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: 32
13
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

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

Your strategy seems to be to just make things up as you go along and then conclude "therefore, god did it". This form of rationalization and motivated reasoning may help with your personal cognitive dissonance but don't seriously expect anyone else to be persuaded by it.


Here's another:

Is Space/Time infinite or finite?

I say INFINITE.

And since it's infinite, thus it has not beginning and end - hence uncreated always existing.

What say you?




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Now GetHyped

If you can reply to what I just as you said "made up along the way" in a logical way and prove me wrong, then perhaps I got all of these wrong and you're right.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

See? You're doing it again. You're simply making up premises and then concluding "therefore, god". Like I say, this level of illogical post hoc rationalization might be philosophically comforting to you but don't expect anyone else to buy it.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

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

See? You're doing it again. You're simply making up premises and then concluding "therefore, god". Like I say, this level of illogical post hoc rationalization might be philosophically comforting to you but don't expect anyone else to buy it.


Yet you're not able to refute my facts.

So other than a Creator what's you're explanation as to who or what created the Universe?

Nothing?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Yet you're not able to refute my facts.


This is what you don't seem to grasp. You opinions are not facts. The onus is on you to back up your statements with hard, scientific evidence. So far you have offered nothing.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: edmc^2
Yet you're not able to refute my facts.


This is what you don't seem to grasp. You opinions are not facts. The onus is on you to back up your statements with hard, scientific evidence. So far you have offered nothing.


To the contrary, I fully grasp what I'm saying. It's you that is not able to understand the simple logic that:

Something can produce something.

If you can grasp the implication of this very simple axiom then you will understand what we're talking about.

As it is, you haven't even presented your "opinion" or facts to counter my "opinion" or facts.

So again:

Can "nothing produce something" or "something can produce something"?

Which one is both scientifically accurate and scientifically logical.

To me the latter - which I prove many times over.

If you have no answer - then might as well give up if you can't put up.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Egoismyname
To remind you quit your Job





What???



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

[citation needed]



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

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

[citation needed]


why must a citation needed to prove something that is obvious?

But if you insist, I don't need to go far since Ergo, sun provided one already, that is:




The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

Hence to assume otherwise one is forced to explain the opposite that "nothing- absolutely nothing" was the source of the raw materials that produce the Singularity.

Something that can't be done and impossible.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
why must a citation needed to prove something that is obvious?


It's only "obvious" to you because you see the world through the lens of a religious person who is not interested in the pursuit of objective truth, only in molding reality to reflect your own personal faith.


But if you insist, I don't need to go far since Ergo, sun provided one already, that is:




The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...


Right, but then you tack on the end "therefore, god did it". You see the blatant discontinuity in logic here?
edit on 14-5-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: edmc^2
why must a citation needed to prove something that is obvious?


It's only "obvious" to you because you see the world through the lens of a religious person who is not interested in the pursuit of objective truth, only in molding reality to reflect your own personal faith.


But if you insist, I don't need to go far since Ergo, sun provided one already, that is:




The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...


Right, but then you tack on the end "therefore, god did it". You see the blatant discontinuity in logic here?


And from religious and scientific point of view, the alternative is?

Nothing?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
God exists,


sorry, thought it was just a stop sign, lol!

lots of peoples anthropomorphaize Him. hell, you get what i mean. spelling be damed.

that is unfortunate.

the f'ker doesn't have a beard or sit on a cloud. seriously?

what was the question again?



yup, spelling be dammed not damed.

unfortunately once you hit post - thread titles can't be changed -bummer.

So did the universe came about from nothing or from something that was already existing?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
"Out of something INFINITE (or someone ETERNAL) comes something finite".

That is, that the Physical Universe IS the result of something INFINITE.

The the INFINITE bounds the FINITE.


I know this based on logic, common sense and known scientific facts.

Doubt that. Do you have a link to these "scientific facts"? You know, the observations that show there was one nothing, then a universe? The big bang doesn't do it. Neither does the hypothetical "singularity" (a singularity is not nothing).

When I said the Universe is FINITE, I mean the observable PHYSICAL, MATERIAL universe. That which is observable due to its physical characteristics.

No, it just means there are limits to what we can observe. You seem to misrepresent this in an appeal to ignorance.

That which is composed of planets, stars, galaxies, clusters and super clusters is finite. That which has an origin, a beginning 13.8 bya.

Can you explain this origin in any scientific way. Without the usual "big bang"/"singularity" one size fits all. The big bang is an explanation for the evolution of the universe, the singularity indicates the universe was concentrated into a point where known physics breaks down (though I doubt many physicists really believe in a literal singularity as predicted by GR anyway). They don't say there was nothing.You say that. (obviously even a hypothetical singularity that contains everything that would evolve into the universe we see, is something).


It began in the Singularity, the Big Bang.

So you keep saying. Yet everything required for the universe we now see, was already there in both of these instances, wasn't it?



edit on 14-5-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



Actually, energy can't be eternal

Yeah, right. Unless you call it "god" of course lol.

