Proff of GOD through mathmatics

[I_Robbie]

I didnt think thare was a god before. But now I think that what I am about to tell you can have only one explanation: that God exists.
First off Im pretty shure that people know about points and lines. Points are infinately small and lines are a connection between two points which are also infinately thin. Now say we have a box which is 4'x4'x4'. We will call slices 4 feet high and 4 feet wide. Lets say that you had a slice of this box that is 4 feet long. You would have one slice. Lets say you thought of the box as 4 slices of one foot each. if you keep making more slices and makeing the slices thinner and thinner and you do this for an infinnity you will get to an infinate amount of slices. It could be said that the box is an infinate amount of slices that just have not been slices yet. Now if you add somthing that is infinately thin together with somthing elce that is infanitly thin will it get any bigger? One would have to add an infinate amout of slices for an infinatey for anyting to exist. One would have to do this with everything in the universe for an infinatey and they would have to do it faster then an infinatley small time period. Who is doing this? Is it humans? No, It is not possible of us to do this. Thare is only one being who has the power to do this task: God.



If anyone has any questions about this post them and I will explane them. I know I didnt explane this very well but I just had this revolation a few hours ago and I havent had much time to colect my thoughts.

[amrtin77]

you dont seem to realize infinity never works in the physical world. how many slives of box would you get? however many times you cut it in half. eventually it would be too small and youd be working with things the size of the atoms that make up the box.


dont try to use infinity in a real world scenario, theres no way human minds can truely fathom infinity.

[I_Robbie]

but infinity exists doesnt it? who can "fathom" infinity? also, as i said, what if the slivers were already thare but were not sliced yet. I dont mean that you should all go out and get 4x4x4 blocks of cheese just to prove me wrong.

[Tipsy]

First off, I do believe in God, in a Roman Catholic way, and I have to say that your proof does not say anything at all.

I didnt think thare was a god before. But now I think that what I am about to tell you can have only one explanation: that God exists.

If it could be proven mathematically God exists why do you think people still wouldn't believe?

First off Im pretty shure that people know about points and lines. Points are infinately small and lines are a connection between two points which are also infinately thin. Now say we have a box which is 4'x4'x4'. We will call slices 4 feet high and 4 feet wide. Lets say that you had one slice of this box that is 4 feet long. You would have one slice. Lets say you thought of the box as 4 slices of one foot each. if you keep making the slices thinner and thinner and you do this for an infinnity you will get to an infinate amount of slices. It could be said that the box is an infinate amount of slices that just have not been slices yet.

You do not have infonate slices. The smallest you can get is an atom, this was a big debate back when Greece was around, but it was scientifically shown you can only cut things to the point where it is an atom. There are not an infonate amount, just the amount of slices it takes to get to an atom.

Now if you add somthing that is infinately thin together with somthing elce that is infanitly thin will it get any bigger? One would have to add an infinate amout of slices for an infinatey for anyting to exist. One would have to do this with everything in the universe for an infinatey and they would have to do it faster then an infinatley small time period. Who is doing this? Is it humans? No, It is not possible of us to do this. Thare is only one being who has the power to do this task: God.

It is chemical reactions that do this. Once again, you cannot get any smaller than an atom. As for what caused all of the chemical reactions to start, that is refered to as the 'uncaused cause' philosophically and in no way proves that the idea of God/s exists.

I am in no way saying that God doesn't exist, I am just pointing out your argument does not prove God in any way.

[amrtin77]

thank you tipsy.. thats what i was getting at.

and rob, what is infinite? the universe? well, by definition, yes. the "universe" is the body of mass that contains everything

well, whats everything?


it doesnt matter, we know our universe, our everything, is expanding and cannot be infinite... maybe infinite in the aspect that we cannot measure it with the tools available to us... but if we could measure it im sure the universe has a definite size.. it has to, or how else is it getting bigger?


as far as i can tell, infinity never works in a real world situation.

[I_Robbie]

@ tipsy

First of you support bush you you probly dont know what the hell your talking about. secondly, what about quarks or whatever there called? thare is somthing smaller then an atom.

[amrtin77]

Originally Posted by I_Robbie

First of you support bush you you probly dont know what the hell your talking about. secondly, what about quarks or whatever there called? thare is somthing smaller then an atom.

your right, theres smaller things than atoms, but ther point is THERE IS a limit to how much you can possibly cut that box. that box would no longer be the same substance that it used to be. when you get down to splitting atoms of elements from eachother that box will change. there is a limit this box can be cut. you cant keep cutting it.


and his support for bush doesnt have anything to do with this argument.




and remember, just because you cant explain something doesnt automatically mean "god did it" it means that we have yet to figure out exactly how it works. god doesnt actually solve anything. just adds more questions and complicates everything.

[I_Robbie]

Im talking about mathmatics, not science. If your saying an atom has a size then what is the size of half an atom? is an atom the same size as a point?

Im sorry about the BUsh comment, I jsut hate him so much and i dont understand why anyone would support him.

What your saying is that anything that proves god can be explained in some way that we have not found out yet, right?

