Why God Exist!!!?

spy66

edmc^2

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.

In Our finite universe it is without doubt irrational to to think that nothingness could ever create anything. It dosent make sense. But you can not rantionaly compare Our finite universe With nothingness. You cant compare the two. They are two very different Dimensions.

If you support the idea that there is a inifnite. Than you have to Accept that there is only room for one such Dimension. Where there is only room for one infinite Dimension: You can ask Your self, where did all the other finites come from. All other Dimensions do exist within the infinite Space/Dimension. Again, where did they come from?

There is only one Clue.

Than you have to face what you deny. And start to solve the real issue.

I think we're somewhat in agreement. That there are two dimensions - a finite and an infinite. That which precedes the finite is infinite.

That is the physical/corporeal universe is finite in that we're able to "detect" it's borders as it expands towards spacetime. But outside its "borders" is the unknown because it's infinite. This is where the "something" or "someone" resides - outside the borders of the finite universe. It's only logical to view it this way for the infinite CAN'T be contained in something that is finite -i.e. universe.

Thus the conundrum - if the infinite spacetime contain the finite universe what contains the infinite?

To say that nothingness brought it about doesn't make sense because how could something infinite be created?

IT can't. Logic won't allow it. So the ONLY alternative is - IT must have been. It must have ALWAYS existed - never created.

All known laws of physics agree with such concept.

Mathematics agree as well.

Again -Dr. Michio Kaku:



The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down.

edmc^2
The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down.

It depends on how you look at it. It doesn't matter to the universe how many times a wheel spins. Not all infinities are arrows. Infinities do not necessitate expansion.

reply to post by Blue Shift


How would you know the second thing about infinity? The first being that it's infinite, of course.

Blue Shift

edmc^2
The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down.

It depends on how you look at it. It doesn't matter to the universe how many times a wheel spins. Not all infinities are arrows. Infinities do not necessitate expansion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Blue Shift. It depends on how look at it?

But there's NO other way of looking at it. Infinity is infinity. Like spacetime is infinite and it's beyond the borders of the finite universe. Hence "The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down".

And since INFINITE can't be created thus it's eternal.

edmc^2

Blue Shift

edmc^2
The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down.

It depends on how you look at it. It doesn't matter to the universe how many times a wheel spins. Not all infinities are arrows. Infinities do not necessitate expansion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Blue Shift. It depends on how look at it?

But there's NO other way of looking at it. Infinity is infinity. Like space time is infinite and it's beyond the borders of the finite universe. Hence "The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down".

And since INFINITE can't be created thus it's eternal.

Please don't take these as personal attacks I'm simply trying t point out how complex the subject matter is and the best scientists in the world only focus on one avenue of it and even then state 'they don't know' instead of 'god did it'

edmc^2

And since INFINITE can't be created thus it's eternal.

Nope If I add up all the even numbers, the answer tends to infinite
If I add up all the odd numbers, the answer tends to infinite

Two seperate paradoxical infinite series have been created from finite sets.

Also the Universe is at least 12 dimensions, not two.

The mistakes made are because of translating scientific/mathematical terms into everyday words. If you want to get true answers than you need to use maths. Otherwise it's just the theological debate that became useless 300 years ago.

Or to put it succinctly there's as much evidence my cat created the universe than there is god (well more really as I know Bob exists)

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by pheonix358

 

" I am happy thinking of The Mother of the Universe or just Mummy for short. "


So , where did your " Mummy " come from ? Hmm...

For that matter, where did the universe pop in from? Something out of nothing? Yet you question Mom?

Take a look at the double slit experiment and especially the part about infinite possibilities and probabilities all existing at once, and then realize, that that is the answer as to Why Something and Not Nothing. Infinite Something AND Infinite Nothing all exist in infinity, and infinity types, infinity densities, infinite variety, but nothing cancels itself out, its nothing. So its all infinite something.

And Infinite Consciousness/Intelligence, is the Master of ALL.

bastion

edmc^2

Blue Shift

edmc^2
The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down.

It depends on how you look at it. It doesn't matter to the universe how many times a wheel spins. Not all infinities are arrows. Infinities do not necessitate expansion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Blue Shift. It depends on how look at it?

