Yes, we can prove that god does not exist.

You are wrong again. The equation is solving for 'R'. as in R =

 

You ask for an equation you can't understand even when the link I gave explains each term!
R is not an unknown.
R is the actual extension of the Universe = 10[SUP]26[/SUP] m

 

I think in the future most God believers will be deistic

 

Yes, in fact there is a clean breaking point in human capability on this question.

Anything and everything that could be "supernatural" comes to us as something we simply don't understand - the holes in our knowledge of how things work, such as the mechanism that resulted in the big bang.

And, there isn't any way for us to divide the things we don't understand into two buckets - a bucket of "natural stuff that we just don't understand yet" and a bucket of "supernatural stuff".

We are limited to the tools of the natural, not the supernatural.

So, when we hit something we don't know, all we can do is use our natural-world tools. And, those tools know nothing about the supernatural. All those tools can do is help us understand things we didn't previously understand. But, they can not possibly help us determine whether something we don't know is, in fact, supernatural.

 

And where is the PROOF of that measurement? I don't recall any of our space vessels having reached the boundary of the universe, if in fact there is a boundary?

 

No discredation there - most Christians don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God, in fact only about 14-20% of Christians in America do.

The entire militant atheist argument is based on the strawman that Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God; it almost seems like some of these atheists' only experience with Christianity is from watching Kent Hovind videos on Youtube.

 

We have light and radio telescopes, spectral analysis, and decades of observation.

Plus, our understanding of R would need to be off by quite a bit to make any difference in the question at hand.

It's looking like you are way out of your depth here.

 

Indeed, these tools are used to examine evidence, but when it comes to the origins of the universe there is much we do not know thus to make irrefutable claims for or against God is to base the claim upon the unknown. I hope that one day through a regressive examination of the universe we can come to an irrevocable conclusion as to what started it all... but all we can do until then in speculate or say "I do not know".

 

Are there limits to our observation? If so then how can we make any empirical based or otherwise irrefutable claims of that which lie beyond the limits of our observation? At best we can have hypothesis or theory waiting to be empirically proven or disproven.

Which would take empirical observation to prove or refute.

Pot meet kettle.

 

Not even that, all that's been done in post #1 is question a few man made statements. Those statements are not in the Bible.

Read some philosophy books or posts on the web by people who really undertake the subject of proving/disproving the existence of God, post #1 does not even rise to the level of Jr High School thinking.

 

Ummmmm,, no. The Atheist argument is there's no proof of God. Your view of Atheism is very narrow. You only look at the American view. Expand your horizons.

 

Not really. Especially when the other member specified "R is the actual extension of the Universe = 10[SUP]26[/SUP] m ".

 

That is a wonderful suggestion. So, I asked Yahweh if he exists... and guess what? Silence. Well, there you have it, from the horse's lack of mouth.

 

Maybe the lack of hearing a response is the potentiality of the ears not being attached to a spiritually attuned mind. That is just a guess now... but it is a possibility.

 

Right. By all reasonable criteria and tests, every god is effectively disproven, even if there is no disproving them absolutely and beyond all doubt. They're left in that 1% margin of error

 

That's cool. At least you are admitting that there is the possibility that you might be in error, and regardless of how small you want to fabricate numbers, something is better than nothing. Now what is really interesting is that I would be willing to bet that you cannot provide a validation to the percentage you are citing.

 

We can say something about the size of our universe based on our observations of expansion rates, can we not? Other observations help to confirm - cosmic background radiation, any other observation that helps identify the age of the universe, for example. Physicists agreed on an age of the universe determined by these means.

If someone is claiming that we could "see" beyond our universe, that would be highly suspect.

 

1. Evolution - Where did God or a higher power ever mention anything about it?
2. 6000 years? Theoretical hogwash. Theories exist everywhere on everything.
3. Sun rotating around the Earth - Lack of knowledge and evidence related to this theory, at the time it came up.
4. Lies about a "flat earth" - At the time, we had no way of knowing. Before the 1100s, how many people believed this?? What is more, people during the period may have had a limited or different view on the religious aspects.
5. Others things as well..... Do tell.

I find, all in all, your argument to be highly absurd on many levels, but continue to play it.

 

It will just be another equation completely beyond your comprehension, even though I have already given you a link that explained all the calculations.

We can calculate the extension, R, of the Universe by the following equation:

 

Gee... that looks like the same link I wrote about earlier..... the one requiring the value of
M0 , too bad it is not available...

 

Of course not. But then, you can't very well provide evidence that your god exists, either.

 

Now you are just playing dumb!
I gave you the equation to solve for M0, and then I even gave you the solution, and it still went over your head.
Why don't you just admit you can't handle the arithmetic, it's not like you had to use calculus!

 

On the contrary. Empirical data ... in the form of personal experience...personal religious experience which has provided me with knowledge... Now if you don't want to accept that empirical data, then that is your prerogative, but that does not negate the fact that I have presented to you empirical data as an evidence of the existence of God.

 

No. I don't believe you did. Try again.

 

And that is the problem with "belief." What you believe ain't necessarily so.

To recap, I gave you the equation for the mass of the universe. You said it couldn't be solved because M0 was not given. I pointed out that the equation solves for M0. You then claimed the equation solved for R. I then pointed out that the value of R was known and gave you that value and later the equation that was used to solve for the value of R, which was a different equation than the equation to solve for M0. You then objected to the equation to solve for R citing M0 again even though M0 was not used in the equation to solve for R.

And now by faith, you BELIEVE none of that happened, proving the complete worthlessness of faith based beliefs.
Thank you.