[amrtin77]

Originally Posted by I_Robbie

Im talking about mathmatics, not science. If your saying an atom has a size then what is the size of half an atom? is an atom the same size as a point?

science IS mathmatics.

an atom has a definate size, a definate mass, an atom exists. its not some weightless un explainable thing. an atom is simply an atom. if your split atoms energy is released... thats how some atomic bombs work.

matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted into matter.

start listening to a physical science class... youll start understanding...


if you want answers much more detailed, ask someone like macman whose a bit smarter than me.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by I_Robbie

Im talking about mathmatics, not science. If your saying an atom has a size then what is the size of half an atom? is an atom the same size as a point?

Mathematics is, and I quote "the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations". Math is science.

An atom has a size of 10^-11m.

An atom is the smallest particle of an element that can exist. That is how it is seen by science. If you can prove science wrong, then by all means, go ahead and do so.

[amrtin77]

science cannot be "proven" wrong, as it is always changing, ajusting itself to accept the most probable solution.

theories can be proven wrong, and even scientific laws can be proven wrong if you had sufficient data against the law. but science isnt anything definate. if you prove a theory wrong, science changes to accept it.

[I_Robbie]

so your saying that an atom has a size. However a point does not. Im thare are more points in a box then thare are atoms. In infinet amout more. I see your point but i dont think that you see mine. why i have is only a theroy. my whole premiss is theoretical. I dont know if you understand that. Im going to bed now and ill reply to whatever anyone says tomarow, goodnight.

Ps thank you for all your input. the more you chalange my theroy the more i have to ajust it and reenforce it to compensate. Im not saying your wrong, or that Im right, Im jsut trying to understand

[amrtin77]

a point is just a mathmatical expression to show a position... i guess you could give a point whatever size you wanted... but the smaller the "point" the more accurate the position given will be... a "point" im sure, is meant to be infinately small. this runs into the problem with infinity in the real world. it doesnt work. everything is definate.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by amrtin77

science cannot be "proven" wrong, as it is always changing, ajusting itself to accept the most probable solution.

theories can be proven wrong, and even scientific laws can be proven wrong if you had sufficient data against the law. but science isnt anything definate. if you prove a theory wrong, science changes to accept it.

That is basically what I was getting at, proving our scientific beliefs wrong.

so your saying that an atom has a size. However a point does not. Im thare are more points in a box then thare are atoms. In infinet amout more. I see your point but i dont think that you see mine. why i have is only a theroy. my whole premiss is theoretical. I dont know if you understand that. Im going to bed now and ill reply to whatever anyone says tomarow, goodnight.

I don't think you get what I am saying either. An atom is the smallest particle of a certain element. When you cut an atom in half or divide it however, it is no longer that element.

Edit: I do see where you are going. You are talking about the up and down quarks that make up protons and neutrons. This merely goes along with the philosophical statement of Thomas Aquinas (I think it was him) about 'the order of things' which is another philosophical point behind the 'uncaused cause'. This in no way proves that there is a God, it merely is another point behind the 'uncaused cause' which hints at a supreme being/s, but cannot prove anything else about it.

[MacMan]

Thank you for using your Algebra II skills to prove to the whole world that God, in fact, exists. Be proud, you've managed to do what no one else before you could.

[OMGLOLWTFPWN]

Please learn to spell before trying to prove to us that God exists, it will make you appear much smarter, and some people might actually listen. And don't you think everyone who has gone through high-school would have noticed this if it were true? This isn't exactly advanced math here.

[MacMan]

He's trying to say that someone or something is doing something to the numbers. He doesn't understand that a statement like 1+1=2 is not something that's being manipulated, it's just a true statement.

[I_Robbie]

Thank you for your analogy of my math class. I didnt come up with this in math class however. A point is "That wich has no dimention" so you couldnt make it anysize.
Im not trying to prove anyting. I was just doing a little metacognition and this idea poped into my head. I thought it was interesting so I posted it to see what you guys though because I had never heard of it before. the stuff that gave me this idea didnt come form freshman math class but from a colloge calculus leture Dvd that was checked out of the libery. I spell bad because Im disleksic and have Adhd or ADD or somthing of that matter so feel free to make fun. I just like to play around with the idea of infinaty. Like this rittle: If I always walk half way to the wall will i ever tuch it? In a way we always walk half way to the wall but each time the speed at wich we walk these half ways grows. So I thought up a new rittle. If we were to study science for a infanite amout of time and descoverd an infanite amout of things that were smaller then the first would we eventuwaly find a thing that is infanaty small?


btw: If I were to disregard science as many religons do, could i start one with the idea that I have?

[MacMan]

Yeah, you have no idea what a limit or series is. Zeno's paradox is refuted by saying that, even if the person were able to half each distance, each distance traveled would be a finite value, and could therefore be expressed as a series. The increments of time needed to travel each distance would also get progressively smaller, and could also be expressed as a series. Therefore, it is entirely possible for him to reach the wall within a reasonable amount of time.

You also don't understand that there are no such things as size-less points in the real world. If we are to continue discovering things smaller than the atom, they will all still have size. The closest thing we have to something infinitely small is the singularity at the center of a black hole. We obviously can never see one, but we know something's there. I would argue that if we studied science for an infinite amount of time, we would know whether or not God exists in the first place.

[Korittke]

This is the worst attempt at proving God I have ever heard in my entire life.