I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2012, 08:54 AM
I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist. And, my proof is " Fundamental Theory Of Existence ".
Here is my theory, which is developed after reading Prof. Stephen Hawking's book " A Brief History Of Time ". This theory was first given its birth way back in January 2000. Only after I luckily getting to read the one and only Prof. Stephen Hawking's book, the best seller book ever, composed by him.
The theory is...
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.

1. Zero can not exist as denominator.

2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.

5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.

6. There are finite absolute laws.

7. Velocity of light is relative.

8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.

9. Time Travel is impossible.

10. Tan 90 can not exist.

11. God(s) can not exist.

[Image: FTOE-small.jpg]
http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2012, 08:56 AM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
Welcome to the forum.

Interesting but can you provide proof for your claims?

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2012, 09:35 AM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
(28-01-2012 08:54 AM)way12go Wrote:  I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist. And, my proof is " Fundamental Theory Of Existence ".
Here is my theory, which is developed after reading Prof. Stephen Hawking's book " A Brief History Of Time ". This theory was first given its birth way back in January 2000. Only after I luckily getting to read the one and only Prof. Stephen Hawking's book, the best seller book ever, composed by him.
The theory is...
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.

1. Zero can not exist as denominator.

2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.

5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.

6. There are finite absolute laws.

7. Velocity of light is relative.

8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.

9. Time Travel is impossible.

10. Tan 90 can not exist.

11. God(s) can not exist.

Unfortunately, your alleged proof assumes many things without support, and this list does not constitute a proof.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-01-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
(28-01-2012 08:54 AM)way12go Wrote:  1. Zero can not exist as denominator.

6/0
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2012, 12:46 PM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.

What is infinite? Infinite = Not finite. Any number, however large or small is always finite. So, no number is ever infinite. Numbers are infinite. Numbers being infinite is one of the properties of the numbers. Numbers don't have physical existence. Undefined or Not defined means it has no definite solution. When you divide any number with zero it can never be said as Undefined. Why? The Deadliest Weapon is... Why? When you place an Apple and eat it then you can say there is no Apple on the table. That is... There is nothing on the table! Zero = Nothing. If Zero is Mathematics and, Nothing is English and, Nothingness is Physics then how can I say... THEY ARE CONNECTED! Mathematics is some form of Truth or Law. Also English and Physics are some forms of Truth and Laws. The M, E and, P words are different names but they are all truths or laws governing the World or Universe. So " nothing " is not just an M or E or P word, it is all! When you say ( Apple/Zero ) then you mean Apple destroyed into Zero. How? 1/2 means 1 cut into 2. So, 1/0 means 1 cut into 0. If 1 Apple can be cut into 0 or if 0 can give birth to 1 Apple then 1/0 has an answer but, it is not possible. The answer to 1/0 is not Undefined, it is Impossible. So, 1/0 is impossible. It is said that 0/0 is Indeterminate... Is it so? How? Why not? No, it is not indeterminate. And, why is it so? Because, when you divide with anything then the denominator is given the first preference... it is not just preference, it is the truth or common sense or logic. Anything divided by 0 is said to be 0. And, it is true because 0 in the numerator means you have nothing to divide. So, you are not given the Apple in the first place. How can you eat an Apple if you don't have any? So, what is 0/0 then? When you are dividing some number with another number then the number that acts as the denominator is the first thing that is important, not the other way around. So, when you are asked to divide an Apple into two parts you don't say... here... take this two Apples! It is, two halves of the 1 Apple. So, division of an Apple into zero parts is impossible. And, 0/0 doesn't mean you have nothing to divide, it means you can't divide anything ( even 0 ) into 0 parts. When you say 0/0, there are no two things such as...
First thing: 0 in the numerator meaning " Nothing to divide "...
Second thing: 0 in the denominator meaning " Divide the numerator into nothing ".
The " Second thing " is the correct answer. Why? Because, 1/2 doesn't mean 1/2 = 1! It means 1/2 = 0.5. So, the denominator is the first thing that is to be used. Therefore...


