Why God Exist!!!?

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
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.


lol, you want a chunk of His beard?
a poloroid?
a personal face to face?

do you want to be a robot?

you are free to believe.

or not.




posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Subnatural

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.


your eternal welfare is not enough?

believe or not, you have that CHOICE.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


Your attempt to be cute and funny not withstanding, but yes I would need to witness God or some sort of miracle that is then taken credit by God directly. Not indirectly by some priest or religious official, but DIRECTLY from God. You obviously require no proof of his existence and while that may be fine for you, it doesn't hold up for me and others like myself. Again God should be aware of my wants in this regard, He should also be aware of what exactly I would need to see or experience to believe in Him as well as any other person like myself (keep in mind, what I would consider absolute proof would be vastly different then what someone else would consider absolute proof). So tell me why doesn't He just satisfy this simple request? It would clear up a BOATLOAD of confusion on this planet, but instead God in His infinite love decides to keep us in the dark and let us continue to bicker back and forth about if He exists and if He does what the correct way to worship him is.



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


'...there was absolutely nothing - not even space and time....Such concept is nonsense based on scientific logic and day to day experience.'



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.


Of course it's nonsense when put against known scientific facts, logic or day to day experience as in:

No experiment past, present and future (day to day experience - till the end of time) can make this axiom true:

"Out of nothing, comes something".

There's no equation in the world or even tin he universe that can make 0=1! No power in existence can do it. It just can't be done - unless of course you can.

Furthermore, since we already know with certainty that "matter" is a product of "energy" thus we have a solid foundation that the Material Universe was indeed the "transformation of mater and energy (Carl Sagan - Cosmos)"



“Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.” -- astrophysicist Josip Kleczek / The Universe Vol 11 p17


Thus "Out of Something (energy), comes something (matter - universe)".

The only question then that remains for us to answer (on this subject) is this:

What is the ultimate SOURCE of ENERGY (from which matter came from)?

The ONLY logical answer is:

Something or Someone Eternal!

Tying this back to my op:

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?


....to be cont...



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

tsingtao
your eternal welfare is not enough?

believe or not, you have that CHOICE.


Hey, I'm not making any demands or anything. I meant a different kind of responsibility.

In fact, if there is an "Abrahamic type", almighty God, maybe he has reason not to make himself/herself known, not to interfere, to leave some people doubting and some outright denying his existence? It's plausible, maybe this confusion is necessary for some cosmic reason that we are unable to comprehend.

But, if this is the case, then God has made this choice for us in a way, has he not? To believe him or not that is. I assume that is what you meant when you wrote choice?

Sorry if i'm getting off topic here.
edit on 14-11-2013 by Subnatural because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Cogito, Ergo Sum
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.



Cogito, Ergo Sum
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.


I think these are good points. The concept of nothing is especially problematic. What does it even mean?

A lack of everything? Just a dark vacuum? But there is still space. Space is something, in a way, right?. I don't think it's possible to even imagine "nothing".

Just saying that we should try to define what "nothing" is, otherwise this whole discussion is a fools game.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Subnatural
 





I think these are good points. The concept of nothing is especially problematic. What does it even mean?

A lack of everything? Just a dark vacuum? But there is still space. Space is something, in a way, right?.

I don't think it's possible to even imagine "nothing".

Just saying that we should try to define what "nothing" is, otherwise this whole discussion is a fools game.


My sentiment as well. It's "a fools game" or a "fools gold" to look for the meaning of the word "nothing".

Unfortunately, proponents of "Out of nothing, comes something" axiom have no choice but to support it because the alternative is - to be honest - unpalatable.


Furthermore, they have no choice but to prop it up for the simple fact that the very foundation of of a long held sacred theory - that life came from nothing - rest on it.

Unfortunately, holding to such axiom is a dead-end endeavor as there's no real answer to it. Thus one has to have "faith" in order to accept and hope (against all hopes) that someday an answer will present itself.

Funny thing is or the irony of it is, it takes more "faith" to believe or held unto such axiom than to accept the existence of an always existing spacetime continuum.

"Out of nothing, comes something" - how believable is that?



