The Godless Equation

dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
The Godless Equation

I've been developing a theory for quite some time, and now I'm going to share it.

What made me decide to do it right now is that I just saw the video in which two fundamentalists formally debated two atheists on the existence of God. When I learned about the video, the Fundy's claimed they would provide scientific proof of the existence of God.
I found the video and was expecting to see some some really interesting theories played against eachother, with the atheists using the traditional scientific "disproofs" of God (which they did), and the Fundy's proving some new insights and a new, logical theory.
My hope was entirely too misguided.

Instead, the Fundy's provided the usual, over-used and under-explained Intelligent Design argument. They held up the Mona Lisa and said (to paraphrase), "Anyone who sees this painting can tell that a painter painted it. If you got a bunch of scientists into a room, a repeatable experiment, and showed them the picture, they would conclude each time that there was a painter."
Then he applied the same concept to the universe.

The atheist responded that a painting is not proof of a painter, but a painting. They said that just because there is a complex image (or complex anything, for that matter) it doesn't mean that something intelligent created it. (For an example of a painting without a painter, see this picture, which should at least let you see my point.)

Plus, a simple rebuttal to this theory (when it is not explained) is, "Who created the creator?" which the atheists did, completely mooting his point, because he apparently wasn't knowledgeable enough to defend the theory.

From what I saw, there was nothing else that the Fundy's pointed out. They then skipped over to the 10 Commandments, and tried to show how we're all sinners and need God's forgiveness.

That's why they should stick to converting people, and not to theological discussion.

Anyway, the atheists countered with another theory, and said that if God can be infinite, why not the universe? They then cited the First Law of Thermodynamics (mistakenly calling it the third, and actually citing the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy) and said that, because "matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed", the mass/energy in the universe has to always have been here. Then, the universe is infinite and really there is no need to consider God. (The Fundy's didn't know how to respond, and their faces were priceless!)

With that prologue, on to the Godless Equation itself.

Put in mathematical terms, the Godless Equation can be written as "X + Y = 0". I discovered this equation while trying to understand how the universe could exist without God, for reasons of my own.

The implication that I usually consider is that "X" represents any sort of object in the universe, and "Y" represents the particular (read: relative to particles) opposite of "X", meaning Y = -X. Thus, a piece of matter could be "X", and a piece of something particularly opposite to matter could be "Y". I'm not sure there is any evidence for such a thing, but anti-matter seems similar. It would be similar to the relationship between 1 and -1. (There's enough qualifiers in that last passage to run for President!) Anyway, the opp-matter would be the exact opposite of matter (hence the name), negating it. Any tangible object in our universe is made up of matter, so the equivalent amount of its opp-matter in the universe is equal to Y, and in effect cancels out the X, just as in the equation 1 + -1 = 0, -1 cancels out 1.

The detailed explanation: The universe without a deity is equal to zero (0). Nothing in our universe can exist if it has not been created, therefore our universe without creation is equal to nothing. Anything that you could hypothetically have in that universe (x) must comply with this rule, and therefore must equal 0 as well, relative to the universe. The equation at this point is "X = 0".

Before we go on, it must be here noted that the natural state of any system is to be filled. That is why vacuums suck things into them, which in turn is why black holes are sometimes referred to as enemies of nature. If the universe is equal to zero, then there is nothing in the system, because there is no system. We have only a void. For this void to be filled, in compliance with the laws of nature, something must fill it.

In the equation, then we have X equal to 0 and a lot of time (or lack thereof) on our hands, and with an infinite (or nonexistant) amount of time and only one thing to happen, that thing is naturally going to happen. Nature will find a way to fix the situation; in this case by filling the void.
But we can't have creation if the state of things must equal zero. The sum of the parts of the equation must equal zero, so, "= 0" will always be the right hand of the equation. If matter was created without any reason, then "1 = 0" would be the result (1 representing one piece of matter), which is a logical impossibility.
But, like I said, the sum of the right hand of the equation must equal zero. So what if we have 1 + -1 = 0, as in the example? That makes sense. We have a piece of matter in the universe, but it is negated by an equal amount of opp-matter, and the universe maintains equality to zero. Has matter been created? Not exactly. Matter is in the universe, but the state of the universe is equal to zero because of the equality of matter vs. opp-matter, so we can't exactly say that matter has been created.

It is rather simple from there, really. A random amount of matter is "created", because of the natural state of any system of things, and sort of "explodes" (big bang?) into existence. An equal amount of opp-matter is "created" as well.

We end up with the universe exactly like the one we live in, only God is not necessarily there. And all because of the Godless Equation.

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


crushingstep7
Theist
crushingstep7's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-01-21
User is offlineOffline
Hold on... so I don't

Hold on... so I don't understand the equation, but does this mean you're a theist turned atheist??


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I smell bollocks. But then

I smell bollocks. But then again, I dislike maths.


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Am I atheist?

My post doesn't necessarily mean that I'm atheist, though neither does this mean that I am not.

Essentially, I've noticed that most theists, when asked how God came to be at all, are pretty stupefied. They mutter something they've been taught to memorize (but don't understand in the least) that God is outside of time, etc. But a seed of doubt is planted because of the very confusion.

