Why God Exist!!!?

zarzelius
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.

I am studying this on my own free time. I quote my own work. I dont quoting from any one else. I only read what other sources have to say, that is all.

If this is not good enough for you. Why are you even here? Why dont you just fallow the Sources you have faith in. And be happy?

I am not waisting Your time. You are waisting Your own time.

reply to post by edmc^2

edmc^2
Again -Dr. Michio Kaku:

Dr. Kaku is well known NWO stooge...

Kaku is a propaganda agent for the dark side and his sugar coated scientific "discoveries" are blatant MSM brainwashing...

He would NOT be promoted by the MSM if he wasn't actually a part of their agenda.

He's a "science" shill for the NWO, always ready to spin the story whatever way the CIA, or the Pentagon, or the NSA, or the NWO spin meisters at MIT or Harvard, or Columbia, or John Hopkins, or Tavistock want him to spin it. At the time, I guesstimated that Kaku's interview was part of a propaganda package to lay the groundwork for what the government would claim was a runaway 'pandemic' scenario which would emulate the 1918 kill off. Source

He says that global government is progress. One-world government means "Type 1 civilization". And all who oppose it are "terrorists".

Michio Kaku = Illuminati propaganda agent

'Michio goes cuckoo and says you are a terrorist if you are against the NWO. He claims that the NWO is Type 1 attainment on the Kardashev scale. He also spews the false "alien gospel" to set the public up for the coming fake disclosure of the grigori as " Type 2 greys". Type 3 is obviously God and His angels, but what will the illuminati say they are?

Michio Kaku: People Who Oppose NWO Are 'Terrorists'

Michio Kaku – New World Order Facilitator

The science establishment is like the medical model – sterilized white suits with unchallengeable answers sent down to us from sacred Mount Know-It-All.

Until they’re disproven. Time and again.

The indoctrination is complete, the wars are underway, gobs of drugs were sold and people sickened, and whatever else they’re pushing is being consumed en masse…

You know this guy has to be the voice of the PTBs with all the press he gets. He’s set up as such an unchallengeable authority.

He may imply or claim “innocence” of any complicity, but I’ll bet he knows quite well which side his bread is buttered on. As many of them do.

Kaku’s job, like that of so many others, is to soften us up and prepare us to accept this technological takeover of mankind. Already they’re busy “mastering” nature with genetic tampering, geoengineering, and messing with electromagnetic weaponry. These programs are already in full swing, however cloaked.

Kaku is being used as the scientific white coat to help people swallow these pills and even happily enslave themselves to this Orwellian takeover.

As smart as this guy is, he definitely knows who’s pulling his strings, and he doesn’t mind the benefits. Unfortunately, much of the scientific community is blackmailed into towing the party line or they’ll lose their research grants or places in the scientific hierarchy or University system.

Still, I have no respect for anyone who cows to that, for whatever reason. It’s because people won’t stand up that humanity is becoming a full-on slave race.

These NWO pushers are everywhere. And they love the cloak of their bastardized “science” to supposedly validate their programs. After all, isn’t eugenics a science? Didn’t supposed scientists and dentists and University PhDs in white lab coats recommend we fluoridate the water supply, and host of other insanities?

www.zengardner.com...

reply to post by Murgatroid


Thanks for the info but I couldn't care less if he is a NWO stooge or not. That's not the point.

The point is even him (as well as the other top scientist/physicist) are at a lost when it comes to the origin of the big-bang. 'know why?

INFINITY - right smack in their faces is this huge problem with their theories. That is, INFINITY is the "thing" that's mucking their equation.


In other words, there's NO ESCAPING the reality they are FINDING. That INFINITY does exist!

Which again confirms what me and Spy66 are saying! That INFINITE is the source of the FINITE.

But as for me I go further than Spy, that God IS the ULTIMATE source of everything that exist.

And since INFINITY is not bounded by time and space constraints, thus God is INFINITE - that is why God Exist!

spy66

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.

I don't claim to understand that at all.

Could you clarify what you mean by these three timelines? How are they different from each-other? And do they affect each-other somehow?

spy66
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?

Well, according to google it means this:

complete and total

not limited in any way

having unlimited power

a reply to: Grimpachi

I like your logic. God would prove there is a god. Not a mans agenda to sound smart. You should ask God for proof! Is that really an unreasonable request. I asked God for proof and he showed me. Make sure your request is a real question not an attempt to prove your own point of view.

a reply to: Subnatural

I don't claim to understand that at all.

Could you clarify what you mean by these three timelines? How are they different from each-other? And do they affect each-other somehow?

Yes i can clarify what i mean by these Three different timelines.


