PRESCHOOL maths solves "does God exist" debate. Two simple sums. Do YOU agree?

Question

FIRST STATEMENT
0+0=0
(In the beginning nothing produces nothing, so evolution simply wishful thinking to feel better about your sins)

SECOND STATEMENT
1+1=1
(In the beginning God existed and so from God substance can proceed forth giving an answer above "0").

The fearful lesson of a preschool child!

Answer 1

The way I see it, neither God nor the physical universe simply materialized out of nothing. Conceding the possibility of God means one of three things:

1. God has always existed and is the creator of the universe
2. The physical universe has always existed but God is imaginary
3. Both God and the physical universe has always existed

As difficult as it is to imagine an eternal ANYTHING, imagining two of them is more difficult. We know and can prove the physical universe exists . . . but we don't know nor can we prove that God exists. Options 1 and 3 are more complex than option 2 because we would need to explain God as well as the physical universe -- we would have two mysteries instead of one. Injecting God into the question unnecessarily complicates it: particularly when there's no evidence for him in the first place. None of this explains where ANYTHING came from; that question is not answerable (yet).

There are no (absolute) proofs for, or against, the existence of God.

Proof is a tricky word. Many people think that proof establishes something is an absolute fact. That's not often the case; at least, not in the everyday world.

In jurisprudence and science, a reasonable basis for proof is based on solid evidence and the absence of any known contradiction. There's a "reasonable person" standard which defines proof as "beyond a reasonable doubt". The test of time fortifies proofs.

You say there are no unicorns? Prove it. You see? ABSOLUTE proof is an illusion -- especially when trying to prove a negative, such as "There is no God".

However, rephrasing the assertion from "There is no God", to "God is imaginary", makes proof easier, using the "reasonable person" standard. We can't ABSOLUTELY prove it but we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consider this . . .

No matter where man has spread, he as created countless gods. From aboriginal Australians to tribal Africans to American Indians to ancient Egyptians . . . they've all created gods prolifically and with ease. That man creates gods is a well-known, indisputable fact.

But what about the opposite? God creating man? We DON'T know that he did. We have no evidence that he did. We have no reason to think that he did. All the evidence points to evolution over the course of billions of years. There's growing evidence that life originated from abiogenesis -- from an electro-chemical reaction in the primordial soup of early Earth.

So, with countless thousands of gods to man's credit, believers are in the untenable position of asserting that all the gods that came before and after theirs are false . . . but their own god (and religion) is real and true. Asserting that one's own god is real, when we know that man created all the others, is ridiculous. It is so unlikely that we can safely consider it delusional.

Man has created countless thousands of gods and YOURS (if you believe) has NO evidence. That, my friend, qualifies God’s existence as dubious, at best, and faith in him as misguided and misplaced. Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the assertion that "God is imaginary" meets the reasonable person standard for proof and has withstood the test of time for thousands of years.

Answer 2

Numbers don't exist (they represent things, but they're not things). Since you're using numbers (that don't exist) to represent god -- that means he doesn't exist either.

By the way, Evolutionary Theory doesn't take the position that it came from nothing. Evolution doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis, so your first argument/equation is based on a false assumption, and thus gets a failing grade.

As for your second argument/equation, you'll have to prove that "1" has to be god to the exclusion of anything else. You haven't attempted that, so your second argument also fails.

Preschool... I'll give you that much.

Answer 3

<.< How does 1+1 =1 <.< wouldn't it be two, wait Preschool math did you skip that, and for those ones you actually have to have something, .5+.5 =1 so where did those halves of gods come from, and once more 0+0=0 so how does 0=1 in terms of god, so you can't have something from nothing, yet you can just have god no, 0+0 does not equal God it equals zero, so again where does your math skills work

Answer 4

Some of us are smarter than this preschooler, and know that bad math is bad math, and logica fallacies are still bad logic. Your god has no more likelihood of existing eternally than the basic building blocks that resulted in evolution - in fact, much less.

Let us know when you get past preschool into adult thinking.

Answer 5

No, second equation should be: 1+1=2
Shouldn't expect anything more from preschoolers though.

Answer 6

yeah, that doesnt make any sense. even if u did say 1+1=2. still VERY moronic. its like saying well

0+0=0
and therefore God never existed

but 1+1=1
therefore the bogey man did a flip of his wrist, made a plus sign, flipped his wrist again, and poof, a monkey (aka the sum)

Answer 7

Well, that's a new low.

So Quantum Physics is not needed to explain Big Bang? We need 1+1?

You're a genius.

Answer 8

I recall 1+1 equaling two, but that may just be me.



And what does evolution have to do with these "sins?"

Answer 9

Someday you will graduate and get into times tables.

In the future, when you are out of preschool, you will learn this:

1x1x1=1

Answer 10

thanx for the points, now are our rounding or simplifying in this context like. 0.5 is what you see and the rest of the 0.5 to 1 is BS. also the both statementss are logical fallacies b/c 1+1=2 uncless its binary then 1+1=10