Why God Exist!!!?

interupt42

edmc^2

To all unbelievers, here's a simple yet profound question that merits an honest answer.

That is:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

No , lack of knowledge is not the best method to obtain a valid answer. You can only use logic by deduction if you know all the variables in the equation. We know very little variables in regards to the universe and how it all works.

Even so, who is to say that the God you reference is not an Alien teenager doing a science project?

Yet I'm not referring to "variables" but the logic that if/since infinity exist, can it be logically concluded that something else Infinite or Someone Eternal also can exist?

That is if the phenomena we call SpaceTime exist (and it does), can we also logically say that other phenomena can exist?

That's all the question is about.

Why God exist!!!?

Why SpaceTime Continuum exist!!!?

bastion

edmc^2

bastion
But his ideas on Physical laws meaning the Universe/Big bang would always occur are not philosophical. It's why something comes from nothing.

A prime example of an illogical concept - not supported by facts and common sense.

to me such idea resides in the realm of metaphysics. In fact it takes an EXTRA Ordinary amount of FAITH to believe that "something comes from nothing".


And I don't quite understand why Dr. Hawking even promoted it.

But the fact is - it's easier to believe and conceptualized that "something infinite" or "someone eternal" exist beyond the physical as the foundation of anything material.

I have more confidence on this concept as it's supported by reality.

So Science and Hawking are illogical now? If you don't think it's supported by facts you need to read some Astrophysics.

Just because something is difficult to understand and takes years of work doesn't make it illogical.

Just because there's an easy answer doesn't mean it's right, plus it's in no way supported by reality.

Read Hawking's - The Grand Design and see if you can come up with any counter arguments instead of inventing sky gods to fill in gaps.

On this account, I say yes.

Show me scientific facts / evidence / mathematical equations that supports Dr. Hawking's proposal, that:

"Out of nothing, comes something" "Something from nothing".

If you can then I will recant.

But the fact is, my contention that "Out of something infinite or Someone Eternal, comes something" is well grounded on facts, logic and common sense.

As for this:

Just because something is difficult to understand and takes years of work doesn't make it illogical.

actually - Einstein said it best:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

You just can't expect to get something out of nothing.

Thus, "out of nothing, comes nothing".

while you get something from something.

reply to post by edmc^2


Existence is. How do you know it is? Do you go to a book, go online or ask a friend in the know?
Can you look directly at what is actually going on?
When and where would you look for the answer?

Itisnowagain
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Existence is. How do you know it is? Do you go to a book, go online or ask a friend in the know?
Can you look directly at what is actually going on?
When and where would you look for the answer?

I'm sorry, but what are your questions pertaining to?

Are these questions directed to me or just a rhetoric questions?

So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

edmc^2
So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

how does space expand faster than light?

big bang stuff.

OP,

C.S. Lewis has great quotes for atheists.

No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth'. C.S. Lewis

tsingtao

edmc^2
So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

how does space expand faster than light?

big bang stuff.

Actually space is INFINITE whilst light is finite.

In fact light travels in waves (pulse) at the speed of approximately 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec)

And it's not the space that is expanding (since it's always there) but rather the "borders" of the material universe that is expanding.

But the questions is - WHAT'S causing the Universe to Expand?

colbe
OP,

C.S. Lewis has great quotes for atheists.

No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth'. C.S. Lewis

Thanks for the quote!!

Yes, deny all they want - they will never improve on what's already stated to be the fact:

"'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth' - Gen 1:1"

Just eight words (or so) described accurately and beautifully how it all came to be.

The CAUSE and the EFFECT!

tsingtao

edmc^2
So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

how does space expand faster than light?

big bang stuff.

Light must travel through a medium of some sort to be light. Space is devided into a minimum of two different types of space:

1. Infinite Space.
2. Finite Space.

Only finite Space can be further devided into different finite states of Space.

I have heard all sides and agreed to almost all the post in here. Maybe the problem is that we have not defined what God is. Who is God, What is God. An all powerful, omniscient, perfect can't do no wrong, created everything God. What if our definition of God is wrong.

Risktakr
What if our definition of God is wrong.

edit on 19-12-2013 by Risktakr because: (no reason given)

If the Bible is correct and true, the current offisial definition and public understanding, and teaching of God is all wrong.


The last Chapters in the Bible are quite sad for a lot of People. A lot of People are really going to get hurt.

spy66

tsingtao

edmc^2
So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

how does space expand faster than light?

big bang stuff.

Light must travel through a medium of some sort to be light. Space is devided into a minimum of two different types of space:

1. Infinite Space.
2. Finite Space.

Only finite Space can be further devided into different finite states of Space.

ya well, then the big bang, space and light expanded at the same rate?

tsingtao

spy66

tsingtao

edmc^2
So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

how does space expand faster than light?

big bang stuff.

