It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Infinity and the Laws of Thermodynamics supports, if not proves the existence of God.

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Matter is not energy, matter is not made of energy, matter is not frozen energy, energy is not something or stuff.
The energy is a coarse measure of the excitations. This whole "mass has been converted to energy by Einstein's e=mc2" BS is so ingrained into the folklore of atomic physics that it's hard to get rid of.

Our current understanding sees that existence is made up of fields. Each field fills space-time, and they overlap each other perfectly. At all points in space-time, there is a "value" associated with each field. A fundamental particle is an excitation in its underlying field, and there are as many fields as there are types of particles.
The graviton field is what gives us the concept of distance and space-time geometry. Think about this for a second... it is the field that defines the distances we measure between objects, regardless of distance. This goes beyond particle interactions and classical physics, we have entered Quantum mechanics and the discovery of the Higgs boson.

These fields are believed to be different facets of one master unified field, and we see this in Supergravity, string theory, and related extended models.




More here: Symmetry


“There’s an analogy that’s often used here,” Carroll said, “that doing particle physics is like smashing two watches together and trying to figure out how watches work by watching all the pieces fall apart.
“This analogy is terrible for many reasons,” he said. “The primary one is that what’s coming out when you smash particles together is not what was inside the original particles. ... [Instead,] it’s like you smash two Timex watches together and a Rolex pops out.”






edit on fThursday140669f065409 by flyingfish because: link and quotes




posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

In fact - the "nothing" Prof - Kruass is using in this analogy IS not actually nothing because he also stated that "empty space" has ENERGY.


Right. So you do understand.

Why do you keep saying that Scientists claim "Something came from Nothing" then when you obviously understand that when a physicist uses the Term "Nothing" it doesn't mean Total and Complete Nothingness???

From what I can tell you're theory is no different than their theory other than for some reason you insist on inserting God in there when there is no need for it.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

In fact - the "nothing" Prof - Kruass is using in this analogy IS not actually nothing because he also stated that "empty space" has ENERGY.


Right. So you do understand.

Why do you keep saying that Scientists claim "Something came from Nothing" then when you obviously understand that when a physicist uses the Term "Nothing" it doesn't mean Total and Complete Nothingness???

From what I can tell you're theory is no different than their theory other than for some reason you insist on inserting God in there when there is no need for it.


Hence the premise which I hold to is then logical and makes sense. There's always something for something to exist.

What I don't get is scientists like Krauss et al can't admit it thus they have to come up with another explanation for the existence of thing.

Now why is that?

Why not just say something from something instead of the misnomer misleading axiom - out of nothing comes something.

In any case I'm still correct.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Lol a conversation about religion that must maintain logic and common sense. Lol talk about an oxy moron.

Why do you religious people even come to this site? You realize religion is the biggest lie and conspiracy in the game right? Oh that's right, logic and common sense.

Let's start with a side of brutal truth with your logic and reasoning.

Asking people to have a reasonable conversation about your imaginary friend is pointless and just looking to impose your beliefs on the forum.

The saddest and most dangerous part about you blind believers is the fact you won't even stop, think and do the math in your head. Take a look around society and just the history of man, is there ANYTHING in the history of man that would make it a given that man would NEVER come up with something like religion to impose control by one man over another. Nope nothing in the history of man along those lines...

How about this math problem? Why did miracles and sacrificing your own children only happen way back when, how come there is no new chapters in the bible??? Why was god only active in ancient times? You know when naive men thought the world was flat or the universe revolved around the earth, primitive man couldn't get those facts right, even with help from your big guy, but yet they nailed religion and a guy sitting on a cloud in the sky. Yup that's full of logic, reasoning and common sense.

Why did all the stories in the bible happen BEFORE the age of enlightment? Before modern science? Before rational thought and a broader understanding of the universe?? Must just be a coincidence right? Because god supercedes time, so he doesn't realize its been 500 years not 5 minutes since his last installment.

Yeah that theory is a home run, from the people who brought you the flat earth theory.

Just because something is old, doesn't make it true. Even you true believing Christians look at a person in today's society who makes these kinds of claims as insane or unstable, yet primitive man was a freaking scholar.

You want "logic" and "common sense" to be present in this discussion then you're asking to be hit in the head with reality.

Religion is BS and its all a bunch of lies and fairy tales that either came from stupid simple people who were afraid of the dark, or from a genius who knew how to manipulate and prey on the dumbest segments of society.
edit on 12-6-2014 by DealWithReality because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2014 by DealWithReality because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DealWithReality
Lol a conversation about religion that must maintain logic and common sense. Lol talk about an oxy moron.

Why do you religious people even come to this site? You realize religion is the biggest lie and conspiracy in the game right? Oh that's right, logic and common sense.

Let's start with a side of brutal truth with your logic and reasoning.

Asking people to have a reasonable conversation about your imaginary friend is pointless and just looking to impose your beliefs on the forum.

The saddest and most dangerous part about you blind believers is the fact you won't even stop, think and do the math in your head. Take a look around society and just the history of man, is there ANYTHING in the history of man that would make it a given that man would NEVER come up with something like religion to impose control by one man over another. Nope nothing in the history of man along those lines...

How about this math problem? Why did miracles and sacrificing your own children only happen way back when, how come there is no chapters in the bible??? Was god only active in ancient times? You know when naive men thought the world was flat or the universe revolved around the earth, primitive man couldn't get those facts right, even with help from your big guy, but yet they nailed religion and a guy sitting on a cloud in the sky.

Yeah that theory is a home run, from the people who brought you the flat earth theory.

Just because something is old, doesn't make it true. Even you true believing Christians look at a person in today's society who makes these kinds of claims as insane or unstable, yet primitive man was a freaking scholar.

You want "logic" and "common sense" to be present in this discussion then you're asking to be hit in the head with reality.

Religion is BS and its all a bunch of lies and fairy tales that either came from stupid simple people who were afraid of the dark, or from a genius who knew how to manipulate and prey on the dumbest segments of society.


Not sure why the rant or the emotion my friend.

Is your side of the argument so weak that you have to resort to a rant? I hope not because if it is then you lose the argument.

So what is it gonna be?

Which is logical and makes sense:

Out of nothing comes something.

Or my contention

Out of something or someone comes something?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Why not just say something from something instead of the misnomer misleading axiom - out of nothing comes something.

In any case I'm still correct.


Because in most respects it is nothing. It is as much nothing as is possible basically. Remember these are Scientists not Theologists or Philosophers.

That's why it's important to absolutely understand what is meant by the words used. True absolute Nothing really can't even be called Nothing since just giving it that name makes it something at that point. But we have to in order to use language to talk about things.

It's similar to how you used the word "Space" earlier remember when you and I had to define the difference between "Universe Space" and the "Infinite Space"??? You and I had two slightly different meanings for "Space" that needed to be ironed out first because it made a conflict that wasn't really there.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

Why not just say something from something instead of the misnomer misleading axiom - out of nothing comes something.

In any case I'm still correct.


Because in most respects it is nothing. It is as much nothing as is possible basically. Remember these are Scientists not Theologists or Philosophers.

That's why it's important to absolutely understand what is meant by the words used. True absolute Nothing really can't even be called Nothing since just giving it that name makes it something at that point. But we have to in order to use language to talk about things.

It's similar to how you used the word "Space" earlier remember when you and I had to define the difference between "Universe Space" and the "Infinite Space"??? You and I had two slightly different meanings for "Space" that needed to be ironed out first because it made a conflict that wasn't really there.


This to me is philosophy masquerading as science.

Why go to the pain of describing what nothing is when it's actually something? It boggles the mind.

Is it because it supports the Creation point of view? Hence they have to somehow equevocate?

If so where's the logic in that?

Nothing is actually something but can't be something because it's really nothing but with something.

In any case my point stands - and no one can refute it.

The only contention is if this something is actually SOMEONE.

So which one makes logical sense?

Can an unguided undirected force, i.e laws of physics - exist on its own without someone creating it?

Or does law require a law maker?

can disorder create order?

Can anything exist apart from order?

What does the principle of entropy say?

The answer is very obvious that it needs no repeating.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

What laws of physics were you referring to in your previous post?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

The principle of entropy says that systems move towards equilibrium. That's it.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

What laws of physics were you referring to in your previous post?





If you're referring to what Prof Krauss said- I think he specifically said quantum flactuation.

But I'm sure there's more to it.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I believe in God too because I am just way too logical of a person. When the big bang happened there had to be a force behind it, it did not just spontaneously generate from literally nothing. Someone, or something had to push it in motion. And for being infinite it is in a sense infinite, but if space and time was created with the big bang there is no infinite. God was just present during the era of no time. So infinite is correct but is misleading to me. I love your logic though you made some great points. Keep up the good work



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

This to me is philosophy masquerading as science.

Why go to the pain of describing what nothing is when it's actually something? It boggles the mind.


It's the result of using Language in the place of things. Words are just Symbols and Symbols are abstractions which must be defined. We then define them with other abstractions. It works out very well, but it's not perfect. What can you do??


Is it because it supports the Creation point of view? Hence they have to somehow equevocate?


No. Not if you mean the "Creation point of view" in the sense that there was a "Being" who made everything. They aren't trying to be tricky. You need to stop thinking that they are working against a "Creationist God".

Do you really think that anyone who spends their lives delving into the core of Reality and Physics and the Cosmos would actually try and cover up something like a God Creator if they found one??? Of course not. There is simply "Nothing" there in that regard. Not scientifically anyway. Philosophically perhaps, but we're talking science here, not philosophy or theology.

But then they also don't claim to have all the answers yet either. Which is one of the major differences between Science and Religion. Science admits it can't or doesn't have some things answered yet so it keeps working on them. Religion just claims to have the answer but without being able to provide proof for it.

I really don't know what to say to make it any more clear. I know you won't agree with me but from my perspective it seems like you are trying to hard to force an idea into being true and in the process it's holding you back. That's not to say your idea is absolutely for sure incorrect. Obviously I can't claim to know that for sure because of the subject matter at hand, but I really think if you'd just take a step back and approach this again from a more open minded start it would help.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

Waste energy. He's the guy that lit a billion billion suns. If you saw Him, you'd be a plasma.


I see. So he's all powerful and can do anything except show himself without melting my face off. Makes perfect sense. Seems to me like that is the same as saying God does have his limitations.


It says so in a certain collection of books written by bronze-age shepherds. 3,000 years later and we're still trying to understand its ideas and implications.


Right. I know when ever I think of credible sources for information, 3,000 year old shepherds are the first people that spring to my mind.

I would say that all this sounds like you people are just making this stuff up as you go along but you're not even that creative because I've heard it all before. You people really need some new material.


You do know that God did reveal himself (in part) to the people spoken of in the Bible, you just missed it.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I liked that you added "In part" in there. Is that so their faces didn't melt off too???

I'm aware of it in either case. I suppose the difference is that I don't automatically believe everything I read. Even more to the point though, I didn't automatically deny it either. Like most people I was told early on to believe it and did without question for a while, even though some of it really didn't make sense.

Then later on, when I grew up a bit I decided to really examine what I believed and why. It was then that holding onto those beliefs really started to fall apart.

I thank you for your concern however. I'm still open to the ideas of others, but I don't think you're going to show me anything new that I haven't already looked at myself. If I happen to change my mind though, I'll let you know.



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

But in any case, what's ridiculous obout stating the fact that nothing produces nothing? Or that there must always be a pre-existing something or someone to produce something? Where's the gap? I fail to see it.

Kindly enlighten my ignorance?


For starters, can you back up your claim of creatio ex nihilo as somehow an accepted scientific principle? As far as I can tell, no one really knows this (the bible doesn't even claim it) and would appear to be a straw man.

The big bang model doesn't predict it, though it has been falling out of favour in certain ways for some time anyway, due to the "singularity" non explanation. The other models I can find don't seem to claim there was nothing then something either (usually quite the opposite). The ones that allude to it as a possibility have certain scientific definition that seems to be different to your nothing (notably because they show why a god wouldn't be necessary).

As to a possible "something from something" you are making very definite and specific claims of creatio ex Deo (as in a particular version of the sky fairy mythology), so could you cut the nonsense and provide genuine explanation for where your god came from? The "uncreated/just is" non explanation is simply a creationist anti science/ bilge water.

So far you have offered us a choice between what seems to be a straw man argument and an unsupported non sequitor (based only on your personal biased logic), as options.

At least the notion that "the universe always existed in some form" (while not provable yet) has the benefit of an actual observable universe that we know does exist, to support it.



edit on 13-6-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: chr0naut

Waste energy. He's the guy that lit a billion billion suns. If you saw Him, you'd be a plasma.


I see. So he's all powerful and can do anything except show himself without melting my face off. Makes perfect sense. Seems to me like that is the same as saying God does have his limitations.


It says so in a certain collection of books written by bronze-age shepherds. 3,000 years later and we're still trying to understand its ideas and implications.


Right. I know when ever I think of credible sources for information, 3,000 year old shepherds are the first people that spring to my mind.

I would say that all this sounds like you people are just making this stuff up as you go along but you're not even that creative because I've heard it all before. You people really need some new material.


You do know that God did reveal himself (in part) to the people spoken of in the Bible, you just missed it.



Are you sure?

If so how?

And can you prove/provide evidence that what you say is true?



posted on Jun, 12 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

You do know that God did reveal himself (in part) to the people spoken of in the Bible, you just missed it.



No, they're wrong, obviously. Last time god was here he "ascended back to heaven" via the space ships accompanying the Hale Bopp comet. Or can you show where Applewhite wasn't god (in the form of his alter ego aka Jesus)?

His claims are no less ridiculous. Unlike the other god, we at least know he existed historically and don't have to rely on ancient claims/ middle men and interpretations, we have god's direct teachings.

Sounds just as legit.


edit on 13-6-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

now show me how it was your god, or the god of the jews, and not one of the millions of other gods that did it.



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

You do know that God did reveal himself (in part) to the people spoken of in the Bible, you just missed it.



Yah, a burning bush right?!?!?

I liked that story more the first time I heard it though. When it was Zeus who appeared as a shower of gold and rains over Danae and impregnates her.

God's are always up to such foolish things aren't they?!?!?



posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

This to me is philosophy masquerading as science.

Why go to the pain of describing what nothing is when it's actually something? It boggles the mind.


It's the result of using Language in the place of things. Words are just Symbols and Symbols are abstractions which must be defined. We then define them with other abstractions. It works out very well, but it's not perfect. What can you do??


Is it because it supports the Creation point of view? Hence they have to somehow equevocate?


No. Not if you mean the "Creation point of view" in the sense that there was a "Being" who made everything. They aren't trying to be tricky. You need to stop thinking that they are working against a "Creationist God".

Do you really think that anyone who spends their lives delving into the core of Reality and Physics and the Cosmos would actually try and cover up something like a God Creator if they found one??? Of course not. There is simply "Nothing" there in that regard. Not scientifically anyway. Philosophically perhaps, but we're talking science here, not philosophy or theology.

But then they also don't claim to have all the answers yet either. Which is one of the major differences between Science and Religion. Science admits it can't or doesn't have some things answered yet so it keeps working on them. Religion just claims to have the answer but without being able to provide proof for it.

I really don't know what to say to make it any more clear. I know you won't agree with me but from my perspective it seems like you are trying to hard to force an idea into being true and in the process it's holding you back. That's not to say your idea is absolutely for sure incorrect. Obviously I can't claim to know that for sure because of the subject matter at hand, but I really think if you'd just take a step back and approach this again from a more open minded start it would help.


Open minded I am, close minded and illogical I'm not. And that's where the demarcation starts in my case. So if something doesn't make logical sense, whether in Science or in Religion then that's where I draw the line.

And as you can see, the videos I've provided are all from the evolution's point of view. I have a lot of these in my archives along with Degrasse, Kaku, et al. And I enjoy watching them. In fact I've learned a lot from them. So close minded I'm not.

But when someone says that something comes from nothing, then my antina goes up and I'll start questioning and challenging it until I'm fully satisfied of the answer. And so far, no one can substantiate how is this possible in spite of the fact.

Even the claims by "experts" (Krauss et al - that the universe came from nothing) is not really what it purported to be. That there was already something there from the start.

So what are we then to conclude if the theory can't stand even a simple scrutiny?

How should we approach it when the obvious is correct?

Do we just accept it as truth in spite of the glaring facts?

Only a close minded person will do that.

And close minded I'm not.

So to start what's your honest answer:

Did the universe came from nothing or did it emerge (created) from pre-existing material/s (hence something)?

You know where I stand but I have no idea where you're at.

As for this:




Religion just claims to have the answer but without being able to provide proof for it.


Sadly your correct to some degree. For instance, some claim that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old in spite of the fact that the strata say otherwise (4 billion years old based on current calculations).

Hence on this point, (some) religion got it wrong, BUT this does not make the Bible wrong. It's the interpretation of the text without any valid and logical proof - like the strata or radiometric dating - that makes religion on the wrong side of the fence.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join