The Science of God

page: 3
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement

Originally posted by DaMod
A being of this dimensional set up might be able to just think something into existence. (this is not beyond scientific possibility)


Is there a logic which would forbid more then one of these beings ?

I'm sure that if you can exercise possibility of ONE that you will not have problem allowing for more then one


We are talking about one god as a topic, but yes logically there could be more than one. That is not my particular belief, but my personal (as well as yours) beliefs do not apply in a place where god is a scientific concept alone. So yes there could be.

I'm Serious!! ITS BED TIME!!!

I'll respond to the rest of you when I can hold my eyes open!

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
This may be slightly off topic, but it ties into the big bang - and therefore creation.

They say that the vast majority of the observable universe was destroyed immediately after the big bang. According to theory, almost all of the matter that sprang forth from the event collided with coinciding anti-matter and the two obliterated each other.

But, what if an "anti-universe singularity" comprised completely of antimatter- slightly smaller than our "universe singularity" comprised of conventional matter - collided and sparked the big bang as we know it?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
Lets Begin!

Oh yes, let's!

At the beginning, then:


Without a god there could not have been a beginning of time. If nothing created the universe then it had no beginning and therefore has always been there.

This is your fundamental assumption, by which your theory stands or falls. But as you have already discovered, it doesn't simplify things but complicates them.


[If] God... is a 11th dimensional being that means he could see every possible universe and every possible possibility all at once.

To validate your assumption, you have to bring in an even more (insanely more) complex multiverse for this God fellow of yours to live in. Where did that come from? Was it created by some even higher entity, some 19-dimensional Supergod? And where did he come from?

Oops. Time to put up one of these...



I believe cosomologists refer to your assumption as the Turtles All The Way Down Theory.


To this one, time would not exist.

Then he can he create temporality? The minute he creates something (or even breaks wind) he has undergone a change in his state, and change implies time.


why hasn’t the universe run out of gas?

It's young. Give it time. Universes take a bit longer to run out of gas than arguments for a Divine Creation.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


A pretty recent theory describes the universe running out of gas:

The Big Freeze



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 

Dear DaMod,

The math and logic that you have used to address this question are, frankly, a bit difficult for me to grasp. But I don't doubt that they make sense.

Here, in brief, is what I was taught by a teacher who I trust. To know this as truth would be to experience it fully, which I have not. However, it was not taught to me as an ultimate truth, but simply as a more workable way of looking at things.

It could be said that there was a beginning, but it would be so close to unknowable that its details may not matter that much.

The general idea, though, is that it all started with a sort of amorphous ability to consider. And from that ability came the considerations of space, time, energy, and matter. Also, points of causation came from this ability. And those points inherited that same ability to consider, and they went on to independently create more space, time, energy, and matter.

The picture, then, is of a physical universe created by many different cause points who had many different considerations. We can suppose that they even had different considerations of time, at first. Ultimately, what we know today as the physical universe is essentially the sum total of what all the cause points were willing to agree to. Nothing prevented any of them from going out and creating their own universes with different rules.

In this vision of the universe and of life, the urge, or ability, to consider and to create something is more basic and primary than what gets created. I have books that attempt to explain the mechanism used to create energy starting with just a consideration. It's hard to understand, but it makes more sense to me than the Big Bang.

When you think of of how big the physical universe is, you can only imagine how many cause points might have existed in it, or still do. As their space started filling up with their creations, the story goes, they became tired of making stuff and more or less settled down into less grandiose pursuits. One of these was the creation of life forms. As the creation of the universe had actually involved the invention of the laws and particles we study today in physics and chemistry, so the creation of life forms involved the invention of the whole whole set of complex systems that we study today in genetics and biology.

This gives us an overall picture of the universe as a huge engineering project. We can imagine that certain beings, as they began to take on distinct identities of their own, would specialize in some certain type of form, like flies, or orchids. Some beings eventually got so taken with their creations that they basically gave up on being creators, except on an automatic level, and sought to exist as their creations. This is what is known as being "trapped in the physical universe." This eventually happened to everybody, practically, so now it would be extremely rare to see some new star appear in the heavens out of nowhere.

In the case of life forms, if you wanted to create, say, a cat-like animal, but wanted it to be different, or differently adapted than other cat-like animals, wouldn't you start with an existing design and build on that? Intelligent evolution.

