Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why God Exist!!!?

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Krazysh0t

MadMax9
reply to post by edmc^2
 



For people to admit God exists requires a response to him. Man does not want to do that so it's easier to say God not exist but space time and aliens do.


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.


It's also easier to believe in evolution even though that requires more faith than believing in a being outside our understood time and space where all our existence is as if a split second.


Um, no it doesn't. Evolution is backed up by credible science. Does it explain everything? No, but that was never a claim that evolution or scientists who study it ever made. It also doesn't fill in the blanks with copout answers based on blind faith. It may fill in the blanks with educated guesses based on research, but it is always noted as such and as long as new evidence doesn't debunk these guesses, they can be upheld as probably true. I would say that believing something based on blind faith requires FAR more faith than believing something with much supporting evidence corroborating it. You are just being willfully ignorant here.


But ignorance does not prove the inexistance of something. Microbes do not believe humans exist because they are outside their understanding and their time and space relating to their form of existence.



Microbes also don't contemplate the existence of higher powers that may or may not have created them. But you bring up a good point, but you need to elaborate on it more. Ignorance doesn't prove the non-existence of something, but it doesn't prove its existence either. The fact remains we don't know one way or the other that a God exists or doesn't exist. This is indisputable.
edit on 12-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



and God has to do this, why?
you are aware of Him, what more do you need?

or should i say, what more do people need?




posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 





and God has to do this, why?
you are aware of Him, what more do you need?

or should i say, what more do people need?



Well, if he's gonna send folks to hell for not believing in him, it's only fair that he DO something to show us his existence and just why we should worship him.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The differences the Space/Time is a concept that can be somehow can be tested and proven to exist, and its origin is unknown. where god is just made up.

If some random guy comes up and says "im a god, test me" and we run series of test on him, his immortality, his knowledge, then we can be like, hmm maybe its possible he might be god.

But we have Nothing Sir! Nothing! Good day!
edit on 11/13/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


I'm not aware of God at all. I'm aware of this concept that men repeat over and over that is called God, but having actually met him or witnessed him, nope. THAT is why He needs to reveal himself to people such as myself. Faith may be good enough for you, but I consider that to be gullible and need some actual proof of His existence. I'm not the only one either. If God truly cared about us, He'd do things so that everyone has a fair chance to witness him to their liking and if they THEN choose to deny him, that is their problem. Instead He opts for this hands off approach while having stipulations that if you deny him you end up in hell. That is an awful big decision to commit to based off of faith alone and threatening people with eternal damnation for not obediently following orders and worshiping him sounds like downright bullying.

Not to mention, even among the believers, you guys cannot decide on the correct way to worship Him. Yet God deems it unnecessary to ever return to earth and straighten out which religious views are correct and which are hogwash.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

tsingtao

Krazysh0t

MadMax9
reply to post by edmc^2
 



For people to admit God exists requires a response to him. Man does not want to do that so it's easier to say God not exist but space time and aliens do.


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.


It's also easier to believe in evolution even though that requires more faith than believing in a being outside our understood time and space where all our existence is as if a split second.


Um, no it doesn't. Evolution is backed up by credible science. Does it explain everything? No, but that was never a claim that evolution or scientists who study it ever made. It also doesn't fill in the blanks with copout answers based on blind faith. It may fill in the blanks with educated guesses based on research, but it is always noted as such and as long as new evidence doesn't debunk these guesses, they can be upheld as probably true. I would say that believing something based on blind faith requires FAR more faith than believing something with much supporting evidence corroborating it. You are just being willfully ignorant here.


But ignorance does not prove the inexistance of something. Microbes do not believe humans exist because they are outside their understanding and their time and space relating to their form of existence.



Microbes also don't contemplate the existence of higher powers that may or may not have created them. But you bring up a good point, but you need to elaborate on it more. Ignorance doesn't prove the non-existence of something, but it doesn't prove its existence either. The fact remains we don't know one way or the other that a God exists or doesn't exist. This is indisputable.
edit on 12-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



and God has to do this, why?
you are aware of Him, what more do you need?

or should i say, what more do people need?



With great power... comes great responsibility.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 





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...


