Why God Exist!!!?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


[qoute]To answer the question, NO. Something infinite and uncreated does not prove it's SOMEONE. That requires a huge leap of logic, assuming of course that statement is even true. But, we do NOT know that spacetime is both uncreated and infinite or that it always existed. Of course it's not proof of god. You are making assumptions about what science does not know. Sounds just like every one of your other threads talking about the same thing. [/qoute]

So barcs, are you saying that time and space had a beginning ? That both phenomena were created?

Or you just don't know as usual?




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

edmc^2
How do we know that time always existed?

Because time "itself" is timeless.


That is no answer. You are simply repeating the question, right? "Time is timeless because it is." This is what you are saying. Circular logic.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Subnatural

edmc^2
How do we know that time always existed?

Because time "itself" is timeless.


That is no answer. You are simply repeating the question, right? "Time is timeless because it is." This is what you are saying. Circular logic.


No. I'm just saying that there's no fixed point to measure it when it comes to time/ space continuum.

Thus time is timeless. For instance, where is time before the "big-bang"?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

edmc^2

spy66
reply to post by edmc^2
 





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


I would say that Space is the only dimension that cant have been created. IT must have always existed and is the only dimension that will always exist. Time on the other hand must have been formed. But time is a big topic. It takes time to form time. It tok time to form Our universe.

Without a infinite empty Space there would not be a Place to form time.



Thus "time" is "space and "space" is "time" - one can't exist without the other - uncreated always existing.

We accept this to be a fact and understand them to be a fact. Yet, why is it hard to accept the concept of of an "Eternal Being" - an uncreated, incorporeal Entity we call God?




Time and Space are different sets of time, and space can exist without finite time.

Space is a constant timeline, finite time is not. A absolute empty Space is the only true constant there is. It is even a true constant when finite time is present within it. Because it is only the finite that change.

God is this absolute empty Space. God can not be anything else. Because nothing can be stronger or weaker than the absolute. A better way to say it, is that nothing can be more neutral than the absolute empty Space.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Wrong edit.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

edmc^2

Subnatural

edmc^2
How do we know that time always existed?

Because time "itself" is timeless.


That is no answer. You are simply repeating the question, right? "Time is timeless because it is." This is what you are saying. Circular logic.


No. I'm just saying that there's no fixed point to measure it when it comes to time/ space continuum.

Thus time is timeless. For instance, where is time before the "big-bang"?




The time we observe today didnt exist before the Big Bang. Nothing of what we see and observe today existed before the Big Bang.

The Space which makes up Our universe is all within a expanding singularity. The Space outside the singularity must be very Close to a constand or a absolute vacuum. It must be because of how we observe Our universe to be equally expanding in all directions.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

spy66

edmc^2

Subnatural

edmc^2
How do we know that time always existed?

Because time "itself" is timeless.


That is no answer. You are simply repeating the question, right? "Time is timeless because it is." This is what you are saying. Circular logic.


No. I'm just saying that there's no fixed point to measure it when it comes to time/ space continuum.

Thus time is timeless. For instance, where is time before the "big-bang"?




The time we observe today didnt exist before the Big Bang. Nothing of what we see and observe today existed before the Big Bang.

The Space which makes up Our universe is all within a expanding singularity. The Space outside the singularity must be very Close to a constand or a absolute vacuum. It must be because of how we observe Our universe to be equally expanding in all directions.


If what you're saying is true:

"The time we observe today didnt exist before the Big Bang. Nothing of what we see and observe today existed before the Big Bang."

Are you saying then that time / space never existed and that only "vacuum" existed (before the big-bang)?

If this is the case, does this mean that vacuum didn't contain time/space?

It can't be because vacuum itself IS time and space.

You can't take it out of the equation. Like I said, spacetime always existed, never created. IT has no end nor a beginning.

Yet it exist! And we're in IT.




edit on 12-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





God is this absolute empty Space. God can not be anything else. Because nothing can be stronger or weaker than the absolute. A better way to say it, is that nothing can be more neutral than the absolute empty Space.


"God is this absolute empty Space" - Can't be for the simple fact that Intelligence is present. And like I've said before, where there's intelligence there's a mind behind "IT". Where there's a mind there's a "body" - a "body" - an "Entity".

Thus if such a mind-boggling phenomena as spacetime continuum can exist and it does exist, then why not an uncreated incorporeal Being - God?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





There is no evidence to suggest that the universe has a purpose or direction. That is just wishful thinking on the part of humans who want there to be more to everything than what they can currently see, hear, and touch. That isn't to say that there isn't a purpose or direction to the universe, just that we aren't aware of one and have no evidence of such.


Not meant to offend you Krazysh0t, but it's the height of arrogance for man to say that "There is no evidence to suggest that the universe has a purpose or direction."

