As of yet, no quantifiable evidence has been put forth and linked with observation that suggests a supreme being exists.
It is not true. As the matter of fact I have quoted the evidence linked with observation many times. I quoted St. Aquinas (the real one), who based his evidence strictly on observations. Each time I asked atheists to disprove the observations. Each time they just demonstrated their incapability even to understand Aquinas. Each time they just demonstrated their incapability in math and physics. Each time they expressed their blind religious belief that Aquinas had been disproved by somebody somehow. I said: if it is so, please go ahead and quote the disproof, there is nothing that could be easier for you to do. Instead, you, gays, only demonstrated that you had no clue. The truth is that Aquinas is talking as a physicist and mathematician, and one has to know math in order to understand what he is saying. As to my knowledge, no mathematician has ever put forth an attempt to disproof Aquinas in the field of physics and math, because it is well established in this field that observations cannot be disproved. I am aware of a few poets in history who decided that they disproved Aquinas, but you would not make me to take them seriously, would you? Thus, you are wrong; the evidence has been put forth for you.
I’ve stopped quoting Aquinas, because physics does not end on him and because I’ve tried to make the evidence as simple as possible. The result has been the same, -when it comes to math and physics you make me laugh louder than you laugh at my English, and I all I have been doing is pointing to mistakes, in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario I could not even point to mistakes, because it was not even broken English, there was no English there to correct.
Let me try to make it simple for you again.
In physics we are assuming that we live in reality and all things around us are real. The sun is as real for you as it is for me. We use numbers in order to quantify all reality around us. We use all numbers we know - 1,2,3,4…., n, ∞, and whatever numbers can be between 1 and 2, between 3 and 4 etc. We draw laws of physics from our observations of repeated behavior of objects of reality. We are assuming that all similar objects behavior in the similar way everywhere, - according to the law of universality of laws (if I translate the name correctly). It does not matter that we have not observed the far edges of the universe; we follow the law telling that physical laws over there are not different from the laws on the earth for the same objects.
We say that all material objects can be described by the equation E=MC^2.
Any object has a mass M= E/C^2, any object has energy E=M/C^2.
For instance if E=1,2,3,4,5…n, M=1,2,3,4,5…n/299,792,458 ^2 .
Put any number in the equation and you will know M, - except, - if you put in ∞.
If M=∞, C=√∞/E =∞ whatever is the number you suggest for E. Even if you suggest E=∞, C= ∞/∞ = uncertainty. But in the equation C = 299,792,458; it is neither ∞, nor uncertainty.
Thus, we have established the limits of the reality where our equations render to be useful, while at the same time, we have found that there is the reality where all our equations render to be useless. The quantification of that part reality is ∞. If to compare the part #1 of reality which accepts our laws with the part #2 of realty which does not except our laws, and if to say that the part #1 is as small as a proton, and if to say that the part #2 is a big as our whole universe, it would be a huge over blow of #1 out of all proportions.
You can put your head in the sand, you can put shores on your eyes, you can ignore this reality, but you cannot convince me to live my life with MY head in the sand. You can ignore it like it has nothing to numbers in math, but obviously math says otherwise. You can ignore it like it has nothing to do to laws of physics, but obviously physics say otherwise. You can ignore it like it is insignificantly small if to compare to our universe, but obviously you cannot calculate.
As an atheist you fear the reality and prefer to escape from the reality into your little world of fantasies.
We, Christians, are not obligated to ignore math and physics, like you do. We do not have to ignore the part #2 of reality, and we are not obligated to make ourselves to pretend that it does not exist, like you do. Instead of running away from reality, imagining that it does not exist and imposing the fearful imagination on others we live in reality and deal with reality. We call the part of reality which does not except our laws, “G-d”, and we deal with it.
Math says that there is infinity; the Christian doctrine drawn from the Bible says that G-d is infinite.
