Why God Exist!!!?

edmc^2
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.

That's pretty much what you are saying, either way. So we're not allowed to say "nothing created the universe", or it simply "always existed". But we can say nothing created god, who always existed (and who created everything else). No bias or or excess baggade there (where's the facepalm?). lol.

It might be good to define "god" also. Out of the thousands of versions available, we do at least know that the "idiot god " of the bible is mythical and he has definitely been discredited. Unlike musings about how our universe might have got here, the bible makes testable claims that are very applicable to this universe and that we know are laughably and ridiculously wrong. He either doesn't exist, or has been so horribly misrepresented that he might as well not exist. So it seems we will have to start from scratch there, if we overlook the other obvious fact that there is no evidence of such a thing to begin with.

So which one are you proposing? The Rainbow Serpent, Aganju, John Frum, Ahau Chamahez, Jupiter...? Can you also outline the falsifiable claims, experiments etc we can use to verify?

edmc^2

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.

That is the energy/matter percentage breakdown of the universe based on certain observations. Though it would be misleading to think of it in terms of volume (ie. in no way does that 4% of luminous matter occupy 4% of space).

The universe appears to be a (almost) perfect vacuum. We know it isn't (obviously), but it is many orders of magnitude beyond the best vacuum we can create in a laboratory. It is vast and basically empty. That total matter/energy, at the consistency of sand, would amount to about one grain of sand spread out of the entire volume of the earth. That's some vacuum. Amongst the 4% of that grain of sand comprising normal matter, the amount that could sustain life (not tied up in stars etc) is again, comparably, immeasurably small.

If our universe was designed, it was obviously designed to generate black holes. We could be a completely unnoticeable epiphenomena.

Our understanding of dark matter/energy could potentially change the way we view this though. There may be no such thing as "empty space".

m.teachastronomy.com...

edmc^2

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".

Lol. Have you been gazing into your crystal ball?

It appears based on the physical laws of this universe (that we know of) and if we accept that the universe is a closed system (which it seems to be).....the total amount of energy remains the same, it can neither be created or destroyed (it can change form though). Though we don't know what might apply to other universes (if they exist) or what might apply before the event around 13.8 billion years ago that led to our current universe (or even if there was a "before" this event). We can't even really go back "to" this event in any understandable way, we pick up the story just "after" it, at this stage.

Can you show where this is wrong via accepted science (that doesn't rely on your personal logic or belief)?

This also seems to rule out a god being able to influence our universe in any way from outside of it (for those that claim this).

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.

Lol. You realize you just ruled out god?

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

If these quotes were from an accepted theory explaining exactly how and why the universe is here (ie. explaining before and the event itself, that led to our current universe), they would be relevant.

Though I would like to note. Of all of the academic work in this area, based (at least in part) on your statements, none of them propose a god.

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

In this universe, yes. Ultimately (relative to how and why the universe is here in the first place), no one really knows. Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it so.

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 universe itself? Spinoza's god? Who knows?

The ONLY logical answer is:

Something or Someone Eternal!

False dichtomy.

The only answer I can think of is...I don't know. I doubt you do either, or you would probably be a Nobel laureate.

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?

My conclusion is.....dunno.....Looks like your giving me a double headed coin and asking if I can flip a tails.

Not very convincing.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


[qoute]Lol. You realize you just ruled out god? [/qoute]

Exactly!

0=1 rules out God. It also rules "out of something comes something" for how could an Always Existing God be present if there was NOTHING (0) to begin with?

It doesn't make logical sense.

But the fact is, I didn't rule out God from the equation. No for the simple reason that I always view that "something or someone eternal" was always present when energy materialized into matter.

Now if you think this is unconvincing inspite of the fact that it's both logical and reasonable AND VERIFIABLE, then that's on you. But so far you haven't presented any convincing explanation as to the origin of the universe other than "who knows".

that nothing created something.

reply to post by edmc^2


So what you're saying is, as long as we're inventing irrational explanations, you might as well adhere to something that benefits you personally according to how you would like to be benefitted by such a system. Or in other words, if you're going to have an imaginary friend, it might as well be a genie who lives only to make you the happiest person on Earth.

Why am I not surprised?

reply to post by edmc^2

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

But can you use Our science and Logic to deny that a absolute empty Space exist? You can, but would it be any valid to use Our Scientific experiance and Logic to deny it? What if you are wrong??

