If everything in the universe adds to zero, why do we need a God?

[morgsboi]

For all energy there is negative energy. For example, if I dig a hole I will end up with the pile and the hole. The pile represents energy and mass and the hole represents negative energy.

The equation is extremely simple. 1+-1 =0 If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

[tar]

yeah, but we need somebody to keep the books

[morgsboi]

yeah, but we need somebody to keep the books

But the laws of physics govern the universe. They can't be made, they can't be deleted and the can't be broken.

[Ben Banana]

I think you're both fundamentally faulted.

 

If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

That statement is incomplete, so elaborate your unusual logic please.

 

yeah, but we need somebody to keep the books

What would this mean? Someone concious is also a "clockwork-machine" who governs the universe?

 

I'll write short repsonses until sense is put. Thanks.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Ben Bowen

[morgsboi]

I think you're both fundamentally faulted.

 

 

That statement is incomplete, so elaborate your unusual logic please.

 

 

What would this mean? Someone concious is also a "clockwork-machine" who governs the universe?

 

I'll write short repsonses until sense is put. Thanks.

 

I think both our statements are fundamentally correct. For "If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything." its is simple. An equal amount of positive energy to negative energy must add up to zero. I can put it like this: Say there is 10 positive energy and -10 negative energy. It is simple, 10+-10=0. So if the everything adds up to nothing, then the universe is nothing and therefore there cannot be any god as except for positive energy and negative energy, nothing can upset the balance. In this case, God.

 

And with tar's statement, it is fundamentally correct, so to answer your question;"What would this mean? Someone concious is also a "clockwork-machine" who governs the universe?". Yes.

[qijino1236]

If everything in the universe adds to zero, why do we need a God?

 

But if that statement is true then math is doesn't make sense.... example...

 

We have a beach ball, a consciouness, a quotation, a mind, a god , a flute, a word, a science , a matter, an anti-matter and an absolute nothing

 

Now we add up the "somethings"(whether it be something created through thought or physical things with the "nothings"

 

somethings - a beach ball, a consciousness, a quotation, a mind, a god, a flying-spaghetti monster, a flute, a word, a science , a matter, an anti-matter

 

nothings - absolute nothing

 

11 + nothing(or 0)(or 1) = 11 or 12...see we still have something...11

 

see this quote

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, a number by itself has no significance and only deserves the designation of a number by virtue of its being a member of a group of objects with some shared characteristics. ...

 

absolute nothing doesn't seem possible

 

I put 0 or 1 in the math equation because of this:

It is undeniable that not even your mind's eye or consciouness cannot picture absolute nothing for if you picture nothing(all back or all white or something) it is still something...all black or all white or SOMETHING.

 

we think we know nothing is but doubt if any consciousness has ever pictured "absolute nothing"

if a consciousness has ever pictured "absolute nothing"...then it would be 0..but I don't believe that has ever been done.

 

Since this is a belief I put (0 or 1) since it isn't a scientific fact

 

I guess the real question is whether you believe a consciousness never existed since a consciousness(humans or other intelligent life) EVENTUALLY created the words "a beach ball, a consciousness, a quotation, a mind, a god, a flying-spaghetti monster, a flute, a word, a science , a matter, an anti-matter, absolute nothing"

 

If a consciousness at one point in the universe never existed then that same equation I would see as..

 

0 + 0(or 1)...actually

It would be 0+ 0

because if there wasn't any consciousness then there would be no consciousness to picture "absolute nothing" in the minds eye anyways..

 

But since I don't know if consciousness never existed

 

I go with the equation

11 + 0(or 1)?? I don't know = 11 or 12 since I am conscious.

 

 

[Ben Banana]

I am dumbfounded. Apparently there's a massive misconclusion after this comma. Sorry, but I still don't get how this makes any sense at all:

 

If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

 

Unfortunately, this topic is reminding me of the horrid logic from Marko Rodin which I once encountered a few months ago. Being scientific, I absolutely cannot do without complete logic. I hope you establish a more reliable sense. This reliability is known as science.

 

I'm sorry to be a pest... I'm new here, so if you have any issues with me, please tell me about them soon (I already have -1 reputation? help me). Thanks.

 

In peace,

Ben

 

Edit:

 

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, a number by itself has no significance and only deserves the designation of a number by virtue of its being a member of a group of objects with some shared characteristics.

Indeed. This is somewhat analagous, by concept, to his theories of relativity. There's curious logic to be explored around here. Perhaps thats what were really discussing (roughly now), hmm? Alright... I'll see if I can understand this better, but the topic is a bit messy so far.