But there's NO other way of looking at it. Infinity is infinity. Like space time is infinite and it's beyond the borders of the finite universe. Hence "The infinite can't be contained by the finite - it breaks down".

And since INFINITE can't be created thus it's eternal.

Please don't take these as personal attacks I'm simply trying t point out how complex the subject matter is and the best scientists in the world only focus on one avenue of it and even then state 'they don't know' instead of 'god did it'

edmc^2

And since INFINITE can't be created thus it's eternal.

Nope If I add up all the even numbers, the answer tends to infinite
If I add up all the odd numbers, the answer tends to infinite

Two seperate paradoxical infinite series have been created from finite sets.

Also the Universe is at least 12 dimensions, not two.

The mistakes made are because of translating scientific/mathematical terms into everyday words. If you want to get true answers than you need to use maths. Otherwise it's just the theological debate that became useless 300 years ago.

Or to put it succinctly there's as much evidence my cat created the universe than there is god (well more really as I know Bob exists)

edit on 18-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

none taken.


Yet I'm not even using theology to determine the origin of the universe. I'm using reasonable logic coupled with known established physical laws.

That in order for something to exist, there must be an underlying foundation. And nothing or nothingness is both illogical and unscientific as it has nothing to back it up.

And since we have a concept such as INFINITY thus, it's makes logical sense to view that before the universe existed - there was "something" or "someone" already there.


That "something" or "someone" caused energy to materialized into matter.

Now to say that your "cat created the universe" is evidence enough than saying that "there is god (well more really as I know Bob exists)" - a creator of the universe flies against reality for the simple fact that your cat is finite and no concept of space time.

300 years ago they might have believed that your "cat created the universe".

But now, in the advanced age of astronomy and cosmology, quantum physics, string theory, Higgs Field, etc, we should be able to at least tell by now. That is, if such phenomena as spacetime or black holes or dark energy, dark matter exist then why not INFINITY?

If INFINITY (something) exist then why not someone?

After all the universe itself show evidence of intelligence when it was created: E=mc2.

reply to post by edmc^2


So what's your solution, then?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So what's your solution, then?

Why not view the origin of the universe from the point of view that:

"Something" or "Someone" eternal, always existed, was already there before the "big-bang"?

Why not formulate a new equation in which INFINITY is part of it rather than nothing?

After all E=mc2 starts with the premise that Energy was already present in the "beginning"!

Thus "Out of Something (or to me - Someone), comes something".

Once this is completely proven (at least in my case it is) then one can move to the next level of existence - spirituality and the ultimate meaning of our existence.

Why we are here?

reply to post by edmc^2

Thus "Out of Something (or to me - Someone), comes something".

Where did your "Someone" come from?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Thus "Out of Something (or to me - Someone), comes something".

Where did your "Someone" come from?

"Something" or "Someone" eternal, always existed, was already there before the "big-bang".

INFINITY = ETERNAL = UNCREATED, Always Existing.

reply to post by edmc^2

"Something" or "Someone" eternal, always existed, was already there before the "big-bang".

INFINITY = ETERNAL = UNCREATED, Always Existing.

Hmm. So, as I said before:

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?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

"Something" or "Someone" eternal, always existed, was already there before the "big-bang".

INFINITY = ETERNAL = UNCREATED, Always Existing.

Hmm. So, as I said before:

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?

Which one is irrational an imaginary "friend"?

"Out of nothing, comes something"?

Or

"Out of something, comes something"?

reply to post by edmc^2

Which one is irrational an imaginary "friend"?

"Out of nothing, comes something"?

Or

"Out of something, comes something"?

No, you got it wrong.

"Out of nothing, comes something"

or

"Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else"

Essentially the same thing. But ours is more scientifically compatible. That is to say, ours is based on facts that render yours invalid. Simply put, if the theories were brains, yours would be that of a dead monkey and ours would be that of Albert Einstein. Not flawless, but enough to be moving on with.

Are we done here, or did you wanna demonstrate some more of your pseudo-logic?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Which one is irrational an imaginary "friend"?

"Out of nothing, comes something"?