Our science, Logic and experiance is all built on information gathered after the Big Bang. We know nothing about the Space that surround the expanding singularity "Our Universe". Nothing at all.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

This also seems to rule out a god being able to influence our universe in any way from outside of it (for those that claim this).

No it dosent. If the body of God is the absolute empty Space. Than what ever he creates must be of him self.

There is no way finite can come from anything else but the absolute empty Space. Because it is infinite and takes up all Space possible.

Every thing God makes is 100% under his controll. Because there are no exsternal Sources present that can be Equal to the absolute empty Space. This Space is the strongest form of Space there is. It is absolut neutral.

edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

[qoute]Lol. You realize you just ruled out god? [/qoute]

Exactly!

0=1 rules out God. It also rules "out of something comes something" for how could an Always Existing God be present if there was NOTHING (0) to begin with?

God is nothingness - which is what is always present.
The present is always present but there maybe ideas arising presently that talk of 'someone' who lives in time - a separate person.
There is nothing apart from the present - which is always happening as this (whatever is actually happening).

But the fact is, I didn't rule out God from the equation. No for the simple reason that I always view that "something or someone eternal" was always present when energy materialized into matter.

The present is eternal - there is no 'something/someone'.
The present just continually appears different.

that nothing created something.

No 'thing' was ever created.
This is both nothing and everything - emptiness IS form.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


That was very well said. And makes a lot of sense.

Here is a long forgotten secret about "God": Female.

spy66
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

This also seems to rule out a god being able to influence our universe in any way from outside of it (for those that claim this).

No it dosent. If the body of God is the absolute empty Space. Than what ever he creates must be of him self.

There is no way finite can come from anything else but the absolute empty Space. Because it is infinite and takes up all Space possible.

Every thing God makes is 100% under his controll. Because there are no exsternal Sources present that can be Equal to the absolute empty Space. This Space is the strongest form of Space there is. It is absolut neutral.

Then we (our universe) are either not an isolated system, or the laws of thermodynamics are wrong? If god influences our universe, we can detect him. Got an experiment for that?

Where is your absolute empty space? You seem to be claiming this as fact, what experiment did you use to find it and verify its properties (ie. that it is god)?

edmc^2

Exactly!

0=1 rules out God. It also rules "out of something comes something" for how could an Always Existing God be present if there was NOTHING (0) to begin with?

It doesn't make logical sense.

You did, but at the same time you didn't, rule out god.....? I agree with your last sentence entirely, possibly for a different reason than what you may be inferring.

But the fact is, I didn't rule out God from the equation. No for the simple reason that I always view that "something or someone eternal" was always present when energy materialized into matter.

Possibly, but I think you are a bit too liberal with your use of the word "fact" in this instance. If you substitute it with the term "personal belief" it would be more realistic.

Now if you think this is unconvincing inspite of the fact that it's both logical and reasonable AND VERIFIABLE, then that's on you. But so far you haven't presented any convincing explanation as to the origin of the universe other than "who knows".

that nothing created something.

Wow, verifiable too! lol. I am just being honest when I claim ignorance. This itself is the highest form of wisdom, according to Socrates. I agree with him. If we wish to know something, it first seems necessary to at least realize that we don't know. That's a good place to start and quite an important step that many seem to overlook!

Your god is unconvincing so far, because it is an obvious special pleading fallacy.

rationalwiki.org...

Itisnowagain

edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

[qoute]Lol. You realize you just ruled out god? [/qoute]

Exactly!

0=1 rules out God. It also rules "out of something comes something" for how could an Always Existing God be present if there was NOTHING (0) to begin with?

God is nothingness - which is what is always present.
The present is always present but there maybe ideas arising presently that talk of 'someone' who lives in time - a separate person.
There is nothing apart from the present - which is always happening as this (whatever is actually happening).

But the fact is, I didn't rule out God from the equation. No for the simple reason that I always view that "something or someone eternal" was always present when energy materialized into matter.

The present is eternal - there is no 'something/someone'.
The present just continually appears different.

that nothing created something.

