I am opening this discussion specifically for Atheists on Nairaland.

I have noticed that the Atheists are often very intelligent people, almost to a fault, and have strong respect for rational thinking.

I am neither Christian nor Muslim, but i am convinced that logical reasoning can prove the existence of God.

Tudor is my specific target in this discussion.

The levels of reasoning required to set out this argument are very intricate - for this reason i will build up the argument slowly, one step at a time.

Those not inclined to deep reflection on matters of spirituality and logic, please keep off, this is an academic and theological discourse only and i am not interested in the views of any religious fanatics save to the extent that they may contribute in an academic and logical fashion to the discourse.

So lets kick it off: Tudor, do you agree with this equation -

0 + 0 = 0.

I'm looking forward to a fatal blow . . . .

Before we begin, I'd like to ask, does this your "empirical reasoning"
prove beyond doubt that there's actually a god?

Yes it does, Tudor.

So go ahead and answer the question: You accept that 0 + 0 = 0?

p.s: i'm kinda new to N/L, i would like some others in on this, dont know how to contact them - particularly a guy called Prizm, very sound reasoning he's got - also very technical & academic, no sentiments. Also Wirinet, KAG, $osisi, Davidylan, Adaku & ors

I am an atheist and I know that 0 + 0 = 0 so what next do you have to say?. . . .I am really interested in your empirical reasoning for the existence of your god(christian god). . .i have never heard that kind of argument before because most christians i know accept the existence of the christian god based purely on faith and not on some empirical grounds. . . . .if you have empirical reasoning and arguments pls bring it on. . . .

Good.
As far as we know, 0+0 = 0

I don't think that empirical reasoning can show beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a god.

Thanks Mazaje. To clarify, as i said above, i am not christian. Or muslim.

Nevertheless evidence of God's existence is all around us. But we will pursue the logical path to understanding it. Since i see the Atheists only respond to empirical reasoning. We've got it in abundance. @ Posokasa: Wait and see.

Now we are on the same page, we all agree that 0 + 0 = 0.

Therefore, no amalgamation or configuration of any amount of nothings ("0" can ever produce a something ("1". Agreed?

Deep Sight:

Thanks Mazaje. To clarify, as i said above, i am not christian. Or muslim.

sorry. . i thought you were a christian. . .

Nevertheless evidence of God's existence is all around us.

it depends on what exactly you mean by god. . . .if by god you mean the natural laws of the universe like gravity then sure. . but if by god you mean all the gods of man made religions then i know for sure that non of them exist. . . . .

But we will pursue the logical path to understanding it. Since i see the Atheists only respond to empirical reasoning. We've got it in abundance. @ Posokasa: Wait and see.

Now we are on the same page, we all agree that 0 + 0 = 0.

Therefore, no amalgamation or configuration of any amount of nothings ("0" can ever produce a something ("1". Agreed?

This is true for the human society and the planet in which we live in but that can not be said to be true for the universe or things that exist outside our planet because we don't know for now. . . . . . . .

Agreed.
This is a discussion and i'd expect to be able to ask a question or two so am clear. . . Theres a reason i used "As far as we know" when i agreed with your equation. . .

I'm not a mathematics expert but i'd like to ask,
That 2 + 2 = 4 on earth does it mean 2 + 2 = 4 all over the galaxies of the universe?
Does pi equal 3.14 in all billions of galaxies?. . . .any mathematician in the house?

I don't know about the outside galaxy conversation we are having but some maths experts have been able to show that 1 + 1 may not necessarily equal 2,

Tudór:

Agreed.
This is a discussion and i'd expect to be able to ask a question or two so am clear. . . Theres a reason i used "As far as we know" when i agreed with your equation. . .

I'm not a mathematics expert but i'd like to ask,
That 2 + 2 = 4 on earth does it mean 2 + 2 = 4 all over the galaxies of the universe?
Does pi equal 3.14 in all billions of galaxies?. . . .any mathematician in the house?

On which other galaxy is 2+2 not equal to 4?

@ Poster

I am a born-again Christian, but I can tell you right now you're going down the wrong path. Save yourself the trouble.

You're attempting to rehash Guido Ubaldus' so called "proof" of existence of God. Ubaldus was an 18th century mathematician/philosopher/engineer/priest rolled into one.

He rolled out an infinite series that concludes with 0 = 1, meaning something is created out of nothing, and therefore God exists!

The operation of his infinite series (that concludes with 0 = 1) is wrong, since he's dealing with Ellipses. The work did not abide with a basic math principle that 'alternating series diverges'. If 0 = 1, then it proves that math is unreliable, not that God exists.

I was raised by professors (one of my parents is a math professor) and the series has been faulted a long time ago.

And who told you atheists can believe in God's existence through math? I find it equally funny that believers are categorized as imbeciles while atheists are smart?! Are you kidding me? My almost-70-yr-old Mom will run rings 'round the smartest atheist in physics, math, and general science but she's a solid believer.