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You're still not answering the question. If you can't accept something came from nothing then how can you accept your god came from nothing? Whether or not you believe n god is irrelevant to the fact that at some point there must have been nothing and then there was something. If something created the Universe then something must have created the creator which goes into an infinite loop defying logic.

There are many competing scientific ideas about what was around before the singularity (I prefer Solid State into Big Bang Theory despite it being the best explanation for the Universe at the moment) as in a singularity all the known laws of Physics break down.

Your assertion space time always existed (which seems to be one of the reasons you believe in a god) is purely a belief and not scientifically proven. In fact the scientific consensus is strongly in favour of the big bang creating time and space and that something did indeed come from nothing.
edit on 15-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

bastion
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You're still not answering the question. If you can't accept something came from nothing then how can you accept your god came from nothing? Whether or not you believe n god is irrelevant to the fact that at some point there must have been nothing and then there was something. If something created the Universe then something must have created the creator which goes into an infinite loop defying logic.

There are many competing scientific ideas about what was around before the singularity (I prefer Solid State into Big Bang Theory despite it being the best explanation for the Universe at the moment) as in a singularity all the known laws of Physics break down.

Your assertion space time always existed (which seems to be one of the reasons you believe in a god) is purely a belief and not scientifically proven.
edit on 15-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)


That's just the thing - I don't believe that space-time exist. I know that IT exist for the simple fact that INFINITY doesn't require faith.

Since I know and I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt that INFINITY exist, thus it logically follows that SPACETIME MUST exist. Now if such phenomena can exist, would other phenomena (within the bounds of reasonable logic and reality) can exist?

I say yes!

That's where I'm coming from - it's based on logical reasoning, not faith or a belief, like the belief that "something can come from nothing".

That's just one of the reasonable proof that I hold to.

The other as I already mentioned is the existence of Physical Laws (or natural laws) - that govern the material universe.

To me I hold the view based on verifiable facts that such laws can not just occur on their own as if "out of nothing comes something".

Consider again: E = mc2, do you hold the view that the principles or the very laws governing this formula just came to be?

If so what's your logic?

Which view is logical and reasonable to accept?

Something or someone (eternal) put it together?

Or

It just happened on its own - from nothing?

Or

Should we just rely on faith that such thing is possible?

That nothing can produce something.

If so - what is NOTHING?




edit on 15-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: rearrange



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Sorry but you're not using logic, you're treating two completely separate things as if they are one and interchangeable. At the singularity all known laws of physics break down so they can't be used to describe what happened then. Infinity exists as a mathematical concept but that doesn't prove it existed before the Universe, it certainly doesn't prove space time is infinite therefore has always existed. That's just taking a leap of faith as a fact and building an explanation based on that.

As an applied mathematician (i.e physicist) yes I completely believe energy mass equivalence just is, as the speed of light is a constant it allows for interchangeable energy and mass which allows things to exist. I don't think this gives any indication of a creator as if it didn't hold true the Universe would have collapsed n we wouldn't be here to pose the question.

When all known laws of physics breakdown why can't something come out of nothing? There's no longer any barriers. Also you're still not answering what created the god or how there came to be a something from nothing.

What makes you think the laws of the universe obey current human logic? It seems a pretty arrogant point of view to me. My experiences with quantum mech certainly lead me to believe the Universe does not function in a way that is truly understandable to humans and is very far removed from our day to day logical thought processes.

To put it simply, logic dictates we experience less than a trillion, trillion trillion, trillionth of what goes on in the current Universe so it's completely illogical to use day to day logic for the creation of it.
edit on 15-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

bastion
Sorry but you're not using logic, at the singularity all known laws of physics break down so they can't be used to describe what happened then. Infinity exists as a mathematical concept but that doesn't prove it existed before the Universe, it certainly doesn't prove space time is infinite therefore has always existed. That's just taking a leap of faith as a fact and building an explanation based on that.

As an applied mathematician (i.e physicist) yes I completely believe energy mass equivalence just is, as the speed of light is a constant it allows for interchangeable energy and mass which allows things to exist. I don't think this gives any indication of a creator as if it didn't hold true the Universe would have collapsed n we wouldn't be here to pose the question.

When all known laws of physics breakdown why can't something come out of nothing? There's no longer any barriers. Also you're still not answering what created the god or how there came to be a something from nothing.




