Why God Exist!!!?

spy66
Carl Sagan is not thee authority on this subject; why should i wait for him?

Carl have also said that we should ask the big questions that are hard to answer. If you deny the big questions you have Limited Your self as a fallower. You are not going to learn anything or get anywhere.

If you deny what i am saying, you certenly have a burden of profe on Your sholders to have a reason to deny. You can not deny based on nothing at all. That is as mute and pointless as a denyel can get.

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

"He who asserts must prove" - is a standard rule in arguments. You're changing that to "He who dismisses must disprove".

That's called shifting the burden of proof aka argument from ignorance. Yet again from you, how surprising!!

And there is nothing absolutely wrong with asking the big questions, in fact it's something to be encouraged and is necessary if we are to progress in our scientific understanding of the universe. You, however, are claiming to know the answers to the big questions, and yet present no evidence for this assertion - it's arrogant and ridiculous all at the same time.

spy66

Time have always existed. The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

There can never be a finite time unless you have a infinite timeline.

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

There you go again asserting BS. I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on you as it is pretty much par for the course here. If people couldn't just bald face assert any old nonsense as fact then ATS would close down..

spy66

zarzelius
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You started with the wrong sentence. Space time as you call it , didn't always exist.Time itself was created by the Big Bang.It didn't exist before.And because of that massive explosion is why it moves forward.
People should really stop trying to prove God exist. Faith is enough if you believe in it so why the need to have hard evidence?
Sounds to me like you are having a crisis of faith

Time have always existed. The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

There can never be a finite time unless you have a infinite timeline.

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

www.hawking.org.uk...

We measure or sense the passing of time because we observe consequences.Events before the Big Bang. That link is an amazing reading, i recommend it. Of course is open to different ways of seeing it.There is no way of knowing if the line is constant.For all we know, since the universe is increasing his speed, accelerating, time itself could be bound by the same law, therefore accelerating as well.If you go back to the beginning , you will see that the universe slows down til it stops at the Big Bang.So time itself could follow the same principle , stopping at the big bang as well.

reply to post by zarzelius


That's a very interesting lecture, thanks for linking.

So, maybe time is finite but without boundary? I'm having a hard time grasping what that would actually mean, but i like the idea.

To me this also challenges our everyday idea of linear time? There has to be more to time than what we can "see".

spy66
Time have always existed.

In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:

[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.

spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?

reply to post by Subnatural


No problem , im glad you liked it.

reply to post by Subnatural


Time is finite if you go backwards , but aparently infinite if you go forward. Same with the universe itself.It was finite , now is infinite.But of course, we cant know for sure that it doesnt end somewhere.
Now the most interesting concept we can discuss here , is this:
If the universe is in constant acceleration because of the force applied by the big bang and some other forces at work (theoretically ) like dark matter, dark space being "something" and not "nothing", etc, shouldnt time be in constant acceleration as well?

If we could measure the rate at which universe accelerates, is it possible to apply the same formula to time and understand some other things about our universe?

This is, sadly not the place to discuss this.The point of my post was to prove that , nothing "was" before the Big Bang , because there was no time, therefor , there could not be anybody doing anything.At least , as far as science go now.

zarzelius
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You started with the wrong sentence. Space time as you call it , didn't always exist.Time itself was created by the Big Bang.It didn't exist before.And because of that massive explosion is why it moves forward.
People should really stop trying to prove God exist. Faith is enough if you believe in it so why the need to have hard evidence?
Sounds to me like you are having a crisis of faith

Sure it does!

Here's a good read for you:

Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not.

einstein.stanford.edu...

Now let's see if you can figure this one out:

Time is timeless - why?

reply to post by edmc^2


The point isnt that.That is working after the big bang.The big bang is what started the space time as you know it.It proves the equations after it. We messure the pass of time as a succession of events , something that wasnt present before the big bang.Everything was motionless, steady and without change.

Subnatural

spy66
Time have always existed.

In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:

[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.

spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?

Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.


What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.

What does something that is absolute tell us?

Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.

A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.

spy66

Subnatural

spy66
Time have always existed.

In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:

[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.

spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?

Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.


What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.

What does something that is absolute tell us?

Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.

A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.