Well, would be nice to know if there are other "things" that are going on - as we speak - "outside" the "boundaries" of the "known universe". Hopefully, the launch of next space telescopes will give us an idea, but for now we can speculate and travel space-time within our minds.

Fascinating about the human mind - how is it that we're able to contemplate and ponder about the universe without even being there?

It is as if we're meant to travel space-time and contemplate its infinite vastness without blowing our minds.

mind-blowing indeed but not.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The differences the Space/Time is a concept that can be somehow can be tested and proven to exist, and its origin is unknown. where god is just made up.

If some random guy comes up and says "im a god, test me" and we run series of test on him, his immortality, his knowledge, then we can be like, hmm maybe its possible he might be god.

But we have Nothing Sir! Nothing! Good day!
edit on 11/13/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)


Speak for yourself, I say, because to say we have nothing is like saying our very existence is Nothing. That space-time is nothing, that the reality we see, experience and know are just figments of our imagination. It's a defeatist way of thinking.

But the fact is we exist, the universe exist, space-time exist, black holes exist, neutrinos exist, invisible forces exist and many more phenomena that we're not able to comprehend - yet - exist. And if these things exists, why do you readily discard the concept of higher beings or Being - God?

If such things exist (which they are) - why not a Being with superior power and intellect.

After all, in certain degrees we're capable such things - considered as "miracles" more than a hundred years ago.

So to say we have nothing is not only a defeatist way of thinking but the height of man's arrogance.

Just because "something" can't be tested based on our limited knowledge and experience doesn't make it non-existent.

Besides, have you even considered that you've might have been looking at the wrong thing in the wrong places?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

edmc^2
reply to post by akushla99
 





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...


Well, would be nice to know if there are other "things" that are going on - as we speak - "outside" the "boundaries" of the "known universe". Hopefully, the launch of next space telescopes will give us an idea, but for now we can speculate and travel space-time within our minds.

Fascinating about the human mind - how is it that we're able to contemplate and ponder about the universe without even being there?

It is as if we're meant to travel space-time and contemplate its infinite vastness without blowing our minds.

mind-blowing indeed but not.



Indeed, in 'our' little patch of parochial creation...vast and unlimited are very poor descriptions of infinity, existing infinitely in infinite space/time...n'est pas?

There is a natural assumption to limit at the point where 'discovery' ends for any 'type' of recording equipment...that, has to tell 'you' something, quite apart from God, no-God...adjunct to this is the petty quibbling over the day-to-day invented 'creations' that happen in a 'mind-blown' space that is neither seen, nor can be held in ones hand...

Å99



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


So say I:

...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.


Of course spacetime is both uncreated and infinite, that "IT" always existed for the simple fact that the universe materialized around 13.8 billion years ago. To say that IT is not means that before the big-bang, there was absolutely nothing - not even space and time.

Such concept is nonsense based on scientific logic and day to day experience. Furthermore it's a concept that even surpasses the concept of an uncreated infinite unending space-time continuum. It even surpasses the concept of an uncreated Being - God.

Something came from nothing is a concept that can't be quantified nor scientific - it's a fools gold so to speak.

On the other hand, an always existing space-time continuum allows one to arrive at many possibilities, even an uncreated being - God. This allows a starting point - that "something" infinite, always existing can produce "something".

Rather than Nothing created Something, Something created something makes more logical sense.

Why?

Because the concept is logical and we know that it exist - life creates life, life imparts life. No scientific theories or studies can disprove this logic. It's a fact. On the other hand "nothing can create something" can't be proven. You can't get something from nothing. It goes against the very principle of physical laws. In fact it goes against the very law that governed the material universe - the law of conservation.

That if a conserved quantity is measured before an event, that quantity should total up to the same amount after the event.

E = mc2 follow that law.

That "something" -matter - came from "something" - energy.

Energy / matter are interchangeable but they can't be destroyed neither created! Thus an ABSOLUTE source of energy MUST by necessity exist. It MUST Always exist for it (energy) to be transformed into matter.

Space/time alone can't be the ultimate source for on their own they are part of of what's out there. On their own they are just a "thing". On their own they have no power nor the ability to transform themselves (or itself) into something. Thus, the ONLY alternative and logical conclusion that beyond space-time continuum is "something" eternal or to be accurate "someone eternal".

