GOD EXISTS

PeterZ wrote:I find your posts neither persuasive nor clarifying. You appear to claim understanding of cosmology but share very little of that understanding in your posts. The style of your posts does not lend itself to continued discussion.

What about the models make Mr. Hawking's position inaccurate?

What about my belief in God make my positing an intended action to initiate the primal cause any more fantastic than sheer chance creating many massive somethings created out of absolutely nothing?

Again, can you explain your beliefs to me from here?

Ninety-six percent of the world's population believe in a Supreme Being of some form.

A recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Sciences, the producers of Teaching about Evolution, is heavily biased against God, rather than religiously unbiased. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding: 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The percentage of unbelief is far higher than the percentage among U.S. scientists in general, or in the whole U.S. population.

Oh my GOD, where do they think the first electron came from.

The biggest void to fill, MY SON, is the void between two ears.

Cthia was a Vulcan word, typically translated into English as "logic", but actually possessing the more complex meaning of "reality-truth". The term cthia was also often used to refer to the philosophy/religion of logic, emotional control, and pacifism preached by Surak. - Star Trek novel Spock's World

Yet from a void —> Big Bang requires handwaving from Science or Religion.

GOD is the orchestrator of the music of the Universe. It isn't background noise - that's the band - the Son and the Holy Ghost. If music is played on an improperly tuned device - like our ears, mind and soul, it will sound like noise. As God's subjects we must become attuned to the truth. And the TRINITY play on. As Christians we can hear the truth emanating from the music of the Universe and we can hear the lead singer with our hearts as we heard the truth on Earth represented by the SON sent to us by the Father.

"If you prove the cause, you at once prove the effect; and conversely nothing can exist without its cause."
(Aristotle)

Objects in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an outside force.

The Big Bang theory is Science's best explanation of how the Universe was created. The theory asserts that our entire Universe was created when a tiny (billions of times smaller than a proton), super-dense, super-hot mass exploded and began expanding very rapidly, eventually cooling and forming into the stars and galaxies with which we are familiar.

Annachie wrote:
Cthia, what happens to your thought experiment when you extend it to God? Don't you end up at the same void? Wouldn't Occam's razor say then that there is no God is the answer? (actually the answer is we don't know enough to conduct the first thought experiment, let alone the follow up one)

Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Wiki:
Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. This is impossible to ever achieve because of friction and other sources of energy loss. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.

Objects in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

The Big Bang theory is science's best explanation of how the Universe was created. The theory asserts that our entire Universe was created when a tiny (billions of times smaller than a proton), super-dense, super-hot mass exploded and began expanding very rapidly, eventually cooling and forming into the stars and galaxies with which we are familiar.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.[2]

“The key to growth is the introduction of higher dimensions of consciousness into our awareness.”
— Lao Tzu, Chinese philosopher, 6th century BC

When God spoke from Mount Sinai , the mountain itself shook and trembled like a leaf in the autumn wind, billowing smoke and fire. And the people were amazed and trembled with great fear when they saw this entire mountain shaking, as a symbol of the effect of the Law coming to men and nations throughout history.

Exodus 33:20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Timothy 6:16 He alone can never die, and he lives in light so brilliant that no human can approach him. No human eye has ever seen him, nor ever will. All honor and power to him forever! Amen.

Genesis 3 New International Version (NIV)
The Fall
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

In the bizarro sub-atomic realm of quantum physics, a particle can occupy two different states at the same time (a state known as superposition).

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

John 8:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

cthia wrote:If you accompanied me on that trip back to the void, then how do we return to somethingness? Was it just a one way trip for you? There is NOTHING there that will assist you in getting back. And you have already stated that there is also none NO ONE that can assist you either. But if here in this void there is nothing, no thing, then what chance do we have? This is easily answered in my faith. There is not some things but there is SOME ONE. SOMEONE.

Ninety-six percent of the world's population believe in a Supreme Being of some form.

Ninety-five percent of Americans.

