Is it not Impossible for God NOT to exist?

I have done a search on this topic and found a few threads that , in a way , correlated with what i am about to ask , but i just want simple straight answers from others.

I want ask a few questions and make it simple and quick as best of my ability. I am not trying to create a huge thread , but simply a what about this thread if you would be so kind to permit me to do so.

In Science ... there is a reaction or an action that creates or forms everything that happens around us. Something must act , to enable the next step of reaction to continue. I understand the Big Bang theory , evolution and so on or rather i understand why they are researching it.

Thanks to a poster below , ill simplifiy the above paragraph ... For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

However , i have a simple question , is it not impossible for God Not to exist? How could that first particle form ? How could that first few particles form to create a chain reaction from a Void? Nothing is there , i dont understand how it just appears out of no where , when there is nothing there. Zip ... its a Void.

Unless .... unless you believe the universe has existed for ever and ever and ever , such as the Christian's view of God. If you understand that the Universe has been here forever and ever , how has it been here forever and ever .... there is a starting point to everything and a ending point to everything.

However if you understand an Eternal universe how am i foolish to believe in an Eternal God .... in my opinion a Eternal God sounds more ...... sound than a Eternal Universe does it not?

Forgive my sentence structures and typing i have seen several errors , but i just finished having to deal with an essay and i am currently tired of correcting my stupidity

reply to post by milkyway12

well this is essentially the basis for religion - the first particle of which you speak
truth is there are billions of posibiltys. god being one of them
but its something we wont know for a long time. thats why i think its silly to be so specific and believe in a god with such specific rules and guidelines.

its called circular logic because it plays on an idea that we dont know the answer to. you cant prove it and you cant disprove it..

I agree wholeheartedly! It takes alot more faith to buy "evolution" than it does "creationism." Think about this:

In nature (creation) everything goes in cycles. Moon cycles, sun cycles, seasonal cycles, a seed forms a tree which bears fruit, which bears seeds. In creation we have cycles of reconciliation.

There is no chance for reconciliation in evolution.

If everything had a beginning, then God must have had a beginning and a creator as well. Most people (including God) seem to view God as being infinite though. So did God have a creator as well? Or is It outside the universe It created?

reply to post by UniverSoul


Yes , very true. However , God stands out to me in that Circular logic, not only as comfort that when i die , that love and happiness i felt in life will not simply pass away, but there is something greater than me , that offers me a home , a eternal home , but the limits of mind also seem to inspire me toward God ... i can concieve the The Big Bang , the first planet forming , but i cant concieve where the reaction came from to start the very first planet.

I believe the Bible spoke well in its mentioning not to rely upon your own understanding of God. Which also another comfort, that something is there and i so happened to be raised in a Christian home , but the mind cant help but wonder it seems. I find it very interesting.

reply to post by ZeroReady


We do not , the Bible tells us not to Rely on our own understanding of God , however. God tells us he is but one. So maybe ... there is an inexhaustable amount of realities he created , and this just so happens to be the one we are in? Maybe he has been around .... forever ... maybe he popped up out of no where?

Maybe there are millions of Gods for realities , but this God said he is but one for ours? I dont know , i know i am getting far fetched .... but maybe we are just a single realitiy. Hm.

It is very possible to create something out of nothing. It happens all the time on the quantum level. Without defying any laws of nature! Now my question is that if time itself did not exist before the universe was created, where did "god" exist to create this universe. I am not ruling out the possibility of a god. There is so much that we do not understand. Chances are there are infinite amounts of other universes. God could have existed in a different universe and simply created our from there. Not the case in my opinion but it is not impossible

Except that "quantum physics" is just a theory that has yet to be proven...

I believe that God who's name is Jesus did create it all around 6000 years ago.

He states in the words written down in the Bible that the heavens are growing old as a garment, if they are growing old and wearing down that would mean a beginning.

Not eternal.

But I will state that the Big Bang is a religious belief as no one was there to see it happen so it takes faith to believe. It is not testable in any way. Speculation of what one should see from the after math is not proof that it happened that way, for one they throw all evidence away that does not fit the Hypothesis. Only allowing the masses to see what they want so as to control them.

