Yes, we can prove that god does not exist.

Stated in another way: What I believe is not in accord with what you believe and therefore, what I believe is wrong according to you. Isn't that about the truth of the matter? So, in like manner, "...What you believe ain't necessarily so.",,, irregardless of the number of people who share the same manner of belief that you hold.

In other words, you attempted to compel my mind with abstractions that are not necessarily true representations of what is actually involved. Well, you failed in that attempt.

Now since you like to play the mathematics game. From the following list, the equations you have presented fall into which category or categories?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories

 

It proves nothing of the sort. All equations and their answers prove are related to the known Universe. It/they do not prove the unknown - because it is unknown. I don't know if a 'spiritual' realm, a parallel universe or some such thing exists. Mainly because we don't have the science to find such a thing. And will we ever? We don't know the questions to ask because we don't know what we are looking for.

And I am agnostic.

Depression recovery proceeds better against a backdrop of religion. According to one 1998 study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, older patients who were hospitalized for physical problems but also suffered from depression recovered better from their mental struggles if religion was an intrinsic part of their lives. More recently, scientists reported in the Journal of Clinical Psychology in 2010 that belief in a caring God improves response to psychiatric treatment in depressed patients. Interestingly, this increased response wasn't tied to a patient's sense of hope or any other factor that might be bestowed by religion, according to study researcher Patricia Murphy of Rush University.

"It was tied specifically to the belief that a supreme being cared," Murphy said.
If you're religious, thinking about God can help soothe the anxiety associated with making mistakes. In other words, believers can fall back on their faith to deal with setbacks gracefully, according to a 2010 study. This trick doesn't work for atheists, though: The study also found that nonbelievers were more stressed out when they thought of God and made mistakes.

In fact, religion is linked to health in general, possibly because religious people have more social support, better coping skills and a more positive self-image than people who don't join faith-based communities. In one 1998 study published in the journal Health Education & Behavior, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that regular churchgoers are more likely to get preventative care, in this case mammograms. About 75 percent of 1,517 church members in the study got regular mammograms, compared with 60 percent of a sample of 510 women who were not church members and attended less regularly on average.

People who attend church often have lower blood pressure than those who don't go at all, according to a 2011 study out of Norway. Those results are particularly impressive given that church-going is relatively rare in Norway, and researchers thought that cultural differences might prevent religious Norwegians from getting the kind of blood pressure benefits often seen in American churchgoers. In fact, participants who went to church at least three times a month had blood pressures one to two points lower than non-attendees, results similar to those seen in the United States.

The benefits seem pegged to how faithful believers are in their church routines. People who went once a month or less had a half-point blood pressure benefit over non-attendees, and people who went between one and three times a month had a one-point reduction in blood pressure. The faithful may get lessons in coping with stress and anxiety from the pulpit, according to the researchers, or they might get a relaxation boost by singing, praying and performing rituals with others.

http://www.livescience.com/18421-religion-impacts-health.html

Belief works in both ways. For some it gives a meaning to their lives, and encouragement in difficult times. For other it is a hindrance they shrug off.

 

If we define the universe as "The Universe is all of time and space and its contents" -Google, then no we rationally cannot. Is space infinite? If so then how can we come to any irrefutable conclusions? If space is infinite then the observable universe is so small to be nearly inconsequential when weighed against an infinite space. It would be arrogant to come to any iron clad conclusions based upon out finite observations. For all we know there are an infinite number of big bangs many of which do not exactly follows our established rules of physics... or perhaps there is nothing but our big bag... or ... or ... or... etc. I argue that what we know is probibly all but inconsequential in comparison to what has yet to be learned. In a thousand years people like you and me will be looking back at the year 2015 thinking that people of the 21st century were scientific neanderthals whose limited view of science was comical. We humans historically like to think that we know so much... I think we know very little and are in a scientific infancy.

If the universe is infinite then the measurement is limited. Not all physicists agree with the above. Physics is not based upon popular opinion, if it is then it is biased and bad science.

 

I think we're having a terminology problem here.

"Universe" is what started with a singularity known as the "big bang". We have a reasonably good idea of how much time has transpired since that event. We're learning how physics works inside our universe.

We have no idea what is or was going on outside our universe. We certainly don't know anything about stuff like "time" or "space" outside our universe. So, including whatever that might or might not be as part of the term "universe" simply renders the word "universe" useless, doesn't it?

 

That would make all of the thoughts of scientists regarding what "might be" as a part of the term "universe" useless, doesn't it. In other words it appears that you are declaring the research of scientists regarding 'what might be' relative to the universe, useless. Is that what you are doing?

 

Not quite.

Just so we share terminology, "universe" means what it is that started with the big bang and has grown over the last ~14B years.

We can speculate about what "other universes" might exist or about the nature of the environment in which our universe exists, or whatever. However, science is a methodology that fully depends on verification through testing. To be a theory, it must be possible to test it. Today, we have absolutely no way of testing ideas related to what might or might not be outside of our universe. So, scientific method, science, is limited to our universe at present.