Or

"Out of something, comes something"?

No, you got it wrong.

"Out of nothing, comes something"

or

"Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else"

Essentially the same thing. But ours is more scientifically compatible. That is to say, ours is based on facts that render yours invalid. Simply put, if the theories were brains, yours would be that of a dead monkey and ours would be that of Albert Einstein. Not flawless, but enough to be moving on with.

Are we done here, or did you wanna demonstrate some more of your pseudo-logic?

Then I thank you for proving my point - an irrational mind will believe and accept that:

"Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else".

With nothing to back it up but blind faith one has to accept the impossible.

That "Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else"


Case close.

reply to post by edmc^2

Then I thank you for proving my point - an irrational mind will believe and accept that:

"Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else".

With nothing to back it up but blind faith one has to accept the impossible.

That "Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else"


Case close.

Hold on a minute there Charlie. You just told me that's exactly what YOU believe. Or are you retracting that statement? Because if you are, now is a great time to explain to me where your god comes from.

Less hypocrisy and more intelligent discource, please.

edmc^2
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.

Sort of apology accepted. But even if you think it cannot be defined you could have given an honest answer. Like you did later.

So, you say that you can not define the word "nothing"? But you have repeatedly asked the question, "how can something create nothing?". Have you not? How can you ask the question if you do not define the very word "nothing"? This is like a color blind person asking, what is red? How can he or she know what red is?

I do not deny the existence of something. Nor do I deny the existence of someone. Of course something and someone exist. But how does this affect our discussion?

Once more: If you want to define nothing, then say what it is! As you have said there may not be much I can do to define nothing. But I hope you can? Please, do it.

Subnatural

edmc^2
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.

Sort of apology accepted. But even if you think it cannot be defined you could have given an honest answer. Like you did later.

So, you say that you can not define the word "nothing"? But you have repeatedly asked the question, "how can something create nothing?". Have you not? How can you ask the question if you do not define the very word "nothing"? This is like a color blind person asking, what is red? How can he or she know what red is?

I do not deny the existence of something. Nor do I deny the existence of someone. Of course something and someone exist. But how does this affect our discussion?

Once more: If you want to define nothing, then say what it is! As you have said there may not be much I can do to define nothing. But I hope you can? Please, do it.

Ah...now I understand what you're trying to do.

So it was a misunderstanding. The question was for me not for the unbelievers.

You're asking me to define "nothing".

But shouldn't be the other way around?

Those who support this premise should define "it"? After all they are the ones insisting that "Nothing" created something.

Besides, if I give my definition, many might not agree.

But for this discussion I'll give "it" a try.

"Nothing" according to general understanding is:

1. Something that has no existence.
2. Something that has no quantitative value; zero.
3. One that has no substance or importance; a nonentity.

Take your pick but the first one gives us a clear understanding of "nothing" - it has no existence.

Thus "a non-existent" is simply "nothing".

Now if you want to get into the deeper meaning of "nothing", you'll have to delve into the realm of philosophy. For in there words can be twisted in every which way imaginable. Something that I'm trying very hard to stay away from.

For a lively discussion about this topic, here's a good one: www.livescience.com...

But something or someone on the other hand is the opposite for it means existence! whether incorporeal or corporeal, whether non-living thing or otherwise.

In any case starting with "nothing" to get something - the universe - is again illogical for nothing is simply - "nothing".

AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Then I thank you for proving my point - an irrational mind will believe and accept that:

"Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else".

With nothing to back it up but blind faith one has to accept the impossible.

That "Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else"


Case close.

Hold on a minute there Charlie. You just told me that's exactly what YOU believe. Or are you retracting that statement? Because if you are, now is a great time to explain to me where your god comes from.

Less hypocrisy and more intelligent discource, please.

There's nothing to retract.

Like I said "Out of Something or Someone (eternal), comes something".

Not like you said:

"Out of nothing, comes something, out of which comes something else"

You started with the premise that "nothing" created something then that something created something else.

Totally different from what I said.

So Why God Exists?

For the simple fact that Eternity, INFINITY and SpaceTime Exist!

That's all there is to it (at this level of understanding).

It can't be any simpler than that.