To the contrary, we have many evidence THAT "suggest that the universe has a purpose or direction".

For instance, the location of our Galaxy alone in the (known) universe is proof enough to suggest that IT did not "suddenly" just appear in its "specific" spot by mere coincidence or accident. Going deeper, the specific location of our solar system is another proof that points to purpose and direction. The specific location of planet earth with the rest of the planets in our solar system is further evidence that "suggest that the universe has a purpose or direction". All of these celestial bodies work in an elegant choreography - everything moves according to physical laws.


"When we looked at the dwarf galaxies surrounding Andromeda, we expected to find them buzzing around randomly, like angry bees around a hive.

"Instead, we've found that half of Andromeda's satellites are orbiting together in an immense plane, which is more than a million light years in diameter but only 30 000 light years thick. These dwarf galaxies have formed a ring around Andromeda."

"This was completely unexpected – the chance of this happening randomly is next to nothing. It really is just weird," -- said Professor Lewis.



Read more at: phys.org...

phys.org...


For many years they looked around the solar system. Mercury and Venus were too hot. Mars and the outer planets were too cold. Only Earth was just right for life, they thought. Our planet has liquid water, a breathable atmosphere, a suitable amount of sunshine. Perfect.


science1.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

rhinoceros

edmc^2
If space-time exist and that it had no beginning and end, even uncreated, why not God?

Because you're trying to explain away a complex thing with an infinitely more complex thing. You think it's unlikely that the Universe just came to be? Did you ever wonder, just what are the odds for something much more complex, like some Universe creating entity, just becoming. The God-believing type usually cop out from this by saying that God always was, but again, a far more simple explanation would be that the potential for the becoming of the Universe always was. When it comes to Occam's razor, God always loses.


To Occam's Razor - I say this:





Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

-- Albert Einstein


Edit:


To the contrary, if you think that:



The God-believing type usually cop out from this by saying that God always was


then explain my friend in simple terms this:

If spacetime continuum exist (which IT does btw) who or what created it?



edit on 12-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: a simple question to my friend



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Everything in the universe exists because of something. So to say the whole universe exists
because of nothing would be ignoring the evidence. And if we simply do not ignore the evidence?
Then there can be only answer as to why the universe exists.
The answer would be our concept of deity. After all why would there even be such a concept in
existence. I once new a man who said, " If the river makes noise ? There must be something in it ".
OP's right, it's a simple question. And the answer has been purpousely complicated.


Thanks randyvs for the post.

Well as you can see - deniers are running out of options but to accept the fact - painful for them as it may seem - that if space-time exist (and IT does exist) and that it's uncreated, with no end and no beginning, they have no valid reason but to accept the fact that God MUST also exist.



Simple, really.

edit on 12-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: simple- really



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Well as you can see - deniers are running out of options but to accept the fact - painful for them as it may seem - that if space-time exist (and IT does exist) and that it's uncreated, with no end and no beginning, they have no valid reason but to accept the fact that God MUST also exist.



I just want to say I've found your threads among the most inspiring of those I've read here.
In this awesome forum. Kudos to you Sir.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   

edmc^2
For example, we know that spacetime is both uncreated and infinite, that "IT" always existed.

No we don't know that it is either infinite or eternal. The part we can detect has limits and appears to have begun around 13.8 billion years ago. It could be as you claim and there are other models, but you haven't shown where or why your claim is a fact.

The term "uncreated" appears loaded in this context also as to what it infers.

The popular model reduces to a point beyond which physics can't go (as yet). Quantum physics may get there though. Kraus finds it very plausible that a universe can begin from nothing, without a creator.

www.hawking.org.uk...

www.youtube.com...


Yet why is this NOT proof enough of the existence of an incorporeal uncreated and infinite being - God?

It isn't proof of that, nor evidence of that either, or that your underlying premise is necessarily correct to begin with.


In other words, why accept/believe that spacetime exist but not God?

We can observe, make predictions, run experiments and have evidence for the first. None at all for the second, nor any reason to consider it other than personal belief.


How could spacetime exist and not God?

Quite easily, just look around you. Space and time exist, the theories (special/general relativity for example) and mathematics that combines them seems to work out. Where's god?


As the Scripture explicitly stated:

Gobbledegook.


If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning" -- Sir Bernard Lovell

Nothing new there, it basically just says we don't know how the universe began (if indeed it did), which seems to contradict your whole op. It doesn't infer god either.

edit on 12-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

randyvs
Everything in the universe exists because of something.

Seems a logical assumption. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to be true ultimately, though. Look at the Kraus video above, it's one possible explanation. A universe from "nothing".


So to say the whole universe exists because of nothing would be ignoring the evidence. And if we simply do not ignore the evidence?

What evidence of that which preceded our universe (if anything did) do you have? I doubt anyone is ignoring this anyway, as much as trying to understand it.