No 'thing' was ever created.
This is both nothing and everything - emptiness IS form.

edit on 16-11-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

The problem with this is your basing your explanations on the following boundary conditions
There is a god and it's nothingness - no proof either way
The present if always the present - not proof, with string theory/upper dimensional Phsysics strongly indicating your claim is false.
There is nothing apart from the present - you can't prove a negative and 12th dimensional hypertime models show us there is no true singular present.

Unless you can prove your founding assumptions you're always going to come out with the wrong result, even if the right methods were used.

What most posters on here are doing is taking a belief about god, coupling it with pop science and coming, chaining all the conditions to allow for a god to exist then using this as proof a god exists.

If you want to objectively work out the answer for anything you must assume evrything you know is wrong so you arrive at the right answer and not just the one you like the sound of most.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Stop reading my mind! Haha...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Then we (our universe) are either not an isolated system, or the laws of thermodynamics are wrong? If god influences our universe, we can detect him. Got an experiment for that?

Where is your absolute empty space? You seem to be claiming this as fact, what experiment did you use to find it and verify its properties (ie. that it is god)?

Our system is not a isoltated system, because it were isolated our universe would not expand. Wouldnt you agree?

- Would science be able to observe God if he influenced Our universe?
Personaly i dont think science would ever admit to it if they did. It would not be very smart of them if they did.


Where is my absolute empty Space?

The singularity is a expanding mass of different densities. You have the density of the stars, the planets, the galaxies and the matter that make up the Space between all of the stars, galaxies and planets. This is what the expanding singularity is "This Is What The Singularity Is".
The matter that make up the space between the stars, planets and galaxies are the main Source to why Our universe is expanding equally in all direction at the same time. But this can only happen if the Space sourrunding Our universe is of a purere vacuum Space than the vacuum Space of Our universe. Our universe can not expand out wards if it is isolated by a Space With more presure.

This is why i know that Our universe is surrounded by a absolute empty Space. Because Our universe is also expanding equally in all directions at the same time. It would never do that if that Space was not absolute empty "Neutral".

edmc^2
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?

This was your reply to me, edmc^2.

I don't want to be rude, but I feel you have completely ignored the meaning of my post and twisted it to your own, short-sighted advantage in this discussion.

I respect you and your views. I think this thread is very interesting and I'm grateful to you for starting it and to others who have commented on it, both those in favor of the OP and those against it. You have all made me think, and that is always worth something.

Still, OP, I feel that you are being intellectually dishonest.

I have said that "we should try to define what "nothing" is, otherwise this whole discussion is a fools game."

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

Do you, or do you not want to look for the meaning of the word nothing? In truth this is only one of the discrepancies in this discussion, but I feel I have to start somewhere.

I really do not appreciate that you are using my posts like this to make your own point. Please stop doing this.

I do not care how "unpalatable" you think their opinions are, we should still consider them.

reply to post by Subnatural


My apologies if you thought I was twisting your post but I'm not for the simple fact that there not much you can do to define "nothing". Try if you may, it had no real meaning scientific or otherwise.

Nothing created something falls apart in any way you look at it.

Space is nothing - time is nothing - won't cut it either for the fact that space is not nothing. And since time can't be separated from space thus to say that time is nothing is illogical.

So if there's a logical way to define nothingness, I'm all ears.

But like I said, something eternal or someone eternal makes more sense because we have a starting point.

On the other hand staring with nothing and end up with something is nonsensical since there's no foundation to start with .

That's all I'm saying - it wasn't meant as an insult or anything else.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum



so say I:

...
But the fact is, I didn't rule out God from the equation. No for the simple reason that I always view that "something or someone eternal" was always present when energy materialized into matter.

Now if you think this is unconvincing inspite of the fact that it's both logical and reasonable AND VERIFIABLE, then that's on you. But so far you haven't presented any convincing explanation as to the origin of the universe other than "who knows".

that nothing created something. ...

Wow, verifiable too! lol. I am just being honest when I claim ignorance. This itself is the highest form of wisdom, according to Socrates. I agree with him. If we wish to know something, it first seems necessary to at least realize that we don't know. That's a good place to start and quite an important step that many seem to overlook! Your god is unconvincing so far, because it is an obvious special pleading fallacy.

Well if you look at it this way - my way then it's Verifiable.

Case in point:

Is there a way to verify that "energy materialized into matter" or vice-versa?

