Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 159. (Read 845809 times)

Actually, you never seem to listen - or is it comprehend - when I tell you about where God came from.

"Things" are of this universe. Since God is not of this universe, He is not a thing. But if He takes on the quality of a thing to some extent, He still maintains his quality of NOT being a thing. C&E isn't something that effects God unless He wants to be affected by it.

Like we barely know any details about the universe, in the same way our limitations keep us from knowing anything about that which is outside of the universe. Questions about the details of the things that make up God are not even things that we can ask, because God is so extremely different than us.

You are wasting your time with this constant questioning, which does not apply to God even as a question.

Huh? 

They are already invalid since the beginning liebniz mechanics is more accurate and relativity totally obsolete it, not even speaking of quantum mechanics.


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=767326

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Newton-generally-considered-a-better-mathematician-than-Leibniz

Ironically, we use Leibniz's notation, and the calculus we learn today is essentially Leibniz's (e.g. dx/dy etc.), and both Bernoulli and later Euler championed Leibniz's formalism over Newton's, relatively speaking, messy and incongruous work. Dx/Dy is straight from Leibniz.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57495/einstein-gravity-versus-newtons-gravity

Riemann is the mathematics behind relativity, newton is completely obsolete by it.

Newton is not physics.

They teach newton at school probably because it's easier to understand, but liebniz was already better since the beginning.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-theories/#4.2.1



4.2.1 Absolute Space vs. Galilean Relativity

Newton's proposal for understanding motion solves the problems that he posed for Descartes, and provides an interpretation of the concepts of constant motion and acceleration that appear in his laws of motion. However, it suffers from two notable interpretational problems, both of which were pressed forcefully by Leibniz (in the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, 1715–1716) — which is not to say that Leibniz himself offered a superior account of motion (see below). (Of course, there are other features of Newton's proposal that turned out to be empirically inadequate, and are rejected by in relativity theory: Newton's account violates the relativity of simultaneity and postulates a non-dynamical spacetime structure.)

Children are God's story. That's why He always seeks to protect the young, whether it's people, or animals.

They totally work together.   

People understand Newton. They know about him.  Let us know when they invalidate Newtons Laws.

God is a children's story.  If an adult believes in God then they got brain damage

Why would science would help religion? they work the opposite way.

Cause and effect can be seen as operation in a space, their actual effect and the logic built on them depend on the nature of space itself, it's what riemann demonstrate

It's funny that you try to take on newton thermodynamics which is for me one of the worst system to understand god

Liebniz or riemann > newton  


When getting into the Riemann habilitation theory , it's easy to see all newtonian physics based on euclidian space is actually a sort of mirage



https://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/963A_lieb_rieman.html

Briefly, the significance of Riemann's discovery, is this. Consider the form of algebra introduced to the Seventeenth century by the founder of the "Enlightenment," the atheistic Servite monk, and follower of William of Ockham, Paolo Sarpi. Consider the expression of this in the work of such Sarpi lackeys and followers as Galileo Galilei, Thomas Hobbes, and René Descartes. The proximate source of the Enlightenment forms of algebra, employed by René Descartes, Isaac Newton, and their devotees, is derived from an "Ockhamite" reading of what is most widely recognizable as that modern classroom parody of Euclid's geometry embedded in the mathematics curricula generally, as presented, still, in secondary and higher education during the time of this writer's youth, and earlier.

The fallacies of this algebra, are the starting point of Riemann's dissertation. His point of departure there, is that in the form of algebra derived hereditarily from the work of Galileo, Descartes, Newton, et al.: Discrete events, and their associated movements, are situated within a Cartesian form of idealized space-time. This point has been presented by the present author in numerous earlier locations, but, on pedagogical grounds, it must be stated again here, this time in a choice of setting appropriate to the connection we are exposing, between the ideas of Riemann and his predecessor Leibniz.