1. Zero can not exist as denominator.

The fact that the numerator can not be divided into zero parts means anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. And the fact that sum of zeroes gives us zero alone means anything that does not exist can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore...

2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.

Once again we need to know what infinite means. What does infinite mean? Infinite means not finite and not finite means unlimited. By now we know that creation and destruction are impossible. If creation is impossible then there is no other way new things can add up to the World that already exists. If new things can not add up to the World then there is no way anything that exists in this World can be infinite. Space can not be infinite. Anything that has physical existence can't be infinite. Space has physical existence. Numbers don't have physical existence. The word Apple doesn't have physical existence but the edible Apple in your hand has physical existence and the edible Apples in your hands can't be infinite. Also, Time is never Absolute, it is always Relative and, it has no physical existence. Time is a measure of Change and sometimes Change is a turn of events, events can be numbered to an extent and, existence of more than one event of the same part of World or Universe is impossible. So, Time can never be infinite. Therefore...

4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.

Numbers are infinite but number of apples ( existence ) can not be infinite. Now, we know that creation and destruction are impossible and we also know that the existence of anything can not be infinite. We are part of the world we live in. In our world existence of anything can not be infinite. That is Space, Mass, Energy, Density, Gravity, Force,... etc; can not be infinite. Also, in our World creation and destruction are impossible. Creation is impossible means no new things can add up to the World that already exists and it also means what already exists can not come out of creation. Creation is impossible, creation is completely ruled out. We also know that destruction of the World is impossible. Space is timeless. Therefore...

5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.

According to the fourth postulate space can not be infinite and according to the fifth postulate space is timeless.
We know what an equation means. An equation is a law of equity. If creation and destruction are possible then all laws have to fail. In a World where creation and destruction are possible laws can not exist, only Chaos exists. We know what infinity means. Infinity means not finite and it means infinity is something that is unlimited, something that is ever increasing. Positive infinity is ever increasing and negative infinity is ever decreasing. Infinity means unlimited and it can not be used in equations. If creation is possible, equations will fail. Therefore...

6. There are finite absolute laws.

Where Albert Einstein went wrong... Proof of Velocity of Light being Relative to Gravity.

Albert Einstein:

Special Relativity Theory


1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial (=non-

accelerating) reference frames,


and


2. The speed of light in free space is constant.


General Theory of Relativity


Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher

gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to

massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run

slower. This is because gravitational time dilation is

manifested in accelerated frames of reference or, by virtue of

the equivalence principle, in the gravitational field of massive

objects.



Albert Einstein in his Special Theory of Relativity said that Velocity of Light is Constant in Free Space. That is, Velocity of Light is Constant on the Surface of the Earth or on the Surface of the Moon. But, it's not so. I beg to differ on it and here is my explanation.
Ordinary body is measured in terms of MASS.
Total Energy is equal to the Sum of Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy.
For ordinary body
Gravity is Directly Proportional to Change in Velocity per Time.
Velocity of Light is constant when it is measured on the surface of the Earth i.e; it's Constant where ever there is No Considerable Change in Gravity.
What happens when the Velocity of the Same Light ( Same Source, Same Conditions - Except Gravity ) is measured on the Surface of the Earth and on the Surface of the Moon?
According to Albert Einstein it must be Constant. But, I beg to differ. It's not constant and here is why?!
For ordinary body we have " MASS " but when it comes to
LIGHT we have " ENERGY/MASS " since Energy = Product of Mass and Velocity Square. E=m c(square).
P.E=mgh
P.E is Directly Proportional to mgh
m mass
g gravity
h height or distance
P.E/m is proportional to gh
where h=vt
P.E/mvt proportional to g
For ordinary body
g is proportional to v/t
For Light
g is proportional to E/mvt, since Light is a form of energy with mass
Let's take t ( Time ) as constant?! On different places such as Surface of the Earth and, Surface of the Moon... Gravity is different... If Gravity is different Changes are different and Change is a measure of Time. So, Time is not constant or same on different places such as Earth and Moon. But, it doesn't differ by much.
So when it's ordinary body...
1. Gravity is directly proportional to Change in Velocity.
But, when we take Light into account...
2. Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity [ Gravity is proportional to E/mv i.e; Change in Gravity leads to Change in Velocity of Light ]. As gravity increases velocity of light decreases and when gravity is lesser then the velocity of light is more when compared to a location where gravity is more...
So, Velocity of Light on Earth is lesser than Velocity of Light on Moon.
For ordinary body
Acceleration is directly proportional to Velocity ( When Gravity increases Velocity of a free falling object increases... and, when it comes to Light
Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity... So, as Gravity increases Velocity of Light decreases. Why? Because, Light is a product of both Energy and Mass unlike an ordinary body which is a product of Mass alone.
So, as Gravity increases Velocity of Light decreases.
So velocity of Light is more in space ( where there is little gravity ) and on the Moon ( where the Gravity is lesser than that on the Earth ) when compared to Velocity of Light on Earth.
Also in Space
P.E = Gm1m2/r
and
g = Gm/r square
And, this results in
So when it's ordinary body...
1. Gravity is directly proportional to Change in Velocity.
But, when we take Light into account...
2. Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity [ Gravity is proportional to E/mv i.e; Change in Gravity leads to Change in Velocity of Light ].
When we take E/m into consideration...
g is inversely proportional to v.

