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.

 

energy & god...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   


So voila, whats wrong with that?


well, nothing's wrong with that, it's your opinion and your faith. It's just something I personally don't believe in. Through science I know that energy, or light creates matter, and that the matter vibrates to create sound waves. This is all proven to be true. The Big bang theory is just a theory but it's what I believe in (for an interesting side note, with this theory, for every molecule of matter formed, a molecule of antimatter is formed and these annihilate each other. A question that no one can answer is why there is matter in the first place? Matter should not exist).

If you want to believe that God 'breathed life' so to speak into everything through The Word that's fine. I can't argue faith and I won't try any further to make you think otherwise. Just for the record, I'm not an athiest, I believe in a God, but more like a uniting universal energy in everything physical and nonphysical.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by zhangmaster]




posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zhangmaster
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here...how can you separate something that doesn't exist into something that does? Are you saying that antimatter + matter = nothingness? antimatter and matter collisions actually produce a great amount of energy which has been seriously looked at for use as a space fuel. The only problem is with harnessing the antimatter in useful amounts, which is impossible to do with our current technology.

So it could be said that God provided an infinite amount of energy to nothing, to create something, and anti-something.


Originally posted by zhangmaster
What you might find interesting Babloyi is the "budding" theory of the universe. It also fits in the the accelerating universe theory, which we now know as fact. In this theory, there is a matrix of some sort from which many universes are budded. The universes, some like ours, some dramatically different ballon out from the matrix and accelerate by Dark Energy. Instead of coming to a "Big Crunch" we are headed towards a "Big Tear" in which the universe expands to such a degree that spacetime is torn apart, and the bubble "bursts". The matrix (God?
lol) would be responsible for creating the universe and giving it its energy. I'm not exactly sure if this is called the Budding theory or not, I'll have to check on it. There are also many takes on this theory, like budding from within our own universe, parallel universes....etc. This is just the idea I think would make the most sense out of all of them, but no one can be certain for sure.

I know of this theory, but even by it, you would then have to admit that the universe has a beginning and an end, and the same matter and energy in 1 universe is not the same as in the other universe.
I don't like this theory though. It relies too much on the "dark matter", which I don't believe exists at all (sort of like the phlogeston(sp?) of ancient science, that was used to explain how light travelled through space). It is an unprovable (even by mathematics) theory that was put there to explain something that we don't understand.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 18-6-2005 by babloyi]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
About your first point Babyoli: I'm not here trying to disprove the existence of God. I think that's a very arrogant and pointless thing to do, and I'm a believer of God in a sense too, albeit not the Christian view of God. Sure, God could have provided the energy for the Big Bang, I don't exactly believe that and no one can say for sure where that initial energy came from, but I was only pointing out that antimatter and matter produce energy.

If the Universe had a beginning and an end, I'd also assume that God had a beginning and end because nothing existed beforehand. If God had a beginning, how did He start out? I wonder if our very concept of time is flawed...this question has been brought up before as well, not on this forum I mean, but in a science journal I read a couple years ago. Definately makes me wonder....

As for dark energy or dark matter: If stars are moving further and further apart from one another and the universe is accelerating outward, then there has to be something that is causing this. If there were no dark energy or dark matter, whichever one it is, then we would be seeing galaxies collapsing, and the night sky getting more populated by stars because of gravity. 'Something' is causing this to happen which is why I subscribe to the theory. I personally don't place God into this equation. But sure, like you said, dark energy could be a fudge factor. Isn't it funny by the way, that with both religion and science, what we don't understand we just seem to assign a boogyman to
? If I seem to avoid taking a solid stance on anything I say by the way, it's only because its all theory, and i try to be careful in what I say. In the end, all we both have are beliefs but I'll respond to whatever else you want to discuss.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zhangmaster
About your first point Babyoli: I'm not here trying to disprove the existence of God. I think that's a very arrogant and pointless thing to do, and I'm a believer of God in a sense too, albeit not the Christian view of God.

Don't worry, the 1st point was directed to the original poster, and his/her theories about beginnings and endings.


Originally posted by zhangmaster
If there were no dark energy or dark matter, whichever one it is, then we would be seeing galaxies collapsing, and the night sky getting more populated by stars because of gravity. 'Something' is causing this to happen which is why I subscribe to the theory.

The reason that our night sky is not as bright as day, is simply because light takes billions of years to travel from the "edge" to where we are. By the time one star appears, another would have died out. So, our night sky is still pretty dark.



posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Sorry, you misunderstood me there. I was saying that because of the expanding universe, the distance between stars and galaxies is increasing (except of course if they are already on a collision course, which we have observed in the past through Hubble I believe). Because everything is moving apart, there will be less stars in our view of the night sky in the far future than there are now. Eventually everything will be so far apart, that it will be an empty sky as far as we can see. The stars are still there, but we won't be able to see their glow. This won't happen for a very very long time however.