Though I have presented this in a rather fanciful way, it was taught to me with all sincerity as an extremely workable way of understanding how the physical universe and the life forms in it came to be, how we came to be confused about which came first, and how we ended up in the situation we (and many other societies throughout the broad reaches of space) find ourselves in today.

What I am saying in more simple terms is that I agree with those who feel that god came first. But god, from the point of view of the physical universe, was never a single unit. It was a huge multiplicity of cause points. And those cause points survive to this day (most of them) as you, and me.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by DaMod
 

Dear DaMod,

The math and logic that you have used to address this question are, frankly, a bit difficult for me to grasp. But I don't doubt that they make sense.


Everything you just said is pretty confusing too.

Where is your science? We are looking at God as a scientific concept, according to the original posters requests.

I don't understand the atomic bomb, but that doesn't bring anyone back from the dead. Perspective is not science.

(You're perspective sounds like Scientology. Correct?)

[edit on 22-5-2009 by SelfDestruct]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Anyone ever think that a large portion of the universe, in which we ourselves inhabit, might be falling into a massive black hole-like object... and that perhaps other parts of the universe, beyond telescope range, let's say, are perfectly intact?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I greatly appreciate your time in putting this all together! Kudos. It is well thought out and presented nicely.

Now for the bad news - your experience and education in much of this are simply lacking. The exact same "proofs" you use for existence of a god have been debated since the times of Socrates! Which is nice because you thought of them too - so good job! but, it also means you should read a little more.

Take the following classes and ALL this will be answered for you:
Chemistry 101
Philosophy 101
and maybe read Briane Greene's The Elegant Universe (or anything that covers SuperString Theory) and Hawking's A Brief History of Time

"Without a god there could not have been a beginning of time."
I honestly almost stopped reading right here! Basic, basic Philosophy

"How could all these elements exist together without violent chemical reactions occurring all the time?"
They didn't... they started as Hydrogen and Helium, which upon star implosion turned into carbon and below, then upon heavier star implosions we got heavier/larger atoms.

"We know by the first law of conservation of matter that matter cannot be created nor destroyed."
But E=MC2 provides that mass at the speed of light = energy.
Also, mass doesn't have to be at an atomic level, could be any level incuding down to QED particles.

The Cosmological Constant along with dark matter are some of the most debated issues in this field; it has had controversy from Einstein to Hubble and still under debate! We curently, this decade, believe the universe is expanding.

*****

I honestly appreciate your work, your theories, and your desire to learn and share! They are awesome qualities to have. I asked many of the same questions when I was 20 or so and got my answers by thinking and reading. Best of luck

Namaste



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Since we're talking about time, and you bring up black holes. Look at the Einstein observation of time based on the constant, finite speed of light that I mentioned earlier, THEN picture yourself at the threshold (point of no return) of a black hole. If you were tangent to the threshold, time would have a different meaning on your right than on your left.


There is also proof now that the speed of light is not constant.


Light, which normally travels the 240,000 miles from the Moon to Earth in less than two seconds, has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic -- 38 miles an hour.

www.news.harvard.edu...


[edit on 22-5-2009 by SelfDestruct]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I myself would like to add to this thread.

Im afraid I do not agree with you. You say are essentially arguing God is the "first cause", the "unmoved mover" of the Universe. The person behind the Big Bang. That is your first assumption and that my friend is where you fall the first hurdle.

You touched upon oscillating universe theory but did not go into much detail. Mass > Energy and Energy > Mass. While you previously wrote, you cannot destroy nor create matter, this is essentially true. However, you can CONVERT matter into energy. (The atomic bomb for example).

Therefore, if you take oscillating universe theory, imagine an ellastic band springing outward, then back inward, twisting and then displacing itself in the other direction. (think of the infinity symbol (or a sideways 8 ) Then imagine one loop making its way to the other side.

If we take the Big bang as the conversion of Energy to Matter, then eventually comes the big crunch, where gravitational forces cause the Universe to collapse in on itself, back to the point of the Big Bang, and then a big bang happening again once this is complete, (go back to that ellastic band analogy). This overall keeps to the thermodynamical principle of conservation of ENERGY, since You have ENERGY > MATTER > ENERGY > MATTER.

