Why God Exist!!!?

spy66
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I have readabout this some time ago. There is no doubt that there is motion in the space between galaxies. That is because there are pockets of space out there with different pressure's "with less matter and particles pr.square meter of space" than other places.

If our universe was spinning or rotating it would have been observed a long time ago. It would also have been possible to project the spin mathematically. Our universe would not expand in a stright line either. The expansion would seam curved.

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

Yes, I think you're correct.

I did some additional reading and the latest finding is that the spin observe is so small it doesn't indicate a spin at all. And as further confirmation, they looked at the different sides but detected no spin at all.

So it seems the spin found was local (within galaxies).

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Are you going to make that thread? Or are you just going to satisfy yourself with the "knowledge" and "facts" that you already have? Because I think we need some actual experts in here, some actual EXPERT OPINIONS. Do I have to make the thread for you? Would you attend if I did? A thread on whether or not infinity exists and in what capacity according to leading experts, and whether such information substantiates the existence of a deity. That's what the thread would be about.

edit on 21-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Of course, I'm going to make another thread but it will not be to your liking.

As for EXPERTS on the subject of INFINITY - Dr. Kaku et al in the vid that I linked are some of the best. Yet even them - are puzzled as to the existence of INFINITY.

Now if such giants of Astrophysics are unable wrap around their mind on the concept of INFINITY, what makes you think that other EXPERTS can?

To quote Dr. Kaku on the question of INFINITY

There are many types of infinity. The age of our universe may increase without limit because our universe is accelerating. In space, however, our universe may be finite in hyper-space but infinite in three dimension just like a bubble. So the farthest object in the universe would be the back of your head. -- Dr Michio Kaku

Now if you can find a giant mirror to place behind the back of your head so that you can see it in front of you, you might as well see infinity.

reply to post by edmc^2

Chance is a funny thing when you think about it. In my mind, chance doesn't exist. At least the way most give it credit or explain it. I had a convo with my gf a few days ago although I don't remember what started it, the convo turned to chance. My explanation made her head hurt. My example was this. If I flip this coin how would you explain what is going to happen. She said there is a chance it lands heads and chance for tails. Most would agree with that statement but I dont. There isn't a "chance" for either outcome. Depending on how the coin is weighted, forward momentum of the flip as well as the placement of that momentum, air variables surrounding the coin, the surface it makes contact with and on and on and on. There is not really any chance to any of it.
When I look at the universe and hear discussions like this and the idea of chance comes up it sort of bothers me. There isn't any chance. It happened this way because it had to due to every circumstance in the equation. I can't even begin to dream about the math involved in that.
So yeah it is sort of precise and ordered in some aspects but that doesn't show intelligence it's a response to a stimuli in a way. And your right in your decision that you can see how that would be attributed to a something/someone to guide it. You have some interesting viewpoints I enjoy the responses.

reply to post by drivers1492


A good post drivers1492. Hard to argue with much of it as it seems obvious and based on facts.


Except when we get to the part about the process being guided. Then it goes from mind boggling calculations we might use to describe "chance" (or not), to pure belief based inference, or even logical fallacy. It complicates things irredeemably and unnecessarily IMO. Leading to problems like...who guided the forces that created the one now guiding the forces...and so on...


Then we usually get the head in the sand answer that the designer always was... "just because"... when we could just as easily (in fact more easily) apply that to the notion that nothing guides it all "just because" and save ourselves a whole other level of complication and contradiction. Though I have doubts that anyone really knows...


Personal belief is fine, there is a lot more to the experience of being human than can really be explained. But I see the op as factually wrong (or at least based on empty claims) to begin with and the following attempt at philosophy somewhat simplistic and empty.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Except when we get to the part about the process being guided. Then it goes from mind boggling calculations we might use to describe "chance" (or not), to pure belief based inference, or even logical fallacy. It complicates things irredeemably and unnecessarily IMO. Leading to problems like...who guided the forces that created the one now guiding the forces...and so on...

That's the fascinating part about chance though. Nothing actually relies on chance it is actually "guided". That doesn't place the guidance into the hands of "guide" of sorts but it doesn't negate the fact either. The word itself, guided, isn't the best word for the description but if you look at any event in history that event took place solely because of so many previous events and factors preceding it there is not other way it could have played out. Now what I am stating cannot be proven to be true of course since we have no way to roll back time and change the parameters to see what would happen. Whether or not this complicates things is irrelevant. Existence is complicated, mind blowing complicated, and while I don't personally have the inclination to believe that there is a controlling intelligent being at it's root, since we aren't in possession of all the variables and information I can't simply dismiss it either.