What you might find interesting is this article on Dark Energy. It's not a site devoted to bashing Christianity or anything like that, just an informative and easy to follow article about how Dark Energy most likely exists, but no one knows exactly what it is or anything about it for that matter except that it's out there. Supposedly 90% of the universe is made of Dark Matter.

www.space.com...

[edit on 18-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
einstein was a jew. That should explain some things...



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
LOL
Should it? Please elaborate?!?!?
Hmmmmmm........einstein........



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by zhangmaster
Because everything is moving apart, there will be less stars in our view of the night sky in the far future than there are now. Eventually everything will be so far apart, that it will be an empty sky as far as we can see. The stars are still there, but we won't be able to see their glow. This won't happen for a very very long time however.


maybe in the very very far future we will develop eyes that are so amazin that we will be able to stare directly into the sun in order to explode it. Therefore the stars will become scared of us and try to kill us. But we will destroy them and the cowardly stars that ran away and hang their heads in shame will be allowed to exist but will be horribly abused because we are evil.

Evil, evil human beings.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by surrender_dorothy]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Very interesting topic and loved reading the replies.

One thing, well one of a few things, missing is to understand that "IF" God is real and Scripture His Word then God is Eternal. He has always been. An Attribute of God within Systematic Theology is the Solitariness of God. This means that God does not need the universe, humans, planets or angels in order for Him to be God. God is Self-sustaining. If these things, angels, humans, etc. had been needed for God to be God then they would have had to also be from eternity past.

God, pre-Gen. 1:1, was outside of time and space. There was no space, hence no matter for Him to reside in as there is no place that can contain God. That being so, when God spoke He created TIME and SPACE. Personally this is where I believe we have the happenings of the Big Bang.

The universe is a closed system, hence no energy is created or destroyed. God is outside of time and space (the universe) and if He created and manipulates the universe he can also do so with energy.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
The universe is a closed system, hence no energy is created or destroyed. God is outside of time and space (the universe) and if He created and manipulates the universe he can also do so with energy.

If you want god to fit in with science you can't just decide make the laws of physics NA. If god were to be 'outside' of something it would have it's own space and time.. even if it were outside of this universe it would still be in it's own.

BTW. The current scientific theory is of the 'multiverse' rather than a universe.. the beggining of ours is just the most recent chapter.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by UnrealZA
The universe is a closed system, hence no energy is created or destroyed. God is outside of time and space (the universe) and if He created and manipulates the universe he can also do so with energy.

If you want god to fit in with science you can't just decide make the laws of physics NA. If god were to be 'outside' of something it would have it's own space and time.. even if it were outside of this universe it would still be in it's own.

BTW. The current scientific theory is of the 'multiverse' rather than a universe.. the beggining of ours is just the most recent chapter.


In your claim science has then become god, even greater than the God of Scripture for by your claim He must be bound by science.

Science "fits in with" God for God created time and space and he therefore can manipulate it. He is then also not bound by it. No finite effect can be greater than its cause.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
In your claim science has then become god, even greater than the God of Scripture for by your claim He must be bound by science.

I haven't claimed science is god [I do not worship it].. I do not believe in god so there is nothing to be 'bound'. I do not think the multi-verse would require an outside, sentient energy to create it. I also do not think 'scripture' is that 'great' or even credible as it asserts humans were created 6000 years ago and that we are the centre of this universe. That just shows the ignorance of humans at the time it was written.

Science "fits in with" God for God created time and space and he therefore can manipulate it. He is then also not bound by it. No finite effect can be greater than its cause.

..and you compelety ignored my point and just repeated yourself. When something exists it exists somewhere. For something to spend the time creating something.. [the 'before'] it needs space. They are the same thing. Anyway.. it would be counterproductive to repeat myself yet again. You are quite entitled to believe as you wish.. but in reality you are saying your god existed nowhere. If you are genuinely interested in understanding what I mean and delving further into this subject.. see Stephan Hawkings website. If you are just wanting to make god 'fit' into science, please don't argue the point but dismiss all others.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by UnrealZA
In your claim science has then become god, even greater than the God of Scripture for by your claim He must be bound by science.

I haven't claimed science is god [I do not worship it].. I do not believe in god so there is nothing to be 'bound'. I do not think the multi-verse would require an outside, sentient energy to create it. I also do not think 'scripture' is that 'great' or even credible as it asserts humans were created 6000 years ago and that we are the centre of this universe. That just shows the ignorance of humans at the time it was written.

Science "fits in with" God for God created time and space and he therefore can manipulate it. He is then also not bound by it. No finite effect can be greater than its cause.

..and you compelety ignored my point and just repeated yourself. When something exists it exists somewhere. For something to spend the time creating something.. [the 'before'] it needs space. They are the same thing. Anyway.. it would be counterproductive to repeat myself yet again. You are quite entitled to believe as you wish.. but in reality you are saying your god existed nowhere. If you are genuinely interested in understanding what I mean and delving further into this subject.. see Stephan Hawkings website. If you are just wanting to make god 'fit' into science, please don't argue the point but dismiss all others.


First, please give the Biblical references that state humans are 6000 yrs old and where it states we are the center of the universe?

