Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I'm going to prove God exists and in the process disprove science. Whether you believe this is up to you, I don't wish to place my beliefs on anyone.

 

Existence is composed of opposites existing between opposites - everything in existence follows these rules. A singularity does exist however, and it comes in the form of a black hole - this is what makes everything 'tick' so to speak. An example can be achieved through numbers; where 0 = opposite/duality and 1 = singularity. Although 1/singularity cannot exist on its own, it can exist between opposites, as the black hole proves so well.

 

0 = Opposite

 

000

010 = Opposite

000

 

1279532120082.jpg

 

The God in the bible is interpreted wrong; I can safely say this because I'm wise and can see the truth. God represents 'time', and 'space' + 'matter' are factors of time. The offspring/child that God creates is 'light' - therefore Jesus has to be 'light'. Light walks on water, and doesn't drown, and it dies/ceases to exist daily, and then re-appears. Gods son (sun).

 

Science is inevitably a product of how we as humans interpret the world/universe(oneverse) around us. E=mc^2 is a formula to explain energy, and that formula is man-made. If I asked you to forget a word in your head, could you do it? You couldn't, that's because word/academa is a virus. Education has taught you to interpret any word that is more than two letters as its definition. The bible is essentially algebra, at least Genesis1.

 

So God is time, therefore Space + Matter, and his son (Jesus) is light.

Therefore God does exist, the 'educated God' doesn't exist, that's because you're not meant to know this ;).

 

Questions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, cyclops is a genus of crustacean.   Guess why they are called cyclops.

Boom.....   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclops_(genus)

Singularity says otherwise.   Except on bodies with no atmosphere.   My angle grinder begs to differ.   You haven't started yet. As I said, all you have provided are assertions. The plural of

If one of the rules ceased to exist then everything else goes under aswell.

 

Also,

9e9a547076c6820b95e439dd1a5d6a32.png

 

I believe that using this symbol for pi - 'n'

 

Ein + 1 = n

 

Funny how that looks remarkably like Einstien lewl.

Edited by Klaplunk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible, if there was only a left eye it wouldn't be the left eye, it would just be an eye, but an eye connects at two halves. So that eye would have a left and right side.

 

What creature has one eye, naturally, by the way?

Edited by Klaplunk
Link to post
Share on other sites

saveop.png

 

If one side of the red line ceased to exist, so would the other.

My point still stands.

 

Impossible, if there was only a left eye it wouldn't be the left eye, it would just be an eye, but an eye connects at two halves. So that eye would have a left and right side.

Edited by Klaplunk
Link to post
Share on other sites

My left eye wouldn't exist through human or other application. It's not like I was born with just a left side, cause if I was, I wouldn't exist. I was born a 'whole' human - not half a human, that's impossible.

 

IF

 

Ein +1 = n

 

What about?

 

E=MC^2

Link to post
Share on other sites
My left eye wouldn't exist through human or other application. It's not like I was born with just a left side, cause if I was, I wouldn't exist.

Yes, but you don't necessarily have to be born with only a left side. We can just remove the right side ex post facto.

 

Your left eye is still your left eye even after it has been removed and the right one destroyed.

 

 

It's not recommended to reason by strangling conditional analogies in a bathtub full of word soup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

saveop.png

 

If one side of the red line ceased to exist, so would the other.

My point still stands.

 

 

Yes but that is only bilateral symmetry... There are other patterns of symmetry.... you have no point....

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you don't understand my reasoning. I have 2 genetically opposite sides. Heck.. My chromosomes are even dualities. I have a inside and outside... I can look forwards and backwards... I have a top and bottom. What more reasoning do I need?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As David Hume says in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,

 

It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.
Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so.
In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience.

 

A past pattern does not guarantee future behavior. You cannot say "everything I can think of follows these rules" and use that to conclude "everything in existence must follow these rules" because inductive arguments do not work. You must deductively establish that your rules are necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand how you don't understand my reasoning. I have 2 genetically opposite sides. Heck.. My chromosomes are even dualities. I have a inside and outside... I can look forwards and backwards... I have a top and bottom. What more reasoning do I need?

 

Well, some understanding of diametrics would be an advantage.

You could then use this to explain why your assertions are borne out in the real world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a Past there would be no Future.

Without the Sky there would be no Land.

Without the right side of my computer screen, there would be no left

 

I can't give any more reasoning. To me, this is enough reason - as I said at the start, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you - it's entirely up to you. This is the case, so... personally, God exists, and my reasons I've explained - calling religion dumb/wrong shouldn't be so easy now, because I've explained as to why some may believe in God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Without a Past there would be no Future.

Singularity says otherwise.

 

Without the Sky there would be no Land.

Except on bodies with no atmosphere.

 

Without the right side of my computer screen, there would be no left

My angle grinder begs to differ.

 

I can't give any more reasoning.

You haven't started yet. As I said, all you have provided are assertions. The plural of assertion is not 'reasoning'.

 

To me, this is enough reason - as I said at the start, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you - it's entirely up to you. This is the case, so... personally, God exists, and my reasons I've explained - calling religion dumb/wrong shouldn't be so easy now, because I've explained as to why some may believe in God.

Religion isn't being called dumb and or wrong - your explanation is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I've been up every night for the last six months trying to prove God exists. I put more effort into this than I do into living life - I enjoy this voyage and I'll continue it alongside education; however, I take this more serious than the propaganda books I'm told is true. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.