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 God Exist!!!?

page: 21
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

edmc^2
Show me scientific facts / evidence / mathematical equations that supports Dr. Hawking's proposal, that:

"Out of nothing, comes something" "Something from nothing".


You are taking Hawking out of context. The actual quote is: "The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang." He merely said it was possible, not the definitive answer to how the universe was created.

Hawking has been wrong before and is not the sole authority on the origins of the universe. There is a reason it is called theoretical physics.



edit on 3-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer


Taken out of context or not, the premise still the same - there's nothing in the universe that can create something from nothing. Both the laws of nature and laws of man testify to this fact.

Scientific or otherwise, the rule is still the same:

Out of something eternal comes something!

So back to my question but I'll rephrase this time:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time) posits the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?


That is, if such uncreated phenomenons such INFINITY/Space-Time Continuum exist, why not an Eternal Being - the First Cause?




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:53 AM
link   

drivers1492

edmc^2
So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?


Possibly but not necessarily. I can see how that assumption can be made very easily and the point can be argued in support of it. But, that doesn't actually make it true. We have no idea as to the cause of existence at this point. Mathematics seems to imply that there was a beginning of sorts. But, what it does not imply is the cause or what existed before this beginning. I'm not actually making a argument for or against your statement simply pointing out that at this point we do not know. We are left with assumptions and opinions. While people feel very strongly about these it doesn't change that what we do actually "know" does not prove or disprove either statement.

Our current understanding of the universe and existence is in constant flux. We may one day be able to prove one way or the other, although, outside of belief in one concept over another I highly doubt it.




For example, we know that spacetime is both uncreated and infinite, that "IT" always existed. Yet why is this NOT proof enough of the existence of an incorporeal uncreated and infinite being - God?


In reference to the above quote there is some mathematics coming to the table that imply that this is not true. It's implications are showing that space and time are not fundamental components of reality.



Locality is the notion that particles can interact only from adjoining positions in space and time. And unitarity holds that the probabilities of all possible outcomes of a quantum mechanical interaction must add up to one. The concepts are the central pillars of quantum field theory in its original form, but in certain situations involving gravity, both break down, suggesting neither is a fundamental aspect of nature. In keeping with this idea, the new geometric approach to particle interactions removes locality and unitarity from its starting assumptions. The amplituhedron is not built out of space-time and probabilities; these properties merely arise as consequences of the jewel’s geometry. The usual picture of space and time, and particles moving around in them, is a construct.

Scientists Discover a Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics

So with the above implications what are we left with? Basically the same thing we were left with before just the possibility of a greater understanding. But no proof for either side. The reason I shared that information is simply to inform you and others that each problem we encounter has a solution so to speak. And each answer leads to more questions. So were are left wondering is the answer of deities out there somewhere? For me personally, if it is, it will be in the math. Everything that exists has a mathematical construct. I see no reason for a deity to fall outside of this.

Then there remains the very good possibility I am flat out wrong. But, I'm ok with that. I'm ok because I accept my limitations and understanding of this existence.


Thank you for an interesting post - especially the "jewel" article. I'll need to read and study up about as to the implications of such finding.

As to what you said below:




We have no idea as to the cause of existence at this point.


Of course we do. In fact there's ONLY two "phenomenons" to chose from.

That we owe our existence or for that matter the Universe owes its existence from

1. "something infinite" or

2. "someone eternal".

Otherwise the alternative is to humbly accept that "nothing created everything".

A concept that is both illogicall and unfounded lacking substance, meaning and purpose. An accidental event.

But by all accounts, considering all that we know about the universe, considering the fine tuning required to make its existence possible, considering the intricate balance of forces for its maintenance, it's the height of illogic to accept that blind chance, an accidental event was the cause of it.

That "nothing created everything".

Rather than the obvious - from something infinite or someone eternal created everything.







As stated in the opening post:

Our Universe
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ----------------↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Had No ---------------- Had a
Beginning? -----------------Beginning?


↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓-------------↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Without Cause ----------Was Caused

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ---------↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
By Some THING --------By Some ONE
Eternal ?------------------ Eternal?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by edmc^2
 





For example, we know that spacetime is both uncreated and infinite, that "IT" always existed. Yet why is this NOT proof enough of the existence of an incorporeal uncreated and infinite being - God?


If you accept that the universe is un-created and infinite then you do realize it doesn't need creating right? As it was always here or are you saying the universe is god?


Brotherman - I think you got it wrong.

The universe is NOT infinite nor uncreated but had a beginning (the big bang).

What is INFINITE and UNCREATED is the concept of INFINITY and SPACE-TIME continuum.

Both concept have no beginning and end.

Now if such concepts exists (and they do exist) why would such concept not applicable to an "eternal Being"?

After all, the universe exhibits the hallmark of intelligence - as in the "fingerprint of God"!




edit on 4-1-2014 by edmc^2 because: I think [you] got it wrong



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   

AfterInfinity

edmc^2

colbe
OP,

C.S. Lewis has great quotes for atheists.

