Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

How valid is this Proof as it is offered by Epsilon=One?

Here at this site physicsmathforums(dot)com (link below) is a writting by Epsilon=One that claims to be a "Proof of God"

http://physicsmathforums.com/showpost.php?p=319&po...

My Questions are,

#1) How much of the information on this page is actually relevant to proving what is asserted-claimed as proven?

#2) Do you think that the Avatar/psudeo-author proved what they claim to have proven?

This is costing me Five points so please it is a long (Boring) read so venture at your own risk, and answer only if you bother to read all of it.

Thanks

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Indeed, a boring read.

    Anyway, when I remove the mumbo-jumbo all it seems to say is that there must be a creator because there is creation. This is circular reasoning. There is no creation, therefore there is no need for a creator. Case closed.

  • Julian
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    sounds like suchness.

    Basically calling god something else (reality, oneness), etc, and trying to prove that exists, then saying a correlation that oneness=god, so if I can prove oneness exists, I can prove god exists. It makes sense, the real question is, "who the hell can understand it?"

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I did read (skim) all of it, and it's pseudophilosophical tripe. It's more semantics than anything.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.