 

Edit Two:

 

Morgsboi, thanks for your re-attempt to explain. However, your logic remains incredibly loose and effectively useless.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Ben Bowen

[morgsboi]

I go with the equation

11 + 0(or 1)?? I don't know = 11 or 12 since I am conscious.

 

Hmmm. Well Albert Einstein also concluded that E=MC^2. Energy is equal to mass (edit*times*edit) by the speed of light squared. What I mean by 10 and -10 is energy. You could measure this in joules, kilo-joules or any measurement you want. The number is not important as the importance is that both numbers are the same. Energy is everything in the universe. Everything. Even "a flying spaghetti monster" is mass which is energy.

Edit* - Accidentally wrote divided as I have had a knackering day.

Edited December 12, 2011 by morgsboi

[Ben Banana]

Energy is equal to mass divided by the speed of light squared.

Hopefully that's a typo, but good try.

 

What I mean by 10 and -10 is energy.

Uh...?

 

The number is not important as the importance is that both numbers are the same.

You're just saying x - x = 0.

 

Energy is everything in the universe. Everything. Even "a flying spaghetti monster" is mass which is energy.

Cool story, but that doesn't mean anything new.

 

For all energy there is negative energy.

You don't even understand the notion of "negative energy." Possibly not even what "energy" really means.

 

As for tar... I have some things to say about a 'God' which governs the universe (as most put it), and "makes it tick" etc. But I'll cop-out from that discussion until I have the time.

Edited December 12, 2011 by Ben Bowen

[Jaden]

For all energy there is negative energy. For example, if I dig a hole I will end up with the pile and the hole. The pile represents energy and mass and the hole represents negative energy.

The equation is extremely simple. 1+-1 =0 If everything adds up to nothing, we don't need a God to create anything.

 

Maybe, but we don't actually know that the "negative energy" exists. It is only an alternative theory to God. If everything in the universe adds to zero, then God does not need to exist. However, if God exists, then everything in the universe does not need to add to zero. To me, the existence of negative energy seems less likely than the existence of God.

[morgsboi]

Hopefully that's a typo, but good try.

 

 

Uh...?

 

 

You're just saying x - x = 0.

 

 

Cool story, but that doesn't mean anything new.

 

 

You don't even understand the notion of "negative energy." Possibly not even what "energy" really means.

 

As for tar... I have some things to say about a 'God' which governs the universe (as most put it), and "makes it tick" etc. But I'll cop-out from that discussion until I have the time.

Yes it was a typo. Its 11 and Ive had a knackering day. And I do understand "energy thanks. Yes x + -x =0. My point is that "god" can neither be an x or a -x. And if "god" is a zero then "god" cannot exist. Not even as i.

 

Maybe, but we don't actually know that the "negative energy" exists. It is only an alternative theory to God. If everything in the universe adds to zero, then God does not need to exist. However, if God exists, then everything in the universe does not need to add to zero. To me, the existence of negative energy seems less likely than the existence of God.

 

Yes, I do agree with that even though I am an atheist (open to opinion but not agnostic) but the laws of physics don't agree. Did you take in the "digging a hole" part?

[Ben Banana]

Yes it was a typo. Its 11 and Ive had a knackering day.

Sorry.

 

And I do understand "energy" thanks.

To be honest, I really doubt that because...

 

Did you take in the "digging a hole" part?

Likewise, you could say: with a weighing-scale and two identical objects, the axis will remain put (at "zero") regardless of which side each individual object is currently set. The heavier one side, the lighter the other.

 

Even as the position of both objects may torque the balance, the energy from this will be absolute. You can't pretend energy as the balance's angle.

 

So then, are you talking of charge? Well you're saying nonsense either-way.

 

[...] I am an atheist [...]

 

That's good! I think you're just trying to find a clever way to prove the notion of "God" impossible. I wish to assist you.

 

 

Edit:

 

Eh, here I go. A popular argument from theists is:

 

Because "God" created the laws of the universe, i.e. the Ten Commandments and even the laws of physics (which really don't both qualify as laws when taken from the same aspect), he has control over everything, the Alpha and the Omega (I don't care what that's supposed to mean).

 

Whatever religious "proof" you find out there, it always relies on highly abstract (the most unreliable) axioms, which often circulate for validation.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Ben Bowen

[A Tripolation]

Yes it was a typo. Its 11 and Ive had a knackering day. And I do understand "energy thanks. Yes x + -x =0. My point is that "god" can neither be an x or a -x. And if "god" is a zero then "god" cannot exist. Not even as i.