Math says ∞ does not change; however far we go in our universe, it remains the same. ∞ - n = ∞, where n=however far we go and whatever is the year on our calendar. The Christian doctrine drawn from the Bible says G-d is unchangeable.
Physics knows that there is the reality where laws of physics render to be worthless, at the same time, because all reality is connected (according to physics), our reality does not stop at the edge in the way the flat earth sitting on the 4 elephants stops at the edge. The Christian doctrine also sees no reason to make the earth flat and stop at the edge, and pretend that there is nothing behind the edge. Christians also know G-d is real.
Physics says that we cannot draw our physical laws from that reality, so we have to limit ourselves and not to try to go beyond the limits. The Christian doctrine also says that G-d incomprehensible. ‘’The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible,’’ - Einstein. ”The most comprehensible thing about G-d is that he is incomprehensible.’’, - the Christian doctrine.
It is obvious that this reality is present in math and numbers as well as in the methodology of physics. ∞ is present in math. In physics we do not consider one thing can possibly have no relation to all others, - that would be against the established methodology of physics. In physics we see this reality present in the methodology of physics. In the Christian doctrine we also say that G-d is present in our part #1 of reality.
I have informed you about a few fundamental positions of the Christian doctrine as we draw it from the Bible. I have informed you about a few fundamental positions of math and physics. It is not a matter of my opinion. You can bring my math and physics to any mathematician and physicist to check. You can bring my Christian doctrine to any pastor/priest to check. The Christian doctrine has exactly the same foundation as math and science and it says exactly the same things as math and physics.
If any other religion, Hindu or Buddha, or FSM has a foundation in physics and math, or, at least, if it does not contradict physics and math, it may be considered. But, as the matter of fact, only Christianity stands on the firm foundation. As an example, the religion of atheism is the religion of ignorance. When atheists challenge Christianity they either request to conduct operations that are not allowed in math, or demand to extend the laws of physics beyond the limits where they are meant to work, or they challenge anything else, but not the Christian doctrine, or often they do it altogether in one post.
I know beyond any reasonable doubt, not only as the matter of my personal experience, but as the matter of understanding physics and math, that God is real, infinite, incomprehensible, unchangeable, and present as the Bible teaches me. (Of course he is not only that, but I cannot write 25 pages in one post struggling with my English and keyboarding).
You may have questions about other positions of the Christian doctrine, but you should be aware of 2 things. 1. I have provided you with more than enough of scientific and mathematical evidence drawn from observations. As long as I am correct, no question from outside of the given consideration, like ‘’what is about intellect?’’ can be an argument against the consideration, because such a question would require an extension of the present consideration, and that is against rules of math, and 2. I cannot inform you about the whole doctrine; it would take a life, not even mentioning that if to count my struggle with English and keyboarding, it would take 3 lives. The methodology has been presented to you; you can go further on you own.
Large populations of individuals claim to have experienced some form of divine inspiration, action, or involvement but there has yet to be a defined and proven physical observation showing such an entity exists in this reality to my knowledge.
If indeed such a study, paper, or verified observation exists, and I am simply unaware I request the data be provided that I might gain a new perspective, and continue this debate.
You see how difficult it is to make out your request. Do you request a study convincing you that reality exists? Do you request to apply laws of physics in the field, where they are not meant to be applied? Do you want an article of physics quantifying inspiration? The problem is, in physics and math they don’t make such papers, and I have no desire to break rules of math and physics in the way atheists break them in science. My atheistic teachers trained me in math and physics only and I have no qualification in science. I tried science a few times, but I had to realize that the world of sheer fantasies and self inflicted delirium is not for me. May be it is also because my butt still remembers my atheistic teachers whipping it hard for any attempt of a fantasy. But, of course, the feelings of my butt do not prevent you from informing me what your science says on the subject. So, what is exactly your request?
Please, reply to the information and opinion of this post, rather than the individual making it.
So, what exactly can be called the information in your post?
What is exactly your opinion? That G-d does not exist because there are no articles published in science convincing you that he exists?