The one drawback I do see and as you pointed out is simply stopping and saying we can't know why. But belief in god or whatever, as much as it seems to be stressed is a downfall doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny throughout history. There are many cases where it has hampered strides forward in knowledge I don't argue that at all but it does not stop it. Ptolemy, Sir Isaac Newton, Christian Huygens, all reached a point in their search for knowledge and invoked god when they no longer could explain it. Since we had their knowledge as our baseline man was able to step further forward until they could go no further again. Children born today are born with a much more informed baseline and if they believe or not will step further ahead. There will be those that simply stop. That's what works for them, that's what puts their mind at ease and universe in order and there is nothing wrong with that. Because there is a chance that they are right in some aspect and I personally, as much as I disagree, respect that.

reply to post by edmc^2


So you're not going to welcome clarification regarding the specifics of infinity?

reply to post by drivers1492


Then (IMO), you seem to have a very healthy and open minded attitude to the whole thing.

drivers1492
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

But belief in god or whatever, as much as it seems to be stressed is a downfall doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny throughout history. There are many cases where it has hampered strides forward in knowledge I don't argue that at all but it does not stop it. Ptolemy, Sir Isaac Newton, Christian Huygens, all reached a point in their search for knowledge and invoked god when they no longer could explain it.

What you say is probably true regarding knowledge, there have been and still are some brilliant scientists who were/are devoutly religious. Fundamentalism is a problem though.

It also appears that largely religious populations have societies that are less healthy than the more secular ones. Sociological and statistical studies seem quite compelling. Though it isn't understood yet whether religion is causative, or is embraced as a natural reaction to coping with societal problems. Either way, it appears that they do go together.

What you say is probably true regarding knowledge, there have been and still are some brilliant scientists who were/are devoutly religious. Fundamentalism is a problem though. It also appears that largely religious populations have societies that are less healthy than the more secular ones. Sociological and statistical studies seem quite compelling. Though it isn't understood yet whether religion is causative, or is embraced as a natural reaction to coping with societal problems. Either way, it appears that they do go together.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I agree there are issues. Although in many cases I find people simply lay out a blanket assertion that religion or faith is a bad thing. Everything has drawbacks no matter how well intentioned. Historically would you state that this statement is actually true? " largely religious populations have societies that are less healthy than the more secular ones" Looking at the different societies that ruled throughout history I actually see very little without a widely religious population. Looking at current societies that seems to be more true. Man has apparently been worshiping something as far back as before written history, if it were truly as destructive as many make it out I believe it would have been phased out much more today than it actually is. That in itself leaves one to wonder if it actually doesn't hold some merit somehow.

drivers1492
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Chance is a funny thing when you think about it. In my mind, chance doesn't exist. At least the way most give it credit or explain it. I had a convo with my gf a few days ago although I don't remember what started it, the convo turned to chance. My explanation made her head hurt. My example was this. If I flip this coin how would you explain what is going to happen. She said there is a chance it lands heads and chance for tails. Most would agree with that statement but I dont. There isn't a "chance" for either outcome. Depending on how the coin is weighted, forward momentum of the flip as well as the placement of that momentum, air variables surrounding the coin, the surface it makes contact with and on and on and on. There is not really any chance to any of it.
When I look at the universe and hear discussions like this and the idea of chance comes up it sort of bothers me. There isn't any chance. It happened this way because it had to due to every circumstance in the equation. I can't even begin to dream about the math involved in that.
So yeah it is sort of precise and ordered in some aspects but that doesn't show intelligence it's a response to a stimuli in a way. And your right in your decision that you can see how that would be attributed to a something/someone to guide it. You have some interesting viewpoints I enjoy the responses.

Sure, if you put it that way but the difference is (and it's a huge one) the Universe require very specific and precise parameters for it to exist and be able to support life.

Simply put, using the coin toss analogy, what's the probability for the coin to land face up with its nose at precisely 3 o'clock 1 min 31.123 seconds position (on the dial) at an angle of 1.567 degrees from ground level, right in the middle of the busy LA freeway? How many toss do you think it will take to hit that precise target? What are the chances of reaching the goal? Furthermore, what's required for this simple coin toss to happen? Can a random toss have any chance?

Or shouldn't you be involved before and all along the way from the moment you tossed the coin to the time it stopped moving? Making sure that ALL parameters and circumstances are "just right"?

How successful do you think will you be in 100 million years, none stop toss? How about 1 billion years?

Impossible?

Yet this coin analogy is nothing when compared to the universe and it's even more absurd when compared to the creation of life!

