God does not exist.

I fail to see how velocity can be negative. If an object is moving, it's movement should be presented as a positive factor regardless of direction.

 

Actually, I've googled a bit since we started discussing this, and all I see is hypothetical equations on paper and subjectively assigning negative numbers to entities.

 

Velocity is a vector, it measure both speed and direction.

From a starting point, if you move backwards, you will have a negative velocity.

 

Oh, I thought you meant velocity as speed alone.

Anyway, as I was saying, subjectively assigning negative numbers. Now, I agree that it can be practical to do so, but I still stand on the claim that if something is moving it is moving at an objectively positive speed.

 

If god exist, Something must of created him, If that existed something must of created that. And so on. Never ending eternally unsolveable question.

 

Yes, speed is always positive.

"moving backwards at 3 m/s" is a velocity of -3/s though.

I'm just going to give up because I don't think I will be able to make you grasp the concept via an Internet forum. A lot of people have the same opinion of negative numbers as you do though, I tutor GCSE maths and it comes up a lot.

 

We agree then.

Since we have come to the agreement that speed is always objectively positive, can't we just agree on the hypothetical nature of negative speed as well? And thus, it's inability to prove physically how multiplication by a negative is possible?

 

His speed is not negative.

He is walking BACKWARDS, he has ended up behind his starting point so his velocity is -3m/s.

If you rewind a tape, you are at a point behind that which you started. In this case, 4 seconds behind the point at which you started. -4 seconds from the start.

The proof if fine and it works. You are just not allowing yourself to follow it properly.

 

If I walk sideways like a crab, am I standing still?

If I rewind a tape 4 seconds, I would say that I am 4 objectively positive seconds away from where I was. This can be assigned a fictional negative number to describe which direction I've taken, but to me that doesn't make it objectively negative.

 

You're being deliberately obtuse.

Your method of using "objectively positive" numbers is even more hypothetical than negative numbers. You're simplifying reality to suit your own simple understanding of it.

 

Yes, because movement in a negative direction does not exist outside your subjective vector.

Let's take the scenario with the tape. Let's say the tape normally moves from left to right. If I rewind it 4 seconds, the tape moves the distance equivalent to 4 seconds of tape to the left. Let's use seconds as a length measure to keep it simple. I don't deny that the amount of tape to the left of the player is now 4 seconds less than before (x-4=y), but the actual movement of the tape is positive.

 

Oh I see now.

Negative numbers are hypothetical and abstract so they can;t be explained in the real world.

I agree with you.

 

Lovely. Nothing better than understanding each other and agreeing. There's only been one religious remark since this started, but the topic can finally get back on track now.:laugh:

 

Schnell, here's a middle school math lesson for you:

I can't believe i'm arguing about this...this is ridiculous.

 

Damn, it was so close to getting back on track.

I can agree that negative money/time can be used to describe a decrease in money over a period of time by multiplying with a positive amount of time.
-700$/month x 6 months = -4,200$

But when you try to multiply it by negative time, you're just going out of your way to use irrational concepts to explain inactivity.

 

First of all I'll just say I don't think God exists, so don't take this as an argument about God, this is just about the omnipotence statement. I think using omnipotence as an argument either for or against God is ridiculous.

Omnipotence is power without limit.

Making up a sentence that says "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" creates a paradox to our minds.

Does making up this sentence say anything about the omnipotent being, whose power is limitless? No, it's just a sentence we don't have an answer to.

The whole nature of omnipotence means the omnipotent being can do anything, even if it seems to be impossible for our minds to understand.

 

1) That argument is only used to contradict those who believe that their God is omnipotent.

2) I see what you're saying.

Nonetheless, in the argument of whether or not a God exists, such an argument only pulls rationality to a certain side, that side being Atheism. With this, no one needs an answer, as the opposite side already lacks of validity to continue their point, rendering their argument null and void.

 

It's slang.. It's not in the dictionary. Spend some more time outside, socializing with real people, and you might know what they mean.

 

Well if you're going to publish your idea:

1. You should not use slang that not many people would know. Define them please.

2. You should read the rest of what I wrote and respond to it, instead of ignoring it and focusing on semantics.