Otherwise you're left wih this concept:

Nothing created something.


Consider also - the concept of INFINITY (mentioned by A99). Why do we accept it as a valid concept? Even though we can't measure or fully define and understand it, why do we have no difficulty or even an ounce of problem with it?

Because our minds can conceptualized it - with ease.

But if such concept is believable and acceptable - why not an uncreated Being - God?

Well I'll leave that question for you to ponder.

As for Dr. S Hawking, he is one of my favorite Physicist out there next to Prof Kaku. Unfortunately, kidding or not, Dr. Hawking lost me here:



..even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years.

The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again.


www.hawking.org.uk...

For how could he say such a thing knowing that such laws as the conservation law exist or the fundamental forces that govern the physical universe exist?

Was he somehow implying that these laws - once put into motion will someday also collapse?

For my part I don't think so but then again, knowing that he doesn't subscribe to a Creator, he might as well say what he said.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


E=mc2 falls apart before Plank Time. There is no reason to Accept e=mc2 before the Big Bang, because the theory is based om matter/particles/light that appeared after the Big Bang.

There is no doubt that many of you dont realy think very hard about this topic. It is odd that People dont understand what a absolute empty Space realy is. Or nothingness for that matter. This Space is only absolute empty of every matter and particle we know of. A absolute empty Space consists of just ONE infinite Source of energy/densety. And it is absolutely neutral. Again, it is the only Space time that can be absolute infinite.

Mathematically; this absolute neutral Space time can not change randomly, it would need some form of will to create a change. To form a New Space time. Like the singularity.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

spy66
reply to post by edmc^2
 


E=mc2 falls apart before Plank Time. There is no reason to Accept e=mc2 before the Big Bang, because the theory is based om matter/particles/light that appeared after the Big Bang.

There is no doubt that many of you dont realy think very hard about this topic. It is odd that People dont understand what a absolute empty Space realy is. Or nothingness for that matter. This Space is only absolute empty of every matter and particle we know of. A absolute empty Space consists of just ONE infinite Source of energy/densety. And it is absolutely neutral. Again, it is the only Space time that can be absolute infinite.

Mathematically; this absolute neutral Space time can not change randomly, it would need some form of will to create a change. To form a New Space time. Like the singularity.


You lost me there spy66. How could E=mc2 appear after the "big-bang" when the origin of the "big-bang" is e=mc2?

I mean how could the "egg appear before the chicken" even in Planck Time?

In addition, how could E=mc2 appear after the "big-bang" when its (e=mc2) very principle stipulates that energy/matter are interchangeable/interconvertible?

That is matter can be created form energy and energy can be created from matter.

(correction: "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed" is no longer valid for the simple fact that different types of matter can be formed from spiting the super-critical mass of uranium)


In other words, how can matter appear without energy?

Without energy there's no "bang" - a "big-bang" if you will.

To quote:




“Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy. -- Josip Kleczek, The Universe



So how could Space be absolutely empty?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It's called the "law of conservation" and it's one of the most basic laws of science.

It says energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be changed to one form or another.
..................

Matter can be converted to its alternate form, energy, otherwise matter remains invariant.

A balanced equation has each atom and each electron that comes into the reaction accounted for in the product side, and every atom and every electron coming out of the reaction is present on the input side of the equation. THis implies that each atom on the input side of the equation and each electron is balanced on the output side.

Not only does the ballanced equation express confidence in the total amount of mass coming in and out, it also assumes that the identity of atoms and electrons is preserved.

We could have an equation that appears to preserve mass but which would require atoms to change to atoms of different elements. In chemistry that is not expected. It does happen in nuclear physics, and in nuclear physics not only are elemental atoms not preserved, mass itself is not maintained, and has to be accounted for in terms of energy generated.
edit on 13-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It's called the "law of conservation" and it's one of the most basic laws of science.

It says energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be changed to one form or another.
..................

Matter can be converted to its alternate form, energy, otherwise matter remains invariant.