The answer is yes:

LHC - Large Hadron Collider has been used and still being used to create exotic matter.

As energy is converted to matter, higher energies allow heavier and more exotic particles to be created.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Now think about it - what's at the heart of this experiment for understanding the beginning of the universe?

Was it NOTHING or SOMETHING, we don't know?

Answer is SOMETHING - "Protons".

As stated:

Protons - the hearts of atoms - fired in opposite directions around the tunnel at just under the speed of light are smashed together at enormous energies, simulating conditions that occurred an instant after the Big Bang.

This no longer a mystery but a day to day experience in the life of those who are involve.

Now they are on a new quest:

Scientists are switching to the Dark Side as they prepare to ramp up the power at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). After capturing a species of Higgs boson, the particle hunters now have their sights set on a new trophy - dark matter.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...


In addition, according to The Symbiotic Universe, pages 256-7.

The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent; a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur; if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable; without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed; had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible; and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.

So it's not an exaggeration to say what I said.

But of course, since you don't subscribe to an ALWAYS existing something or someone thus, to say what i said is just plain ignorance.

Now why SOMEONE is much more logical to state rather than SOMETHING created the universe?


Because the characteristics or I should say the attributes present in the Universe point to SOMEONE rather than something.


Consider again the quote from The Symbiotic Universe.

The charges of electron and proton must be equal and opposite; the neutron must outweigh the proton by a tiny percent; a matching must exist between temperature of the sun and the absorptive properties of chlorophyll before photosynthesis can occur; if the strong force were a little weaker, the sun could not generate energy by nuclear reactions, but if it were a little stronger, the fuel needed to generate energy would be violently unstable; without two separate remarkable resonances between nuclei in the cores of red giant stars, no element beyond helium could have been formed; had space been less than three dimensions, the interconnections for blood flow and the nervous system would be impossible; and if space had been more than three dimensions, planets could not orbit the sun stably.

Which view makes logical sense?

Can NOTHING create a universe in such precision as described above? That a mere imbalance of the forces and laws governing it can render it lifeless? Does NOTHING have such characteristics or such attribute?

Does it even makes sense?


What about something? Can "something" create the universe with such precise combination? If so what is this SOMETHING?

But to say that SOMEONE created the universe makes more logical sense for the simple fact that 'day to day' experience tells us that for a law to exist there must be a lawgiver.

It's really simple as that!

Lastly if something corresponds to the "proton" in the LHC, who are the "scientist" correspond to in the scheme of things?

reply to post by edmc^2


The fact you exist and realize you exist proves, that the Something does seem to in fact exist.

The Nothing, is not space, in every sq. meter of know space, in this know Universe, is at least 1 hydrogen atom.

The Nothing exist out side of, the Something what you call the Universe, space.

The Nothing is boundless, it is neither , large nor, small, it can not be measured because Nothing is there, No Thing. What is the temperature of the Nothing, again, there is nothing to measure. If we took absolute zero, it would be colder than A. Z. I would be sure ,The Nothing to my view would be the only true Infinity, lease you under stood the other side of the coin. At A.Z. even the electrons stop moving around the atom, really they are still moving, you might not notice.

Not even the Nothing could, not exist, without the Something, You are dealing with True Infinity,The Creator, Alpha & Omega. That which has always been and will always be.
The One Creator stood in the Nothing and said " I'am ".

It's all about perspective, you could, Time is meaningless to the Creator, everything that could ever happen has already occurred.

We are in what is called The Gross Physical plane, cause and effect, the choice is yours to do as you please, but cause and effect, engage.

The Nothing is very, boring place, The Creator put me out there once, was my request. Another request followed. Boy was I scared.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So what you're saying is, as long as we're inventing irrational explanations, you might as well adhere to something that benefits you personally according to how you would like to be benefitted by such a system. Or in other words, if you're going to have an imaginary friend, it might as well be a genie who lives only to make you the happiest person on Earth.

Why am I not surprised?

No, I did not invent an "imaginary friend". It is what it is. Nothing comes nothing not "out of nothing, comes something".

Any rational mind can understand and see the logic in that! I don't know why you can't.

In fact it's an "imaginary" concept that "out of nothing, comes something".

Of course if you can prove that "out of nothing, comes something", then I'm with you.