Here is a better explanation...

E = m c square

So, for light

g t = E/mc

g t is inversely proportional to c

and,

for ordinary body ( ordinary body in a sense mass is
taken into consideration unlike mass and energy for light )

For a Body of mass m

g t = v

g t is directly proportional to v

For any body with Energy/Mass

g t = E/mv

g t is inversely proportional to v

According to Albert Einstein's

Special Theory Of Relativity...

Velocity of light is constant in free space

and,

According to General Theory Of Relativity...

it is relative when there is difference in gravity.

That is... When Clocks run slower ( When Time is relatively lower ) i.e; when Gravity is more Velocity of light is lesser... similarly it is more when gravity is lesser.

g t = E/mc

That is... gt inversely proportional to c.

According to Albert Einstein Velocity of light depends upon Gravity-Time but not Relativistic Mass. Therefore, it is same/constant on a moving Train and on Land. Where as it varies where there is change in Gravity-Time.

Actually Light has RELATIVISTIC MASS... And, that is why I say it varies with Gravity.


For a Body of mass m

g t = v

g t is directly proportional to v

Light...


E = m c square

So, for light

g t = E/mc

g t is inversely proportional to c

Therefore, velocity of light is relative not just because of General Theory Of Relativity but also due to the fact that light has relativistic mass and anything with greater E/m value than light can travel faster than light. Velocity of light is relative because of Gravity-Time ( Clocks running faster or slower) and also because Gravity attracts light ( Relativistic mass ).

Why is it that the velocity of light is same on both the Train and on Land?

The reason is... When you carry an Apple with you on a moving train then the Apple has the train's velocity and it has no velocity on land. And, when you carry light! Carry light? When you have a source of light on a train and on land velocity of light is observed to be one and the same and, it is because we don't carry light, we don't get hold of light, we carry light source but not light. Light is generated at the source and it travels on its own. Therefore velocity of light is observed to be constant in free space. But, Light can't escape the Train called Gravity. When Light travels through the Train called Gravity it has a

( both because of General Theory Of Relativity and due to Gravity attraction of Relativistic Mass )

relative velocity. In light's case gravity is inversely proportional to its velocity. Velocity of light is constant in free space and is relative with respect to change in gravity both due to General Theory Of Relativity and also due to its Relativistic Mass. To prove it, we need to prove that something in this World/Universe can travel faster than light. That is... Faster than the predefined value

299792458 metres per second.



Therefore...

7. Velocity of light is relative.

Theory Of Everything?

Watch...





Theory Of Everything

What does this video contain?
Here it is...

[1.] Theory of Everything?
Is String Theory really a theory of everything?
Why not?

[2.] According to different string theories there are 10 or 11 spatial dimensions.

[3.] The truth is there are three and three dimensions only.

[4.] Time = Change
Time is a measure of change.

[5.] It is said that time is the 4th dimension.