These guys are atheists by choice, and a believer also believes by choice.

The knowledge of God is the BEGINNING of all wisdom.

Tudór:

Agreed.
This is a discussion and i'd expect to be able to ask a question or two so am clear. . . Theres a reason i used "As far as we know" when i agreed with your equation. . .

I'm not a mathematics expert but i'd like to ask,
That 2 + 2 = 4 on earth does it mean 2 + 2 = 4 all over the galaxies of the universe?
Does pi equal 3.14 in all billions of galaxies?. . . .any mathematician in the house?

pi has never been equal to 3.14 but has only been approximately 3.14. The only way that pi could be a different number would be if space were no longer Euclidean.  

2 plus 2 equals 4, not on earth or anywhere in the vast reaches of Space/galaxy/universe, but in the mind of the person thinking about them.  These numbers and functions are abstractions.  They are not referring to any physical event in the universe.

Thanks again Mazaje.

At this point i agree with you that we need to Clarify the nature of the "God" of which we speak.

The "God" whose existence i seek to prove is not necessarily exactly as described by religion, but does share most of the attributes imputed to him.
To be specific, i speak of a Conscious & Intelligent Supernatural Being responsible for the creation of all that exists in totality.

@ Tudor, Mazaje, You dont need to worry about 0 + 0 = 0 being applicable to anything outside the universe or elsewhere in existence. It is sufficient that it is manifestly the case as regards this planet, we can take it from there. We will start from home, planet earth - ok by you?

If 0 + 0 = 0, then for the world to exist, the minimum equation would have to be 0 + 1 = 1. Agreed?

canuck answered your question.

@ Deep Sight my question to you is: how did that 1 come into existence ?

posakosa:

@ Deep Sight my question to you is: how did that 1 come into existence ?

My thoughts exactly. . .where and how did the 1 come into play. . . .

Pastor AIO:

pi has never been equal to 3.14 but has only been approximately 3.14. The only way that pi could be a different number would be if space were no longer Euclidean.  

2 plus 2 equals 4, not on earth or anywhere in the vast reaches of Space/galaxy/universe, but in the mind of the person thinking about them.  These numbers and functions are abstractions.  They are not referring to any physical event in the universe.

so pastor, could it be tha t 0+0=0 is also a mind concept and has nothing to do with any physical event in the universe?

@ Posakosa;

Canuck did not answer my question, Canuck only shared with us the theories of a philosopher/ mathematician which were debunked. The process i intend to reason through is quite different from the process adopted by that philosopher/ mathematician.

I indicated in the beginning that this is a very intricate reasoning process, so i will crave your indulgence not to jump too far ahead. We will come eventually to where the "1" came from. Let us start first by simply accepting if we can that for there to be 1, the minimum equation would be 0 + 1 = 1. In other words that there must be a "something" before "something" can be, and that no amalgamation or configuration of nothings, will make a something.

@ Canuck - i really love your contribution, its very insightful. I did not mean to suggest that believers are not smart, after all, i myself belive in God's existence and even purpose. What i wanted to avoid is simply the arrival of fanatics on the thread. The sort of people who may call Tudor and the rest demon possessed just because they have a different world-view.

OK, fire away!

@Deep sight.
Slow your roll. . . .lets first establish that 0 + 0 = 0 all over the universe then we can go ahead. . .

Tudór:

@Deep sight.
Slow your roll. . . .lets first establish that 0 + 0 = 0 all over the universe then we can go ahead. . .

He has already made an exception for the planet in which we live in so lets see how he carries on. . . . fire on deep sight. . . .

@ Deep Sight
You seem to be making a very fundamental mistake, just like canuck pointed out what you are about to posit is either that mathematicians thoughts or a revised version of your own.
There is no emiprical reason for the existence of God which you should have defined in the first place. Do you mean the montheistic God of Christianity Islam and Judaism or do you mean sango or amadioha or do you just mean a prime mover?
Do us a favour and fast forward to the part where you say something has to create something and that something which creates something does not have to be created.
Then the question you will refuse to answer is how then do you know if that thing listens to thoughts has a heaven or a hell or 72 virgins.
Either way your argument is doomed from the onset, all we are going to do is speculate and speculate.

Just go down the best route, the absence of evidence, simple.
Now time to have fun on my saints thread.

mazaje:

I am an atheist and I know that 0 + 0 = 0 so what next do you have to say?. . . .I am really interested in your empirical reasoning for the existence of your god(christian god). . .i have never heard that kind of argument before because most christians i know accept the existence of the christian god based purely on faith and not on some empirical grounds. . . . .if you have empirical reasoning and arguments pls bring it on. . . .  

