Numeric Argument Against the Existence of God

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Frankly if you read through this thread that argument has been made and disproven multiple times

Not really. No one tried to say that nothing couldn't be defined by numbers. Either way, though, God would still exist in that nothingness and we could number him. We also could number the nothingness: 0. 1 and 0. God's starting to look like binary :eek:

*writes paper*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Not really. No one tried to say that nothing couldn't be defined by numbers. Either way, though, God would still exist in that nothingness and we could number him. We also could number the nothingness: 0. 1 and 0. God's starting to look like binary :eek:

*writes paper*

I was referring to the bolded part having already been explained.

Also you would write a paper on that.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You can't read everything in the bible literally, no one who believes in it does. If we wanted to take it literally, then who came up with the concepts of days while God was creating everything? Who was there to say that the events happened in that order and not all at once? The only real lesson to learn from the story of creation is that God created everything and made humans different than any other animal that he made.
This is just such a cop out argument though. Who decides what you should and should not take literally? And does that change again in a few decades because we know even more about the natural world? The fact that only cherry-picked things should be taken literally indicates to me that the entire thing is a sham. Use it to justify your believe and take 'deeper meaning' from it as you wish, but don't suggest that anything in it is based on truth and should be taught as truth.

Not really. No one tried to say that nothing couldn't be defined by numbers. Either way, though, God would still exist in that nothingness and we could number him. We also could number the nothingness: 0. 1 and 0. God's starting to look like binary :eek:

*writes paper*
You don't mean binary you mean boolean logic. Binary is just a numeral sysem; the 0 and 1 in you post are as much binary as they are decimal, or even octal or hexadecimal :p
 

DeletedUser40768

Guest
This is just such a cop out argument though. Who decides what you should and should not take literally? And does that change again in a few decades because we know even more about the natural world? The fact that only cherry-picked things should be taken literally indicates to me that the entire thing is a sham. Use it to justify your believe and take 'deeper meaning' from it as you wish, but don't suggest that anything in it is based on truth and should be taught as truth.

The bible doesn't get edited, that is the very reason it is still there. Like I told Archon that the writers didn't have the same knowledge about the situation that we now have, and if the story was taken literally then a man saw creation unfold before people were created on the 6th day. You can tell using common sense and reading comprehension what should be read literally. Every story has a message, very rarely is the story just supplying factual information about a time period or event. It is meant for the lessons of the stories, and that is widely understood by religious people. Those lessons are the things that you should take literally, not whether Goliath died from a pebble or a sword. Doing the contrary would be like someone believing everything they see on TV, which hopefully no one does :p

It is like saying science is false because theories over the years have disproved each other. That would be an absurd claim to make, so is saying the bible is not true because not every little thing matches history and science books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser33530

Guest
You don't mean binary you mean boolean logic. Binary is just a numeral sysem; the 0 and 1 in you post are as much binary as they are decimal, or even octal or hexadecimal :p

Damn you just scream mathematics major

so is saying the bible is not true because it has little historical or scientific accuracy
you might want to re-word this lol

Anyway what the bible says about God and Jesus and etc believers will see as true. There is actual history in it that most historians believe to be true. The lessons in it can't really be true or false lol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser40768

Guest
Damn you just scream mathematics major


you might want to re-word this lol

Anyway what the bible says about God and Jesus and etc believers will see as true. There is actual history in it that most historians believe to be true. The lessons in it can't really be true or false lol.

lol But every time I do it ends up with me repeating and the atheist I am talking to repeating. So I thought if I said it the way they want to hear it then they can finally move on from that point. Fine I will edit it :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The bible doesn't get edited, that is the very reason it is still there. Like I told Archon that the writers didn't have the same knowledge about the situation that we now have, and if the story was taken literally then a man saw creation unfold before people were created on the 6th day. You can tell using common sense and reading comprehension what should be read literally. Every story has a message, very rarely is the story just supplying factual information about a time period or event. It is meant for the lessons of the stories, and that is widely understood by religious people. Those lessons are the things that you should take literally, not whether Goliath died from a pebble or a sword. Doing the contrary would be like someone believing everything they see on TV, which hopefully no one does :p

It is like saying science is false because theories over the years have disproved each other. That would be an absurd claim to make, so is saying the bible is not true because not every little thing matches history and science books.
Ignoring the botchy analogies, yeah okay I don't even think we're disagreeing anymore? :D


Damn you just scream mathematics major
Computer Science, so close enough :p
 

DeletedUser37948

Guest
while a human is a very complexed biological machine we are far less vast or complexed than the whole of creation. is it so far fetched to think that this vast complexed existence endless in time is sentient in a way hardly comprehensible to us.

not unlike an amoeba comprehends a human

if a thing exists it is possible, it has always been possible, it may not have existed before it was realised but it was always possible.
maths numbers where, are and have always existed so if there is a creator that created everything then he created numbers
if the creator created numbers then how can they possibly disprove the creators existance.

Agnostic until i die then i may change my mind
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
while a human is a very complexed biological machine we are far less vast or complexed than the whole of creation. is it so far fetched to think that this vast complexed existence endless in time is sentient in a way hardly comprehensible to us.

not unlike an amoeba comprehends a human

if a thing exists it is possible, it has always been possible, it may not have existed before it was realised but it was always possible.
maths numbers where, are and have always existed so if there is a creator that created everything then he created numbers
if the creator created numbers then how can they possibly disprove the creators existance.

Agnostic until i die then i may change my mind

It's like you read the idea and ignored it lol. The whole point was that God didn't create numbers and they do define Him as He defined Himself as singular.
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
Agnostic until i die then i may change my mind

I'm agnostic as well, however I don't let that decide whether or not logical attempts can be made to prove or disprove the existence of deities and higher powers, while I don't agree with Pebble that numbers disprove the existence of God I can admit that his logic has merit for disproving God's existence regardless of what my own personal affiliation is.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It's like you read the idea and ignored it lol. The whole point was that God didn't create numbers and they do define Him as He defined Himself as singular.
No. The whole point is that there is no God. Your argument presupposes that Big G was created by a mystery which must not and cannot be defined. That is the basis of your argument that Numeric theory cannot define God.

That argument cannot stand because by the same token you could argue that (say) Zero Point was created by a numerical mystery and cannot be defined therefore he must be G.... wait..... maybe I believe in Big G after all.... better that than trollbait :D
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
IMG_20150606_045807.jpg
 

DeletedUser29066

Guest
Slightly off-topic here, but the book The Jesus Incident and it's prequel/sequels by Frank Herbert (of Dune fame) contains some interesting themes that touch on religion. Worth a read IMO, especially if you're a Sci-Fi fan.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
No. The whole point is that there is no God. Your argument presupposes that Big G was created by a mystery which must not and cannot be defined. That is the basis of your argument that Numeric theory cannot define God.

That argument cannot stand because by the same token you could argue that (say) Zero Point was created by a numerical mystery and cannot be defined therefore he must be G.... wait..... maybe I believe in Big G after all.... better that than trollbait :D

I said God was created by a numerical mystery (whatever that means)?
 

DeletedUser37948

Guest
It's like you read the idea and ignored it lol. The whole point was that God didn't create numbers and they do define Him as He defined Himself as singular.

from my understanding god is either everything or non existent

it is impossible to be god and not have created numbers so the original idea is fictional an interesting daydream but not plausible.

as for god defining himself as singular that is dependent on the religious context .

i not sure a creator would bother to define itself directly and ive never been party to seeing this proven in reality.

i find the debates on this forum about god, in general to be a little biased to Christianity and personally i find that a limited religion for a realization of a realistic god concept.
 
Top