But, that doesn't mean such logical investigation is useless. We do the same sort of thing with "string theory", for example. There are those who have very strong science backgrounds coming up with ideas that, so far, can not be tested. At some point one hopes those notions can be brought into the realm of scientific method.

But, the bottom line is that after scraping away all the notions that can not be tested (thus limiting to scientific method) any question about what was going on "before" the big bang or what is "outside" our universe today gets a big, fat "I do not know" from any honest scientist.

 

The fact remains, you asked for the equations, you were given the equations, you don't understand equations, so you asked for what you knew you wouldn't understand. In fact, you could not even figure out what the equation was solving for because its position was not on the side of the equal sign you expected it to be on, showing that you lack even the most basic understanding of simple equations.

And don't deny you asked for equations you knew you would not be able to understand.

This is what is so irritating about believers, even when you give them exactly what they ask for, they play dumb so they can continue in their false beliefs while implying that you are trying to deceive them, all the while accusing non-believers of having a closed mind!

 

Well here is one of the problems with science as you have pointed out above. Because the Earth is a sphere, it would be reasonable to conclude that one standing at any point on the face of this planet and looking outward toward the abyss of space, that the universe would also be at or near spherical in relation to the Earth. Now with that thought in mind: Has the "universe" been mapped out by science, wherein science can tell you how far it is to the edge of the universe from any given point on Earth if traveling in a straight perpendicular line from that point on Earth? Has such testing been done? No? Then science has only an incomplete set of data to use for their conclusions that they make. Not a very scientific approach .... jumping to conclusions... Is there an edge of the universe?

Perhaps the universe is infinite and the illusion of an expanding universe is simply the result of the length of time required for light or waves or sub-atomic particles from those more distant places are just now reaching the surface of the Earth. As time progresses, more and more of those distant places would appear in the sky, giving the illusion of an expanding universe.

Nice little escape path. At some point one hopes those notions about the spiritual realm can be brought into the realm of the scientific method. Many other notions can be applied to such a 'hopeful' scenario of what "might be" in the future.

So, scraping away all of those "I don't know" answers from scientists, why do you suppose many people on forums such as this one, continue to pretend that science does know .... you know like... where did 'life' come from? Or this little mystery, still unsolved...
"Flowering plants form a class of plants called angiosperms, and as you may have noticed, they’re everywhere. What may come as a surprise, however, is that this was not always the case. Flowering plants took over other plant types in a quick time period about 400 million years ago, and as a result they constitute about 90 percent of all plant species today. The problem worried Charles Darwin so much that he called it “an abominable mystery.” Rapid evolution of flowers shortly after their origins ran directly against his theories of slow evolution through natural selection. And there is nothing evolutionarily beneficial about flower-producing plants—for the nutrient cost of making flowers, the plant could invest in growth or other things that could put them higher on the evolutionary ladder. Because plants don’t leave any fossil records when they die, it has been difficult to determine how this hobo species came from nowhere and so quickly conquered everything else." http://listverse.com/2015/04/10/10-fascinating-mysteries-of-life-that-science-cant-explain/

Some people like to claim that science know so much about the UNIVERSE, yet they have not conquered the mysteries of this planet on which they survive.

 

And yet another major false assumption on your part. I work in the electronics field and deal with equations as a daily part of my life. So, why don't you, instead of pretending this discussion to be about me, why don't you focus on what was requested as opposed to what your false perception has provided to you?

 

Wow!! No, we do FAR better than the juvenile nonsense you suggest about understanding our universe.

Please remember that it is science that states very clearly what we do not know.

Your conclusions about how science works (and therefore what we can state with confidence) is nonsensical. Basically, you are suggesting we have to know everything before we know anything. That would have to apply to all of us, obviously, and it is clearly not true.

Now you are playing junior physicist! We can detect how fast these distant objects are moving, how far away they are, etc., and thus have some strongly supported ideas concerning the time since the singularity, etc.

That's just part of the way science works.

We see that with the large hadron collder at Cern, Switzerland. "Theoretical physicists" (those who think about things for which there is no way of testing) came up with some ideas (along with massive amounts of math) that, finally, made predictions that could be within human capability to test. So, nations built the largest and by FAR the most complex machine ever built by humans in order to test what these guys were thinking about. Amazingly enough, these crazy ideas turned out to be testable AND the predictions these guys made turned out to be verifiable!!

THAT is what I mean by bringing advanced ideas into the realm of scientific method.

lol - no, you have this backwards. I'm not suggesting scraping away "I don't know" answers. I'm suggesting that we scrape away the ideas that can not be tested by science - the string theory, the "what came before the bang", the "how did life form" stuff that we can not (or have not) adequately tested or simply can not test - stuff that is NOT part of science.

That means we have MORE "I don't know", not less.

Remember, I'm OPPOSED to claiming we know stuff that we do not know.

GOOD. Let's discuss that case.