[6.] Time has no physical existence.

[7.] There are 3 length and 1 time dimensions.

[8.] What about more than 3 length/spatial dimensions? 10 length/spatial dimensions? 11 length/spatial dimensions?

[9.] We sometimes study different parameters in 1 dimension and sometimes in 2 dimensions and also in 3 and 4 dimensions.

[10.] Let us not talk about the time dimension.
So here is what we have...
3 length/spatial dimensions.

[11.] Is there anything in this World/Universe that is 1 dimensional? 1D? Really?

[12.] The moment of truth...

[13.] There is no such thing as 1D and 1D only...
We simply neglect the other 2 length/spatial Ds.

[14.] So...
There is no such thing as1D only
or
2D only...

[15.] It is always 3D and 3D only.
We simply neglect other Ds for our convenience.

[16.] What about 10Ds and 11Ds???

[17.] The 3 Ds are mutually perpendicular to each other.

[18.] If there are 10Ds or 11Ds... Wait! Let us talk about 4Ds only... Just for now!

[19.] If 4th D does not exist, that leaves us with the answer: No 10 or 11 Ds.

[20.] Now, to prove that 4th D does not exist.

[21.] Here is the proof...

[22.] The 3Ds are mutually perpendicular. If there is another D, 4th D then it will be mutually perpendicular to the measurable 3Ds?

[23.] No way.

[24.] So, There is no 4th D.

[25.] If there is a 4th D then what?

[26.] Let us take a look at the World if there is a 4th D.

[27.] Density=(Mass/Volume)

[28.] The formulae for Volume is different for different 3D objects... Basically the formula is...

[29.] Basically... Volume=Length x Breadth x HeightVolume = 1st D x 2nd D x 3rd D.

[30.] We know that Earth revolves around the Sun in 3Ds and if there is a 4th D then...

[31.] If there is a 4th D then Density, Mass, Volume, Energy, Space and everything else change!!! Yes, EVERYTHING changes!!!

[32.] So the 4th D... 1. Can not be mutually perpendicular? 2. It can not be measured? 3. It can not have a visual effect on Earth -- Sun relationship?

[33.] There is no 4th D Or More...

[34.] We know that Energy, Mass, and others have 1. Units and 2. Dimensions

[35.] If String Theory says... There are more than 3 length/spatial Ds then it is wrong.

[36.] If 3Ds are length/spatial, 4th D is time and other Ds ( 10 or 11 ) are Energy or Mass or something else then String Theory is really the Theory Of Everything. TOE.

[37.] Therefore... There are 3 and 3 only length/spatial Ds.

Everything is well defined in three dimensions. Space too is three dimensional. String Theory claims more than three dimensions. Time is an imaginary dimension. Time is a measure of Change. There are three and only three Length/Spatial dimensions and one Time dimension. Existence of anything short of three dimensions is impossible since anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. If more than three dimensions can exist, they have to exist everywhere and always. Since anything can not be created out of nothingness more than three dimensions can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore String Theory can not be true. Therefore anything short of three dimensions and more than three dimensions is impossible. Therefore...

8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.

Time travel! How do you define it? Can we go to past? If Past=Memory then we can possibly go to past. If going to past is like travelling from a city to a village then time travel is possible! May be going to past is possible depending upon how you define PAST. If Past is a physical World/Universe that is the precursor of the Present World/Universe then Time Travel is impossible. It is not only impossible but also meaningless. Why? Because, the so called Past World/Universe has changed into Present World/Universe and it is not two or more copies of The World... Thus, Time Travel is only a story or just another day dream! What about Future? Also Future is not another copy! So, it is also not possible. Wait! Is that all? Didn't I tell you... Time is a measure of Change. So more Gravity means slower changes and two places with different gravity will have different time or clock... Is that you call Time Travel? Really? Think twice! If so, Time Travel is indeed a reality and it is something that all Life has always experienced. How? Gravity is not the same everywhere... So, we have gone to places with varying gravity and thus we have made that amazing trip... The TRIP, The so called Time Travel Trip. There are no infinite parallel Worlds with infinite parallel changes and we can not Time Travel. Time Travel is meaningless. Therefore...