Now moving from that point, lets just say that this cycle has "just" existed for eternity. How is that less plausible than the idea of a "god" ? "God" can "just exist" but the Universe cannot?

My friend, you will NEVER be able to PROVE the existence of GOD. Everything in this Universe is perfectly balanced. That too applies to the arguments for or against god.

What i do think we can take from this is, THE FACT THAT THE ARGUMENTS EXIST, suggests to me there is something more.

Brad



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


I hear your point of view but this makes an implicit assumption that there is a consistent time line to these events:

TIME.... ------------------------------------------------------------------->
EVENT.. ENERGY -----> MASS -----> ENERGY ---> etc.

If time is a local phenonema specific to the generation of mass then we might conclude that there is a container for these events, which we could call "The Idea" relating to the oscillation between MASS and ENERGY:

The Idea {
TIME.... [-----------][-------------][---------------][---------][------->
EVENT.. ENERGY -----> MASS -----> ENERGY ---> etc.
}

This might give an avenue of thought of how the constancy of the exchange is derived from a non-time related inter-dimensional entity. I probably haven't explained myself very well but you may get the drift.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by Toughiv
 


I hear your point of view but this makes an implicit assumption that there is a consistent time line to these events:

TIME.... ------------------------------------------------------------------->
EVENT.. ENERGY -----> MASS -----> ENERGY ---> etc.

If time is a local phenonema specific to the generation of mass then we might conclude that there is a container for these events, which we could call "The Idea" relating to the oscillation between MASS and ENERGY:

The Idea {
TIME.... [-----------][-------------][---------------][---------][------->
EVENT.. ENERGY -----> MASS -----> ENERGY ---> etc.
}

This might give an avenue of thought of how the constancy of the exchange is derived from a non-time related inter-dimensional entity. I probably haven't explained myself very well but you may get the drift.


that is a very good point of view. In fact, i myself have never thought about that. To be honest that is the big problem, what is the universe expaning into?

However I would challenge that idea in 2 ways. Firstly Time is not constant, proven by relativity etc. Moreover, time only comes into existence when you have matter since Speed = Distance / Time.

Secondly, when it comes to the "container" i would say thats a limitation to our thinking. Since we exists within this universe, it is illogical to think that the universe is expanding, if you see where im going with this? Just like a singularity is illogical to us, so is the concept that Universe is expandind into nothing.

Thanks

BRad



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


I'm slightly confused by the first point of your challenge - that of the inconsistency of time. As you say, time appears to be intrinsically associated with mass and what I would deem as the local event of the oscillation, therefore, time is encapsulated as an attribute of the the local event without being an attribute of The Idea per se.

A bit like local variables in a function, the exists, they are used in operations, but they are released when the function call is ended (assuming that they are not static variables...) Damn, bad analogy.

The second point concerning the expansion is valid whether the universe implodes or continues to expand. Consider this, what if space - i.e. the 4(!) dimensional stuff that contains mass - is only a product of the localisation of mass. In terms of the big bang implosion we consider the mass to return to a focal point and explode again (easy solution) but we often do not consider the wider implications for space itself. In dimensional terms it need not exist if there is no mass to fill it, if you see what I mean. It is kind of like an interdependent void that allows mass to exist in a physical state.

If the universe continues expanding one could imagine a ripple effect whereby the central sphere of explosion (not necessarily regular though!) eventually empties of mass as the ripple continues outward, much like a donut with a hole in the middle. Then , what happens to space? Does it continue to exist or does the very fabric of space become unstable and drift outward creating a donut where the ring in the middle eventually catches up with the outside of the physical matter, perhaps helping to compress the matter and create an imbalance in gravity that either causes an implosion or causes the matter to convert to energy as it is compressed into an ever smaller ring of dough. Do you see what I mean?

[edit on 22-5-2009 by SugarCube]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 


I can see what you are saying, and to be honest with you, some of the words and concepts used have left me completely stumped HAHA! (however, i'll do some research tonight on what you said and come back at you with something
)

I personally believe that the density of the universe, once it finished expanding will match critical. It seems to make the most harmonic sense if that makes any sense?