A balanced equation has each atom and each electron that comes into the reaction accounted for in the product side, and every atom and every electron coming out of the reaction is present on the input side of the equation. THis implies that each atom on the input side of the equation and each electron is balanced on the output side.

Not only does the ballanced equation express confidence in the total amount of mass coming in and out, it also assumes that the identity of atoms and electrons is preserved.

We could have an equation that appears to preserve mass but which would require atoms to change to atoms of different elements. In chemistry that is not expected. It does happen in nuclear physics, and in nuclear physics not only are elemental atoms not preserved, mass itself is not maintained, and has to be accounted for in terms of energy generated.
edit on 13-11-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)


Well said Grimpachi!

What say you though?

Can Nothing produce something?

Or

Out of nothing, nothing comes?

Or

Can Something produce something?



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 






HA Ha...... Honestly I don't know it isn't something I ponder in my spare time. I have read more than one theory about how the universe came into being so I reserve judgment waiting for more evidence to be presented. I think that if we can determine the makeup of Dark Matter we will be much closer to understanding the universes origins.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
If our universe is like a server, and we're inside a mmorpg, then who created the game and maintains the server? Then who created them? You can keep asking that question until you get to the final truth which doesn't have to have a god according to Stephen Hawking in his theory of everything.

Our god could be the one that created our universe, which could simply be luck of the trade when the multiverse gave birth to us. That is our god but not the next-level god. In fact, we will one day reach that level of god if we haven't already when we're experimenting in Geneva Switzerland. We're used to the concept of something existing but not nonexistance. It's hard for us to imagine, but does it really have to exist? Did you exist prior to birth? If so, how was it like? You can't tell? Then what was life prior to your birth? You don't know? You can only tell from what others tell you but not by experience?

You also put a lot of worth on your life for thinking that we're living and therefore exist. Truth of it is, are you singular or plural? Are your thoughts really your own or just a mere result of a complex reaction? Do you have a soul? Do you need a soul? Do you see the universe as it really exist or is it just through your interpretation of it? Is it even your interpretation? The list goes on...

Even if there is a supreme being somewhere out there, it won't be one that stemmed from religion and especially not Christian because a god like that is a horrible god IMO.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


Thanks for the post EM2013.

You asked (rhetorically I think) - who created the creator of the game?

Answer is right there in the op.

If space time is infinite uncreated always existing, then why not God - the first cause?

That is, if such phenomena exist (and it does exist) why not God - the ultimate source of energy?

I mean if you really think about it which one satisfy reality:

Out of nothing, come something?

Or

Out of something, come something?

Where the "something" is always existing - uncreated.

Simple logic.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   

edmc^2

 

To say that IT is not means that before the big-bang, there was absolutely nothing - not even space and time.

That's right.


Such concept is nonsense based on scientific logic and day to day experience. Furthermore it's a concept that even surpasses the concept of an uncreated infinite unending space-time continuum. It even surpasses the concept of an uncreated Being - God.

Nonsense to you, yes. I doubt your appraisal of these concepts, which seems to rely on your own assumptions and belief. I find it further unlikely that day to day experience is necessarily a reliable indicator for making such claims when our physical laws, indeed the universe itself (as we know it) that is required for such experience, didn't exist.


Something came from nothing is a concept that can't be quantified nor scientific - it's a fools gold so to speak.

Perhaps, but it does seem consistent with observation. Time and space (as we know them) seem to begin around 13.8 billion years ago. With the "singularity" (IMO) another term for "who knows". Until someone does know, in no way is that more unlikely, (comparatively) unscientific, or far fetched than what you are claiming. At least you haven't given any valid reasons why.

I'm not saying any of the various ideas put forward are true. I'm saying that you haven't really explained why your idea is. This is what seems lacking from the word go, before we even get to the possibility of your proposed god.

On the other hand, an always existing space-time continuum allows one to arrive at many possibilities, even an uncreated being - God.

No doubt. God (in some form) is one possibility. The possibility of being completely wrong is also there.


Rather than Nothing created Something, Something created something makes more logical sense.

Agreed entirely. It does make more logical sense. Until we start to wonder how the creator got there. To claim an eternal being is an extra complication and doesn't seem as parsimonious as simply saying the universe always existed (in some form, at least).