 

You're using it completely incorrect in this instance.

 

Yes, I do agree with that even though I am an atheist (open to opinion but not agnostic) but the laws of physics don't agree. Did you take in the "digging a hole" part?

 

And by what assumption are you basing your logic on? It is the assumption that a god must obey our laws that we have discovered. If there truly was an omnipotent deity, he would transcend all logic and order and could do anything he darn well pleased.

[qijino1236]

I am using questions and answers from other people to try to get into my mind what EXACTLY energy is...

 

What exactly does energy mean? What is energy?

 

• Mechanical energy, which includes

- Potential energy, stored in a system.

 

- Kinetic energy, from the movement of matter.

 

• Radiant or solar energy, which comes from the light and warmth of the sun.
• Thermal energy, associated with the heat of an object.
• Chemical energy, stored in the chemical bonds of molecules.
• Electrical energy, associated with the movement of electrons.
• Electromagnetic energy, associated with light waves (including radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, infrared waves).
• Mass (or nuclear) energy, found in the nuclear structure of atoms

but is there a universal energy?

 

Not my Q - What exactly is energy?....We know the two forms of energy are potential energy and kinetic energy, and that these forms of energy can be in many forms (e.g. thermal energy, elastic potential energy, gravitational potential energy...). However, what I don't really understand is, how is this energy actually stored? By this I mean, for example, how is kinetic and potential energy stored in terms of particles. Has it got to do with the amount of vibration or the separation between the particles? Also, if matter is equivalent to energy is matter therefore a form of energy? I'm sorry if it sounds confusing but I just find energy a really hard concept to visualise, it's not something easy to visualise such as matter. I would appreciate any help given.

 

Not my A - It is a physically measurable and useful quantity in physics. I think its better not to think of energy as something which a body "possesses". Just think of it as one formula which tells u how to measure it given a system in a certain configuration. So, then what is interesting about this number? As Feynman says, this number is conserved.

 

"There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same."

—The Feynman Lectures on Physics

 

Its better not to think of energy as something a body "has", because its not true. Velocity is relative. Kinetic energy measured in one frame is not the same as another. With a frame at rest wrt an object, its KE is always zero. Also, potential energy does not "belong" to the object. Its a number referenced from a datum. A body has potential energy depending on from where you measure it. So, its the energy "stored" in a system, rather than a body.

Also, you seem to think that there are only 2 energies PE and KE, and other energies are manifestations of these 2 types. Its not so. All are different forms of energy, and one can convert into other. For eg., when a brick falls onto a surface, part of the energy goes as heat and sound (both of which are a sort of vibrations). One can, by a little stretch, say that thermal energy, sound energy are also just potential energy and kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules, but then, they are not in the "same" brick. Its now dispersed among many molecules (of say air) and not just belonging to the original body of the brick.

 

 

"Its better not to think of energy as something a body "has", because its not true."

Why is it not better to think of energy as something a body "has"? ....Is energy not a thing?...is it simply just a vague concept that is used when something is heated or powered up (electrified)?

 

Not my A??....

Energy is a quantity that is understood as the ability a physical system has to produce changes on another physical system. Energy is stored within the atoms, since they can gather up energy, and thus vibrate. Also, there is an unimaginable amount of energy stored in each and very ATOM. A single atom is all it takes to eradicate an entire city with a nuclear explosion. Thus energy is stored in the electrons. As a part of the atom is removed from the nucleus, the electron's negative magnetic charge causes it to collide violently with the remainder of the nucleus (which has a positive magnetic charge)

 

Energy is stored within the atoms, since they can gather up energy, and thus vibrate...so is energy a thing or isn't it? ...from this answer energy seems like a thing…from this answer… "Its better not to think of energy as something a body "has", because its not true." it doesn’t seem like a thing.

 

So is energy a concept or a thing? …a thing created by the mind to explain things(natural phenomena like electricity, heat, matter) or an actual thing?

 

Energy is stored within the atoms, since they can gather up energy, and thus vibrate…so if energy is a “thing” stored in atoms what is that energy made of?....Where did the energy come from originally?...Is the energy inside the atoms the same thing throughout all atoms(aka is energy a consistent thing?)…What EXACTLY is energy if it is a single thing? Or is energy a multitude of different things to explain heat, electricity, matter, etc.? Okay E=mc², but what is energy, EXACTLY?

 

 

[michel123456]

absolute nothing doesn't seem possible

 

Yes, that is what I think.