Riemann opens his dissertation, with two prefatory observations. First, that, until that time (1854), "from Euclid through Legendre," it was generally presumed that geometry, as well as the principles for constructions in space, was premised upon a priori axiomatic assumptions, whose origins, mutual relations, and justification remained obscure. The second general point of his plan of investigation, which he restates in the conclusion of the dissertation, is that no rational construction of the principles of geometry could be derived from purely mathematical considerations, but only from experience.9 He concludes his dissertation: "We enter the realm of another science, the domain of physics, which the subject of today's occasion [mathematics] does not permit us to enter." Riemann, thus, refutes the presumption on which a Newton devotee, of Prussia's Frederick II, Leonhard Euler, depended absolutely, for the entirety of his attack on Leibniz's Monadology.10

On grounds of the principles of Classical humanist, or cognitive pedagogy,11 the prudent course of action, now, is to reconstruct the conceptions at issue from the initial standpoint of simple, deductive theorem-lattices. This pedagogical approach leads us by the most direct route, to the central issue of Riemann's discovery: the validation of an axiomatic-revolutionary quality of discovery of universal principle, by reason of which we are obliged to construct a new mathematical physics, to supersede that erroneous one previously in vogue. Later, continuing that process of construction, to the point of examining the writer's own original discovery in physical-economy, we identify the cognizable feature of the individual person's mental life, in which we may then locate the significance of Riemann's revolution in mathematical physics.

You said cause and effect doesn't prove god in an earlier post. We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. The universe might not need a ''cause'' either, time might not be viewed as a vector quantity, but rather a scaler one. Under this, there are no beginnings, and the universe was the start of time itself. There was no time when the universe began to exist, because there is no 'before' time itself didn't exist. Just because something caused the universe, doesn't mean a god did so. Also, there is a jump between 'something happened' and 'a man sits on a cloud watching humanity and rewarding good people with eternal life, meanwhile controlling everything' that the first cause argument fails to solve.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, the argument has a serious loophole. One of the premises is everything needs a cause, yet the argument fails to say where God came from. (Which you never explained)

All people die. It isn't the fault of God. It is the fault of people. How do we know? God provided a way into eternal life through Jesus salvation... believing in Jesus.

Why didn't God simply do the salvation thing for this life? The answer is because of what He made people for.

People are so deeply embedded into this universe, that a new universe called Heaven is way better and easier to do that adjusting this universe.

Cause and effect shows that God is the source of all things. It works like this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

Consider the horse or ox. For many years people used these beasts as beasts of labor, to do the bidding of the common man. Now we have cars, trucks, bulldozers, ships and planes, etc.  The beasts and machines of labor are not the brightest of creatures. In fact, the machines aren't bright at all!

That's okay, though. We Christians are getting the benefit of those so-called bright scientists. And the benefit is in this life, where there is sin and mistake making. Those so-called bright boys and girls who don't become Christians will miss out on eternal glory and joy in Heaven with God.

We don't know who they are. In fact, their families didn't really know them. Since they are dead and gone, nobody will ever know who they really are.

This statistic shows that you are generation statistics.

 

The small subset thing might be with regard to the whole world. But the non-believers are a small subset of people in many nations. That's why America and Europe have the strength that they have. They are predominantly Christian. Even Russian atheism has fallen 50% in the last 3 years - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20422612.

Still show that believing in god is not incompatbile with being good scientist, and atheism is not required to be good scientist.

Most of the great discovery of science were made by believers.

They are a very small subset of general population.

statistics show that scientists do believe far less in god than the general population.
statistics show that scientists do believe far less in god than the general population.
statistics show that scientists do believe far less in god than the general population.

They dont even speak about riemann  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Riemann



His famous 1859 paper on the prime-counting function, containing the original statement of the Riemann hypothesis, is regarded, although it is his only paper in the field, as one of the most influential papers in analytic number theory. Through his pioneering contributions to differential geometry, Bernhard Riemann laid the foundations of the mathematics of general relativity.


In high school, Riemann studied the Bible intensively, but he was often distracted by mathematics. His teachers were amazed by his adept ability to perform complicated mathematical operations, in which he often outstripped his instructor's knowledge. In 1846, at the age of 19, he started studying philology and Christian theology in order to become a pastor and help with his family's finances.



Riemann was a dedicated Christian, the son of a Protestant minister, and saw his life as a mathematician as another way to serve God. During his life, he held closely to his Christian faith and considered it to be the most important aspect of his life. At the time of his death, he was reciting the Lord’s Prayer with his wife and died before they finished saying the prayer.

Those, who love God, all things must serve to its best manner.



His tombstone has the inscription of Romans 8:28, “All things work together for good to them that love God.”



That's some real science  

https://youtu.be/0uUawrIRLbQ

Bernhard Riemann: The Habilitation Dissertation

Oh really? Who are the brightest researchers then??
The brightest researchers like Pasteur, Wallace, Godel, Turing, and many others all rejected materialism.