Atheism and Evolution have a math problem.

zero

Evidence for creation, and therefore a creator, exists in the very fact that things exist which we can perceive via our senses.  If we can see, touch, taste, hear, or smell it; it exists. Once we sense that something exists, it’s natural to question how it came to be, where it came from, and why.

All-that-is, is evidence of creation. This must be so for if you were to subtract all-that-is from all that is, you arrive at zero; nothing. Every second grader knows that zero can never produce anything but zero.

Atheists and evolutionists deny that all-that-is minus all-that-is equals zero. They demand that something remains that has always been. Are we to suspend our second grade education and accept that if you subtract 1 from 1 you don’t arrive at zero. Are we to believe that if you add zero with itself enough times you’ll eventually get something other than zero?

When looking for answers to the burning question of why things exist, one must acknowledge zero. It does us no good to simply deny it. There is only one means by which zero can be overcome and that is outside influence. Much like a second grader overcomes zero by adding one with a stroke of his pencil, our reality and all that exists in it requires a creator to be.

Some respond to this line of thinking by arguing that if all-that-is were subtracted from all-that-is, then certainly a creator, if one exists, would be subtracted out of existence with everything else.

The problem with such a rebuttal can be seen by considering a car. Is the creator of the parts that make up a car, part of the car itself? No. Can you subtract all-that-is the car from itself and still have the creator of the car? Yes. Can you subtract all that makes up our world and the cosmos from itself and logically still maintain a creator. Absolutely.

So who created the creator?

The creator I’ve been referring to is God. The nature of God is eternal. If God was not eternal, he would not be God. He has no beginning or end. God is infinite in all ways. It’s a good thing too, for if he was not, we’d have no God to thank for creating the magnificent world we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell today.

I’ll leave you with a little math problem.

∞ – ∞ = 0

x – x = 0

1 – 1 = 0

You have 0.

0

Atheists and Evolutionists who deny a creator, please show me mathematically how to arrive at 1 using nothing but 0.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “Atheism and Evolution have a math problem.

  1. 0 = ∞ – ∞
    ∞ + 1 = ∞
    ∞ – ∞ = 1
    0 = 1

    Moral of this story: don’t use infinity when you don’t know what it means.

    If you can postulate an intelligent being outside of reality, then we can postulate fundamental, unchanging laws.

  2. You made a statement that “Atheists and evolutionists deny that all-that-is minus all-that-is equals zero. They demand that something remains that has always been.” Do you even understand the Theory of Evolution? Apparently not.

    You wrote, “When looking for answers to the burning question of why things exist, one must acknowledge zero.” And then you said, “Much like a second grader overcomes zero by adding one with a stroke of his pencil, our reality and all that exists in it requires a creator to be.”

    Much like a second grader who is asked a question for which he doesn’t know the answer, his answer will often be “because.”

    Much like a Christian who is asked how he’s so sure that god exists, he will say “because god exists.”

    The difference between the religious person and the atheist is that the atheist doesn’t make up answers to the burning questions of why things exist.

  3. “Do you even understand the Theory of Evolution? Apparently not”

    I understand that the theory of evolution does not explain how to move from 0 to 1. When I ponder how all that is came to be, I start from the assumption that there can be absolute nothingness. The proof for absolute nothingness is 1-1=0. Starting from 0 you cannot look to evolution for answers because the starting point of evolution is not 0; but 0 + x.

  4. “The difference between the religious person and the atheist is that the atheist doesn’t make up answers to the burning questions of why things exist.”

    No. The difference is atheist evolutionists ignore the question all together. The reason for this is obvious. You know you cannot explain how 0 evolved without denying your atheistic dogma.

  5. “Much like a Christian who is asked how he’s so sure that god exists, he will say “because god exists.”

    God exists because without God, there is no means by which 0 became 1.

  6. Zeros and ones. I don’t know if there is a means by which 0 became 1. It’s something I don’t know, I can’t know, and I don’t need to know. But I don’t make up some god as the answer to an unknowable question.

    You are a very binary person. It’s either on or off. Try getting beyond zeros and ones. Try looking at twos and threes. It can be quite eye-opening.

  7. Its hardly making something up when that something is logically necessary to explain reality. You see how you ignore the zero problem rather than identify the absolute and undeniable necessity of a creator. You can do that. Your free to think whatever you like. But stop demanding that evolution is the answer to the question of origin. Evolution is precisely what you’ve described…it cares nothing about answering the question you claim it does. I find that pathetic.

  8. “…the absolute and undeniable necessity of a creator.” That’s what you choose to believe. I, being a person with a free will and a brain, choose to not believe that. And just FYI, I never “demanded” that evolution is the answer to the question of origin. I don’t know the answer to the question of origin. Evolution only answers the question of how we got to be what we are from the point at which life began.