I whish it could be provable: that would be a good start.

[John Cuthber]

These two questions are equally valid

If everything in the universe adds to zero, why do we need a God?

If everything in the universe does not add to zero, why do we need a God?

 

The answer is that the need for a God is entirely independent of the "sum of the universe"

 

If I want chocolate ice cream, why do we need a God?

[qijino1236]

That’s the skepticism that has reached us through the Enlightenment. Those that refuse skepticism in the realm of science then, and denigrate it, and recklessly rely on an “Unquestionable Authority“, they are ultimately placing themselves outside of Science itself, and outside of nearly four hundred years of philosophy if not more.

I am skeptical of both god and “absolute nothing" ....that doesn't mean that I don't believe god or "absolute nothing" could exist...

Actually it is exactly the opposite..I believe that god and "absolute nothing" could exist... TRUE science(being open to ANY skepticism or falsification) though is the only thing that could possibly prove it… and it has nothing to do with belief.

 

I am a TRUE scientist and a TRUE agnostic and a FALSE believer if know what I am getting at.

I believe things but I know that they could be false until they are TRULY scientifically proven....

So what is energy, EXACTLY????

 

 

The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, who were two of its founders. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science.

 

Einstein was the first physicist to say that Planck's discovery of the quantum (h) would require a rewriting of physics. As though to prove his point, in 1905 he proposed that light sometimes acts as a particle which he called a light quantum (now called the photon). Bohr was one of the most vocal opponents of the photon idea and did not openly embrace it until 1925

 

Even when studying quantum mechanics and regular physics you have to open to the fact that there could be a flaw in the logic of these extraordinary human beings. Who was right? Einstein or Bohr? Maybe they were both right but maybe you can find something they explained is wrong due to a new discovery in the universe. I am not saying they were wrong on anything they investigated and explained … I am just saying always be open to the possibility AND then you will be a TRUE scientist.

 

You can put the HUMAN beings(Einstein, Bohr) on a pedestal of respect.. but you cannot put SCIENCE on a pedestal …..we must always be skeptical of science(even if it is TRUE) in order for it to be TRUE science. There is only one TRUE science(I mean TRUE “god”, I mean TRUE “absolute nothing”) and I sure as hell don’t think we have found it yet.

 

The next shock came in 1926 when Max Born proposed that the mechanics was to be understood as a probability without any causal explanation.

 

Einstein rejected this interpretation. In a 1926 letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." < That quote I do not believe is TRUE science…but if it is, it is....TRUE that is...but I will still be skeptical.

 

 

 

Sooo....what is energy, EXACTLY?

 

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice."...I do sympathize with Einstein though he probably put in tons and tons of thought to come up with that conclusion.

 

Another quote...

 

"A century later, all of nature had been classified into two great domains:

 

1)There was energy, the forces that animated objects

2) and there was mass, the physical stuff that made up those objects."

 

If the big bang is real..how did the forces(energy) initially animate mass if they weren't physically real?

AKA what is energy, EXACTLY?

[morgsboi]

Sorry.

 

 

Likewise, you could say: with a weighing-scale and two identical objects, the axis will remain put (at "zero") regardless of which side each individual object is currently set. The heavier one side, the lighter the other.

 

Even as the position of both objects may torque the balance, the energy from this will be absolute. You can't pretend energy as the balance's angle.

 

So then, are you talking of charge? Well you're saying nonsense either-way.

 

 

 

That's good! I think you're just trying to find a clever way to prove the notion of "God" impossible. I wish to assist you.

 

 

Edit:

 

Eh, here I go. A popular argument from theists is:

 

Because "God" created the laws of the universe, i.e. the Ten Commandments and even the laws of physics (which really don't both qualify as laws when taken from the same aspect), he has control over everything, the Alpha and the Omega (I don't care what that's supposed to mean).

 

Whatever religious "proof" you find out there, it always relies on highly abstract (the most unreliable) axioms, which often circulate for validation.

 

Well honestly it isn't nonsense. In my head it makes perfect sense but I have a different way of understanding things. Its a method I use but it is unteachable. But anyway, I understand what you mean by scales but it isn't the best way of saying it. You can put anything on a scale and still have a load of stuff you haven't put on it. Where as if you dig a hole, the hole will be the same size as the pile. But put the pile back in the hole then it is just equal (yes it is still mass but that isn't the point).