No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth'. C.S. Lewis


Thanks for the quote!!

Yes, deny all they want - they will never improve on what's already stated to be the fact:

"'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth' - Gen 1:1"

Just eight words (or so) described accurately and beautifully how it all came to be.

The CAUSE and the EFFECT!





Am I correct in understanding that you did not intend to operate this thread as a collaborative discussion of an intriguing concept, but as a lecture on how to look at a question you decided was an excellent starting point to the conclusion you've already given us? In other words, this thread was a classic baiting tactic meant solely to make an argument, rather than foster any actual debate?

Because that's what I'm seeing right now.
edit on 3-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



Well for starters - do you accept/believe that INFINITY exist?

If so any idea the implications of it?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   

edmc^2
Taken out of context or not, the premise still the same - there's nothing in the universe that can create something from nothing. Both the laws of nature and laws of man testify to this fact.


The context is what defines the premise. The universe is theorized to have come from a singularity therefore it obviously did not come from 'nothing'.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Of course we do. In fact there's ONLY two "phenomenons" to chose from. That we owe our existence or for that matter the Universe owes its existence from 1. "something infinite" or 2. "someone eternal". Otherwise the alternative is to humbly accept that "nothing created everything".


I do think it is a safe assumption to say that there has always been something. What it is or what form it took is questionable without a doubt. It can imply that it was guided in some way to what we have today as well. For me, I am fascinated by the fact no matter which direction we look, to the tiniest of known objects to the largest there is always more. Just that in itself tells me we have no idea how and where we came from. I can't truly "know" the answer yet, there isn't enough information. What I can do is keep looking. If at some point me or anyone else finds that the answer is a supreme being there is nothing wrong with that at all. It still remains an opinion though, and opinions are not a bad thing.




But by all accounts, considering all that we know about the universe, considering the fine tuning required to make its existence possible, considering the intricate balance of forces for its maintenance, it's the height of illogic to accept that blind chance, an accidental event was the cause of it. That "nothing created everything".

I see the intricate balances and forces in our universe as just that, forces of nature. I don't see them guided from the outside so to speak. Using what we know of the universe and more so what we don't know I can't come to the same conclusion as you do here. The mind blowing time scales and size of everything involved leaves me awestruck. I cannot personally see how one can come to an absolute conclusion as to the reasoning or origin of it all. What I can understand is the need for that conclusion to give someone meaning to their life. Mine has meaning outside of being created to serve a deity. That seems to restraining given this vast universe. Stating that without said being everything is up for blind chance or accidental isn't true. There are natural laws that exist that very well could be the "cause" or "direction" of everything. We were created I do believe that just not the way most do. A diamond is created within the earth due to a variety of circumstances. It's not a guided event, but it happens because of the conditions that piece of matter is exposed to. Yes I realize the vast difference between a diamond and life, my point is outside influences are shaping it into another form. I wonder if what we see in our universe isn't basically the same thing. The universe, our solar system, planet, and even us as a species are the result of outside influences we aren't aware of yet. Those influences may be a deity or they may not but trying to state that it is illogical without having the knowledge to show how things began seems a bit illogical in itself I think.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I cannot say for a fact that infinity exists. And even if it did, i would only be able to grasp a shadow of a ghost of the very beginning of its nature. Which amounts to nothing at all. How are you capable of any more than that?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


No, dude. No. You're trying to funnel us into agreeing with a fallacious line of logic. If it had no beginning, then it was not created. It's as simple as that. If it does have a beginning, then its creator or source had to have a beginning, and that creator or source had to have a beginning, ad nauseum. Which is just as befuddling as the other proposition.

Simply put, you are not in a position to offer any of the answers you claim to be in possession of, nor do you have the background and experience to determine such answers. It was fun and all, but in the end, you are just as clueless as the rest of us. There's no point to pretending otherwise.
edit on 4-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
It is funny that only I and edmc2 can understand this.

- Only one Dimension can be infinite; not two, Three or four and so on, only one Dimension can always have been and will be.

The infinite can not be without a time line, like everyone thinks. Its just that the infinite must have a absolute constant time line. It always have been a constant and always will be, absolute constant.

Since the infnite is a absolute constant. "YOU" know that it will never change randomly. Because it can not. All you People have to do is read and understand Your Math and science.

Therefor any finite that exists and have existed must be created by the infinite. There is no other Place/Dimension it can appear from. How hard can this be?????? to understand. Math and science spell it out as well.


People can accepth that matter can appear out of nowhere, and disappear compleatly. But wont Accept the inifinite.
And to top it of they say that energy can not be created or destroyed. But still it can appear out of nowhere and wanish into nowhere. People just dont grasp science, but love to argue as if they did.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

spy66
And to top it of they say that energy can not be created or destroyed. But still it can appear out of nowhere and wanish into nowhere. People just dont grasp science, but love to argue as if they did.