If they say you can from animals then they will get you to act like one.

reply to post by Worldablaze420


Quantum physics tries to explain the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and atomic particles. (Wiki)

Again , you still have your base particles here , Atoms and Energy.

reply to post by Worldablaze420


One example of creating something out of nothing please.

The law states that energy can be transformed, i.e. changed from one form to another, but cannot be created nor destroyed

just like the big bang "theory", and the "theory" of evolution...

something from nothing... Link

reply to post by milkyway12

I have done a search on this topic and found a few threads that , in a way , correlated with what i am about to ask , but i just want simple straight answers from others.

Have you ever searched for this topic?


I notice that you mentioned the word 'simple,' a few times, but you are actually doing the exact opposite with your words. You have taken simplified phrases, and re-worded them in a way that makes them more difficult to understand.

In Science ... there is a reaction or an action that creates or forms everything that happens around us. Something must act , to enable the next step of reaction to continue. I understand the Big Bang theory , evolution and so on or rather i understand why they are researching it.

This↑ simplified = ↓

Newton's Third Law
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Regardless of what the answers actually are, if you simplify the questions, they might seem easier to find and/or comprehend.

reply to post by Worldablaze420


That is very interesting to say the least! However is you notice though ..... there was an Action to create that something .... from nothing it didnt randomly happen .... they caused it through action. Though it came from nothing , they initiated it.

Do you see what i mean now?

Hmm, maybe I'm reading wrong, but they're saying that there are particles in "empty" space. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Like atoms, molecules, etc...

So they "illuminated" these particles.

Hence, this is not "something from nothing."

reply to post by BrokenCircles


Of course , i have purchased several tools to help me proof read my essays. Its just when i get on the internet i tend to become lazy with it which i do understand takes away some interest in the poster when he does not present his material in a well written manner , i apologize.

Newtons 3rd Law! Thats much better , i have forgotten all about him stating this. Thank you.

Originally posted by graphuto
I agree wholeheartedly! It takes alot more faith to buy "evolution" than it does "creationism." Think about this:

In nature (creation) everything goes in cycles. Moon cycles, sun cycles, seasonal cycles, a seed forms a tree which bears fruit, which bears seeds. In creation we have cycles of reconciliation.

There is no chance for reconciliation in evolution.

I guess, that you must be talking about cosmological evolution, not biological (as this has little to do with this thread).

Meaning that some kind of creationist cosmogony/cosmology is correct. Which one, and where do you find support for this idea?

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
I believe that God who's name is Jesus did create it all around 6000 years ago.

He states in the words written down in the Bible that the heavens are growing old as a garment, if they are growing old and wearing down that would mean a beginning.

Not eternal.

But I will state that the Big Bang is a religious belief as no one was there to see it happen so it takes faith to believe. It is not testable in any way. Speculation of what one should see from the after math is not proof that it happened that way, for one they throw all evidence away that does not fit the Hypothesis. Only allowing the masses to see what they want so as to control them.

If they say you can from animals then they will get you to act like one.

As when you last time made this preposterous postulate, I can only repeat, that your understanding of real science must be close to zero.

I don't expect anyone to a professor on astro-physics to have opinions on this, but at least the tiniest bit of basic knowledge of physics and scientific procedure would be in order before you start commenting on how it works.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by graphuto
I agree wholeheartedly! It takes alot more faith to buy "evolution" than it does "creationism." Think about this:

In nature (creation) everything goes in cycles. Moon cycles, sun cycles, seasonal cycles, a seed forms a tree which bears fruit, which bears seeds. In creation we have cycles of reconciliation.

There is no chance for reconciliation in evolution.

I guess, that you must be talking about cosmological evolution, not biological (as this has little to do with this thread).

Meaning that some kind of creationist cosmogony/cosmology is correct. Which one, and where do you find support for this idea?

I have no reason to believe that this model doesn't adhere to both biological AND cosmological. I find support for this idea in the observable world around me, and in The Bible. As above, so below. As below, so above.