1. A absolute constant timeline: Is only possible in a absolute empty Space. where the empty Space is absolute infinite and absolute neutral, and takes up all Space possible. This Space must have a absolute constant timeline, because there is nothing else present to preventing it from being a absolute constant or absolute neutral.

PS. The infinite is always a constant no mater what finite is present within it. Only the finite matter and particles will change. This should be something you should understand.

The infinite Space and its absolute constant timeline must exist. If not you can not have any of the other timelines. Where would they come from if the absolute infinite didnt exist?


2. Compression timeline: All finite are compressed energy. So there must be a compression timeline in order to compress and form the Properties that became finite. There shouldnt be any doubt about it "Right"??


3. Right now i bet you know what the expansion timeline is "Right"??

a reply to: spy66

You know Spy, it would be a great advancement in the scientific world if they will go beyond the finite and consider the infinite. IMHO if we do this many of the mysteries of the universe will start to unravel.

Case in point - before the "big bang", what was there before the singularity?

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: spy66

You know Spy, it would be a great advancement in the scientific world if they will go beyond the finite and consider the infinite. IMHO if we do this many of the mysteries of the universe will start to unravel.

Case in point - before the "big bang", what was there before the singularity?

If you want to know what was before the Big Bang; before the Singularity. You first have to understand why the compressed singularity could expand out wards.

The compressed singularity can only expand out wards if the Space surrounding the singularity have less pressure than the compressed singularity mass.

To day we know that the Space between the stars, planets and galaxies are very Close to absolute vacuum. And still the singularity is expanding. This should ring a bell With some People. At least if they know that it is the Space between the stars, planets and galaxies that are expanding equally in all directions at the same time.

A space that is Close to absolute vacuum can only expand out wards in a vacuum that is even closer to being a absolute vacuum. A absolute vacuum is is a Space that is absolute neutral, it is a absolute constant. Since Our present vacuum Space is not a absolute, it will expand.

The Space that surrounds Our expanding universe is absolute neutral. It must be since Our universe is still expanding With increasing speed.

originally posted by: spy66

If you want to know what was before the Big Bang; before the Singularity. You first have to understand why the compressed singularity could expand out wards.

The compressed singularity can only expand out wards if the Space surrounding the singularity have less pressure than the compressed singularity mass.

To day we know that the Space between the stars, planets and galaxies are very Close to absolute vacuum. And still the singularity is expanding. This should ring a bell With some People.At least if they know that it is the Space between the stars, planets and galaxies that are expanding equally in all directions at the same time.

So you feel the Earth and Mars for instance, are moving rapidly away from each other, as are the planets and the sun etc. because the space between them is expanding? Do you believe it possible that Galaxies could actually collide (indicating they are moving towards each other?

That seems very misleading.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: spy66

If you want to know what was before the Big Bang; before the Singularity. You first have to understand why the compressed singularity could expand out wards.

The compressed singularity can only expand out wards if the Space surrounding the singularity have less pressure than the compressed singularity mass.

To day we know that the Space between the stars, planets and galaxies are very Close to absolute vacuum. And still the singularity is expanding. This should ring a bell With some People.At least if they know that it is the Space between the stars, planets and galaxies that are expanding equally in all directions at the same time.

So you feel the Earth and Mars for instance, are moving rapidly away from each other, as are the planets and the sun etc. because the space between them is expanding? Do you believe it possible that Galaxies could actually collide (indicating they are moving towards each other?

That seems very misleading.

I do believe that galaxies and stars can colide. What does that have to do With this? It is the expansion that is the point here. Not if bodies will collide or not.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Subnatural

I don't claim to understand that at all.

Could you clarify what you mean by these three timelines? How are they different from each-other? And do they affect each-other somehow?

Yes i can clarify what i mean by these Three different timelines.


1. A absolute constant timeline: Is only possible in a absolute empty Space. where the empty Space is absolute infinite and absolute neutral, and takes up all Space possible. This Space must have a absolute constant timeline, because there is nothing else present to preventing it from being a absolute constant or absolute neutral.

PS. The infinite is always a constant no mater what finite is present within it. Only the finite matter and particles will change. This should be something you should understand.

The infinite Space and its absolute constant timeline must exist. If not you can not have any of the other timelines. Where would they come from if the absolute infinite didnt exist?

What do you mean by neutral? Electrically neutral?

In any case, you mean this is a hypothetical timeline? I say hypothetical because we have no empty space.

Could you explain the process by which matter (as opposed to empty space) prevents this timeline from being absolute constant or absolute neutral, as you say?

Also, how can one timeline come from within another timeline? It seems to me there has to be some kind of meta-structure?

Actually, let's start by defining what a time-line is.

I truly appreciate this discussion, i feel like I am really learning something here!

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Subnatural

I don't claim to understand that at all.