These comments show that you do not grasp the concept as the matter is not appearing out of nowhere and going nowhere.

This is a very good paper on the subject of 'virtual particles' and explains the properties of these field disturbances which are the layperson's common misunderstanding of matter 'popping into existence'.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spy66
And to top it of they say that energy can not be created or destroyed. But still it can appear out of nowhere and wanish into nowhere. People just dont grasp science, but love to argue as if they did.


These comments show that you do not grasp the concept as the matter is not appearing out of nowhere and going nowhere.

This is a very good paper on the subject of 'virtual particles' and explains the properties of these field disturbances which are the layperson's common misunderstanding of matter 'popping into existence'.



If you read. It is what People use as arguments in many different topics. It is not my argument at all.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

spy66
If you read. It is what People use as arguments in many different topics. It is not my argument at all.


Gotcha. So you understand how virtual particles behave and that this is a proven physics phenomenon?



edit on 4-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

spy66
If you read. It is what People use as arguments in many different topics. It is not my argument at all.


Gotcha. So you understand how virtual particles behave and that this is a proven physics phenomenon?



edit on 4-1-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer


Yeah a Virtual particle is not a real particle. Its about a ripple effect in Field or Space between particles. But can not be observed alone in a absolute empty Space without particles.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


No, it's really not funny at all. Nothing about this thread is funny. You think your banana is a smoking gun. What's so funny about that?
edit on 5-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66
 


No, it's really not funny at all. Nothing about this thread is funny. You think your banana is a smoking gun. What's so funny about that?
edit on 5-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


What do you mean by, my banana is a smoking gun?

What i am saying is not a smoking gun, It is common sense. No one can disporve what i am saying or Counter it With at better Scientific Logic. Because there aint non.
Science is all about the study of finite, And you will never be able to use the study of finite to explain any alternatives that make common sense about creation of finite.

Edit. You can, but you would have to Accept that there is a infinite. And Gud.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 




Only one Dimension can be infinite; not two, Three or four and so on, only one Dimension can always have been and will be.

Why only one?



The infinite can not be without a time line, like everyone thinks. Its just that the infinite must have a absolute constant time line. It always have been a constant and always will be, absolute constant.

I'm not sure why that matters or if its true. I'm not aware of any supporting science or math that would make it true.



Since the infnite is a absolute constant. "YOU" know that it will never change randomly. Because it can not. All you People have to do is read and understand Your Math and science

Again, I'm not aware of the math and science that makes this true.



Therefor any finite that exists and have existed must be created by the infinite. There is no other Place/Dimension it can appear from. How hard can this be?????? to understand. Math and science spell it out as well.

Again I would ask for more information.(the math your referring to)

To my knowledge, and understand it isn't that massive, the things your stating as fact I have missed in my reading. I would like to know where to look if you have a link for the information.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I cannot say for a fact that infinity exists. And even if it did, i would only be able to grasp a shadow of a ghost of the very beginning of its nature. Which amounts to nothing at all. How are you capable of any more than that?


How you ask?

Simple. I have something that you don't.

Something that's beyond the confines of the finite. The ability to think beyond the material/corporeal.

The ability to fathom the unfathomable.

The ability to see the invisible.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


No, dude. No. You're trying to funnel us into agreeing with a fallacious line of logic. If it had no beginning, then it was not created. It's as simple as that. If it does have a beginning, then its creator or source had to have a beginning, and that creator or source had to have a beginning, ad nauseum. Which is just as befuddling as the other proposition.

Simply put, you are not in a position to offer any of the answers you claim to be in possession of, nor do you have the background and experience to determine such answers. It was fun and all, but in the end, you are just as clueless as the rest of us. There's no point to pretending otherwise.
edit on 4-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Now how could something infinite or someone eternal - always existing needing a creator?

That doesn't makes sense.

It's like saying - for infinity to exist it must have a creator.

How illogical such concept.

As for background - logic and common sense are of prime importance to understand what I'm talking about.

It doesn't matter whether you are Einstein or Hawkings if you lack logic and common sense. Much of what you will be saying will be nonsense.

Like saying infinity doesn't exist.


Doesn't make logical sense because it implies that space time has actual boundary or that 1/0 = boundary instead of infinity.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Now how could something infinite or someone eternal - always existing needing a creator?

That doesn't makes sense.

It's like saying - for infinity to exist it must have a creator.


Did you actually read my post? Judging by your response, I don't think you did. Go back and read it. Word for word.
edit on 6-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

edmc^2

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I cannot say for a fact that infinity exists. And even if it did, i would only be able to grasp a shadow of a ghost of the very beginning of its nature. Which amounts to nothing at all. How are you capable of any more than that?


How you ask?

Simple. I have something that you don't.

Something that's beyond the confines of the finite. The ability to think beyond the material/corporeal.

The ability to fathom the unfathomable.

The ability to see the invisible.




And now you sound positively whacked in the head.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join