As for space, it does contain some matter....its not a complete vaccum. Also, im not no major scientist, i only did A Level physics, I do feel that it is just how the Universe had to come about for all of these centralisations of mass to exists, expansion then centralised areas of mass. There was inconsitency of Anti - matter vs Matter after all.

Overall, i personally believe in a God. However, Im just playing devils advocate


Give me till tonight and ill give an educated response


Cheers

Brad



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


GOTCHA! The universe is not young! It is infinite! What was before that 14.4 billion years? What was 30 billion years ago? There had to be something! Tell me? Are you familiar with any violent chemical reactions? Some of them are very very explosive.

Plus you have to think that if a ball of matter existed that contained all of the elements in the universe, it would also contain all the hydrogen in the universe correct? And there would be enough gravity to cause enough pressure we might get some friction and heat started right? Perhaps some thermonuclear reactions? For infinity past?

If all the matter in the universe where contained in a singularity, then why did it go off 14.4 billion years ago instead of 60 billion years ago? Need to understand what infinity is...

Plus, I've noticed a lot of people are taking a lot of what I've said waaaay out of context. Why? I knew this would be a subject that people couldn't wait to take a bite out of, but now many of you are really twisting what I said, and that is never good.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


WOA WOA WOA stop right there!

You know what! I am going to say this to everyone!

I am not trying to prove the existence of god
This is a thread devoted to discussing god as a scientific concept......

Quit being jerks!

Do explain how our universe could have an uncaused beginning. How could a universe that is infinite have a beginning? How is that possible? If time had a beginning then it could not be uncaused because what caused it? Cause effect cause effect cause effect Cause effect cause effect cause effectCause effect cause effect cause effectCause effect cause effect cause effectCause effect cause effect cause effectCause effect cause effect cause effectCause effect cause effect cause effectCause effect cause effect cause effect. An infinite universe cannot have a beginning because it is infinite, therefore our universe is not young therefore there is another explanation. If it is young then it had a beginning therefore could not be infinite therefore had to be caused. Saying the cause is the big bang is faulty because it existed inside the realm of the infinite universe for an infinite period of time (supposedly).

Causality.....

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by DaMod
Lets Begin!

Oh yes, let's!

At the beginning, then:


Without a god there could not have been a beginning of time. If nothing created the universe then it had no beginning and therefore has always been there.


This is your fundamental assumption, by which your theory stands or falls. But as you have already discovered, it doesn't simplify things but complicates them.


[If] God... is a 11th dimensional being that means he could see every possible universe and every possible possibility all at once.

To validate your assumption, you have to bring in an even more (insanely more) complex multiverse for this God fellow of yours to live in. Where did that come from? Was it created by some even higher entity, some 19-dimensional Supergod? And where did he come from?


First of all, that first part is not an assumption, it is a logical thought. If the universe is uncaused then it would have always been there. To have a beginning would mean that it was caused and therefore not infinite in both time and space. This is not an assumption, you should understand logically where I am going. The fact that you don't kind of scares me.

The 2nd part...... I wasn't saying that is what god is!!!!!! I was saying that is an example of what he / it could be! Quit twisting me words!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I thought that I would illustrate my concept of the oscillation of a universe that continues to expand:



Note:

White space indicates "non dimensional" zone - it just doesn't exist.
Black space indicates the void of space as we know it, in extreme a dimensional space but with "nothing" in it.

(1) Big Bang occurs and matter is created from a ball of energy.
(2) Big Bang dies down and space is created about mass as it expands.
(3) As mass expands, it leaves a bigger void at the centre but pushes the boundary of the void outward.
(4) Due to the lack of mass at the centre, the void is ripped open and becomes a non-dimensional zone.
(5) The non-dimensional zone continues to grow and catches up with the outer ring of the limit of the void.

Of course this is just one scenario, and is open to criticism and thoughts about what occurs when the non-dimensional zone catches up with the limits of the void. Also, concerning the effects of gravitational density in the "shell" that is created.

I perceive this as all occurring with non-dimensional zone which exists but doesn't in the dimensional senses that we would understand. Time does not exist in this arena, or physical dimensions. Matter and energy, interchangeable in our universe, does not exist per se within the zone.

Within the zone, the repeated expansion and "implosion" (i.e. destruction) of the universe as we know it always exists, although, because there is no "time", it never occurs as a beginning or end - it just is. It represents a paradox of infinity that the universe exists for us but is never created or destroyed within the zone as a physical act. All the events occur simultaneously.