    If you want to believe that the point at which life began was created by a creator (a.k.a.,god), good for you, go for it. I don’t know nor do I care. It makes no difference to me that I don’t know the answer to that question. I just know that I don’t fill in the gaps of my knowledge by making up this “creator.”

    There’s really no point in continuing this dialog. You’re all about zeros and ones and everything’s origins. I’m all about letting you believe whatever you want to believe. I wish you’d do the same instead of trying to debunk evolution and defame atheists.

  9. Hey man, I just used the math you started to come to that conclusion. It’s not my fault you’re not familiar with infinity.

    I think a far better equation for your hypothesis goes a little something like: 0 + i = i

  10. Yeah I know. I think I’d drop any mention of infinity all together to keep it clear what I’m trying to get across. It’s not necessary for my point and is obviously a distraction.
    I do question this…
    ∞ + 1 = ∞

    this seems more true:
    ∞ + 1 = ∞ + 1

    But like I said, I don’t even need to bring infinity into the mix to make my point.

  11. @Doobster418

    “Evolution only answers the question of how we got to be what we are from the point at which life began.”

    I assure you that evolution is being preached as an explanation of the origin of our cosmos, our world, our bodies, and the existence of every single element of life and matter that make it up.

    While I’m happy to hear that you understand the theory of evolution skips over the logic hurdle of nothingness, and assumes at least the building blocks of life are present, others have not come to that point of understanding.

    Many who do reach that point feel compelled to think about it further. Those who do realize that if nothingness preceded the very first something, a creator is absolutely necessary. You however, seem quite content with “gaps” in your understanding. Yes, you are free to live by faith that God is not the answer to the question you refuse to ask.

  12. First, you can assure me all you want. There may be some…probably a very few…who see evolution as you describe it, but that’s not Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Darwin wrote, “Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed.” In no way, shape, or form did Darwin claim evolution as the “an explanation of the origin of our cosmos, our world, our bodies, and the existence of every single element of life and matter that make it up.” Darwin, and indeed modern evolutionary theory, is about descent from “few forms or one.” It is NOT about the ORIGIN of those “few forms or one.”

    I don’t know if there ever was once nothingness or if there always was “somethingness.” But there’s nothing you or anyone else can possibly say to persuade me that “a creator is absolutely necessary.” A creator is only necessary to those who need to fill in the blanks as an explanation comprehensible in human terms for something they cannot possibly comprehend, know, or understand. Your creator is your own creation. My opinion, my belief.

    But my question to you for you to consider, is this: what did you not understand about “There’s really no point in continuing this dialog”?

  13. You bash atheists for supposedly making up arbitrary properties for the universe to justify their position (when most atheists in reality simply say “I don’t know”) and then do exactly the same thing to god, arbitrarily say that he has special magical properties that don’t make sense so logic doesn’t have to apply to him. Whatever. If you get to make up random things as your starting point you can believe anything.

  14. I do question this…
    ∞ + 1 = ∞

    this seems more true:
    ∞ + 1 = ∞ + 1

    It’s as true as the other. Infinity can be described as an asshole making you think of the highest number you can imagine, and then adding one. Then, noting that this number is higher, repeating the process. Infinity has no value, so you can add and subtract whatever you want from it and be left with infinity remaining.

    Now you know.

    However, you haven’t explained why it is that it is better to assume a complex being with jealousy and anger and love who created the universe, but doesn’t exist in it, versus a natural state which necessitated it, but doesn’t exist within it.

  15. “First, you can assure me all you want. There may be some…probably a very few…who see evolution as you describe it, but that’s not Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”

    The Big Bang is very much a part of modern Evolutionary Theory. That is possibly the best explanation for the origins that man can come up with when the explanation must deny a creator. Now Darwin may not have discussed the origins of the universe, but those who followed certainly have sought answers beyond the evolution of life. That is just as much a part of the present day theory of evolution as anything Darwin presented.

    Even BB falls short of overcoming the 0 problem and therefore fails to adequately answer the questions regarding origin.

  16. “However, you haven’t explained why it is that it is better to assume a complex being with jealousy and anger and love who created the universe, but doesn’t exist in it, versus a natural state which necessitated it, but doesn’t exist within it.”

    I’m not sure I understand.

  17. “But my question to you for you to consider, is this: what did you not understand about “There’s really no point in continuing this dialog”?”

    Well the point of this dialog is to discuss things that people believe – that I don’t – with the hope that maybe, just maybe you’ll think about things, and I’ll think about things, and together we might just learn something. I’ve appreciated the responses.

  18. “most atheists in reality simply say “I don’t know””

    Atheism, as I understand it, is not an “I don’t know” proposition. That is agnosticism. Atheism is a non-belief in deity. An atheist says there is no god; very different from I don’t know if there is a god.