On the other hand, when atheists are asked by theists how matter came to be at all, there is a very similar reaction. Usually, they either turn it back and ask how God came to be (somewhat avoiding the question, though that's not what they're trying to do). Or else they say something entirely to similar to the Christian claim, that matter is infinite, though they don't understand it. And a seed of doubt is planted.

This equation (I hope) offers a rather simple solution to that problem, which atheists can use so that they don't feel like they have no answer. It gives a fairly simple way that the matter could come to exist without God. But, it carries with it some huge implications, which most atheists aren't willing to accept.

So, I'm posting this partially as an experiment. I want to know if atheists will accept this, and how theists will respond. If nothing else, it should prove to be interesting.

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
No. Just no.   You have to

No. Just no.

 

You have to remember, the full law states.

 

Matter and Energy can not be created, nor destroyed, only changed. Matter changes to energy and vise versa.

 

Now, anti-matter does not destroy matter, or cancel it out. It simply converts the matter into energy.

 

For your equation to be right, it would have to be three parts.

 

X + Y = Z

Y = -X - Z

X = -Y - Z

(These equations only work if everything is in perfect balance, since there is infinite matter we can not be sure, but you should get the idea) 

Y being energy, X being matter, Y being anti-matter.

 

All anti-matter is just matter, with opposite charge. A electron, would be a positron(Having a positive charge) and a proton would be a negatron(Negative charge) neutron would be... The same? Anyway, when they come in contact with eachother they cancel eachother out and convert all matter of both atoms into energy. None is wasted. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


dmar198
Theist
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
I don't know exactly why

I don't know exactly why you appear to be so defensive.

"No. Just no." Why such an emphatic response? Do you think that I am trying to posit a proof of anything, and assume that I will be boneheaded and argue? No. Just no. I just came up with this theory; it needs refining. Please don't be so defensive, because I'm not being offensive!

In light of the new evidence, I am updating the post to more accurately reflect what we know. Thanks for the input.

I don't have a deep, thought-provoking signature......but I do love chocolate!


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, I am. It was just you

Sorry, I am. It was just you had the wrong understanding. I thought you were saying anti-matter destroys matter.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BTW, the "anti-matter

BTW, the "anti-matter opposite" of a neutron is a neutrino and has the opposite angular spin.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
BTW, the "anti-matter opposite" of a neutron is a neutrino and has the opposite angular spin.

Pineapple you are wrong about neutrinos, they are not anti-matter opposites of neutrons. The anti-matter opposite of a neutrino is an anti-neutrino.

 

Electron Neutrinos and Antineutrinos

The electron neutrino (a lepton) was first postulated in 1930 by Fermi to explain why the electrons in beta decay were not emitted with the full reaction energy of the nuclear transition. The apparent violation of conservation of energy and momentum was most easily avoided by postulating another particle. Fermi called the particle a neutrino, but it was not experimentally observed until 1953. This elusive particle has no charge and almost no mass, so could penetrate vast thicknesses of material without interaction. The mean free path of a neutrino in water would be on the order of 10x the distance from the Earth to the Sun. In the standard Big Bang model, the neutrinos left over from the creation of the universe are the most abundant particles in the universe. This remnant neutrino density is put at 100 per cubic centimeter at an effective temperature of 2K (Simpson). The background temperature for neutrinos is lower than that for the microwave background (2.7K) because the neutrino transparency point came earlier. The sun emits vast numbers of neutrinos which can pass through the earth with little or no interaction. This leads to the statement "Solar neutrinos shine down on us during the day, and shine up on us during the night!" . Bahcall's modeling of the solar neutrino flux led to the prediction of about 5 x 106 neutrinos/cm2s.

A remarkable opportunity for observing neutrinos came with Supernova 1987A when the Japanese observing team detected neutrinos almost coincident with the discovery of the light from the supernova.

Neutrinos interact only by the weak interaction. Their interactions are usually represented in terms of Feynman diagrams.

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
More info regarding

More info regarding neutrinos, I am sure you already know this though.

 

Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay or nuclear reactions such as those in the sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms. There are three types, or "flavors", of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos; each type also has an antimatter partner, an antineutrino. Electron neutrinos or antineutrinos are generated whenever neutrons change into protons or vice versa, the two forms of beta decay.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH, you are correct.

BGH, you are correct. However I was refering to the anti-neutron that has the opposite angular spin of the neutron and hence is it's anti-matter counterpart.I got mixed up with neutrino for some reason, but upon consulting my Quantum mechanics text book you are correct.

 

Oh and neutrino oscillations indigate that if the Hamilitonian has a non-vanshining off-daigonal term then in the course of time the electron neutrino will turn inot a muon neurtino and then back to the electron neutrino etc....

OH SNAP SON!!!!!!!!!!


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: BGH,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BGH, you are correct. However I was refering to the anti-neutron that has the opposite angular spin of the neutron and hence is it's anti-matter counterpart.I got mixed up with neutrino for some reason, but upon consulting my Quantum mechanics text book you are correct.

 

Oh and neutrino oscillations indigate that if the Hamilitonian has a non-vanshining off-daigonal term then in the course of time the electron neutrino will turn inot a muon neurtino and then back to the electron neutrino etc....

OH SNAP SON!!!!!!!!!!

No problem.