Light must travel through a medium of some sort to be light. Space is devided into a minimum of two different types of space:

1. Infinite Space.
2. Finite Space.

Only finite Space can be further devided into different finite states of Space.

ya well, then the big bang, space and light expanded at the same rate?

No It didnt. Light and finite Space did not start to expand at the same time.

Space was already being formed during the compression time. Where the singularity was being compressed and formed.
Light can't have been emittet from the singularity until the singularity was hot enought to create light.

edmc^2
So the question stands:

Should not the existence of "something" uncreated and infinite (Infinity/Space-time/Sigularity) proves the existence of "someone" uncreated and infinite - God?

Possibly but not necessarily. I can see how that assumption can be made very easily and the point can be argued in support of it. But, that doesn't actually make it true. We have no idea as to the cause of existence at this point. Mathematics seems to imply that there was a beginning of sorts. But, what it does not imply is the cause or what existed before this beginning. I'm not actually making a argument for or against your statement simply pointing out that at this point we do not know. We are left with assumptions and opinions. While people feel very strongly about these it doesn't change that what we do actually "know" does not prove or disprove either statement.

Our current understanding of the universe and existence is in constant flux. We may one day be able to prove one way or the other, although, outside of belief in one concept over another I highly doubt it.

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

In reference to the above quote there is some mathematics coming to the table that imply that this is not true. It's implications are showing that space and time are not fundamental components of reality.

Locality is the notion that particles can interact only from adjoining positions in space and time. And unitarity holds that the probabilities of all possible outcomes of a quantum mechanical interaction must add up to one. The concepts are the central pillars of quantum field theory in its original form, but in certain situations involving gravity, both break down, suggesting neither is a fundamental aspect of nature. In keeping with this idea, the new geometric approach to particle interactions removes locality and unitarity from its starting assumptions. The amplituhedron is not built out of space-time and probabilities; these properties merely arise as consequences of the jewel’s geometry. The usual picture of space and time, and particles moving around in them, is a construct.

Scientists Discover a Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics

So with the above implications what are we left with? Basically the same thing we were left with before just the possibility of a greater understanding. But no proof for either side. The reason I shared that information is simply to inform you and others that each problem we encounter has a solution so to speak. And each answer leads to more questions. So were are left wondering is the answer of deities out there somewhere? For me personally, if it is, it will be in the math. Everything that exists has a mathematical construct. I see no reason for a deity to fall outside of this.

Then there remains the very good possibility I am flat out wrong. But, I'm ok with that. I'm ok because I accept my limitations and understanding of this existence.

reply to post by drivers1492

at this point we do not know. We are left with assumptions and opinions.

Who are we? Why are you saying we? Who do you have authority to speak for?

Why dont you say You dont know?

reply to post by edmc^2

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

If you accept that the universe is un-created and infinite then you do realize it doesn't need creating right? As it was always here or are you saying the universe is god?

reply to post by spy66

Who are we? Why are you saying we? Who do you have authority to speak for? Why dont you say You dont know?

Sorry I thought the use of we was evident as to who I was referring to. The human race is the we I am speaking of. I'm not sure where your pulling the idea I am claiming authority for anyone as I am not. I would wonder what exactly is your point of pulling that bit out of my post to question as I'm failing to see the relevance to the thread. If you refer to my quote of the op "For example, we know that spacetime" you notice the use of we as well. I know who he is referring to, as do I would imagine most of the readers of this thread yet it doesn't detract from the statement he is making by using the generalization. I also don't feel he is claiming authority by using we in his statement.

If it helps any let me openly state it for you.....I do not know nor do I honestly think I will ever know the truth of the existence of a diety.

My apologies if my response comes across as rude. Perhaps I am missing something in your post other than the simple off topic combative style I am reading it to be. If that is the case please excuse my response.

edmc^2
Show me scientific facts / evidence / mathematical equations that supports Dr. Hawking's proposal, that:

"Out of nothing, comes something" "Something from nothing".

You are taking Hawking out of context. The actual quote is: "The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang." He merely said it was possible, not the definitive answer to how the universe was created.

Hawking has been wrong before and is not the sole authority on the origins of the universe. There is a reason it is called theoretical physics.

edmc^2

colbe
OP,

C.S. Lewis has great quotes for atheists.

No philosophical theory which I have yet come across is a radical improvement on the words of Genesis, that 'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth'. C.S. Lewis

Thanks for the quote!!

Yes, deny all they want - they will never improve on what's already stated to be the fact:

"'In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth' - Gen 1:1"

Just eight words (or so) described accurately and beautifully how it all came to be.

The CAUSE and the EFFECT!

Am I correct in understanding that you did not intend to operate this thread as a collaborative discussion of an intriguing concept, but as a lecture on how to look at a question you decided was an excellent starting point to the conclusion you've already given us? In other words, this thread was a classic baiting tactic meant solely to make an argument, rather than foster any actual debate?

Because that's what I'm seeing right now.