Could you clarify what you mean by these three timelines? How are they different from each-other? And do they affect each-other somehow?

2. Compression timeline: All finite are compressed energy. So there must be a compression timeline in order to compress and form the Properties that became finite. There shouldnt be any doubt about it "Right"??

I do not agree that "all finite are compressed energy". Clarify?

Which are these properties that became finite?

3. Right now i bet you know what the expansion timeline is "Right"??

Well, you would loose that bet, my friend.

You did not explain the third timeline?

a reply to: Subnatural

By absolute neutral i mean: A void that is not effected by finite matter and particles. It can not be effected because finite can never be absolute neutral and finite at the same time. I dont know if you understand why this is so?

The reason is that finite is always posetive no matter what particle it is compare to the absolute neutral void.

But finite matter and particles are effected by the absolute neutral void. I think within science it is called "the back ground image/void. This means; To be able to observe matter or particles you need a back ground.

In theory if you take the smallest particle known to science. You would need a empty void surrounding it to be able to observe it. You would need a empty back ground. Imagine that.

To understand what absolute neutral is. You have to neglect finite matter and particles. You can do that because finite have not always existed. So you can actually visualice this void in Your mind With some practice.



What makes a void absolute neutral? : There is only one void that can be absolute neutral. And that is a absolute empty Space. A absolute empty Space is still a void even though there are no finite matter and particles present. This have been tested and proven when observing light in a vacuum that is Close to absolute vacuum = "Void empty of finite particles".

Light is emitted energy and needs a void to have motion: To be able to travel at the speed of light. Light is a wavelength/a ripple in a void.

Within Our universe there exists no absolute empty Space. And it would be impossible to create a absolute empty Space because of the massive pressure from finite matter and partcles surrounding the chaimber. We would never be absle to build a chaimer strong enough. And we wouldnt be able to build a pump that is powerfull enough to suck out all particles from a chaimber. We could not heat up a chaimber hot enough to create a Perfect or a absolute vacuum. You would need a infinite amount of energy to be able to do this.



But the main thing is: we can not have any timelines at all if there didnt exist a absolute constant timeline.


So what is a timeline?
Or lets ask::
--- what do we have if there were no timelines at all? Well if there is no timeline. We still have a timeline. It would be a absolute constant timeline "absolute neutral". Because there must always be time. Do you see the Catch here?

So there must be at least Three timeline. One that is absolute constant/neutral. One that does not apply anymore. And than we have Our present timeline. The expansion timeline. This timeline is the only timeline we can observe physically in real time. The other two are impossible.

originally posted by: spy66
At least if they know that it is the Space between the stars, planets and galaxies that are expanding equally in all directions at the same time.

I do believe that galaxies and stars can colide. What does that have to do With this? It is the expansion that is the point here. Not if bodies will collide or not.

Seems relevant. Can this expansion can be overcome by gravity? Could there could be other forces involved in the expansion itself (probably not to you)?

A absolute empty Space is still a void even though there are no finite matter and particles present. This have been tested and proven when observing light in a vacuum that is Close to absolute vacuum = "Void empty of finite particles".

Not really. "Close to" absolutely empty (as far as we know, that could be very wrong) does not equal "absolutely empty". A space that has some particles and EM radiation is obviously not empty. To infer the properties of an imaginary "absolute vacuum" from something that most definitely is "not an imaginary absolute vacuum" seems like nonsense. As your quote below suggests.

Within Our universe there exists no absolute empty Space. And it would be impossible to create a absolute empty Space because of the massive pressure from finite matter and partcles surrounding the chaimber.

Light is emitted energy and needs a void to have motion

So your torch wont shine, unless it's in a void?

The absolute neutral properties of this imagined absolute vacuum sounds a lot like something that absolutely doesn't exist. If that's your definition of god, I agree.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Seems relevant. Can this expansion can be overcome by gravity? Could there could be other forces involved in the expansion itself (probably not to you)?

The expansion can not be overcome by finite gravity. Because nothing is greater than the absolute neutral state.
When a void/Space is absolute neutral all finite will be posetive compared to it. There is no way finite can ever be absolute neutral "as finite".

Why did the singularity expand when it was moste compressed?

When the singularity is absolute compressed mass and not yet expanded. Why did it expand and not attract, or just stay compressed?
Because this is related to You and many others on how gravity is understood.

Here is another poin: Does heat ever attract heat? This is a Clue!

Not really. "Close to" absolutely empty (as far as we know, that could be very wrong) does not equal "absolutely empty". A space that has some particles and EM radiation is obviously not empty. To infer the properties of an imaginary "absolute vacuum" from something that most definitely is "not an imaginary absolute vacuum" seems like nonsense. As your quote below suggests.