How can you logically explain that the infinite does not exist?

There shouldn't be any doubt about its existance if you ask me.


A big problem a lot you have is that you dont really know what the singularity is. On Youtube the singularity is only depicted as a mass that only form galaxies "solids" that spread out. But the singularity is much more than that. The singularity contain all the matter that fills the Space between all stars, planets and glaxies. It is this matter that make the planets, stars and galaxies expand equally in all directions.
For this to be possible, the Space surrounding the expanding singularity must be a stronger vaccum then the vacuum of Our expanding universe. This is Logic. Our universe/singularity would never expand if the pressure surrounding Our singularity was greater then the vaccum Space of Our universe/singularity.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

bastion
Sorry but you're not using logic, at the singularity all known laws of physics break down so they can't be used to describe what happened then. Infinity exists as a mathematical concept but that doesn't prove it existed before the Universe, it certainly doesn't prove space time is infinite therefore has always existed. That's just taking a leap of faith as a fact and building an explanation based on that.

As an applied mathematician (i.e physicist) yes I completely believe energy mass equivalence just is, as the speed of light is a constant it allows for interchangeable energy and mass which allows things to exist. I don't think this gives any indication of a creator as if it didn't hold true the Universe would have collapsed n we wouldn't be here to pose the question.

When all known laws of physics breakdown why can't something come out of nothing? There's no longer any barriers. Also you're still not answering what created the god or how there came to be a something from nothing.

What makes you think the laws of the universe obey current human logic? It seems a pretty arrogant point of view to me. My experiences with quantum mech certainly lead me to believe the Universe does not function in a way that is truly understandable to humans and is very far removed from our day to day logical thought processes.

To put it simply, logic dictates we experience less than a trillion, trillion trillion, trillionth of what goes on in the current Universe so it's completely illogical to use day to day logic for the creation of it.
edit on 15-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)


Glad to have a mathematician here. But how am I not using logic if I'm saying that "something can produce something" while you on the other hand believe that "nothing can produce something"?

That part I don't get. In fact I'm sure you're aware of, it's takes a genius like Einstein to formulate a formula like E=mc2. Now if a genius is required to figure out such "mysteries" in the universe, how much more is required to produce the universe?

Nothing?

How is that logical?

As for the physical laws breaking apart in such phenomena as in a black hole or in a singularity, that is true (as far as we know). But the question is what do they break down to?

INFINITY

May I present Dr. Kaku:



Thus "Out of SOMETHING (infinity) comes something (INFINITY)".

As for:




To put it simply, logic dictates we experience less than a trillion, trillion trillion, trillionth of what goes on in the current Universe so it's completely illogical to use day to day logic for the creation of it.


Yet man has the arrogance to say that it all came from Nothing.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




Why God Exist!!!?


If I may, two avenues...

1. The universe -
If one takes all we think we know for what it is,, regardless of which road you choose, you come to a dead end.
The universe is basically a big, empty nothingness... endless nothingness that without energy and mass and matter and heat and light... all would be empty, dark, cold.
We are told that the Big Bang began with a super-compacted ball of preeminent energy/matter/substance... whatever and it blew up! This expansion created all that there is... galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, quasars, black holes, pulsars... etc.

Of course, the question arises, where did it all come from?


2. Who-what we are -
Imagine a small village of primitive humans and in the middle of the daily grind, a large ship in the sky arrives. Over a period of time, humans are taught how to farm, to build from stone, to work metals... etc.
Our understanding does not include the possibility of anything like a universe loaded with stars and planets capable of producing intelligent life. Our natural instincts bow us before these gods and angels and after they taught us to write (and read), we recorded the adventure...

... but, what did we call them?

This is where the two avenues COULD come together to create a better understanding of our own situation but... because we treat this subject like we do politics, there HAS to be divisions!

First, there were the many gods... then the single gods and then the wars to figure out which single god was the only god and then inquisitions to solidify a single god...

... and now, here we are and we have a new god, called science. It doesn't like the old gods so we are on the threshold of another inquisition.

Such raptured devotion from all quarters! Gods, sciences, more gods, angels, more scientists... yet, in the end, we are still as immature as a child in a nursery gazing out a _ We DON'T know all the answers to all the questions to an existence we have only begun to delve. From there, we choose... more gods, more science, angels, demons...

