"A=a" proves the existence of God

Debates
21

“A is A” is a statement saying that a thing is itself, it doesn’t say anything about where it came from or what created it. When it comes to causality, Objectivism states that causality (action) stems from a thing being what it is – it doesn’t say that a thing must be created by something else, let alone something greater than itself. And there is no such thing as creation ex nihilo; modern science has a lot of mistaken and even irrational views that space or a vacuum is absolutely nothing. There is no nothing; reality is a full plenum, so even if particles can arise from a vacuum (which they claim) it doesn’t mean that it came from nothing. Furthermore, while equations can be reduced to a far simpler form, they don’t reduce to 0=0, they reduce to 1=1 (if you divide one side by the other side). What you may be thinking of is that if you have something at rest, say a stick of dynamite, and you explode it, the momentums of the exploded pieces add up to zero, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing there, it’s just the conservation of momentum. If you want to say that something greater than man made it possible for man to come into existence, then that something greater is reality or existence, not God (in any form). Man’s intelligence and knowledge is self-created – he has free will and must engage his own mind by his own volition in order to know something. Spirit or consciousness is not a type of stuff, it is one’s awareness of existence, so it is not as if something non-material (i.e. god) had to put some type of non-material type of stuff into your body for you to have a human mind; you have a human mind because you are human, not because some supernatural being made you that way – you were born human, which is a natural process.

A very interesting response, if nothing else, I enjoyed reading… A=a; A-a=0.

You are right, or I agree, about there never being an absolute zero and truly empty space… radiation is always present. But Big Bang does imply a “nothing” as a speck of energy could not have existed ad infinitum and then exploded all of the sudden, it came from vacuum fluctuations as grade 11 physics states. I do not believe in the theory of evolution (at least in the Darwinist sense) but that does not mean I am a creationist that believes there’s a divide between the soul (and therefore the religious concept of one) and the body. However the concept of consciousness is something I think (a hence try to deduce) is intrinsic to existence as a whole. I am not convinced it could have evolved (among other things there’s too great a gap between us and everything else that exists) and a universal consciousness does appear more logical.

22

:lol: I know, I know…we’ve got to conserve our precious natural resources!

Huh… It just struck me that the only thing it seems that is not considered a natural resource are human beings… Folks, we’re in a world of hurt.

23

So again, what in science (not math, but natural science, the study of the Universe- if you don’t know the difference look it up), claims that “A=0”, meaning something can dissapear, or come out of nothing.

Does the third Law of Thermodynamics, which states tht a system cannot be cooled to absolute zero claim that? Does the Law of Conservation of Energy, which claims that in a closed system energy is constant? Or do they both contradict it?

The Big Bang Theory is not proven, or considered proven by scientists, but even so, where does it claim that energy was created at the time of the Big Bang? That something came out of nothing, or that something else vanished into nothing? I have never seen or heard such a claim, so yes, if you want me to even consider your existence for another second on this board, you’re gonna have to name it, and your source.

There is no proof of any kind in the scientific world for any kind of a beginning to the Universe or whatever, they have claims… theories, but that doesn’t mean I cannot refer to the Big Bang as the dominant modern theory in regards to creation and then refute it. Now you really need to familiarize yourself with the Big Bang theory, you seem to know Newtonian physics (I suppose you reject Relativity altogether considering your attitude towards the Big Bang). But please read carefully I am not speaking about the Big Bang itself but the primal amount of energy that caused the Big Bang which is claimed to have come from vacuum fluctuations.

The moon implies you’re a fish.

There, now the case for you being a fish is about as well argumented and about as easy to disprove as the case for a greater intellect being required to create a lesser intellect.

The theory of evolution, which proves that humans evolved from lesser “intellects”, which in turn evolved from chemical reactions (all without the presence of any traceless greater intellect), proves that you’re wrong, just as the fact that you can type proves that you’re not a fish. You don’t have a thesis, you have a false statement, and a bunch of unrelated nonsense above it.

What is it with you on and on about the moon and the fish, some personal occultist fascination thing? And excuse me but when has the theory (note the working word here- “theory”) of evolution has been proven? You argue my right to use the Big Bang theory as an argument and then here comes the irrefutable theory of evolution…

Also, your little “cause and effect”/energy theory seems to have misplaced some of the energy required to create “effects”. What happened to it, did some of that greater ammount of energy vanish when it caused its effects? Energy transforms, it doesn’t dissapear. You never need greater ammount of energy to create an effect, than the energy which is created. It is constant.

The only thing science claims is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. Mass can transform into energy, and energy into mass, becasue mass is a manifestation of energy. Where does science claim, as you do, that energy (or matter) dissapears, because of “cause and effect”?

P.S. If you honestly believe others should be able to understand everything you wrote in your OP, that’s a sign of mental illness.

Where did I state that energy disappeared? Like WTF!!? If you cannot understand what I say do not respond but why put words into my mouth and then insult me as though I said them? I said

The point is that cause and effect implies an equivalent or greater amount of energy required to cause an effect

If you need to melt a piece of steel some energy will be lost as heat energy while you achieve the effect of melting… etc. You don’t know this? Yes, energy cannot be created or destroyed; you did go to grade 7… I am glad, but Big Bang was in grade eleven, did you skip that? Snapping at random people for saying things you do not understand is a mental illness and that is a fact.

24

That’s it! Now we’re to debate evolution all over again?

This topic is closed.