, not even ideas or quantum laws, then there would not be something afterward. Long confusing posts that don't answer this have little value.

 

Therefore, there had to always have been something infinite. There can never have been absolute nothing. 

 

So we know something infinite was always there. This infinite thing is also beyond comprehension, because nobody has or ever will understand how something could always have been here.

 

False dichotomy.  There is a third choice, even assuming something cannot come from nothing (whatever those words mean).  Finite.

[Guest nat]

From Wikipedia. It shows how infinity * 0 is converted into 0/0.

 

indeterminate form Conditions Transformation to 0/0
 

 

0 × ∞

 

 

I Got the below off the internet as well.

 

One can apply L’Hopital’s rule directly to the forms 0/0 and ∞/∞.

It is simple to translate 0 · ∞ into 0/1/∞ or into ∞/1/0

 

You can see it here:

 

http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot/class/f99/cal1/indeterminate.pdf

 

How can anyone seriously say that 0/0 is not equivalent to infinity *0?

Bhim? 

 

[Guest nat]

I have been following this thread as it is very thought provoking.   My maths is very basic, so basic that I thought 10 divided by 0 was 10.    Thanks to this thread and looking this up,  I now understand why it's 0. 

 

All I have been able to understand or appreciate from your reasoning Nat, is that 'something' must have always existed.  This seems the most logical understanding of matter/energy.  If matter/energy could have always existed then why not a 'God'?  This is something I often think about. I am left with the thought that God is everything in existence: matter/energy.  That seems to be as far as I can go in trying to understand all this amazing stuff.  I don't see how we can 'insert' 'God' into an equation.  That seems a crazy idea to me..............  

 

Great discussion guys.

 

I found this link which helped me understand 'infinity' as used mathematically and what Bhim has been explaining:

 

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html

I am glad you enjoyed the discussion. But 10/0 is not 0. Convention Math says it is undefined. However, as the denominator gets closer and closer to 0, the answer gets closer and closer to infinity. Math would like to say that 10/0 or anything divided by 0 is infinity, but it is limited from doing so for various reasons. It still gets beyond this limitation in a complicated way called limits.

 

I have been saying that something had to always exist. It is not so logical to say that matter always existed because matter is finite and infinity is not. There are some semi-infinite forms that involve finite things, but absolute infinity is not finite at all.

[Guest nat]

 

It is impossible to adequately comment on these long posts which only confuse.

 

I can keep this very simple. Can you?

 

There are certain realities we know by its results, not by knowing it itself.

 

The infinite is such. There is proof to something infinite because we see the result. We see the world. How did it get here? If there was absolute nothing, not even ideas or quantum laws, then there would not be something afterward. Long confusing posts that don't answer this have little value.

 

Therefore, there had to always have been something infinite. There can never have been absolute nothing. 

 

So we know something infinite was always there. This infinite thing is also beyond comprehension, because nobody has or ever will understand how something could always have been here.

 

False dichotomy.  There is a third choice, even assuming something cannot come from nothing (whatever those words mean).  Finite.

 

Not sure what you mean. Something can't come from nothing. So there can never have been nothing, There always had to have been something.

[Guest nat]

For those who keep saying that I don't demonstrate my claim:

 

What more can I do. The simple proof is that something cannot come from absolute nothing. If absolutely nothing existed, not even ideas or laws, how could something emerge from that? 

 

Something had to always be there, which means it is infinite.

 

The attackers never legitimately answered this.

 

Infinity, like nothing, also doesn't produce anything. It is only the combination of infinity and nothing that can produce anything. For this I correlated the mathematical fact that infinity *0 is indeterminate and can equal anything.

 

Here is how it works with limits.

 

The limit of 1/x * x as x approaches 0 =1

The limit of 2/x* x as x approaches 0 =2 

The limit of 3/x* x as x approaches 0 =3 

And so on.

 

You can easily graph this.

 

As X approaches 0 then 1/x, 2/x, and 3/x all approach infinity, and when multiplied by x approaching 0, you can get anything.