  19. “You bash atheists for supposedly making up arbitrary properties for the universe to justify their position”

    This is misstating my position. I believe atheists deny god first and foremost and therefore will not entertain the idea of a creator when faced with the question, how did the world begin. I never said atheists make up stuff. All Ive said is that they have to ignore the logical outcome of thought dealing with the question of origin because of their philosophical dogmas.

  20. “You bash atheists for supposedly making up arbitrary properties for the universe to justify their position and then do exactly the same thing to god, arbitrarily say that he has special magical properties that don’t make sense so logic doesn’t have to apply to him.”

    To say that the properties of a God/Creator are illogical, when such a being is logically necessary to explain something that is otherwise unexplainable is in and of itself illogical.

  21. I’m not sure I understand.

    You make the assumption that the universe has a conscious creator, but rule out, effectively, an unconscious creator, due to bias.

    Also, it is possible that the sum energy of the universe is zero, thereby making your equation 0 = 0.

  22. “You make the assumption that the universe has a conscious creator, but rule out, effectively, an unconscious creator, due to bias.”

    Oh ok. I get it. Your saying that creation can occur without a conscious being as is the case with a river creating smooth rocks and air and water creating rust on iron.

    How long do you presume would it take for rain and erosion to create Mt Rushmore’s carvings or monkeys to build a dodge viper?

    The difference between a creation which has a conscious plan and purpose behind it and one which is formed and shaped by time and random, unconscious energy, are fairly easily to distinguish for most humans. Certainly when one looks at the earth’s complex life forms, even the arrangement and movement of the galaxies, it should be quite evident that the type of creation is the same as Mt. Rushmore, cars, computers, buildings and planes; not smooth stones, rust, and gorges.

    If all records showing men carving Mt. Rushmore where destroyed and you had no way to prove that men created it, could you be swayed to believe that Mt. Rushmore is the result of raindrops and time? Would you say the best one could do was assume that it was not? I think an answer of yes to either of these questions is dishonest. It would be immediately obvious to any onlooker that Mt. Rushmore was not created by raindrops and time but rather, the hand of man with a conscious plan. To label this as and assumption is to deny that truth can be attained by reason all together.

    The suggestion that the human body and galactic order is not the result of a conscious creator but time and chance is no less untrue and equally fit for dismissal by any semi reasonable person.

  23. No, you don’t get it. I hardly think that anyone would look at the cosmic microwave background radiation and think, hrm, someone smart made that. But, more importantly, you have no basis upon which to make the claim that a cause or motivation beyond this universe is incapable of creating it, because you have no experience of anything outside of this universe. Your examples rely solely upon the laws of physics and causality within the universe, and cannot be applied to explain the actions outside of it.

    However, it is not even impossible that the universe spontaneously arose from nothing, because, like I said, the sum energy of the universe may be zero.

    Since you have a fascination with applying evolution to everything, enjoy this:

  24. “you have no basis upon which to make the claim that a cause or motivation beyond this universe is incapable of creating it,”

    Don’t you mean “capable” My position is that only a cause beyond the creation (the cosmos) is capable of bringing it into existence from a former state of nothingness. The basis on which I find this proposition reasonable is that nothing (0) never generates anything more or less than nothingness (0). This is as simple as stating that 0+0 = 0, 0-0=0, 0x0=0, and 0/0=0.

    Given the ease by which one can comprehend the potential for a prior state of nothingness (1-1=0) to reject the notion that such a state is not even possible is illogical. If it is true that prior to the very first something there was nothingness (0), the only possible explanation for what we witness as reality today involves an external cause of, at the very least, the very first something.

    The only way out of this issue is to deny the possibility of nothingness altogether. This is illogical, as I stated, due to the fact that we can conceive of such a state with the most rudimentary math equation: 1-1=0. This zero problem is not something that evolution addresses. This zero problem is the problem that atheism ignores. Once someone faces it head on, there is only one possible, reasonable, and rational conclusion.

    “However, it is not even impossible that the universe spontaneously arose from nothing”

    Again, starting from 0, using only 0, show me the mathematical equation that leads to 1. You can’t. Your statement is illogical and impossible as far as any human mind can comprehend. You have to believe such obvious falsities in order for you denial of god world view to seem to make sense. The problem with logic is that when the premise is flawed, reasoning flowing from that point will lead to false conclusions; ie there is not god and something can come from nothing.

    If you truly believe that absolute nothingness can ever produce something, that 0 can evolve beyond itself, then I fear for the human race, for such a notion, imo is the epitome of illogical thought.

  25. Using the achievements of a fully functional, developed human species to refute the idea that the species capable of creating the clock, car and house, which are all without doubt created by men with a purpose, according to a plan, to attempt to discredit the idea that man himself was created by purposeful creator is retarded.

  26. Don’t you mean “capable” My position is that only a cause beyond the creation (the cosmos) is capable of bringing it into existence from a former state of nothingness.