So how can CHANCE - an unguided event be responsible for the existence of life and the universe?

How can the "coin" hit that "precise" target if there was no one tossing it in the air in first place?

Impossible as the law of motion dictates!

Yet, that's what some wants us to believe!

To accept it as fact against ALL ODDS without even looking at the alternative.

reply to post by edmc^2

So how can CHANCE - an unguided event be responsible for the existence of life and the universe?

How can the "coin" hit that "precise" target if there was no one tossing it in the air in first place?

Impossible as the law of motion dictates!

Yet, that's what some wants us to believe!

To accept it as fact against ALL ODDS without even looking at the alternative.

Like I said, intellectually dishonest. You are guilty of exactly that which you accuse others of. You refuse to give the alternative a fair trial because you already know what you WANT the answer to be and the rest be damned. I have picked the alternatives apart using critical analysis. I would admit there was a god if I truly believed there to be one. I was turn my back on it, certainly, but I would not deny its presence in the universe. But the fact is, there is no reason to declare that there is absolutely a higher power governing the existence of this universe. There might be reasons to suspect it, reasons to hope there is, reasons to think it might be nice if there was, but THAT'S IT. And I think those are the reasons you are using to extrapolate this theory, this pseudo-scientific lecture on infinity.


What would you do if it were proven, hmm? What would you do, what would you say or think, if it were proven beyond any doubt that there IS NO GOD and NEVER WAS?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Like I said, intellectually dishonest. You are guilty of exactly that which you accuse others of. You refuse to give the alternative a fair trial because you already know what you WANT the answer to be and the rest be damned. I have picked the alternatives apart using critical analysis. I would admit there was a god if I truly believed there to be one. I was turn my back on it, certainly, but I would not deny its presence in the universe. But the fact is, there is no reason to declare that there is absolutely a higher power governing the existence of this universe. There might be reasons to suspect it, reasons to hope there is, reasons to think it might be nice if there was, but THAT'S IT. And I think those are the reasons you are using to extrapolate this theory, this pseudo-scientific lecture on infinity. What would you do if it were proven, hmm? What would you do, what would you say or think, if it were proven beyond any doubt that there IS NO GOD and NEVER WAS?

"intellectually dishonest"?

In what way? By "refus[ing] to give the alternative a fair trial"?

Well, by all means what's the alternative to "something infinite / someone eternal" created the Universe?




Please explain why it is scientifically valid?

reply to post by edmc^2

"intellectually dishonest"?

In what way? By "refus[ing] to give the alternative a fair trial"?

Well, by all means what's the alternative to "something infinite / someone eternal" created the Universe?

I'm surprised you didn't think of it. If someone can be eternal, so can something. So I propose...that the universe is eternal! It didn't have to be created! Which means there doesn't have to be a ruling superpowered asshole to keep tabs on it.

There's an alternative for ya.

reply to post by edmc^2

Sure, if you put it that way but the difference is (and it's a huge one) the Universe require very specific and precise parameters for it to exist and be able to support life.

It requires some parameters for life as we know it yes I agree.

Simply put, using the coin toss analogy, what's the probability for the coin to land face up with its nose at precisely 3 o'clock 1 min 31.123 seconds position (on the dial) at an angle of 1.567 degrees from ground level, right in the middle of the busy LA freeway? How many toss do you think it will take to hit that precise target? What are the chances of reaching the goal? Furthermore, what's required for this simple coin toss to happen? Can a random toss have any chance? Or shouldn't you be involved before and all along the way from the moment you tossed the coin to the time it stopped moving? Making sure that ALL parameters and circumstances are "just right"? How successful do you think will you be in 100 million years, none stop toss? How about 1 billion years? Impossible?

Addressing probabilities when your trying to show whether or not there can be existence as we know it without a intelligent hand I must ask one question. Do you, honestly believe that we possess remotely close to the amount of variables involved in this event whether guided or not to make a serious probability table?
No a random toss has no chance. And no I have no need to be involved in the toss to ensure the parameters are "just right". Is it possible? I would imagine it is given the appropriate circumstances. I understand the point your trying to make but your overlooking the amount of information to make an informed accurate response to the query.

So how can CHANCE - an unguided event be responsible for the existence of life and the universe? How can the "coin" hit that "precise" target if there was no one tossing it in the air in first place? Impossible as the law of motion dictates! Yet, that's what some wants us to believe! To accept it as fact against ALL ODDS without even looking at the alternative.