9. Time Travel is impossible.

Tan 90 is same as 1/0. The first and the tenth postulates are one and the same! Therefore...


10. Tan 90 can not exist.

God(s) can not create and God(s) can not destroy and God(s) can not change laws.
God(s) can not create laws and also can not destroy laws...
Therefore God(s) can not exist. Therefore...


11. God(s) can not exist.

[Image: FTOE-small.jpg]
http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes way12go's post
28-01-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
2. Lawrence Krauss and his fellow quantum physicists would disagree with you.

3. Same as above. Nothingness IS something.

4. Pure conjecture. Just because we observe finite spans within the confines of our existence doesn't mean that everything that IS is bound by the same rules. One would argue that God isn't an affected body of mass, since he is intangible in nature.

6. Conjecture.

8. Conjecture.

9. What? According to who? You can absolutely time travel into the future if you travel as close to the speed of light as possible for a short time. It's not probable and at the moment, not feasible, but absolutely possible.

11. First, 1-10 have nothing to do with a god. What does time travel and three dimensions have to do with a god? Second, you are forgetting the most common response to any attempt to catch god in a physical-world logic net, "God exists outside of time and space. He created the laws of nature and isn't affected by them."

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Buddy Christ's post
28-01-2012, 02:41 PM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
(28-01-2012 02:03 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  First, 1-10 have nothing to do with a god. What does time travel and three dimensions have to do with a god? Second, you are forgetting the most common response to any attempt to catch god in a physical-world logic net, "God exists outside of time and space. He created the laws of nature and isn't affected by them."

What is Space? Space is something that can be occupied. If anything exists, yes anything... then it needs space... even god needs space. But, god can't exist. And then time... If anything exists then it has time. If god exists he/she has a clock or time too. Nothing in this World/Universe is out of SPACE AND TIME. Sorry friend. I respect the fact that you are a theist. Foundations lie down, Mansions float above them. So we, we in a sense, all our ancestors... were most probably theists, all of them! May be there were exceptions. We don't become religious or non religious by birth or without some evolutionary process!

Sorry to say... I'm an Atheist. In someway different from you.
I also think that belief in God/absence of God doesn't make you a better person. Yes, sometimes it may make you a better person. How? It takes one to know one. So, if a theist thinks that God/belief in God had made his life better than ever... I guess he/she is right. The same goes with any non believer. So, why do believers have to beat their trumpet saying God or Gods exist and why do Atheists ( All over YouTube...and, elsewhere ) have to goon saying there is no God? Strange isn't it? May be they all do these things for two reasons...
Reason 1: Because they think truth is important and, something more...
Reason 2: They do it for an identity and, more ( for a living??? ).
I'm an Atheist too. I don't do it for recognition or for a living but, I do it because I know that God(s) can't exist and I did prove it... Here is my theory... Fundamental Theory Of Existence.

If you do believe in God... It's a belief!!!
If you don't believe in God... It's a belief!!!
But, I proved that God(s) can't exist.
So, what is the big deal?
Yes, what we know/think/remember/etc is negligible when compared to what we can't ( know/think/remember/etc ) and what we don't ( know/think/remember/etc )... Got it?

[Image: FTOE-small.jpg]
http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2012, 02:45 PM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
(28-01-2012 02:41 PM)way12go Wrote:  If you do believe in God... It's a belief!!!
If you don't believe in God... It's a belief!!!
But, I proved that God(s) can't exist.
So, what is the big deal?
Yes, what we know/think/remember/etc is negligible when compared to what we can't ( know/think/remember/etc ) and what we don't ( know/think/remember/etc )... Got it?

But you haven't proved that God does not exist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2012, 02:53 PM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
Wait buddy christs a theist? Have I missed something?.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2012, 02:57 PM
RE: I'm an Atheist who proved that God(s) can't exist.
(28-01-2012 02:53 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Wait buddy christs a theist? Have I missed something?.

Oh, man, now you've outed him.
I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, looking over my shoulder, sleeping with one eye open, just waiting for the hit squad to find me.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: