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: 16
9
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: mOjOm
I'm confused now what the 14 or whatever billion years has to do with the Big Bang.

All time started after the Big Bang event and I thought we were talking about that not what happens after.

Or are you (E=mc^2) talking about the start of life now?? Or am I just not understanding what you're talking about????


Simply put if not intelligence (God) or if not dumb luck (blind chance) what then created the universe/life exactly 14 bya?

Since you said tha luck (blind chance) had nothing to do with it what then was responsible for the Big Bang?

Hence if not luck (trial and error) or God (guided), what possibly could had made the universe to emerge (for a lack of a better word) around 14 billion year ago?

And why 14b, not 50 billion why not 300 billion years ago?

So if you're saying not God or blind chance event , then there's got to be some exacting "force" why it picked 14 bya to create the universe.

If so what is this force or thing?





You're still asking the same questions over and over - and over and over people have posted answers. You're stuck in the mud on a "creator". Universes probably come and go. They are created spontaneously and disappear spontaneously - just like the particles created at CERN. Self assembly on this planet is a remarkable model that no one is paying attention to. Atoms, molecules, matter self assembles WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE INTERVENTION. Universes do the same thing: they assemble and disassemble. So where did they all come from? Well they really don't have to come from anywhere. No one or no thing created them. They are self initialized and create their own matter.

Read Steven Hawking - I know you won't because you're stuck in the mud on a hypothesis that you have zip evidence for. There's no logic to your case. For Pete's sake, do some homework.

Steven Hawking:
www.hawking.org.uk...


To paraphrase you "same o same o".

Nothing new in what the professor said but just created more unanswered questions.



Such as the inflation theory, it still can't answer what created the inflation in the first place. But if we assume that it just "spontaneously pop out of existence" then what made it to "poof"?

So you see it still faces the same problem as the Big Bang.

Is F = m a possible "WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE INTERVENTION?

Does a body at rest tend to remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force?


Of course since there's no logic nor reason being implemented from your line of thought then I couldn't agree more.




posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
End transmission



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Atoms, molecules and the universe are not at rest. They are all heat producing to some extent. Bonding energies are intrinsic forces that either form or break chemical bonds. For something to be truly at rest, it would have a temperature of absolute zero - which has only been produced once (or twice, not sure) in the lab. Absolute zero is the state where all motion stops and no energy is available as heat.

That's why self assembly - be it molecules on Earth or the universe - is possible. It's the natural consequence of everything in the universe having a energy potential.




edit on 17-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

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

Atoms, molecules and the universe are not at rest. They are all heat producing to some extent. Bonding energies are intrinsic forces that either form or break chemical bonds. For something to be truly at rest, it would have a temperature of absolute zero - which has only been produced once (or twice, not sure) in the lab. Absolute zero is the state where all motion stops and no energy is available as heat.

That's why self assembly - be it molecules on Earth or the universe - is possible. It's the natural consequence of everything in the universe having a energy potential.





This is too simplistic as it doesn't account for the sources of the "intrinsic forces that either form or break chemical bonds" or for that matter electrical bonds.

In other words your assuming that atoms are eternal. That they've somehow existed forever rather than "created" using the forces that brought it about. As if the four fundamental forces were assembled together by the atom so that its basic parts (proton, electron and neutron) will combine to form an atom.

Logically speaking and based on experiments and experience it doesn't happen.

In addition it also takes precise application or combination of these forces for a single atom to form.

Consider what we know:

If the electromagnetic force is 100 times weaker than the strong neuclear force that holds together the nucleus of an atom, carbon atoms could not exist. No carbon no life.

And if there's even a minute change in the relative strength of gravitational and electromagnetic force, stars like our sun will burn into blue giants or red dwafts. Hence no life.

And lastly, if the weak nuclear force is too weak or a little bit stronger, the hydrogen in the sun will not burn at slow steady rate thereby affecting the balance in the universe and be thrown into chaos.

All four fundamental forces are in perfect balance that to say they just came to be spontaneously for the sake of an atom is very illogical.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You are making the mistake of looking at the finished product then working backwards to say that it couldn't have occurred any other way (the same mistake you make about evolution). If the 4 fundamental forces of nature were different, then the universe would have developed completely differently. That isn't to say that the universe wouldn't have complex structures like ours does, it would just be different. Though, I'm sure that this hypothetical universe would be just as magnificent, unique, and beautiful as ours.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

You are making the mistake of looking at the finished product then working backwards to say that it couldn't have occurred any other way (the same mistake you make about evolution). If the 4 fundamental forces of nature were different, then the universe would have developed completely differently. That isn't to say that the universe wouldn't have complex structures like ours does, it would just be different. Though, I'm sure that this hypothetical universe would be just as magnificent, unique, and beautiful as ours.


Don't forget I'm looking at the foundation (source) also. So it's not only backward but forward that I'm looking at.

And based on what we know to be true about the fundamental forces that govern every atom in the universe, there's no other way of getting a universe like ours. A universe that is able to produce and support life like

We do not need to travel to outer space to know this. But we know that the parameters that produced it is so EXACTING that to say "if the 4 fundamental forces of nature were different, then the universe would have developed completely differently" is illogical.

No. I disagree! . If the 4 fundamental forces of nature were different, then a universe of what ever shape or form would have not developed because CHAOS will be its product.

To quote one of my favorite cosmologist Paul Davies:


Changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences.


If protons were a little or slightly heavier than neutrons rather than LIGHTER - the result will be ALL protons would have turned into neutrons.

Without protons, no electrical charge, no electrical charge NO ATOMS - the building blocks of the universe.

Now this is just one of the hundreds if not thousands of parameters - PRECISE PARAMETERS at work.

So what you said is very illogical.


edit on 17-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: Ee



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Ok, let's roll with that. You say that if a proton was slightly heavier than they'd be neutrons and therefore no complex structures in the universe. So how do you know that there aren't a bunch more universes out there where this is the case and the reason we experience this one is because this is the one where the rules worked out to develop us? It's a perfectly valid universe. Do you know for a fact that this is the only universe or that this is the only configuration a universe can attain? How do you know there aren't many different universes out there all with slightly varying attributes for atomic properties that result in wildly different things from forming? If not then you are assuming things about universes and attributing that to God.
edit on 17-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You know you're trying to be a chemist/physicist without the education. A chemical bond is an electrostatic force. The various strengths of the bonds form different types of molecules. And there's nothing eternal or mystical about it.

In other words your assuming that atoms are eternal. That they've somehow existed forever rather than "created" using the forces that brought it about. As if the four fundamental forces were assembled together by the atom so that its basic parts (proton, electron and neutron) will combine to form an atom. Logically speaking and based on experiments and experience it doesn't happen.

Please give me a few citations so I know what experiments you're referring to. I haven't a clue what you're driving at.

A simple example of self assembly are molecular crystals and anisotropic nanostructures. These are self-organizing, self-synthesizing molecules. They require no outside intervention to form. Self assembly is observed throughout nature.

The analogy you use for the sun isn't correct. There are variations in the gravitational force all the time - just look at the Earth - you weigh less in parts of Canada than you do in the United States because of variations in gravity. And the electrostatic force is only dependent on the strength of the positive/negative interaction of the particular atoms.

You're getting wrapped around the axel with this stuff. It's really quite simple and clear. Nature itself is a master of simplicity.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: edmc^2

Ok, let's roll with that. You say that if a proton was slightly heavier than they'd be neutrons and therefore no complex structures in the universe. So how do you know that there aren't a bunch more universes out there where this is the case and the reason we experience this one is because this is the one where the rules worked out to develop us? It's a perfectly valid universe. Do you know for a fact that this is the only universe or that this is the only configuration a universe can attain? How do you know there aren't many different universes out there all with slightly varying attributes for atomic properties that result in wildly different things from forming? If not then you are assuming things about universes and attributing that to God.



Well using logic and observation, if there are other universes besides this one, why would they have different sets of rules if they are in the same spacetime continuum?

In other words, how many spacetime continuum is there?

Isn't it just ONE?

If so, why would these universes contain different "configuration"?

Logic say - they wont, unless of course they are on another type of spacetime continuum, totally separate from ours.

Which I think is not logical but a circular argument.

Besides the question of who or what created them (including space) becomes even more complex if not a nightmare to contemplate.

Good luck though with that theory.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

That the universe had a beginning.

That it did not come from nothing.

But rather was the result of a purposeful directed creation.

It was directed by means of absolute pure intelligence - the transformation of "dynamic energy" (Isa 40:26) into matter. Hence E=mc2. The First law of thermodynamics.

And that it's governed by fundamental forces from which we all benifit from- especially the Second law of thermodynamics.

A law that logic dectate can't be created unless someone made it and put into motion.

So if you must go then go and thank you for your participation. Hopefully someday you'll come to accept the truth that you will never get something from nothing but rather from something or someone already existing - eternal God.


When I read this it became clear what a total waste of time this has been. I have repeatedly gone over these very details with you, showing from every angle conceivable how they are either flat out incorrect or simply just an error of language usage. That you still put them forward as if they haven't been challenged shows a complete lack of integrity or respect.

As a matter of fact, I find it to be just plain rude and dishonest. I refuse to waste another second with someone who knowingly chooses to not only lie to themselves but to others as well. I tried to be straight with you and show respect for your ideas and you show nothing but contempt in return.

Before you respond with the typical, "Oh you're just mad because you are wrong and I was right all along" BS excuse understand one thing. Integrity in this case isn't about who may be right or wrong and I never planned on convincing you of my ideas over yours, but the fact that you continue to push the same wrong presumptions as you did on page one of this topic shows that you haven't even considered anything anyone else has said. You Love Your Own Opinions Too Much. So keep them. But IMO you should stop wasting others time with them, especially if they choose to discuss them with you honestly and openly. Have at least some respect for others and tell them from the start that you're only really interested in hearing yourself speak.

What a waste!



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

That the universe had a beginning.

That it did not come from nothing.

But rather was the result of a purposeful directed creation.

It was directed by means of absolute pure intelligence - the transformation of "dynamic energy" (Isa 40:26) into matter. Hence E=mc2. The First law of thermodynamics.

And that it's governed by fundamental forces from which we all benifit from- especially the Second law of thermodynamics.

A law that logic dectate can't be created unless someone made it and put into motion.

So if you must go then go and thank you for your participation. Hopefully someday you'll come to accept the truth that you will never get something from nothing but rather from something or someone already existing - eternal God.


When I read this it became clear what a total waste of time this has been. I have repeatedly gone over these very details with you, showing from every angle conceivable how they are either flat out incorrect or simply just an error of language usage. That you still put them forward as if they haven't been challenged shows a complete lack of integrity or respect.

As a matter of fact, I find it to be just plain rude and dishonest. I refuse to waste another second with someone who knowingly chooses to not only lie to themselves but to others as well. I tried to be straight with you and show respect for your ideas and you show nothing but contempt in return.

Before you respond with the typical, "Oh you're just mad because you are wrong and I was right all along" BS excuse understand one thing. Integrity in this case isn't about who may be right or wrong and I never planned on convincing you of my ideas over yours, but the fact that you continue to push the same wrong presumptions as you did on page one of this topic shows that you haven't even considered anything anyone else has said. You Love Your Own Opinions Too Much. So keep them. But IMO you should stop wasting others time with them, especially if they choose to discuss them with you honestly and openly. Have at least some respect for others and tell them from the start that you're only really interested in hearing yourself speak.

What a waste!


In what way shape or form did I waste your time if this is a voluntary discussion?

If you've known from the get go that this is a waste of your time then why participate in the discussion?

I don't get it.

In any case I'm not the only one here. There might be people that you've convinced your correct and that I'm totally wrong. If so that's okay.

So thank you for that and good luck.

End transmission.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

Well using logic and observation, if there are other universes besides this one, why would they have different sets of rules if they are in the same spacetime continuum?

In other words, how many spacetime continuum is there?

Isn't it just ONE?


Is that question rhetorical? Because we don't know the answer to that question either. There could easily be more than one as well.


If so, why would these universes contain different "configuration"?

Logic say - they wont, unless of course they are on another type of spacetime continuum, totally separate from ours.

Which I think is not logical but a circular argument.


This all relies on your predetermined answer of only one space time continuum. I don't make assumptions about things without evidence to support the assumption, there is no evidence to suggest that there is only one space time continuum so you are barking up the wrong tree here with your counterargument. You won't get me to make non-evidenced assumptions.


Besides the question of who or what created them (including space) becomes even more complex if not a nightmare to contemplate.

Good luck though with that theory.



So because it is difficult to contemplate, it shouldn't be undertaken? Sorry I don't subscribe to that basic form of thinking. If it is hard to conceptualize, then I work to expand my thinking so I can conceptualize it as do most scientists who study highly theoretical fields. You should try it sometime.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

That the universe had a beginning.

That it did not come from nothing.

But rather was the result of a purposeful directed creation.

It was directed by means of absolute pure intelligence - the transformation of "dynamic energy" (Isa 40:26) into matter. Hence E=mc2. The First law of thermodynamics.

And that it's governed by fundamental forces from which we all benifit from- especially the Second law of thermodynamics.

A law that logic dectate can't be created unless someone made it and put into motion.

So if you must go then go and thank you for your participation. Hopefully someday you'll come to accept the truth that you will never get something from nothing but rather from something or someone already existing - eternal God.


When I read this it became clear what a total waste of time this has been. I have repeatedly gone over these very details with you, showing from every angle conceivable how they are either flat out incorrect or simply just an error of language usage. That you still put them forward as if they haven't been challenged shows a complete lack of integrity or respect.

As a matter of fact, I find it to be just plain rude and dishonest. I refuse to waste another second with someone who knowingly chooses to not only lie to themselves but to others as well. I tried to be straight with you and show respect for your ideas and you show nothing but contempt in return.

Before you respond with the typical, "Oh you're just mad because you are wrong and I was right all along" BS excuse understand one thing. Integrity in this case isn't about who may be right or wrong and I never planned on convincing you of my ideas over yours, but the fact that you continue to push the same wrong presumptions as you did on page one of this topic shows that you haven't even considered anything anyone else has said. You Love Your Own Opinions Too Much. So keep them. But IMO you should stop wasting others time with them, especially if they choose to discuss them with you honestly and openly. Have at least some respect for others and tell them from the start that you're only really interested in hearing yourself speak.

What a waste!


In what way shape or form did I waste your time if this is a voluntary discussion?

If you've known from the get go that this is a waste of your time then why participate in the discussion?

I don't get it.

In any case I'm not the only one here. There might be people that you've convinced your correct and that I'm totally wrong. If so that's okay.

So thank you for that and good luck.

End transmission.


So the point here is to discourage other members from discussing anything with you at all. Congratulations, I think you've succeeded most brilliantly in that regard.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

That the universe had a beginning.

That it did not come from nothing.

But rather was the result of a purposeful directed creation.

It was directed by means of absolute pure intelligence - the transformation of "dynamic energy" (Isa 40:26) into matter. Hence E=mc2. The First law of thermodynamics.

And that it's governed by fundamental forces from which we all benifit from- especially the Second law of thermodynamics.

A law that logic dectate can't be created unless someone made it and put into motion.

So if you must go then go and thank you for your participation. Hopefully someday you'll come to accept the truth that you will never get something from nothing but rather from something or someone already existing - eternal God.


When I read this it became clear what a total waste of time this has been. I have repeatedly gone over these very details with you, showing from every angle conceivable how they are either flat out incorrect or simply just an error of language usage. That you still put them forward as if they haven't been challenged shows a complete lack of integrity or respect.

As a matter of fact, I find it to be just plain rude and dishonest. I refuse to waste another second with someone who knowingly chooses to not only lie to themselves but to others as well. I tried to be straight with you and show respect for your ideas and you show nothing but contempt in return.

Before you respond with the typical, "Oh you're just mad because you are wrong and I was right all along" BS excuse understand one thing. Integrity in this case isn't about who may be right or wrong and I never planned on convincing you of my ideas over yours, but the fact that you continue to push the same wrong presumptions as you did on page one of this topic shows that you haven't even considered anything anyone else has said. You Love Your Own Opinions Too Much. So keep them. But IMO you should stop wasting others time with them, especially if they choose to discuss them with you honestly and openly. Have at least some respect for others and tell them from the start that you're only really interested in hearing yourself speak.

What a waste!


In what way shape or form did I waste your time if this is a voluntary discussion?

If you've known from the get go that this is a waste of your time then why participate in the discussion?

I don't get it.

In any case I'm not the only one here. There might be people that you've convinced your correct and that I'm totally wrong. If so that's okay.

So thank you for that and good luck.

End transmission.


So the point here is to discourage other members from discussing anything with you at all. Congratulations, I think you've succeeded most brilliantly in that regard.


Hmmm...I thought you left already?

End transmission.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2

Well using logic and observation, if there are other universes besides this one, why would they have different sets of rules if they are in the same spacetime continuum?

In other words, how many spacetime continuum is there?

Isn't it just ONE?


Is that question rhetorical? Because we don't know the answer to that question either. There could easily be more than one as well.


If so, why would these universes contain different "configuration"?

Logic say - they wont, unless of course they are on another type of spacetime continuum, totally separate from ours.

Which I think is not logical but a circular argument.


This all relies on your predetermined answer of only one space time continuum. I don't make assumptions about things without evidence to support the assumption, there is no evidence to suggest that there is only one space time continuum so you are barking up the wrong tree here with your counterargument. You won't get me to make non-evidenced assumptions.


Besides the question of who or what created them (including space) becomes even more complex if not a nightmare to contemplate.

Good luck though with that theory.



So because it is difficult to contemplate, it shouldn't be undertaken? Sorry I don't subscribe to that basic form of thinking. If it is hard to conceptualize, then I work to expand my thinking so I can conceptualize it as do most scientists who study highly theoretical fields. You should try it sometime.


No it's not that it's difficult to contemplate but the complexity is so enormousness it becomes illogical.

Think about it. Let's assume that there are multiverses populating an infinite multispace-time continumm. How would such idea work?

I mean how would each multispace-time continuum exists separate from the other multispaces with their own universes having their own sets of rules. How does this idea work?

Futhermore, how can you separate such multiverse-multispace from each other? Do they all somehow occupy a another higher level of space?

SO the more you think about it the complexity becomes very illogical.

After all why would there be many space time continuum if space-time is infinite having no beginning and no end?


But if you want to pursue such idea then all power to you because to me the only reality is our Universe Created by God.



edit on 19-6-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
No it's not that it's difficult to contemplate but the complexity is so enormousness it becomes illogical.

Think about it. Let's assume that there are multiverses populating an infinite multispace-time continumm. How would such idea work?

I mean how would each multispace-time continuum exists separate from the other multispaces with their own universes having their own sets of rules. How does this idea work?

Futhermore, how can you separate such multiverse-multispace from each other? Do they all somehow occupy a another higher level of space?

SO the more you think about it the complexity becomes very illogical.

After all why would there be many space time continuum if space-time is infinite having no beginning and no end?


No, just because the complexity is enormous, doesn't mean it is illogical. If we think of multiverse or multispace-times as higher dimensions, it actually becomes easier to imagine. But understand, if we are at the most 3d objects moving through 4d space, we would never be able to wrap our heads around dimensions higher than this. A circle could never tell what a sphere looks like. That is why you are having trouble conceptualizing it. Thus, you write it off as illogical. It isn't illogical, it's just a different possibility. It has no more credence to being true than your god story. Though, looking at the way the universe works where smaller things group around a central object to create larger things, I wouldn't be surprised if this could be extrapolated out to the universal or greater level.

Your entire basis for something being illogical rests with the idea that you cannot imagine how it can work. Which is what I originally said. For instance, this question, "After all why would there be many space time continuum if space-time is infinite having no beginning and no end?" Shows a startling lack of knowledge of geometric properties. When you increase the dimension in geometry, you add another axis to the standard coordinate system. Because of the limitations of our world view, we can only create 3d graphs, but that doesn't mean we cannot discuss 4d or higher space. With all this being said, you could have space time continue into infinity, while also having infinite space time continuums. That would just be two different axises on the grid system. If you were to study linear algebra, these concepts would make a bit more sense mathematically.


But if you want to pursue such idea then all power to you because to me the only reality is our Universe Created by God.


Right I got it, you are contend with the answer to all questions being "God". How did we get here? "God" How do things work? "God" How was the universe made? "God". Like I said, I don't subscribe to basic forms of thinking like that. I want real answers, not some arbitrary concept that you can plug into any question. It dilutes the answer. I want specifics. "God" isn't specific.

That isn't to say a god doesn't exist. I am by no means making that claim, but do you really think that an all powerful god would be constrained to a dimension or two higher than the one we currently exist in? That kind of logically defies the "all powerful" part of its description. Also, what we call god, could just be a standard denizen of a higher dimension who got bored one day and created the universe we live in. Who knows?
edit on 20-6-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
No it's not that it's difficult to contemplate but the complexity is so enormousness it becomes illogical.

Think about it. Let's assume that there are multiverses populating an infinite multispace-time continumm. How would such idea work?

I mean how would each multispace-time continuum exists separate from the other multispaces with their own universes having their own sets of rules. How does this idea work?

Futhermore, how can you separate such multiverse-multispace from each other? Do they all somehow occupy a another higher level of space?

SO the more you think about it the complexity becomes very illogical.

After all why would there be many space time continuum if space-time is infinite having no beginning and no end?


No, just because the complexity is enormous, doesn't mean it is illogical. If we think of multiverse or multispace-times as higher dimensions, it actually becomes easier to imagine. But understand, if we are at the most 3d objects moving through 4d space, we would never be able to wrap our heads around dimensions higher than this. A circle could never tell what a sphere looks like. That is why you are having trouble conceptualizing it. Thus, you write it off as illogical. It isn't illogical, it's just a different possibility. It has no more credence to being true than your god story. Though, looking at the way the universe works where smaller things group around a central object to create larger things, I wouldn't be surprised if this could be extrapolated out to the universal or greater level.

Your entire basis for something being illogical rests with the idea that you cannot imagine how it can work. Which is what I originally said. For instance, this question, "After all why would there be many space time continuum if space-time is infinite having no beginning and no end?" Shows a startling lack of knowledge of geometric properties. When you increase the dimension in geometry, you add another axis to the standard coordinate system. Because of the limitations of our world view, we can only create 3d graphs, but that doesn't mean we cannot discuss 4d or higher space. With all this being said, you could have space time continue into infinity, while also having infinite space time continuums. That would just be two different axises on the grid system. If you were to study linear algebra, these concepts would make a bit more sense mathematically.


But if you want to pursue such idea then all power to you because to me the only reality is our Universe Created by God.


Right I got it, you are contend with the answer to all questions being "God". How did we get here? "God" How do things work? "God" How was the universe made? "God". Like I said, I don't subscribe to basic forms of thinking like that. I want real answers, not some arbitrary concept that you can plug into any question. It dilutes the answer. I want specifics. "God" isn't specific.

That isn't to say a god doesn't exist. I am by no means making that claim, but do you really think that an all powerful god would be constrained to a dimension or two higher than the one we currently exist in? That kind of logically defies the "all powerful" part of its description. Also, what we call god, could just be a standard denizen of a higher dimension who got bored one day and created the universe we live in. Who knows?


Well, I say you got a point there Krazysh0t. Crazy as it sounds, you have a point.

In fact I myself believe that God resides in a different level of existence hence, we're not capable of visualizing what a spirit being looks like.

Like the 4th dimension is hard to visualized in a 3d plane of existence.

What's like to have a 4th dimension? I guess this will included (if I conceptualized it) an invisible dimension such that a being possessing this 4th dimension can pass through solid objects.

Hence, angels themselves as mentioned in the scriptures can materialized when needed (Gen 8:1, Josh. 5:13-15).

This also explains why Jesus on one occasion suddenly appeared in the middle of his apostles while they were conversing inside a locked door (John 20:19-29).

In any case, it's mind boggling.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

This is why if god is true, eventually religion and science will coalesce. It is really the religious that are stuck in the past and refuse to update their world view that is holding everything back. I have nothing against a god existing. I just demand evidence first. If the evidence is unobtainable though, I won't make an assumption that lack of evidence is evidence of absence like atheists tend to do. I just say "I don't know," and call it a day. It's an ok answer for me.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
great answer, if you don't believe in my god they way i do , then you never will ... man created God ... i have seeked God and God has not shown himself to me a reply to: BELIEVERpriest



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
wow, God can't be explained and if you don't believe in my god the way i do well then you're just wrong .. i don't need to show you any proof a reply to: Shadow22




top topics



 
9
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join