Wait, i know what you say mate.I actually understand and could even agree at some extent. But there is not way for now to prove that. Big Bang on the other hand, is being proved all the time, even yesterday there was a cool announcement about waves that were detected that can give even more evidence of that.
Your argument , requires more "blind faith".There is less evidence of that , than there is of the big bang and time starting with it. Sorry but, i can go with that till there is an actuall evidence of another "dimension" or a "bigger bubble".As far as we know, there is just our universe and nothing else.

zarzelius

spy66

Subnatural

spy66
Time have always existed.

In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:

[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.

spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?

Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.


What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.

What does something that is absolute tell us?

Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.

A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.

Wait, i know what you say mate.I actually understand and could even agree at some extent. But there is not way for now to prove that. Big Bang on the other hand, is being proved all the time, even yesterday there was a cool announcement about waves that were detected that can give even more evidence of that.
Your argument , requires more "blind faith".There is less evidence of that , than there is of the big bang and time starting with it. Sorry but, i can go with that till there is an actuall evidence of another "dimension" or a "bigger bubble".As far as we know, there is just our universe and nothing else.

If you are waiting for Carl Sagan, Hawkins or some other human scientist, you will never get the answer from them. Because there is no way they can replicate and test the beginning of time, and top it all off by documenting it.

But if you understand science you can gather the evidence Your self. You dont really need them to figure this out. Because the evidence is already in front of you. You just have to see it. But you have to understand this to be able to see whats in front of you.

spy66

zarzelius

spy66

Subnatural

spy66
Time have always existed.

In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:

[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.

spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?

Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.


What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.

What does something that is absolute tell us?

Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.

A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.

Wait, i know what you say mate.I actually understand and could even agree at some extent. But there is not way for now to prove that. Big Bang on the other hand, is being proved all the time, even yesterday there was a cool announcement about waves that were detected that can give even more evidence of that.
Your argument , requires more "blind faith".There is less evidence of that , than there is of the big bang and time starting with it. Sorry but, i can go with that till there is an actuall evidence of another "dimension" or a "bigger bubble".As far as we know, there is just our universe and nothing else.

If you are waiting for Carl Sagan, Hawkins or some other human scientist, you will never get the answer from them. Because there is no way they can replicate and test the beginning of time, and top it all off by documenting it.

But if you understand science you can gather the evidence Your self. You dont really need them to figure this out. Because the evidence is already in front of you. You just have to see it. But you have to understand this to be able to see whats in front of you.

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

I get it, so i shouldnt learn from Hawkins, Einstein or any other human scientist, i should take your word for it.Well you should have started there mate! Is right in front of me , is so simple that you should send them a letter, explain it to them,then ask them to give you the Nobel Price cus, well, you discovered the answer to the universe.
Cheers mate.

zarzelius

spy66

zarzelius

spy66

Subnatural

spy66
Time have always existed.

In the link above Hawking argues that the second law of thermodynamics demands a beginning of time:

[The second law] indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun.

spy66
The infinite does have a time line. It is absolute constant time line.

Could you clarify this, please? And what do you mean by "absolute constant"?

Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.


What do i mean With the infinite being a absolute constant?
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.

What does something that is absolute tell us?

Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.

A Dimension that is absolute. Is a absolute constant. That means its time line is a absolute constant. Something that is absolute does not change or create random changes. The absolute must create changes on its own. But since its a absolute constant it needs spacific Properties to create changes. It need a will do to so.

Wait, i know what you say mate.I actually understand and could even agree at some extent. But there is not way for now to prove that. Big Bang on the other hand, is being proved all the time, even yesterday there was a cool announcement about waves that were detected that can give even more evidence of that.
Your argument , requires more "blind faith".There is less evidence of that , than there is of the big bang and time starting with it. Sorry but, i can go with that till there is an actuall evidence of another "dimension" or a "bigger bubble".As far as we know, there is just our universe and nothing else.

If you are waiting for Carl Sagan, Hawkins or some other human scientist, you will never get the answer from them. Because there is no way they can replicate and test the beginning of time, and top it all off by documenting it.

But if you understand science you can gather the evidence Your self. You dont really need them to figure this out. Because the evidence is already in front of you. You just have to see it. But you have to understand this to be able to see whats in front of you.

