Nobody plus nothing equals everything

In My Humble Opinion
1

Mocking non-believers for failing to grasp the logic behind the existence of God, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) cited an exchange with the late Texas entertainer Bob Murphey to disprove atheism during a prayer rally in Washington, D.C. Wednesday.

“Bob Murphey used to say, ‘You know, I feel so bad for atheists, I do,'” Gohmert recalled at "Celebrate America,” a three-week-long revival event. “‘Think about it, no matter how smart they think they are, an atheist has to admit that he believes the equation: nobody plus nothing equals everything.’”

“How embarrassing for an intellectual to have to say ‘Yeah, I believe that,’” Gohmert said, citing Murphey. “Nobody plus nothing equals everything.”

OK this guy deserves large amounts of mocking and consternation. This is an example of how Morons With Charisma somehow manage to get elected to office despite being completely ignorant of principles that govern our lives, IE science. And in this case, math.

Maybe at some point in their lives, Gohmert or Murphey came across the theory of relativity, E = m c squared, and figured out that if one of those values is zero, then so is the other value. Therefore, using the scientists’ own most fundamental equation against them, scientists think nobody plus nothing equals everything. In your face, scientists.

I doubt that ever happened. That would imply actual thinking on their part. It’s entirely possible they can understand the first step in a long series of scientific postulation, but that would indicate that they know what the terms mean and can actually conceive of a scenario of multiplying by zero. Which is sadder, to be completely ignorant, or to be just knowledgeable enough to grasp surface meanings of a significant concept and remain ignorant of everything else?

Morons With Charisma ironically think when atheists deny the existence of God, they put faith before reason. They think atheists make outlandish and absurd claims such as:
[ul]
[li]moldy peanut butter proves evolution.[/li][li]the creation of the universe is like throwing a disassembled pocket watch into a washing machine and coming back to find it fully reassembled.[/li][li]fish developed legs and walked out of the ocean.[/li][/ul]

Just think, we depend on people like Gohmert to guide our educational system.

2

If it’s any consolation, we generally don’t really ask charismatic morons to do anything particularly important like design and build the cars and aircraft you ride in, build software you use, perform surgery, and stuff like that. We mostly put them in useless middle-management positions or political roles where they can endlessly bicker and argue about nothing with each other.

Have you ever wondered why there is so much political gridlock or major corporations seem to spend so much time in useless meetings not getting anything done? Imagine what would happen if we let those idiots actually do something!

3

I don’t think the charismatic moron is mocking E = MC2, he’s just mocking the idea that everything sprang from nothing without someone (God) making that happen.

4

Then isn’t this an argument against the existence of God?

5

:: planting tongue firml in cheek::
Not very eloquent, and not even a real representation of the “formula” for creation. I think he meant that, in order for the big bang theory to be correct there had to be:

  1. Energy to create a explosion (something #1)
  2. Mass for the energy to act upon (something #2)
  3. A cause for the action/reaction (something #3 or someone #1)

His formula ignores either 1 or 2 (it accounts for only one null) and assumes a sentient for #3. Sloppy math work, indeed! His “formula” should be EM[sup]0[/sup] = 0. If either energy or mass equals zero, then cause is relevant only if one assumes a circumstance that could create both. Assumptions don’t belong in formulas, but should be noted before presenting.
::removing tongue from cheek::

6

Well bless his heart.

7

I don’t think so. I think he’s saying that poor atheists believe that nobody plus nothing equals everything, while wise and fortunate Christians believe someone(God) plus nothing equals everything. It’s a weak argument for the existence of God the way I read it.

8

But of course you can then say that theists believe that Nothing + Nobody = God.

9

I think we can state with algebraic confidence that whoever believes that God + nothing = everything must believe that everything - nothing = God, which means that everything = God, which is pantheism.

This is not going to sit well with Louie Gohmert.

10

Murphy’s claim is just as ridiculous: nothing + magic = everything.

If you want to say “hey there’s a bunch of stuff we don’t understand, therefore everything we don’t understand must be God,” you can say that. But it’s still stupid.

Plus then you still have to figure out which God did it. Was it Zeus? Jesus? Allah? Buddha?

Presumably Murphy thinks the one who told Noah to put the animals in the ark did it.

But I’m pretty sure it was Zeus.

11

“Build a humongous boat, fill it full of wild animals and go for a cruise” sounds more like Loki to me.

12

I think you just founded a new religion.

Loki pretending to be Yahwey would explain a lot of things…

13

“Don’t believe in The Word-Be in on The Joke!”

14

No, the argument is based on the premise that nothing can exist unless something created it. Therefore, the universe couldn’t exist unless something created it and that something is God.

Leaving aside the weakness in that conclusion, let’s look at just the premise. What created God? If nothing created God then, by the premise of the argument, God can’t exist. (And if you argue that something created God you’re throwing out everything Christians believe while merely moving the rebuttal back a step to the issue of what created the God creator.)

15

Turns out Captain America was wrong after all.

16

That’s why any serious version of the Cosmological Argument begins with a version of the premise like “Every finite and contingent being has a cause” or “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.”

17

Which is exactly what Crotalus said, but termed in the same format as the congressman.

Why does everybody have to be so soap-boxy in threads like this?

The congressman puts me off much more for his smug tone than his choice to believe. Believers believe - and humble, open ones are thoughtful to talk with.

Smug sucks from all angles in discussions like this.

18

EM[sup]0[/sup] = 1. (assuming E != 0, M != 0)

19

To take your rhetorical question seriously: the second condition is the sadder of the two. The first has a certain ethical innocence; the second is riddled with the corruption of complacent self-satisfaction.

The whole point of Gohmert’s remarks was to seem clever (by using the surface meaning of a significant concept, as you put it), and by so doing, let his audience feel clever-by-association. The goal: that warm glow of Righteous Superiority.

The same sort of thing happens when people “prove” the “unnatural” nature of homosexuality by saying ‘it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’—natural law being asserted to operate, apparently, by means of rhyme. Or in another example, ‘guns don’t kill people; people kill people’ seems convincing because it seems cleverly symmetrical. Short, sweet, and therefore valid…or so speakers appear to believe.

Notice that those voicing a pithy maxim seem to take great pride in doing so; they may sincerely think that speaking them is proof of righteous alignment with Eternal Truths. If you can say it in a one-liner, then it must be true!

20

Hah! This bit o’ Republican nonsense, which logically belongs in our world-famous Stupid Republican Idea Of The Day thread, rates an entire thread unto itself!

This is right up there with Kentucky state senator Brandon Smith (R), who seems to be arguing (let’s see if I can put his argument into some logical order, as best I can understand what I think he’s trying to say):
[ul][li] Ambient temperature on Mars is the same as on Earth. [Subsequently clarified to say something less idiotic, but still idiotic; see linked article.][/li][li] This is undisputed in academia.[/li][li] There are no coal mines (or coal-powered anything?) on Mars.[/li][li] Therefore, the temperature on Mars cannot be attributed to human activity (specifically, burning coal).[/li][li] Therefore, the temperature on Earth cannot be attributed to human activity (specifically, burning coal).[/li][li] Therefore, there is no such problem as Anthropogenic Global Warming on Earth.[/li][li] Therefore, there is no need for environmental regulations about that.[/li][li] Therefore, the EPA can go suck coal on Mars or something.[/ul][/li]