Then explain how it popped into existence (realizing terms such as "big bang" and "singularity" does no such thing, the idea of a supposed "singularity" explains little this way, it just raises more questions). Then perhaps you could explain how you know (in a supportable scientific sense) that it will one day go back out of existence.


Thus, it's finite but ever expanding

If it is finite, where's the centre? The same ideas tell us that no matter where we observe from, we see the same thing.

Galaxies are not expanding, the space inside atoms is not expanding. Are black holes expanding?


But where is it expanding to?

Quite possibly...nothing. If it is infinite, the question is meaningless.

As to the part we can observe? Assuming it is expanding into something, it would simply be expanding either commensurate with or into the part of the universe we can't observe. No indication of magic beings and none are required for this.

Though there is some work being done with the hypothesis that the interpretation is wrong (that the universe is gaining mass).

BTW - an expanding universe proves once again an Origin, a biginning.

Not to most reasonable people. To them it indicates the distances between galaxies appears to be getting larger. The rest is your belief because it is consistent with a fantasy about some god or unicorn.

Not a bad blog, worth a look...

scienceblogs.com...

the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.


edit on 14-5-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
hello again friends i am satan i created myself too i created everything mabey gravity pulls me to this site but i like it ruler of east brooklyn is i, i am god perhaps a spelling king , of life forms existing i can say i am one of them cooressing bonds and moving atoms is all it is i am a true heart atoms corress them selves in fields of light making weapons bombs i am hitler and leonardo davinci the code was written on the internet this is the code all the atoms make us who we are not you , you stupid imbisul i do more then you , when life is here we have seen it all before , believe you can be seen by us aliens cause you will.,existing is congruing a word i spell to make sense of it, god, say this



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Which one is logical:

Trying to use Earth and physical law based logic to describe something that bares no resemblance to either, then inserting God into the answer.

Or realising all known laws breakdown at that point, we have absolutely no idea what went on and should explore what did go on instead of inserting a random answer because it suits personal beliefs.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

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

Which one is logical:

Trying to use Earth and physical law based logic to describe something that bares no resemblance to either, then inserting God into the answer.

Or realising all known laws breakdown at that point, we have absolutely no idea what went on and should explore what did go on instead of inserting a random answer because it suits personal beliefs.


Yet, that's what's in front of us - the reality!

The reality that either:

1. There's was absolutely NOTHING before the "big bang" then in a "split second" it happened. The material universe came to be.

E = m c 2 happened!

OR:

2. There's was already something or someone existing with the ABILITY to bring about the raw materials to create the physical universe.

That's all there is to it.

And all facts that we have come to know, including the universal physical laws that govern matter and energy, points to an unmistakable conclusion that:


ONLY something or someone can produce something.

That there was already something infinite or someone eternal, pre-existing that brought about the physical universe.

That my friend is indisputable.


And so far none of you doubters have offered a viable logical explanation as to why the alternative is to accept and believe otherwise.

As for what went on before the "beginning", it's irrelevant IF one doesn't know or have no idea who or what was the SOURCE of the "beginning".

Because part and parcel of understanding what went on before the "beginning" is knowing where we came from.

Not knowing where we came from or even believing that we're the result of an accident, a chance event stemming from nothing leads one to the wrong path - the path of nothingness.

And that's where some of you are - inspite of the simple fact at hand.


So once again, you haven't presented your counter argument.

Was it nothing or something - that produced the universe?

Why do you say so?



edit on 15-5-2014 by edmc^2 because: chance evenT



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: edmc^2



Actually, energy can't be eternal

Yeah, right. Unless you call it "god" of course lol.

Then explain how it popped into existence (realizing terms such as "big bang" and "singularity" does no such thing, the idea of a supposed "singularity" explains little this way, it just raises more questions). Then perhaps you could explain how you know (in a supportable scientific sense) that it will one day go back out of existence.


Thus, it's finite but ever expanding

If it is finite, where's the centre? The same ideas tell us that no matter where we observe from, we see the same thing.

Galaxies are not expanding, the space inside atoms is not expanding. Are black holes expanding?


But where is it expanding to?

Quite possibly...nothing. If it is infinite, the question is meaningless.

As to the part we can observe? Assuming it is expanding into something, it would simply be expanding either commensurate with or into the part of the universe we can't observe. No indication of magic beings and none are required for this.

Though there is some work being done with the hypothesis that the interpretation is wrong (that the universe is gaining mass).

BTW - an expanding universe proves once again an Origin, a biginning.

Not to most reasonable people. To them it indicates the distances between galaxies appears to be getting larger. The rest is your belief because it is consistent with a fantasy about some god or unicorn.

Not a bad blog, worth a look...

scienceblogs.com...

the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.



You got it wrong my friend.

