Chapter 1: The Debate on Evidence and Belief

In a recent discussion, a fervent believer on Medium shared some questionable spiritual ideas. This is not an uncommon occurrence! I took it upon myself to counter one of these assertions with the following points:

Firstly, contemporary science is equipped to challenge the existence of God. Secondly, the degree to which one believes should correlate with the available evidence. If we plot belief on one axis (let's designate it as the x-axis, ranging from -1 to 1) and evidence on the other (the y-axis), we can clearly identify our stance. The trajectory from (-1, 1) to (1, 1) represents the Line of Correctness, while the path from (-1, 1) to (1, -1) signifies the Line of Incorrectness. It’s advisable to aim for points along the Line of Correctness.

Vertical markers on this graph illustrate varying levels of belief. A theist positions their point at x=1, an atheist at x=0, and an anti-theist (who firmly denies any divine existence) at x=-1. To date, no substantiated evidence for God has been found (mere visions do not count as evidence). At best, the evidence line for God rests at y=0.

However, I contend that I can demonstrate the non-existence of God (i.e., provide evidence that places God on the line y=-1). Consider Einstein's two validated equations of relativity: E²=(mc²)²+(pc)² and p=γmv. A third equation (a definition) is also necessary: P=E/t, where P denotes power and p signifies momentum.

Let’s resolve this system for P (power). The result is:

P=(mc/t)×sqrt(c²+γ²v²)

This formulation is what I refer to as the God Power Equation. Since God is considered non-material, his mass (m) is zero. Substituting zero for m in the God Power Equation yields:

P=0

Thus, we conclude that God’s power is zero. This logic extends to any non-material entity, such as Shiva, Zeus, or even souls, ghosts, and demons.

To challenge this evidence, one would need to disprove the principles of relativity or algebra. Currently, the evidence for God’s existence positions itself at y=-1. This allows individuals to readjust their stance on God from (-1, -1) to align with the Line of Correctness.

Science is remarkable because it fosters such rational analysis.

In response to my argument, the spiritual leader simply remarked: "Garbage in, garbage out." I found this retort lacking in enlightenment and invited him to provide a more thoughtful reply for his followers. He claimed he had already done so, asserting that I had made it too simple.

Let’s dissect the spiritual leader’s critique. What part of my response constitutes the “garbage in”? The classification of belief on the x-axis is merely a choice, so it cannot be deemed garbage. Similarly, the labeling of evidence lines as y= is also a matter of choice, not garbage. We often hear the recommendation that one's belief should correspond with the evidence available. What I have done is quantify this advice mathematically—this does not qualify as garbage.

Could it be Einstein's theory of relativity? Absolutely not; it has been validated to an astonishing 14 decimal places. If a psychic could boast such accuracy, they would be recognized as legitimate scientists—yet they are not.

What about the algebra utilized to solve the equations involving Einstein's relativity? No, algebra is a well-established field, so that isn't garbage either.

In conclusion, none of the elements I presented to the spiritual leader can be classified as "garbage in." Therefore, his "garbage in, garbage out" remark was a nonsensical attempt to dismiss my arguments without merit. Thus, Einstein cannot be dismissed as garbage; rather, he represents a wealth of insight leading to profound conclusions.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.

The first video titled "What is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)?" discusses the concept that the quality of output is determined by the quality of input. This principle is often applied in various fields, including computing and data analysis.

The second video, "Garbage in Garbage out in Computer Programs," elaborates on how erroneous data input leads to flawed results, emphasizing the importance of reliable information in programming and software development.