In either event, it could be a mistake to expect things to conform to our logic, or sense of intuition. Especially so, before our universe began. "Who knows" (at this stage) seems the most honest answer at least.


Because the concept is logical and we know that it exist - life creates life, life imparts life. No scientific theories or studies can disprove this logic. It's a fact.

Quite true. Yet I wouldn't count on being able to say that forever. At least there is direct evidence to indicate abiogenesis as a real possibility, there remains none at all for god.

We could just as easily say that life is an emergent property of the universe (without god), yet we don't know how the universe began. Would this be dishonest, or contradicted by direct observation so far? God always, in every instance, seems to require a further leap of faith, further complication, an assumption.


On the other hand "nothing can create something" can't be proven. You can't get something from nothing. It goes against the very principle of physical laws. In fact it goes against the very law that governed the material universe - the law of conservation.

Again, you are placing the constraints of this universe and your own personal logic, to a situation when it didn't exist and in which it might not be relevant. Even allowing for this, read up on why some scientists see it as a possibility.


Space/time alone can't be the ultimate source for on their own they are part of of what's out there. On their own they are just a "thing". On their own they have no power nor the ability to transform themselves (or itself) into something.

I doubt anyone thinks they are the "ultimate source". I doubt anyone really knows. The best bet for the existence of "god" (in some form) is in the research of people like Penrose/Hameroff IMO. Though considered to veer to pseudo science and rightly criticized by the bulk of the scientific community at this stage. It has the potential to be very far reaching.


Otherwise you're left wih this concept:

Nothing created something.

Would be happy to ditch the concept (I find it unlikely the concept of "nothing" in the philosophical sense, is valid), more so if there are valid scientific reasons for doing so.

That wouldn't necessarily lead us to god though. The only genuine arguments for god don't seem to be science based, as much as philosophical. Which shouldn't necessarily be overlooked, human experience is sometimes passed off too easily. It might take something directly verifiable to conclude "god" in a scientific sense.



edit on 14-11-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Something brought Order From Chaos in our particular Universe . A Catalyst Initiated by a Higher Intelligence , Ergo , a Supreme Being.........

Everything is still chaotic. The universe is chaotic, the earth itself is chaotic. The only reason our lives have order is because we are an intelligent species and have the ability to keep order.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





You lost me there spy66. How could E=mc2 appear after the "big-bang" when the origin of the "big-bang" is e=mc2?


How can e=mc2 be the origin of the Big Bang?
Mass m is a finite, Light c is a finite and can not exist without mass. If non of them are infinite, that means they must have been formed by something.

If Energy E is infinite, that would make energy E a absolute constant. That means E must form mass which can form light. Light is a Product emitted from compressed mass, And mass is a Product of compressed Energy. So before the Big Bang only Energy e existed.

If energy E is infinite, it is a constant. That means it can not form anything randomly by chance. Because it is a constant. Energy E can not form Mass randomly.
It is mathematically impossible for a energy Source that is a absolute constant to change randomly.

If energy E is infinite. Neither Mass m, or Light c can be the origin of the Big Bang, because they didnt exist. Mass and light is a Product of compressed Energy. Only Energy E can be the origin of the mass and light formed under the Big Bang.

e=mc2 is a Product of the big bang. It is a Mathematical Law set in motion within the singularity. It dosent apply outside the expanding singularity. Because there is no mass there, only infinite energy. And that energy is absolute neutral. Only neutral energy can be infinite. All other energy formes are finite. Because non of them can be neutral.

Because finite energy can not be neutral, does not mean they have the property of being infinite and have a infinite amount of changes. It only means that finite is not infinite. It is a destinction between finite energy and neutral energy only. Finite energy will become what it used to be in the end. And that is infinite.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by tsingtao
 





and God has to do this, why?
you are aware of Him, what more do you need?

or should i say, what more do people need?



Well, if he's gonna send folks to hell for not believing in him, it's only fair that he DO something to show us his existence and just why we should worship him.


How simplistic.

a hands on God, like in the OT?

is that what you need? or Him telling YOU, that you NEED to worship Him or buy insurance?

i'm not aware that the OT style God had told/spoke to people before He smote them.























new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join