I have come up with a single mathematical equation that proves God's existan

Question:God=Love

Proof:
we agree that God is Love.
we know that Love exists.
so, God exists.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: God=Love

Proof:
we agree that God is Love.
we know that Love exists.
so, God exists.

God = Love is an assumption in your proof.

you need to prove your assumption.

god is a scapegoat for things we've done bad that we are too selfish to take responsibility for and things that are too good for us to settle with the fact that it just, happened.

lame

That's a forced equation based solely on subjectivity.

first are you christian. if so look in the bible and you find most of your answers. second, god is love + god is great+ god is unchangeable= god is all. i hope i helped a little. im studying to be a pastor,so im interested in this stuff.

makes perfect sense. ignore the cynics above me. It takes faith to understand any type of mathematical equation. (trust me, I mean, who came up with the idea of imaginary numbers anyway? If that makes sense, so does your equation.

u didnt even use math!!!

I hope you're not serious

if god is love, why did he kill all of the egyptians 1st born?

the flying spaghetti monster is love. if love exists, then so must the flying spaghetti monster!

Your logic is sound. However love is not a common definition of God, most would not accept that God is love unless you have some unusual conception of God that not everyone would agree exists. Love is better stated as a property God possesses. As such, the existence of the property in general does nothing to prove the existence of any particular entity that is supposed to possess it.

hahhahahahahahahhahah....where? hahahhahahahah, I needed a good laugh, or at least a tired one....like your math, tired. But it is good that we all can believe whatever it is we feel is right......

God hardly equals 'love'.

God must either be a malevolent being or a fictional one.

Evil occurs in the world. This is undeniable.

Since evil occurs, there are only three possibilities:

1. God does not exist.

2. God exists and is unable to prevent evil.

3. God exists, is able to prevent evil, but allows evil to occur.

In the second case, God is irrelevant -- in other words, why call a powerless being God?

In the third case, God is, by definition, a malevolent creature -- he allows evil to occur, despite his ability to prevent it.

So, either you must believe that there is no God, or that God is malevolent.

That being the case, I do not understand why anyone wishes to discuss God at all.

I am sure He will be glad to know that He can be proved.

Wrong. God = War

More people in history have been killed in the name of God than for any other cause.

God exists, but only in our minds.

Agnostic=truth
We agree truth is in the world
We know truth exists
So, no God=truth

It all depends on how you view it.

Read this:
How Stuff Works
How Murphy's Law Works
e-mail share bookmark print

We’ve all used the cliché: "Whatever can go wrong, will." Sure, this may ring true at times — perhaps when you spill your first morning coffee. But the fact it's 8:30 a.m. and you're already having a bad day isn't because of some mysterious power the law possesses. In reality, it's us who give Murphy's Law relevance. When life is going well, little is made of it, but when things go badly, we look for reasons.
The very phrase seems to poke fun at humankind as it attempts to use the rules of probability — the mathematical likeliness that something will occur — to support itself.
One reason that Murphy's Law is such a universal concept, and so attractive, in a strange way, is that it implies we are powerless to the whims of fate. Additionally, it contradicts our concept of free will, something we humans don’t take lightly. Murphy's Law also reminds engineers, computer programmers and even NASA scientists of a simple truth: systems fail. In some cases, a system's failure means that the experiment must be repeated. In other cases, the results of a failure can be much more costly. Because it is so universal and prevailing, Murphy's Law remains the granddaddy of all maxims.
Of course, Murphy’s law is also joined by many other universal truths, such as Etorre’s Observation (the other line moves faster), Boob’s Law (you always find it in the last place you look) or Patton’s Law (a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow). Murphy’s Law is also akin to another oft-quoted cliché-turned-theory called Occam’s Razor.
How Occam’s Razor Works
Perhaps you’ve read in detective novels, or think of it as a universal truth, that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Or, at least, that’s according to Occam’s razor. This line of reasoning is often used as a quick way to get to the root of a problem and eliminate unnecessary elements from an equation. However, today’s translation differs a bit from its Latin roots, which encompassed two thoughts:
The Principle of Plurality — Plurality should not be posited without necessity (only do what needs to be done)
The Principle of Parsimony — It is pointless to do with more what is done with less (otherwise known as the KISS Principle; keep it simple stupid).
Taken together, these two ideas have preserved the basis of humanity's investigation into the universe and the way we see our environment. But first, who exactly came up with this simple, yet complex idea we now know as Occam’s razor? Enter William of Occam, a philosopher and Franciscan monk whose vow of poverty spurred the idea of simplicity in thinking as well as living. As science and philosophy progressed and crossed paths, we started to see elements of William’s concepts show up in the scientific method, used in the idea of empirical evidence and the space-time continuum.
In this article from HowStuffWorks (i attached this link below), learn even more about Occam's razor history, who prizes and shuns it, and how the principles within it can become distorted.

Harold M. Lambert/Hulton Archive/
Getty Images
It’s elementary. The simplest
explanation is usually the
correct one. Or is it?

You've probably heard it before: The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Detectives use it to deduce who's the likeliest suspect in a murder case -- you know, the butler did it. Doctors use it to determine the illness behind a set of symptoms.
This line of reasoning is called Occam's razor. It's used in a wide variety of ways throughout the world as a means to slice through a problem or situation and eliminate unnecessary elements. But what we call the razor is a little different than what its author originally wrote. There are two parts that are considered the basis of Occam's razor, and they were originally written inLatin:

The Principle of Plurality - Plurality should not be posited without necessity
The Principle of Parsimony - It is pointless to do with more what is done with less
Taken together, they represent the basis of humanity's investigation into the universe, and the way we see our environment is largely based upon Occam's razor. There's no telling what kind of world we would live in today without Occam's razor. Would we have the Internet? Would we haveinoculations?