It would also be an amazing achievement to disprove religion. So many people are just blind to how many wars it causes, but I think we are very close. Not to offend anyone but in my opinion, god is for people who can't make sense of the universe and what is around them. No not everyone but it is a pattern I have seen.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think morgsboi is trying to say this:

 

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

[morgsboi]

These two questions are equally valid

If everything in the universe adds to zero, why do we need a God?

 

Well this is where the paradox comes in. If the sum of the universe is 0 then god cannot exist. God is not energy or negative energy. Therefore god could only be a zero which is a complete balance. And if god is 0 then god is nothing. The laws of physics (of science today) cannot allow a god to be in this universe. And how could there be a god outside the universe? There is no time outside the universe (if there is an outside). It's like saying there's a man with a white beard on a cloud sunbathing on a black hole.

 

That's the skepticism that has reached us through the Enlightenment. Those that refuse skepticism in the realm of science then, and denigrate it, and recklessly rely on an "Unquestionable Authority", they are ultimately placing themselves outside of Science itself, and outside of nearly four hundred years of philosophy if not more.

I am skeptical of both god and "absolute nothing" ....that doesn't mean that I don't believe god or "absolute nothing" could exist...

Actually it is exactly the opposite..I believe that god and "absolute nothing" could exist... TRUE science(being open to ANY skepticism or falsification) though is the only thing that could possibly prove it… and it has nothing to do with belief.

 

I am a TRUE scientist and a TRUE agnostic and a FALSE believer if know what I am getting at.

I believe things but I know that they could be false until they are TRULY scientifically proven....

So what is energy, EXACTLY????

 

 

The Bohr–Einstein debates were a series of public disputes about quantum mechanics between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, who were two of its founders. Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science.

 

Einstein was the first physicist to say that Planck's discovery of the quantum (h) would require a rewriting of physics. As though to prove his point, in 1905 he proposed that light sometimes acts as a particle which he called a light quantum (now called the photon). Bohr was one of the most vocal opponents of the photon idea and did not openly embrace it until 1925

 

Even when studying quantum mechanics and regular physics you have to open to the fact that there could be a flaw in the logic of these extraordinary human beings. Who was right? Einstein or Bohr? Maybe they were both right but maybe you can find something they explained is wrong due to a new discovery in the universe. I am not saying they were wrong on anything they investigated and explained … I am just saying always be open to the possibility AND then you will be a TRUE scientist.

 

You can put the HUMAN beings(Einstein, Bohr) on a pedestal of respect.. but you cannot put SCIENCE on a pedestal …..we must always be skeptical of science(even if it is TRUE) in order for it to be TRUE science. There is only one TRUE science(I mean TRUE "god", I mean TRUE "absolute nothing") and I sure as hell don't think we have found it yet.

 

The next shock came in 1926 when Max Born proposed that the mechanics was to be understood as a probability without any causal explanation.

 

Einstein rejected this interpretation. In a 1926 letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." < That quote I do not believe is TRUE science…but if it is, it is....TRUE that is...but I will still be skeptical.

 

 

 

Sooo....what is energy, EXACTLY?

 

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice."...I do sympathize with Einstein though he probably put in tons and tons of thought to come up with that conclusion.

 

Another quote...

 

"A century later, all of nature had been classified into two great domains:

 

1)There was energy, the forces that animated objects

2) and there was mass, the physical stuff that made up those objects."

 

If the big bang is real..how did the forces(energy) initially animate mass if they weren't physically real?

AKA what is energy, EXACTLY?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

 

I think morgsboi is trying to say this:

 

http://www.astrosoci...02/nothing.html

 

Thanks, that is exactly what I mean. May I ask where you found this link?

[A Tripolation]

Again, why would any of this matter to a God?

[morgsboi]

Again, why would any of this matter to a God?

 

The only way this can be solved is by looking at it from a religious and scientific view. You cannot look at one side or there is no point in putting the topic on forums.

[A Tripolation]

The only way this can be solved is by looking at it from a religious and scientific view. You cannot look at one side or there is no point in putting the topic on forums.

 

A god, by their very definition, is undefinable and exists outside of all known laws and order. He/She/It transcends everything. That's why there's no point talking about a God in a scientific context--the term isn't definable or falsifiable in any way.

[morgsboi]

A god, by their very definition, is undefinable and exists outside of all known laws and order. He/She/It transcends everything. That's why there's no point talking about a God in a scientific context--the term isn't definable or falsifiable in any way.

 

The reason why we don't get anywhere in religion, I think is because that everyone has a bias view. I believe there is a definable way.

[A Tripolation]

I believe there is a definable way.

 

Then your "god" is not a god.