A limited analogy would be a high-speed event that is caught on very high-speed camera and then replayed in slow motion. From the film viewers perspective they can see every ripple of a bullet as it passes through a wooden board, but in reality the event appears instantaneous.

Now multiply that up to "infinity" so that the event occurs within time as perceived by us but as an event within the non-dimensional zone it takes literally no time because time does not exist. The moment from beginning to end does not occur so that even though it occurs to us, it doesn't occur as such within the zone.

I'm going round in circles now, but so you get me?

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to "prove" God - agreed that such a task is impossible anyway - simply to expound the concept that the universe can implode or reach a "critical mass" even if it continues to expand. The expansion doesn't necessarily mean that a big empty space is left in the middle.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by SugarCube]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toughiv
I myself would like to add to this thread.

Im afraid I do not agree with you. You say are essentially arguing God is the "first cause", the "unmoved mover" of the Universe. The person behind the Big Bang. That is your first assumption and that my friend is where you fall the first hurdle.

You touched upon oscillating universe theory but did not go into much detail. Mass > Energy and Energy > Mass. While you previously wrote, you cannot destroy nor create matter, this is essentially true. However, you can CONVERT matter into energy. (The atomic bomb for example).

Therefore, if you take oscillating universe theory, imagine an ellastic band springing outward, then back inward, twisting and then displacing itself in the other direction. (think of the infinity symbol (or a sideways 8 ) Then imagine one loop making its way to the other side.


The oscillating universe cannot work. It would break all known laws of physics. Let me explain.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed and yes the energy contained within matter can be released but you are forgetting that during a fission reaction, the matter contained within our little ball of uranium still exists after the reaction. The sub atomic particles are not destroyed, they are merely unleashed and seperated, therefore the matter is still there.

Second point which really should hit home, is if the universe is constantly expanding and contracting and has been doing this since the beginning of time and matter cannot be created nor destroyed (especially in a fusion reaction, because as you know hydrogen turns into helium as it is fused together.) Then the same sub atomic particles exist now as existed then.

It has been expanding / contracting / expanding / contracting. In between these contractions would be stars converting hydrogen into helium. If it has been doing this for an infinite amount of time (which it would almost have to) then the universe has been using hydrogen as fuel for infinity billion years. Why is hydrogen the most abundant resource in the universe? That in itself implies on itself that it is in fact young. Therefore it could not be oscillating. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed eaither simple converted in form, but matter is not converted in a fusion reaction simply converted to helium (not a good candidate for fission btw). Sure energy is released during this reaction but the matter still remains in the form of helium. Helium is a more scarce element.


Originally posted by Toughiv
If we take the Big bang as the conversion of Energy to Matter, then eventually comes the big crunch, where gravitational forces cause the Universe to collapse in on itself, back to the point of the Big Bang, and then a big bang happening again once this is complete, (go back to that ellastic band analogy). This overall keeps to the thermodynamical principle of conservation of ENERGY, since You have ENERGY > MATTER > ENERGY > MATTER.

Now moving from that point, lets just say that this cycle has "just" existed for eternity. How is that less plausible than the idea of a "god" ? "God" can "just exist" but the Universe cannot?


In order for this to be correct would negate all of science because it would still imply that the universe originally came from nothing.

It would have had to, unless your implying that the first law of conservation of matter does not apply. Can you not see how it wouldn't? If this has been happening for infinity and hydrogen has been the fuel for all time, then why do we still have plenty to go around? You cannot create matter!!! That is the only way that we could still have enough hydrogen after an infinity past of expansions and contractions.

/sigh



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
To the OP. This is a great great thread. I don't have anything of real content to add, but I've loved reading everything by everyone so far.

What I have to add is this. Our concept of time limits us in every way of truely understanding why things are the way they are. No human is trancending time and cannot, in all truth, explain what we experience. Humans can only explain the mechanics of the universe from the limited knowlege available to us by living in the dimensions we knowingly exist in. In the cases where we reach the limit, we have to start attributing unexplained behavior to extra dimensions, god, or both.

Just a small flame to notreallyalive. You may want to check your zipper. Your ego is showing.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join