Video Gallery: Apple and Occam?
Apple iPods dominate the MP3 player market. Design elements like the Apple Click Wheel, a touch-sensitive wheel, allow the user to click through variety of multimedia options with ease -- an example of the principles of plurality and parsimony. Learn about new Apple products and their functions in this video from Reuters.

Consider simple systems in nature, like viruses and plants, and their ability to carry out complex tasks such as infection and photosynthesis. We value these simple models. And when it comes to man-made systems, we tend to base structures upon what we already know works -- the simplest explanation to us -- like computer memory modeled on our own brainprocesses. All of which points to the principles of plurality and parsimony.

However, one of the key things that Occam's razor reveals is the subjectivity with which we view the universe. Sure the sky is blue, we know that by looking at it, but what shade of blue is it exactly? Anyone who has ever engaged in a debate over whether a dark-colored sock is black or navy can appreciate the bias of our worldview and how it affects our decisions.

In this article, we'll examine the ability of Occam's razor to become distorted, as well as who distorts it, who prizes it and who shuns it. But first, who exactly came up with this simple, yet complex idea? In the next section, we'll learn about the author of Occam's razor.

Occam Programming Language
Occam’s razor is also used in computer programming. Since writing language for computers is such an enormous undertaking, programmers need to use the simplest route to create an executable command in a program. Enter Occam, a programming language developed in 1983 by David May. May created the computer language as a means of keeping the programming process simple. Who better to name it after than the man to whom the principle of parsimony is attributed, William of Occam? [source:Hyde]

William of Occam
So who is this Occam fellow? Actually Occam (or Ockham) is a town inEngland, not a man. More specifically, its the town where William of Occam was born. William lived from about 1285 to 1349, during the medieval age, a time when surnames were uncommon and people were known by their place of provenance [source: Beckett].

William of Occam

William lived as a philosopher and aFranciscan monk, a pious man who took very seriously his vow of poverty, meaning he lived using only what was absolutely necessary. One might get the impression that it was this vow of poverty -- a form of simplicity -- that gave William his big idea. In fact, the basis of Occam's razor was an already well-established line of medieval thought by William's time. William captured the essence of the principle and packaged it in a way that was easily understood (by anyone who knew Latin, at least). By creating a couple of simple sentences, he managed to encapsulate a world of medieval logic, ensuring its safe passage into modern times. Kind of makes you wonder what great wisdom wasn't similarly packaged and is lost forever, doesn't it?
It's actually the Greek philosopher Aristotle to whom the idea that perfection equals simplicity and vice versa is attributed. Aristotle was known for the phrase, "The more perfect a nature is, the fewer means it requires for its operation" [source: Carroll]. Just a quick glance at the way we approach scientific investigation -- and the fact that Occam's razor has survived -- shows us that this idea still exists.

While William didn't come up with the principle of parsimony, it certainly did influence the way he looked at life. Not only did William live under his minimalist vow of poverty, he wrote frequently on the subject. At one point, his order, the Franciscans, butted heads with Pope John XXII over the subject, and as is usually the case, the Pope won. William and several of his brothers were excommunicated from the church in 1328. William sought refuge in Munich, where he enjoyed protection from the sympathetic Emperor Louis IV the Bavarian, ruler of the greater Munich area at that time.

Ultimately, William prevailed: After being kicked out of the church, he wrote a convincing essay that demonstrated that Pope John XXII was a heretic -- someone whose beliefs flew in the face of the church's tenets. What's more, there's an entire line of reasoning attributed to him.

So what exactly does this line of reasoning encompass? In the next section, we'll look at the far-reaching implications of Occam's razor.

Occam's Razor and the Scientific Method

Toru Yamanaka /AFP/Getty Images
Albert Einstein’s explanation for
fluctuations in the time-space
continuum was chosen based
on the tenets of Occam's razor
Occam's razor is based on the notion that simplicity equals perfection. It fits perfectly with thescientific method -- the series of steps scientists take to prove or disprove something. Indeed, you could make the case that the scientific method was built upon Occam's razor.
But be careful when approaching the razor -- for such a brief statement, it has an uncanny ability to be stretched or bent to fit all sorts of ideas. (like Murphey's law) It's important to remember that Occam&#39

What you are saying is this:

A is B.
B exists.
Therefore A exists.

NOTE THE FOLOWING:

There is no way of establishing that B is the only form of A.

So even if B exists, that does not necessarily mean that A also exists.

HERE IS YOUR LOGIC IN MORE CONCRETE TERMS:

Aliens on the far side of the moon are green animals.

Green animals exist.

Therefore aliens on the far side of the moon exist.

(By the way, the green aliens on the far side of the moon are also building green-cheese factories.)

Nice try, but no cigar!

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

lol. how do we know that love exists? society gave birth to 'emotions'. its an idea in our mind that we created.

God is all things.
Poop exists.
God is poop.

Logical fallacies don't make for very good arguments, buddy.

I have put a question mark at the end of my sentence and that makes it a question?

"we agree that God is Love." No I don't agree that God is love. I agree that God is hate, racist, sexist, and evil.