h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Let God (or the Creator) be G
Assume that before the Universe existed there was Nothing.
Let this Nothing be nought i.e. 0 (zero)
Consider
(1) 0 plus G equals G
(therefore only God/Creator exists)
or
(2) 0 x G equals 0
(therefore nothing exists)
Clearly something exists.
Therefore (1) must be the case.
Call the Universe U
if (1) 0 plus G equals U
then 0 equals U minus G (Nothing equals Universe minus God)
or another way
if (1) 0 plus G equals U
then
0 plus U minus G equals nothing (Nothing plus the Universe minus God equals Nothing).
Therefore a Universe without God cannot exist.
All the above has nothing to do with Religion which is quite another kettle of fish.

Let the Universe by U,
then, 0 + U = U, thus only the Universe exists.

Let U = G,
then the Universe is God. This is like the "God is the greatest thing" proof--as it has failed to sufficiently define God, even if it is true, it doesn't prove what it intends to prove.

R S Thomas the poet-priest said that God waves his white flag whilst retreating before us at the speed of light. A God with a wry sense of humour it seems to me!
Does your equation "Nothing plus Universe equals Universe" imply that the Universe has always existed? It appears to suggest this.
I'm coming at you from the 'time' before the Universe existed so I'm not convinced that you have demolished my argument.

It depends on how we define the universe. If the universe is the spacetime beginning with the big bang, it is odd to argue it extending infinitely backwards. However, if you assume that the observed universe beginning with the big bang is just one element of a large Universe, then it is perfectly reasonable that it extends backwards infinite in time.

I counted one false dichotomy, one non-sequitur, one restatement of a premise as a conclusion, and abuse of mathematical metaphors.

Also you should define what you mean by x in "0 x G = 0". It appears to be a multiplication sign, but you seem to interpret it as a statement about reality, not just a mathematical identity. Not that it matters to your argument anyway, because of the false dichotomy.

Also, I suggest that if you mean 0 + G results in the creation of U, you don't represent this as 0 + G = U, or you will inadvertantly allow some algebraic manipulation that isn't justified.

Brilliant!!! I love it.
Have you read "100 Scientists Against Einstein" by any chance? Just joking. As old AE said "If they were right, one would have been enough."
Will get back to you when the Guinness has worn off.

Ach, algebra. Here's another try.
Nothing exists. Then a singularity exists.
There's the big bang (which we're told is not really a bang)
and everything flies out from the singularity...to create
the universe; that spilled box of smarties we see through the Hubble telescope.
But can this be possible without some outside influence i.e. God?
If there's no outside influence won't all the energy from the big bang expand exactly equally and at the same speed and with the same force etc., etc. in every direction creating not the clumpy mega-clouds of gas, galaxies and star nurseries in that smarties display but only an ever-expanding ball of energy with basically not much happening? Mightn't God (the famous dice player)just have nudged something with his elbow.
Is this beyond maths?

If nothing is possible without an 'outside influence' then that would mean that God is impossible.

I don't think I'm saying nothing is possible without outside influence
I think I'm saying because of outside influence something is possible.

I think string theory, m-brane theory are all within the realms of math. And not much else right now.

Ste

"I don't think I'm saying nothing is possible without outside influence
I think I'm saying because of outside influence something is possible."

If that's all you're saying then the outside influence is a premise, not a conclusion. You are assuming the conclusion you want in advance.

My attempt to prove God ends in abysmal failure.

And my long-held personal belief?
One can never know the truth of the matter.
I guess that wraps it up.

It's called "faith" for a reason.

Absolutely.

God is just a tool for man to understand his/her surroundings. As our understanding grows, so does our understanding of our belief system. When man finds scientific truth to the way God supposedly works, we won't belive in him anymore. There is no reason why God is more likely to exist then Allah or Buddah or any of the other gods in religions.

Science cannot explain everything. It has its bounds, they are clearly delimited. Theology is not its business.

Theologian and poet R S Thomas said that God, as science progressed, would always move from hill to hill, waving his white flag of surrender, whilst retreating at the speed of light. However Thomas did allow the possibility of 'a movement of the curtain' or 'something glimpsed through fingers' but 'throwing gravel against God's window' achieved nothing.

Scientist Hawking said the same thing in another way. God having fixed a speed limit - the speed of light - was not in a position to answer our prayers since by the time they reached his ear the mass of people praying would be long gone.

It seems to me that what Science and Theology are saying is: keep your mind open and your wits about you and you may understand a little of what's going on. That's probably the best you can hope for.