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

I get it, so i shouldnt learn from Hawkins, Einstein or any other human scientist, i should take your word for it.Well you should have started there mate! Is right in front of me , is so simple that you should send them a letter, explain it to them,then ask them to give you the Nobel Price cus, well, you discovered the answer to the universe.
Cheers mate.

You should listen to what these People have to say, but not take what they say for good Fish. Its just like religion. Dont beleive everything the prescher say without checking the facts first.

Listening to what these People say, and understanding what these People say are two wery different Things.

If you have no basis of knowlage to understand what these People are talking about, you have no basis for useing what they say as a valid argument.

spy66
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.

So, there is the time which our universe experiences (a finite time), and also a "meta time", something beyond our knowledge? I am inclined to agree that this is possible.

The problem for me is that this disrupts our entire concept of "time", makes it hard to relate. In effect, there are two sorts of time. This means we have to redefine the entire discussion, in my opinion. Clear definitions are essential to mutual understanding. Especially on the internet.

Or, do you mean that our universe is identical to time?

spy66
Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.

If so, i have a hard time understanding that, time is usually considered a property of our universe, or a factor affecting it. Not identical to it.

spy66
-- There must be a absolute infinite or no finite can exist at all. There could not have been a beginning of finite time unless time existed before it.

Not sure what you mean here. How do you define a non-absolute finite? What do you mean with "time existing before time"? Is this not a contradiction? It's like saying "I existed before I existed".

spy66
Anything that is absolute is infinite. And only one Dimension can be absolute. There can not be two.

So, the spatial dimensions are not equal? You are saying that one of them is special? Why can't several dimensions be absolute?

Maybe you are using a different definition of dimensions. And, I am assuming that by absolute you mean unchanging, please be welcome to clarify.

reply to post by Subnatural


+1 mate
Im also having a hard time making any sense of all that.Seems confused or maybe he cant put in words exactly what he think time beyond time means . I dont mean to be rude. These subjects are always tough to put in words. Im just waiting for him to give a better explanation so we can continue with the discussion.
Only problem is i believe he isnt one that will take no for an answer :S
We will see how this unfolds
Cheers!

@Spy
Do you mean something like a box inside a box?
For one box to have "limits" it has to be contained in something bigger? Time in our universe , you are mistaken, is not finite, is infinite but only forward.It has a start but not an end. But you mean there should be an "infinite time" in which OUR time is contained?
Maybe you missread my posts. I said Time and space have a beggining , but not an end. It started with the big bang and they are infinite from then on. There isnt a need to be contained, because they are the container of all things.
But since our universe started, it became the "bigger box". Since is infinite, there cant be something bigger.
Hope that made sense

God the Father has always presented Himself in revelation as male. Same for the other two divine persons of the Blessed Trinity. Our guardian angels are spirit like God but when they manifest in helping us, they appear as male. They emulate the Father.

Subnatural

spy66
Hawking is talking about the beginning of Our universe when he mentions time. Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.

So, there is the time which our universe experiences (a finite time), and also a "meta time", something beyond our knowledge? I am inclined to agree that this is possible.

The problem for me is that this disrupts our entire concept of "time", makes it hard to relate. In effect, there are two sorts of time. This means we have to redefine the entire discussion, in my opinion. Clear definitions are essential to mutual understanding. Especially on the internet.

Or, do you mean that our universe is identical to time?

spy66
Our universe is the only finite time we know of and can document.

If so, i have a hard time understanding that, time is usually considered a property of our universe, or a factor affecting it. Not identical to it.

There are at least Three time lines that you should know of if you really understand this.

1. A absolute constant time line.

2. A compression time line.

3. A expansion time line.


The compression time line is not mentioned that well within science, all it mensions is a forming of the singularity.

reply to post by Subnatural

So, the spatial dimensions are not equal? You are saying that one of them is special? Why can't several dimensions be absolute?

Dont you know what absolute mean?

Im sorry Spy, i am trying but you keep saying stuff without quoting any source, not explaining anything at all. That is not how a discussion work mate.Try to quote your sources, studies , etc if you want to have a serious argument , if not , im sorry but im out of this thread.
Peace.