Okay. Lets view this from another angle. Because you do admitt that a absolut empty Space exist. Its just that you dont understand what you are saying With you text.

You say that a Space does not Equal absolute empty if there are particles and EM radiation present. Okay that is true, the Space is not absolut empty. So let me ask:

-What Properties can produce EM radiation? Because radiation is a form of emitted energy.
-Are these Properties that produce EM radiation finite?
-Is it true that only finite will produce EM radiation?

Is a finite Infinite? If not.

What would fill up the empty Space With these finite that produce EM radiation?

How did finite matter and particles fill up the Space that we Call a vacuum? Because the vacuum exists, because we can create it. And it exists in Space within Our universe.

Outer space has very low density and pressure, and is the closest physical approximation of a perfect vacuum. But no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.[4]

If you read the abowe properly. Dosent a empty Space exist? It is just filled With finite per. cubic meter. But the empty Space is there.

If you have a few hydrogen atoms per. cubic meter. wouldnt there be a lot of empty Space ?

You have to understand that there is a big difference in what we can create and what is reality.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Subnatural

I don't claim to understand that at all.

Could you clarify what you mean by these three timelines? How are they different from each-other? And do they affect each-other somehow?

Yes i can clarify what i mean by these Three different timelines.


1. A absolute constant timeline: Is only possible in a absolute empty Space. where the empty Space is absolute infinite and absolute neutral, and takes up all Space possible. This Space must have a absolute constant timeline, because there is nothing else present to preventing it from being a absolute constant or absolute neutral.

PS. The infinite is always a constant no mater what finite is present within it. Only the finite matter and particles will change. This should be something you should understand.

The infinite Space and its absolute constant timeline must exist. If not you can not have any of the other timelines. Where would they come from if the absolute infinite didnt exist?


2. Compression timeline: All finite are compressed energy. So there must be a compression timeline in order to compress and form the Properties that became finite. There shouldnt be any doubt about it "Right"??


3. Right now i bet you know what the expansion timeline is "Right"??

Where did you get this from.

Science uses time, planck time, quantum-zeno effect time and 12th dimensional hypertime in more theoretical models. I've never heard of any of your terminologies and the explanations don't sound scientific and go against the definition of time (you appear to be talking about matter, not time).

Can you provide proof via equation of what you're claiming?

a reply to: bastion

Science uses time, planck time, quantum-zeno effect time and 12th dimensional hypertime in more theoretical models. I've never heard of any of your terminologies and the explanations don't sound scientific and go against the definition of time (you appear to be talking about matter, not time).

Can you provide proof via equation of what you're claiming?

Let me ask you:

- How do scientists know the age of Our universe from the Big Bang and until today?
- Have Our universe expanded at all during this time frame, from the Big bang and until today?

- Would it be wrong to Call this expansion for expansion time?


- I know it is not coverd that science have measured a compression time ralated to the forming of the singularity. But does that mean a compression time never existed?

Are you saying that it never took any time to compress and form the singularity?


Science state that before the singularity there were no time. Wouldnt that mean that science refer their time to finite Properties?

Is it possible to have no time at all? No it is not.

originally posted by: edmc^2

To all unbelievers, here's a simple yet profound question that merits an honest answer.

That is:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

No! If something is infinite and hasn't been created then there is no logical need to believe in a creator to create something that is uncreated so you have voided your own argument with your question.

Somehow I doubt that will be a suitable answer for you though...

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: edmc^2

To all unbelievers, here's a simple yet profound question that merits an honest answer.

That is:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

No! If something is infinite and hasn't been created then there is no logical need to believe in a creator to create something that is uncreated so you have voided your own argument with your question.

Somehow I doubt that will be a suitable answer for you though...

Sorry but you missed the point.

Which is - since space/time is infinite and always existed, UNCREATED, therefore it's logical to conclude that God who is also uncreated MUST by necessity Always Existing.

Thus God Exist for the simple fact that Space/Time Exist.

Hence "out of something or Someone Eternal comes something".

We exist, the physical universe exist because God (Jehovah/Yahweh/Yehowah) Exist!

^ There is no logic edmc^2 statement.

a reply to: spy66

As expected you failed to provide anything to back up your claims.

The age of the Universe was estimated by analyzing the oldest objects in the Universe via Planck, Hubble and the like.

Yes the Universe is constantly expanding.

No there's no such thing as 'expansion time' as it's the space between objects which is expanding - the speed of which is calculated by red shift.

Compressed singularity? I'm not sure you understand what the singularity is or how science cannot explore it.

Big Bang theory state time only existed at the beginning of the Universe, not beforehand. So yes standard models show it's entirely possible for time not to exist. No matter = no time.

a reply to: bastion

^ There is no logic edmc^2 statement.

care to explain?