1+1=2

[romat]

All science is based upon the assumption that 1+1=2. This statement seems to be logically undeniable (you buy one bouncy castle and then you buy another one you have bought two).

So lets take 1+1 and say it equals 2 for arguments sake can we dis[rpve creationism?
Key
!= is does not equal

x != 0
x!= infinite
x/2 =0.5x

That simple point disproves the creation theory.
Explaination

For the theory of creation to be true then x cannot equal 0 (because there was a begining to us in that theory). As long as x equals anything other than 0 the universe is finite.

So lets presume that the universe was finite. For the universe to be finite:

it must have a begining and an end
there must be a smallest obect and a largest object

if the universe is infinite:

it has no begining and no end (the creation theory therefor can not be true)
it has no smallest object and no largest object

so if we can prove that the universe has no begining and no end using only 1+1=2 then we can disprove god (or at least the creation theory)

1+1=2
therefore 0+0=0
and 0*0=0
0/0=0
0-0=0
0^60000000 = 0
e.c.t
logically by that point there cannot be a begining because before the begining there must be nothing and if 1+1=2 no matter what you do to nothing you end up with nothing meaning that there can be no begining if 1+1=2.

same with the objects.
1+1=2
2/2=1
6/3=2
therefore there can be no smallest object because we can always divide an object by a nmber larger than one unless the smallest object is infinite (obviosly not) or 0 whih is nothing and therefore impossible.

These simple points when put together means that if 1+1=2 then the creation theory is wrong.
And of course logically 1+1=2 must be true but then again it seems logically imposible that light is constant.

So can 1+1=3?

[Openmind]

same with the objects.
1+1=2
2/2=1
6/3=2
therefore there can be no smallest object because we can always divide an object by a nmber larger than one unless the smallest object is infinite (obviosly not) or 0 whih is nothing and therefore impossible.

Planck's length - look it up.

[romat]

what does plancks length have to do with anything?

It may put a limit on the base length of what is physically posiible but not theorectilcally possible.

[McCulloch]

All science is based upon the assumption that 1+1=2.

No, mathematics is. Science, to a degree is based on mathematics.

This statement seems to be logically undeniable (you buy one bouncy castle and then you buy another one you have bought two).

1+1=2 is not an assumption. It is perhaps a definition of 2 in a system where addition always yields the same result and that is closed to addition.

So lets take 1+1 and say it equals 2 for arguments sake can we disprpve creationism?

That will be a stretch. Let's see.

Key
!= is does not equal

x != 0
x!= infinite
x/2 =0.5x

If x is not zero and not infinity then x/2 is 0.5 x. Yes.

That simple point disproves the creation theory.

No it does not.

Explaination

For the theory of creation to be true then x cannot equal 0 (because there was a begining to us in that theory).

What is x? Why can't x be zero for a creationist?

As long as x equals anything other than 0 the universe is finite.

You lost me. If x =0, the universe is not finite and if x=4.1 the universe is finite. I think that you missed a step somewhere.

So lets presume that the universe was finite.

Let's not presume that the universe is finite. Let's agree with most cosmologists and assert that the universe is most probably finite.

For the universe to be finite:

it must have a begining and an end

OK, I'll agree with that.

there must be a smallest obect and a largest object

That does not necessarily follow, but let's agree for the sake of argument.

if the universe is infinite:

it has no beginning and no end (the creation theory therefor can not be true)

OK.

it has no smallest object and no largest object

Not necessarily. You will have to show how you concluded that from there being an infinite universe. Could there be an infinite universe of only ping-pong balls. There would be a smallest object.

so if we can prove that the universe has no beginning and no end using only 1+1=2 then we can disprove god (or at least the creation theory)

No we couldn't but, let's see you try.

1+1=2

by definition

therefore 0+0=0

0+0=0 but it is not because 1+1=2

and 0*0=0

0×0 does equal zero.

0/0=0

zero divided by zero is undefined. Ask any mathematician.

0-0=0

Yes true.

0^60000000 = 0

Correct, but still irrelevant.

e.c.t
logically by that point there cannot be a beginning because before the beginning there must be nothing and if 1+1=2 no matter what you do to nothing you end up with nothing meaning that there can be no beginning if 1+1=2.

You mean that you cannot get something from nothing, therefore there must have always been something.?

[romat]

Science, to a degree is based on mathematics.

No without math conventional science would not exist.

1+1=2 is not an assumption

Of course it is it is the original assumption from which all maths (and science) is based.

If x is not zero and not infinity then x/2 is 0.5 x. Yes.

at least you agree with that

romat wrote:
That simple point disproves the creation theory.
No it does not

Prove it

What is x? Why can't x be zero for a creationist?

x is a number i apply what it is in situations later

You lost me. If x =0, the universe is not finite and if x=4.1 the universe is finite. I think that you missed a step somewhere.

no that point is explained later on

Let's not presume that the universe is finite. Let's agree with most cosmologists and assert that the universe is most probably finite.

care to name one? besides most people believe in the big bang theory meaning that the universe is infintite.

romat wrote:
there must be a smallest obect and a largest object
That does not necessarily follow, but let's agree for the sake of argument.

of course it does. finite means there has to be two ends to all scales.

Not necessarily. You will have to show how you concluded that from there being an infinite universe. Could there be an infinite universe of only ping-pong balls. There would be a smallest object.

and if you cut a ping pong ball in half?

zero divided by zero is undefined. Ask any mathematician.

if you have zero sweets and shared them into zero groups how many sweets would thare be in each group?
0/0 is undefined because it logically is pointless and makes no sense as how can you divide something into zero groups? even so you still get zero in each group no matter what (as there are no groups).

0+0=0 but it is not because 1+1=2

yes it is because if all maths is built off the assumption that 1+1=2. you can prove any statement in maths from 1+1=2 (or from anywhere else) but you can never prove the original assumption (and when you do you just move the assumption back)

You mean that you cannot get something from nothing, therefore there must have always been something.?

No. I mean if 1+1=2 you can not get something from nothing therefore there must have always been something. In the theory of creationism there is a begining and an end therefore it is either wrong or 1+1 does not equal 2 or we as a human race have just bodged everything up (more than likley we did use to believe the world was flat)