Rip down the walls and let us out of here!

When that finally happens, I suspect that what we find will be more than any of us were even close to being ready to see...



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

spy66
How can you logically explain that the infinite does not exist?

There shouldn't be any doubt about its existance if you ask me.


It certainly does in mathematics but the definition of infinite when dealing with singularities. String theorists think they're not real infinities but a symptom of partial equations others that they're intrinsic with the laws of the universe.

Infinities like centres of black holes occur behind event horizons so we can't actually see them and they can't escape/influence normal space (which itself may or may not be infinite) depending on initial density thus shape.
edit on 15-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


In which case, I have a simple question for you:

Who, or what, created God? And who, or what, created God's creator?

It's a simple question, which should have a simple answer if your OP is anything to measure by.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


In which case, I have a simple question for you:

Who, or what, created God? And who, or what, created God's creator?

It's a simple question, which should have a simple answer if your OP is anything to measure by.


It's a simple answer, really. Here, using the other side of your own Avatar name "AfterInfinity"

What's Before Infinity?

Is there anything Before Infinity?

If so what?

If there is Before Infinity then what and where did it came from?

On and on and on ad infinitum...

So the ONLY SIMPLE answer is:

There's Infinity - Before Infinity - INFINITY is IT because it's uncreated ALWAYS existing.

This concept and reality is the same with God - He Always existed! That's all there is to it. Otherwise the other and ONLY alternative is to accept that nothing created everything.

"Out of nothing, comes something".

Rather than "Out of Something (or Someone eternal), comes something (the material universe)"

So is there anything Before Infinity, AfterInfinty?

What say you?


edit on 15-11-2013 by edmc^2 because: ...



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I say that I'm glad I only skimmed your post because that would have been 30 seconds of my life utterly and irrevocably wasted if I had taken the time to absorb every word. Your post is nothing more or less than "Blah blah blah. So how 'bout that?"

Yeah. How 'bout that.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

bastion

spy66
How can you logically explain that the infinite does not exist?

There shouldn't be any doubt about its existance if you ask me.


It certainly does in mathematics but the definition of infinite when dealing with singularities. String theorists think they're not real infinities but a symptom of partial equations others that they're intrinsic with the laws of the universe.

Infinities like centres of black holes occur behind event horizons so we can't actually see them and they can't escape/influence normal space (which itself may or may not be infinite) depending on initial density thus shape.
edit on 15-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)


Mathematics does support a infinite in more than one way. But that does not mean all the Mathematical examples are true physical infinite.

When People look at what is infinite. They should know that they can't have more than one Source present in their mathematical Equation. Like the Equation; E=mc2 for instance. There are more than one physical element present in that Equation. And they are all finite.

A=A is the only true Equation to display a Mathematical Equation for the infinite. As soon as you start to add elements to this Equation, you are adding finites.
String theory is all about finites. There is no way science can study the infinite or anything that is infinite. That is because we are somewhere inside the wast expanded singularity.



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



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I say that I'm glad I only skimmed your post because that would have been 30 seconds of my life utterly and irrevocably wasted if I had taken the time to absorb every word. Your post is nothing more or less than "Blah blah blah. So how 'bout that?"

Yeah. How 'bout that.


Too bad you have nothing constructive to offer in this discussion.

Thanks anyway.



posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Thanks for the post redoubt.

Just 'need to comment and add to this:




The universe is basically a big, empty nothingness... endless nothingness that without energy and mass and matter and heat and light... all would be empty, dark, cold.


Actually, based on current understanding the universe is composed of:

74% dark energy
22% dark matter
4% normal matter

give or take...

Some say that this dark matter is related to the newly discovered Higgs Boson.


Two physicists suggest that the Higgs had a key role in the early Universe, producing the observed difference between the number of matter and antimatter particles and determining the density of the mysterious dark matter that makes up five-sixths of the matter in the Universe.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

As for the "big-bang" theory, although it presents a "beginning" of the universe, it's a misnomer IMO for it tend to portray a sudden chaotic beginning rather than an orderly, highly organized beginning. This is evidenced by the fundamental laws governing it.

An amazing feat - if not mind-boggling feat to achieve considering the size of it.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join