Energy didn't "popped into existence" but a product of an already existing "something" (call it dark energy / dark matter - something invisible). Some say "cooling elementary particles like protons and electrons", but I say it's from someone eternal with the ability and POWER to produce Energy and transform it into Matter and vice-versa

That is the "raw material (for lack of a better word)" that produced energy was already existing. And that at some point in time (14bya) E = m c 2 came to be which resulted into the physical universe.

As for the universal expansion - the center (if there was even a center) is a mute point because there's no way for us to go back in time and trace it back. And where to start, so it's difficult to know. But what we do know based on background radiation is that the physical universe is expanding. Hence it has bounds, hence finite. But will it someday stop expanding? It remains to be seen. My hunch yes - just like the earth will never be overpopulated as it always finds a way to balanced itself so does the universe. And besides to people like myself, it will always remain in equilibrium (the earth that is) since there's a plan in place for it - including the Universe.

And no - Galaxies are not expanding (but are definitely changing). What is expanding though is the distance between the clusters of galaxies and between galaxies themselves. We have data to prove it. So that is no longer a question. In fact it's not even that important.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

But what really is important the origin. Once you know the answer to that question, the rest will come into play.

As for the "big bang", to be honest, my take, it's NOT really a "big bang" but more like a "whimper" as one scientist puts it.

This is so, because the universe based on observation is not chaotic but highly organized! Far be it to be the result of a "big bang" because a "universal explosion" of such proportion and magnitude will result is destruction not construction! Or to be precise more like "purposeful construction" since the heavenly bodies obey universal laws with precision. Planets and galaxies travel in a predetermined path.

Of course to you this a no no because it again requires a Organizer - that someone or something was behind the creation and organizing of the universe.

But in either case, whether it was a "big bang", a "singularity" a "whimper" or even your INFLATION theory, all of these events points to a BEGINNING.

Hence, since there was a Beginning (which is fact), it leads us back again to this very basic question:

What or Who started it?

That my friend in the question you need to answer.


BTW if I still may - in your inflation theory was there a gravity? If so where was it?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Why do you assume it has to be a person creating it? Various studies have indicated things like quantum whirlpools can create Universes. If you say it was a God who created it, you need proof to back up that claim as I could say a potato made it and have a more valid assumption as we know for a fact potatoes exist.

All you seem to be doing is approaching the subject with the idea God created the Universe then creating constraints, assumptions, axioms etc..that appear to back up the claim, which is entirely the wrong way to approach science.

You appear to be under the assumption you're disproving what others are saying here, when in fact all you're doing is proving how little you understand the subject and close-minded you are.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
Why do you assume it has to be a person creating it? Various studies have indicated things like quantum whirlpools can create Universes. If you say it was a God who created it, you need proof to back up that claim as I could say a potato made it and have a more valid assumption as we know for a fact potatoes exist.

All you seem to be doing is approaching the subject with the idea God created the Universe then creating constraints, assumptions, axioms etc..that appear to back up the claim, which is entirely the wrong way to approach science.

You appear to be under the assumption you're disproving what others are saying here, when in fact all you're doing is proving how little you understand the subject and close-minded you are.


Close minded is not what I am but an inquisitor and a challenger of prevailing knowledge. If I'm close-minded then I shouldn't have any agreement with the prevailing scientific facts. But as it is, I do agree with many of the scientific facts, such as - E = m c 2, Singularity, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Entanglement, 13.8 byo, 4byo earth and so forth. But what I do question is the illogical explanation that "nothing comes something" which I think you and others subscribed to. Without proof and logical explanation of what you subscribe to I stand as a challenger to it.

And since you can't offer any valid explanation or logical reason to believe to what you subscribe to then my point of view as to the Origin of the Universe stand tall and unchallenged.

And contrary to what you said, that I'm "approaching the subject with the idea God created the Universe then creating constraints, assumptions, axioms etc..", you are the one who got it wrong!!!

For a "fool" is he who creates something before even the parameters are in placed. No to the nth degree! No one does that but a "fool".

One has to come up with the CONSTRAINTS, DESIGN RULES and DESIGN PARAMETERS first before constructing anything. Hence a great design requires a great designer. And a great designer possesses great intelligence as to come up with the constraints upon which the structure is built on/upon.

The Universe is such a structure, far far greater than a "potato". But the lowly potato in itself requires constraints and parameters to become a potato, otherwise we call it tomato.

In other words, it's NOT by mere accident that these "things" came to be but by Great Intelligence and power.

A "something" is illogical to be the Creator for it has no INTELLIGENCE, while a "SOMEONE", a being an Entity - like us thinking humans but - of the Highest Stuff makes logical sense.

Hence that's is WHY God EXISTS!!!.

As to what you stated that "quantum whirlpools can create Universes" - can "IT" also create constraints and parameters upon which these universes are based on? If so how and why?

In other words, are "quantum whirlpools" things? If so who or what created "them/it" in the first place?

Or did they just created themselves into existence?

I wonder....

edit on 15-5-2014 by edmc^2 because: did it again - EXITS - EXISTS!!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 29  30  31    33  34 >>

log in

join