I suppose I would say by stepping back and try and view it with as little bias as possible. I mean we both have it and it's difficult for everyone including myself to do it. The law of motion is true and sound in the universe as it exists now. I have no reason to believe that the law would not hold true with whatever was before this universe initially began. I understand your passion for what you believe but because it makes sense to you doesn't mean its correct. Just like what makes sense to me doesn't mean I'm correct. I am looking at alternatives, which is why I'm having this conversation, and I am questioning them and discussing what I believe as well. Hell we both could be wrong and we live in a jewel on a dog necklace like in MIB. Whether you or I like or dislike it neither of us knows the real truth.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

"intellectually dishonest"?

In what way? By "refus[ing] to give the alternative a fair trial"?

Well, by all means what's the alternative to "something infinite / someone eternal" created the Universe?

I'm surprised you didn't think of it. If someone can be eternal, so can something. So I propose...that the universe is eternal! It didn't have to be created! Which means there doesn't have to be a ruling superpowered asshole to keep tabs on it.

There's an alternative for ya.

Sure! Why not?

BUT...the problem with your "alternative" is that the Universe is not eternal but had a beginning.

In short it was created - by something infinite or Someone eternal.

Something or Someone started the "ball" rolling and created the Singularity (Big Bang) 14 billion years ago.

Any more alternative?

drivers1492
I agree there are issues. Although in many cases I find people simply lay out a blanket assertion that religion or faith is a bad thing. Everything has drawbacks no matter how well intentioned. Historically would you state that this statement is actually true? " largely religious populations have societies that are less healthy than the more secular ones" Looking at the different societies that ruled throughout history I actually see very little without a widely religious population. Looking at current societies that seems to be more true. Man has apparently been worshiping something as far back as before written history, if it were truly as destructive as many make it out I believe it would have been phased out much more today than it actually is. That in itself leaves one to wonder if it actually doesn't hold some merit somehow.

Yes, there are a lot of assertions that are untrue.

Historically, religion has been only one of many causes, for social strife. But not the causa causarum it is made out to be and no doubt there are many fine philanthropic institutions that are religion based, as well as many genuinely kind and wonderful people who are religious. There are even scientists who are religion based that do great work (not the pseudo science groups like creationists though, which is based on fundamentalism).

In societies as a whole though, religious belief does correlate with dysfunction. This is not so much an opinion, as a statistical fact. General indicators, such as life expectancy/mortality rates, incarceration, divorce, unwanted/teen pregnancy, abortion rates, STD infection, income inequality, tolerance, ability to care for their sick and less privileged, shared wealth...to name just a few...all suffer in proportion to religious belief/observance.

It's quite amazing that in the more secular and "promiscuous" European nations, divorce is lower, abortion rates are comparatively low, STD rates are also low with some rare enough (such as gonorrhea) to basically considered eradicated. While in the pious and moral, religious US it is quite high, particularly in young people with some diseases being at epidemic levels (literally many hundreds of times higher than the more secular nations).

CEO's in the more secular nations earns around 15 - 40 times the average of their employees, yet in the religious US where it is well know that a Camel won't fit through the eye of a needle, it is somewhere around 485 times as much.

The list goes on...and while there isn't such a margin in every indicator, there are no areas where societies seem to fare better in correlation with religion.

It is fortunate for the studies to have a 1st world nation such as the US, which is also unusually religious (amongst the developed world). Yet the correlations are the same without it.

If you like I could link you to some relevant studies.

AfterInfinity


I'm surprised you didn't think of it. If someone can be eternal, so can something. So I propose...that the universe is eternal! It didn't have to be created! Which means there doesn't have to be a ruling superpowered asshole to keep tabs on it.

There's an alternative for ya.

Lol. and +1.

edmc^2

BUT...the problem with your "alternative" is that the Universe is not eternal but had a beginning.

The universe as we know it, in it's present form, appears to have had a beginning. That doesn't rule out the universe, in some form, as being eternal. No one knows, or at least is able to back up their claims (despite your assertions to the contrary).

You realize there are also proposed "cyclic universe" cosmological models, based on real science?

Cogito, Ergo Sum

edmc^2

BUT...the problem with your "alternative" is that the Universe is not eternal but had a beginning.

The universe as we know it, in it's present form, appears to have had a beginning. That doesn't rule out the universe, in some form, as being eternal. No one knows, or at least is able to back up their claims (despite your assertions to the contrary).

You realize there are also proposed "cyclic universe" cosmological models, based on real science?

I think you're confusing the material/physical universe with Space-Time Continuum or the "empty space" outside the (known) "boundaries" of the physical universe.

That is, the material universe have/had a beginning (15 to 20 billion years ago - confirmed by the expansion, background radiation and other instrumentation in addition to modern mathematics). Thus ruling out the notion that it's eternal.