Let's say we have found no explanation for the rapid evolution. Let's forget that your notion of an "evolutionary ladder" sounds wrong to me.

What we end up with is no answer. That is, every scientist involved in this must say "I don't know".



Science has gigantic open space. That's what makes it so exciting!

Please notify your kids - science is not about learning the answers that we have come up with. It is not about learning how fast things accelerate due to gravity, or how many protons carbon has. It IS about discovering the answers to questions that NOBODY has answered!

Your kid could find the answer to the problem that so concerns you!

 

To put all of the non-sense to rest... let us focus on your line of text (highlighted above). Then put your science to work and find those answers to questions that you have not YET been able to answer... like .... 'how did life come into being?' or 'what caused the Big Bang?' or 'where did either the material or the energy used in the Big Bang come from?'

 

OK, I reread your comment.

I suspect by "spiritual realm" you want to include some sentient force.

And, I see absolutely no possibility of that becoming testable by scientific method.

At Cern, we merely built a gigantically powerful machine, some really cool detection equipment and massive computing power. Thus we could look at stuff that is really small.

That kind of advancement is NOT going to get us the ability to determine if some sentient being decided to affect something we do.

 

?? Science is working on all sorts of problems. After all, there are millions of scientists all over the place.

What problems do you want science to stay away from?

 

Regardless of your suspicions, I made no mention of any 'sentient force'. That is yet another one of your preconceived notions regarding spirituality and spirits.

At the underlined text above: Thus you are admitting that your ability to conceive of such a device is too limited to permit you to 'see' such a thing happening.

Regarding CERN and it magnificence .... perhaps the reason that CERN and its operators are limited is only due to the lack of knowledge that the operators have in regards to things that they don't currently deem appropriate to spend either money or time upon. The first rule of operation of any piece of equipment is to know how to operate the equipment and know the limitations of the equipment. So, if you claim that CERN is limited in its capability, perhaps that is again due to the ignorance of those operating it. Perhaps the CERN has already found the answers to many questions, but the operators either mistakenly overlooked data or mistakenly misinterpreted data that was being presented by CERN. Just because those people get paid high dollars, does not mean that they know everything that there is to know about any subject.

 

Spirits that aren't sentient?

Please think that through.

If there are spirits, there is sentience behind them.

And, your ideas about the collider in Switzerland make no sense.

 

I don't believe that I suggested that they should stay away from any problems. Let them solve all the problems that they can. However I did make a suggestion that they exercise due diligence in their research activities and don't arbitrarily turn away concepts simply because they don't know how to approach the problems. After all you did say: " It IS about discovering the answers to questions that NOBODY has answered!"

 

Like you possess positive knowledge that spirits are sentient? Please think that through.
Well of course those ideas would make no sense to you because those ideas step on the reputation of those people who are spending and using all those big dollars so that they can have a billion dollar piece of equipment to play with.

 

people can and do claim anything on messageboards, however your posts belie your understanding of equations as you assume the equation must be solving for R because of its position relative to the equal sign. Otherwise you were deliberately trying to deceive me, like a little Devil, since you knew M[SUB]0[/SUB] was an unknown in the equation. It's one or the other.

 

Therein you admit that you understood that I knew M[SUB]0[/SUB] was an unknown.

 

But R wasn't, which you dishonestly pretended not to know! The equation was what was used to solve for M[SUB]0.[/SUB]

 

Wrong! Another false assumption on your part. I plainly stated that R was unknown and was the answer that was being sought after. R= Nowhere in the formula do you find the expression M[SUB]0[/SUB] = . Nowhere in the list of values given is there found a numerical value for M[SUB]0[/SUB] , or R .

 

Now you know that's not true. I not only gave you the value of R, I gave you the equation to derive it when you asked for it.

 

Well I am sorry, but that is not a proof. That is akin to saying the 'Bible' is true and then using the 'Bible' to prove that the 'Bible' is true.

 

Hogwash!
It proves that the value of R used in the equation to solve for the mass of the universe was not an unknown, as you falsely claimed. You may object to the fact that it was derived from known factors, but you may not honestly say it was an unknown as used in the equation.

 

I have not falsely claimed anything. YOU have not proven the total mass of the universe. You have conjectured, using mathematics. However, the vastness of the universe has not been established, therefore, any speculation regarding the exact number of celestial bodies located in the universe is an absurdity.

"one hundred billion galaxies


According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. They've counted the galaxies in a particular region, and multiplied this up to estimate the number for the whole universe."

This article might bring you up to speed with what is actually happening with NASA and various scientists who are actively involved in Astro-Physics. http://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html

And this one points to the universe being infinite ... thus meaning there is no way for scientists to know the exact measurements of the universe... much less the total mass of the universe.
http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html

Estimates are not an accurate accounting and subsequently no amount of mathematics based on estimates will ever provide an accurate answer. Without knowing that very basic accounting of the number of galaxies, there is no way of KNOWING what the total mass of the universe is. PERIOD.