Secondly, I understood your statement completly and did not ignore it. Who says God has to reside in an area of "matter"? Science? Science cannot test anything of the metaphysical so the point is moot.

Your presupposition states that God cannot be real, science is real and science states that everything must take up space. My presupposition is that God is Eternal and is Solitary, meaning He needs nothing, not even physical matter or physical space in order for Him to be God.

Science can give you no knowledge.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnrealZA
First, please give the Biblical references that state humans are 6000 yrs old

The parts where it says 'begats'. There is no singular reference. The ancestory counted back through the entire bible works out to 6000 years apx.

and where it states we are the center of the universe?

Genesis.

Secondly, I understood your statement completly and did not ignore it.

You did not explain how something can exist outside time and space.. again you dismissed it as irrelevent. Yes it may be irrelevent to YOU but since you are asserting that it is relevent to science; you obligate yourself in supporting your stance with actual science. I have. If you can't come up with a scientific, non circular argument I can accept that.. but please don't force me to repeat myself by throwing away all my arguments YET AGAIN without even trying to counter them. It's rude and I will not respond.

who says God has to reside in an area of "matter"? Science? Science cannot test anything of the metaphysical so the point is moot.

Who says god can exist outside it? You. What do you base this on? It must be faith or wishful thinking as it certainly isn't science. Absence of knowledge does not prove your point of view.

Your presupposition states that God cannot be real, science is real and science states that everything must take up space.

Yes.. at least everything is dependent on the existence of space. When it doesn't exist we get things like worm holes etc.. but they are not god. Are you saying that god resides in wormholes and works from there..?

My presupposition is that God is Eternal and is Solitary, meaning He needs nothing, not even physical matter or physical space in order for Him to be God.

Thats fine and I said you are entitled to your beliefs, but your beliefs are reliant on faith not scientific facts.

Science can give you no knowledge.


So you disagree with the fact that the earth orbits the sun? THAT is knowledge that has been found through science. I think it's fairly short-sighted to trivialise the impact this revelation had on our species.. despite the heresy charge.
Where was the wisdom in the church punnishing people for proving facts?
I think the saying you are reffering to is: "Knowledge can't bring you wisdom".

You seem only willing to dismiss my points rather than address them [did you even look at Stephan Hawkings website?]. You can use the redundent "God always has been and always will be so there" line all you want but I could say the same about the universe.. and I can back it up.

At this point though I am going to agree to disagree with you rather than re-hashing the same tired points.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by riley]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
riley,

sorry for the delay in my reply.

The area you give as a reference for the 6000 years is incorrect. It makes no such claim.

As for God being outside of time and space, again God created time and space. He needs nothing material in order for Him to sustain. He brings forth creation, He is Eternal and if He needed anything outside of Himself then He would not be self-sustaining. You disagree but this is because your presuppositions do not allow for God to exsist. Your empirical worldview claims that there is nothing supernatural, no miracles, no God. You base this on science.

You claim to gain knowledge from observation. I claim you cannot knowledge through observation. You must bring with you knowledge in order to even know you are observing anything at all. No knowledge can come from observation.

If you observe a sunset you must bring to that act of observation knowledge PRIOR to watching it or you have no way to grasp, understand or intelligently express what you are seeing. If you hold to an empiricist view that we are born with blank minds and we observe and then write information to our brains how do you KNOW you are observing anything at all? The empiricist bases his or her worldview on "evidence" yet he or she cannot explain how they came to know what the word even means using their worldview.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
if you're all up to date with your science then you will know that energy is neither created nor destroyed, its merely converted from one type to another. if we cannot create energy or destroy it then there has always been one amount of energy in the whole universe, thus acknowledging the athiest view 'there had never been a beggining, matter has always been here in one form or another'.

if engery cannot be destroyed or created then even how powerful people proclaim god is...he could not create energy. energy cannot be created. its changed in to one form to another and so on. end of. perhaps im assuming too much and god did create energy and all matter. the only problem with this is that the concept of 'energy not being created nor destroyed' only fits in with the athiest view 'there is no beggining, matter has always been here in one form or another'.



creation would imply non-creation and besides that, there is no such thing as creation or creations... this is so hard to talk about in any language because it seems to contradict itself but still, I'll try to elaborate, there is only pure energy... everywhere, it makes up everything, it cannot be destroyed and existed before it was 'there' in whatever energy structure, and will be there after that configuration to assume another configuration. With that explanation, to further this explanation..... The 'athiest view' incorporates much more than just that, but to say there is no beginning implies yet again another something that it not truth. (Like if you say there is no beginning you are still implying there is something else....)
Energy assumes a wave of potentials, collapsed through observation into either 2 scenarios, these two scenarios run simultaneously within eachother like two snake innertwined(sp?) and according to our observation, the energy will assume a 'form' from either a positive energy, or a negative energy, which is still energy.

[edit on 27/8/06 by dnero6911]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
God is a genius for creating energy with the aspect of no beginning and no end. Imagine all the other transcendant creations such as out eternal souls.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join