As to what you said that the universe is eternal by virtue of the "cyclic universe" theory/hypothesis, it's in the same category as the "multiverse theory". Both are just ideas with nothing solid to back it up.

However, even if we assume that it is the case, you're just basically "kicking the can" to the next space time continuum with the same question of 'who or what started it'? Where did the energy/material came from?

In addition IF this "cyclic universe" theory/hypothesis is true, it implies a beginning and an end (Big-Bang/Big-Crunch). Thus begging us to ask the question - what was it then before the "Big-Bang" and after the "Big-Crunch"?

Was it the universe? If so, then, how so?

If not then what is it?

Was it "something else"?

And one more thing - this "cyclic universe theory/hypothesis" is bordering in philosophy as it's akin to the (Hindu faith of) reincarnation.

that is...death and rebirth death and rebirth - big bang and big crunch big bang and big crunch ... and the wheel goes round and round where it stops nobody knows. What it will become of nobody knows...

reply to post by drivers1492

Addressing probabilities when your trying to show whether or not there can be existence as we know it without a intelligent hand I must ask one question. Do you, honestly believe that we possess remotely close to the amount of variables involved in this event whether guided or not to make a serious probability table?

Based on what we know now than what we know then, I say yes.

Consider for example, the much maligned "fine tuned universe" argument. Although hotly contested and disregarded by some as "baloney", they still can't refute the fact that the fundamental parameters for fine tuning the universe exists!

In fact according to incontrovertible findings, the fine tuning is so precise that a small adjustment to the parameters will badly result in the opposite of life.

To quote a proponent of evolution theory:

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist. Examples of such “fine-tuning” abound. Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such physical parameters are what they are.

www.pbs.org...

Now based on these findings, what's the probability for these parameters to be "tweaked" in such fashion that it will not / didn't require any "intelligence"?

Does "whatever we call it" other than "someone with intelligence" capable of such astronomical feat?

Does "random tweaking" have even a chance?

Furthermore, can chance events (left alone on its own) be able to "tweak" the parameters so that the universe will emerge as we know it, Fine Tuned to the highest degree of precision?

Based on higher mathematics and laws of physics, impossible imho!

And just like the coin toss illustration, it's impossible to hit the target WITHOUT a "controlling agent" - YOU.

Meaning, YOU set up all required instrumentation and rules and parameters for controlling the circumstances so that the outcome will satisfy the expectation.

That is, measuring wind velocity, wind direction, height of the toss, amount of force applied to the toss, ground surface, distance, rate of fall/acceleration, background noise, etc, etc, even the flow of LA freeway traffic and types of car passing by.

Yet you say...

No a random toss has no chance. And no I have no need to be involved in the toss to ensure the parameters are "just right". Is it possible? I would imagine it is given the appropriate circumstances. I understand the point your trying to make but your overlooking the amount of information to make an informed accurate response to the query.

A contradiction in my humble observation for:

If "a random toss has no chance" of hitting the target, then what chances of it happening in the first place if you're NOT even involved in the (hypothetical coin) toss?

Again based on the laws of physics, I say none - zero.

Furthermore, what "appropriate circumstances" (minus you) are you talking about? Without you how will the "appropriate circumstances" emerge?

That is very puzzling to me.

If there's even one, then you might be correct, I'm "overlooking the amount of information to make an informed accurate response to the query". Yet, I don't see any.

I suppose I would say by stepping back and try and view it with as little bias as possible. I mean we both have it and it's difficult for everyone including myself to do it. The law of motion is true and sound in the universe as it exists now. I have no reason to believe that the law would not hold true with whatever was before this universe initially began. I understand your passion for what you believe but because it makes sense to you doesn't mean its correct. Just like what makes sense to me doesn't mean I'm correct. I am looking at alternatives, which is why I'm having this conversation, and I am questioning them and discussing what I believe as well. Hell we both could be wrong and we live in a jewel on a dog necklace like in MIB. Whether you or I like or dislike it neither of us knows the real truth.

It's not actually a passion (per se) on my part but the LOGIC of it all is what driving me to believe that it IS the truth. And contrary to what Ergo said - I'm not "burying my head in the sand" in order to believe and accept what I've been saying - otherwise it's blind faith or a fantasy land living "in a jewel on a dog necklace like in MIB" (like you said). No, it's a methodical, analytical and logical process!

So to me - it makes sense to believe / accept / subscribe to / adhere to - that "something infinite / someone eternal created everything (else) rather than "nothing created everything (else).


And that's the truth.