To claim that god made it is basically giving up and settling for a personal belief. No problem there, it could be true and there is much about the experience of being human that seems incongruous with science. But it's not trying to understand it in the sense the op is claiming (ie. scientific validity). The op is trying to make science accommodate his belief.


Then there can be only answer as to why the universe exists.

To yourself perhaps, though truly demonstrating this hasn't been very successful. To many others there is no acceptable answer at present (in a scientific sense).


The answer would be our concept of deity. After all why would there even be such a concept in
existence.

No, it wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with a "deity". There could well be something (there doesn't have to be though). If anyone is going to claim something so specific, it will need something similarly specific to support and verify it. Where is it?

To explain why the psychological concept exists seems far easier (comparatively).


I once new a man who said, " If the river makes noise ? There must be something in it ".
OP's right, it's a simple question. And the answer has been purpousely complicated.

This seems to have little to do with cosmology re god.

The simple answer is.....no, the op hasn't gone close to demonstrating that his belief is valid. He has started with the assumption that god exists and gone from there. There is no genuine reason put forward to even speculate a god. Seems uncomplicated enough.



edit on 13-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


No it just requires that God show himself in a way that satisfies the unbeliever. He is supposed to be infinitely powerful, so he should know how to reveal himself individually to each and every person on the planet to leave zero doubt in their mind that he is the creator. God would know this is the case, yet chooses not to reveal himself using this method.

A tweet account would be good...

Å99



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   

edmc^2

spy66

edmc^2

Subnatural

edmc^2
How do we know that time always existed?

Because time "itself" is timeless.


That is no answer. You are simply repeating the question, right? "Time is timeless because it is." This is what you are saying. Circular logic.


No. I'm just saying that there's no fixed point to measure it when it comes to time/ space continuum.

Thus time is timeless. For instance, where is time before the "big-bang"?




The time we observe today didnt exist before the Big Bang. Nothing of what we see and observe today existed before the Big Bang.

The Space which makes up Our universe is all within a expanding singularity. The Space outside the singularity must be very Close to a constand or a absolute vacuum. It must be because of how we observe Our universe to be equally expanding in all directions.


If what you're saying is true:

"The time we observe today didnt exist before the Big Bang. Nothing of what we see and observe today existed before the Big Bang."

Are you saying then that time / space never existed and that only "vacuum" existed (before the big-bang)?

If this is the case, does this mean that vacuum didn't contain time/space?

It can't be because vacuum itself IS time and space.

You can't take it out of the equation. Like I said, spacetime always existed, never created. IT has no end nor a beginning.

Yet it exist! And we're in IT.




edit on 12-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



Yes. You are right. It's just that it is important to know that there is a difference between a constant timeline and a finite timeline. One is infinite the other is not. And they are two very different type of Space. One is empty the other is not.

It even proves Your point even more, that there must be a creating awareness "God". Because a Space that is a absolute constant will not change randomly on its own and syddenly form time "Our universe; The Big Bang".



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by spy66
 





God is this absolute empty Space. God can not be anything else. Because nothing can be stronger or weaker than the absolute. A better way to say it, is that nothing can be more neutral than the absolute empty Space.


"God is this absolute empty Space" - Can't be for the simple fact that Intelligence is present. And like I've said before, where there's intelligence there's a mind behind "IT". Where there's a mind there's a "body" - a "body" - an "Entity".

Thus if such a mind-boggling phenomena as spacetime continuum can exist and it does exist, then why not an uncreated incorporeal Being - God?





A absolute empty Space can have absolute intelligence. Dont konfuse absolute intelligence With finite intelligence.

Finite Space time have a finite timeline. A absolute empty Space, have a absolute constant timeline. That timeline never changes.

If God always was and always is. God must be absolute. God can not be finite. Because that would indicate that there is a intelligence greater than God.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I am open to the idea that time could be simultaneous, and I got/or stole the idea out of a comic book. Universes could branch of other universes, maybe even artificially made if type four were actually imaginable.

Yea, as unlikely as it sounds.

edit on 13-11-2013 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   

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?

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

In other words, why accept/believe that spacetime exist but not God?

How could spacetime exist and not God?

As the Scripture explicitly stated:

"Lift your eyes up to heaven and see who created all these— the one who leads out their vast array of stars by number, calling them all by name— because of his great might and his powerful strength — and not one is missing." - Isaiah 40:26 ISV

What Is Your Conclusion?

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


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

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

What say you?


If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning" -- Sir Bernard Lovell


???


I'm wondering why the limit of creation stops at 'our universe', as if, there were an imposed physical limit on the parameters of uncreated and infinite within which to operate...

Å99



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


I can only say, I truly respect your view Cog and others who hold the same.
I admit it took time for me to find, but I'm glad I did.
edit on 13-11-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join