Most christians claim that their god is not conceivable hence the heavey reliance on faith and the frequent use of that line for special pleading in all cases. They get to make up various claims about their god and what ever nature they feel like ascribing unto him using logic, or pseudologic but you don't get to use logic to refute their claims because they run to the faith argument and the ridiculous line that their god is inconceivable for one reason or the other.

Tudór:

@Deep sight.
Slow your roll. . . .lets first establish that 0 + 0 = 0 all over the universe then we can go ahead. . .

Is it your expectation that the laws of physics change? (Be very careful in reflecting on this question).

Also; even if, for the sake of argument we accept that the laws of physics change, we must perforce accept that nothing can change with reference to the zero quantity - nothingness or infinity - for the very reason that the very nature of zero is nothing. Therefore there is nothing to actually change at all - nothing exists. For this reason, in all circumstances and at all places, the zero quantity, by definition, remains zero.

Thus even if the dubious principle that physical laws change can be accepted, once we speak of the zero quantity, there is quite simply nothing to change. Not in any circumstance.

So yes - 0 + 0 = 0. Everywhere. Agreed?

Chrisbenogor:

@ Deep Sight

There is no emiprical reason for the existence of God which you should have defined in the first place. Do you mean the montheistic God of Christianity Islam and Judaism or do you mean sango or amadioha or do you just mean a prime mover?

@ Chrisbenogor - In my earlier post i defined the God i am speaking of. The Uncaused Cause. I also specifically described Him as a Conscious & Intelligent Supernatural Being responsible for the creation of all that exists.

Chrisbenogor:

@ Deep Sight
Do us a favour and fast forward to the part where you say something has to create something and that something which creates something does not have to be created.

Easy, lets take it jeje, its a profound discussion, we will get there

Deep Sight:

Is it your expectation that the laws of physics change? (Be very careful in reflecting on this question).

Is it your expectation that they cannot change?

Also; even if, for the sake of argument we accept that the laws of physics change, we must perforce accept that nothing can change with reference to the zero quantity - nothingness or infinity - for the very reason that the very nature of zero is nothing. Therefore there is nothing to actually change at all - nothing exists. For this reason, in all circumstances and at all places, the zero quantity, by definition, remains zero.
Thus even if the dubious principle that physical laws change can be accepted, once we speak of the zero quantity, there is quite simply nothing to change. Not in any circumstance.

So yes - 0 + 0 = 0. Everywhere. Agreed?

Like mazaje said, you've made an exception for our physical universe. . .so lets move on.

Deep Sight:

Thus even if the dubious principle that physical laws change can be accepted, once we speak of the zero quantity, there is quite simply nothing to change. Not in any circumstance.

So yes - 0 + 0 = 0. Everywhere. Agreed?

What makes it dubious? There is no reason at all to believe that the universe must behave like the human society. The universe is what it is and we have no reason to believe that it must behave like the human society or the planet in which we live in after all the planet in which we live in is just like a tea spoon full out of an ocean compared to the rest of the universe as a whole. . . . . . . .The laws of physics that applies here must not necessarily apply in other parts of the universe. . no reason to believe other wise. . . . .  

@ Chrisbenogor - In my earlier post i defined the God i am speaking of. The Uncaused Cause. I also specifically described Him as a Conscious & Intelligent Supernatural Being responsible for the creation of all that exists.

When will you guys stop making all these unsubtantiated claims ?. . .did any god tell you this him/her self or are you just regurgitating the ideas/thoughts that others before you have been saying all along with out any evidence at all to back up this claim?

Deep Sight:


Also; even if, for the sake of argument we accept that the laws of physics change, we must perforce accept that nothing can change with reference to the zero quantity - nothingness or infinity - for the very reason that the very nature of zero is nothing. Therefore there is nothing to actually change at all - nothing exists. For this reason, in all circumstances and at all places, the zero quantity, by definition, remains zero.

Thus even if the dubious principle that physical laws change can be accepted, once we speak of the zero quantity, there is quite simply nothing to change. Not in any circumstance.

So yes - 0 + 0 = 0. Everywhere. Agreed?

@ tudor, mazaje, would you like to respond directly to this rationale on the zero quantity above.

mazaje:


When will you guys stop making all these unsubtantiated claims ?. . .did any god tell you this him/her self or are you just regurgitating the ideas/thoughts that others before you have been saying all along with out any evidence at all to back up this claim?

@ mazaje - i am not a slavish adherent of anything fed to me by any one. You should have noticed that by now. It took me many years to arrive at my conclusions trust me. In the past i have been an Anglican, Jehovah's Witness, Rosicrucian, considered Islam, and almost Crossbearer. I have read the bible, the quoran, the grail message, and many Buddhist, Taoist, shintoist, and even hindu philosophies because i am a SEEKER. So don't worry, lets just reason along little by little, we will get there,

Deep Sight:

Easy,  lets take it jeje,  its a profound discussion,  we will get there

ok mark my post then, I will watch you try and do the impossible