    No, I mean incapable. You dismissed my hypothesis that an unconscious creator could have created the universe because you related such a thing to unconscious things within the universe, but you aren’t able to make assumptions about that which is beyond the universe because you have no idea what kind of physics are present.

    The only way out of this issue is to deny the possibility of nothingness altogether. This is illogical, as I stated, due to the fact that we can conceive of such a state with the most rudimentary math equation: 1-1=0.

    However, this is exactly what you do by assuming an eternal something prior to the creation of the universe. You just say that, “This 1 is a special 1.”

    Once someone faces it head on, there is only one possible, reasonable, and rational conclusion.

    Yes, you have determined that, since nothing can come from nothing, therefore there must be a conscious creative being which has always existed and can be described as infinite.

    I have presented two alternatives to you. One, that the creator does not necessarily need to be conscious. Science has gotten us to the point where all that is necessary is an impetus, and it can take over from there. So, an eternal universe creating force is perfectly reasonable to assume, as compared to your god, and thanks to Occam’s razor, is a preferable hypothesis.

    Two, the universe may not require a creator, because the sum total energy of the universe may be zero. You have notably said several times now that nothing comes from nothing. Well, there it is, nothing, zero, zilch. From the outside, this universe may appear to be exactly that, nothing at all. Why is this possible? To create nothing, nothing is necessary. To affect nothing, no material is needed. Our universe is made of pockets of energy held together by negative energy.

    Try to prove it wrong, without using the words, “Everyone knows…”, or, “My opinion…”

  27. Using the achievements of a fully functional, developed human species to refute the idea that the species capable of creating the clock, car and house, which are all without doubt created by men with a purpose, according to a plan, to attempt to discredit the idea that man himself was created by purposeful creator is retarded.

    Actually, that video was just to show you how evolutionary “design” is – not unlike biology or the cosmos. But, I’m glad it revealed you as a creationist. Saves me a lot of trouble.

    Have fun doing basic maths to prove your god. I’m sure he’s flattered with your very basic number skills.

    A going away present:

  28. ““You make the assumption that the universe has a conscious creator, but rule out, effectively, an unconscious creator, due to bias.”

    “You dismissed my hypothesis that an unconscious creator could have created the universe because you related such a thing to unconscious things within the universe, but you aren’t able to make assumptions about that which is beyond the universe because you have no idea what kind of physics are present.”

    I’m sorry, I’ll address your hypothesis now.

    The atheistic world view precludes those who are philosophically consistent with it’s core disbelief in deity from all explanations regarding the origin of the cosmos that name a cause outside our natural world. But that is precisely what you are hypothesizing here. I recognize this for what it is – a huge leap away from a disbelief toward a realization that a creator is necessary. This is a step in the right direction and philosophically a much more tenable position for you to be in. The realization that a creator (even an unconscious one) is the only solution which meets the most fundamental logical demands that the evidence places on one considering origin, is an amazing discovery for an atheist.

    Just to recap, Here is what has lead to your hypothesis. When faced with the very real issue that infinite regress of our natural world is not feasible, combined with the absolute understanding that nothing (0) cannot evolve into something without outside intervention of some sort (conscious or unconscious), the atheist has no out. There is nothing the atheist can do but look at the void in understanding created by the facts (1. nothing natural is infinite + 2. nothing (0) cannot evolve + 3. we perceive things that exist in the present ) and shrug his shoulders. The only way that 3 is possible given 1 and 2, is something created, at the very least, the first something (the first outside influence capable of adding to and overcoming 0, or a prior state of nothingness.)

    Your hypothesis, if you truly see its relevance in the grand scheme of things, means one thing – your are not an atheist after all. You are in fact, a creationist.

  29. I thought you were doing quite well with your argument until you invoked the God of the gaps. It is true that some creationists defend their position by putting God beyond current scientific knowledge, however I think it is better to see God in all true knowledge. You think rightly that you have free will. I think free will is a gift from God, and thus we are obligated to use the gift as best we can, and one good way is attempting to know and honor the giver.

  30. Given the god sized hole that atheism and evolution leave in the philosophy of origin, it’s clear that a creator is a logical necessity. Sciece which succeeds at uncovering the truth of our world and the way it works always reveals the creators plan. All truth reveals God.

  31. I was reading through some of these comments. I am surprised no one has pointed out that the initial argument is a form of what is called petitio principii – assuming the initial point.

    When we say that creation proves a creator, it is asserting the initial thing it is attempting to prove: that what exists is “creation.” This is the very thing that is in dispute. To call the existence of things, matter or what have you a creation is the problem. To use this term, to assume creation, we must first demonstrate that a “creator” exists, as (and I think this is where you put the horse before the wagon) creation does necessitate a creator.

    Incidentally this is an informal fallacy and is also known as begging the question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s