Statistically speak/think (ing), Christians are in the correct group of thinkers.

Statistics is a mathematical body of Science.

A recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Sciences, the producers of Teaching about Evolution, is heavily biased against God, rather than religiously unbiased. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding: 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didn’t respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The percentage of unbelief is far higher than the percentage among U.S. scientists in general, or in the whole U.S. population.

Someone needs to have 'the talk' with biologists. We learn about the birds and the bees at a fairly young age. And even a kid knows that two rocks don't get together to make people.

Let our small snippet comprise the distance between the Big Bang and our void. This is the quintessential example of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Truly between a rock (all the matter at the moment of the Big Bang) and a hard place (the impossibility represented by making something out of nothing.) Some[thing] had to talk to get us out of there. It wasn't the rock!

The logic of the illogical is truly fascinating.

I like science fiction just like the next guy. Apparently you do too or chances of us ending up as members on this forum would be slight. My member name is cthia.

Cthia was a Vulcan word, typically translated into English as "logic", but actually possessing the more complex meaning of "reality-truth". The term cthia was also often used to refer to the philosophy/religion of logic, emotional control, and pacifism preached by Surak. - Star Trek novel Spock's World

Of course not! I do not think that that qualifies me of anything. Except to inform you that I am as inquisitive by nature and as skeptical and as askance and as vested into the realm of logic of what might have created the Universe as you. As sci-fi buffs we don't like handwavium. This Christian doesn't like handwavium either.

Yet from a void —> Big Bang requires handwaving from science or religion.

Faith + logic is a powerful equation.

Causality:
Events in the Universe follow the law of cause and effect. Every event has a preceeding cause. For example, a electron with negative charge is attracted by a proton with opposite charge and moves toward it. It doesn't move without a reason.

"If you prove the cause, you at once prove the effect; and conversely nothing can exist without its cause."
(Aristotle)

This deals non-believers out of the game.

It is ironic that many scientists and non-believers subscribe to the notion that cause and effect rule the Universe, and not God. Then, that notion of cause and effect leads them down the road to believe that 'currently accepted most plausible and defendable theories' explains how the Universe came to be.

THEY DO NOT.

Currently accepted theories only deals with a certain timeline after creation. Currently accepted theories utilize *existing energies -gasses and matter, light and heat to predict the behaviour of the Universe. It does NOT account for its Origin.

*When from a void, There is none of the above.

Plausible? How can that be plausible? Even If So, then that very first electron - if not God - is at least the god-process because it is the first process. Again, we learn the god-like qualities of being first as kids. "I was here first! You have to get in line behind me! That is irrefutable! If there is no God then from where did the first process come? Where did it originate. Non-believers simply sweep that under the rug. A very dirty rug.

Creation ex nihilo, the concept that matter comes "from nothing." That is NOT improbable. It is NOT unlikely. IT IS DOWNRIGHT IMPOSSIBLE - even under the laws of science in which non-believers ONLY subscribe.

Non-believers (which include many scientists as well) incorrectly separate Creation from the Creator. You cannot discuss Creation without discussing the Creator. It is embedded into the language we use. It is embedded into the definition itself. Creation is inherent of the Creator. Where on God's Creation can the truth be hidden?

Therefore, currently accepted theories DO NOT explain Creation. INSTEAD, these theories, of which the Big Bang is the most popular, attemps to explain the how of the Universe - the Sun, the Moon the stars the planets... I accept that the Big Bang Theory scientifically explains how the Universe survived after God set it in motion. And science also explains why it will continue, until God stops it.

Objects in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an outside force.

The Universe is a closed system in reference to the realm of God.

One thing that is humorous about M-theory/String theory is the readiness of science to delve into the realm of the philosophic. Well, at least science is beginning to show a little hope. Watch out Feynman, Hawking and others, the metaphysical is just around the corner. Good thing too, as you're going to need it all to explain spontaneous combustion out of nothing! One thing about cthia is that I can do the math for myself. And I'm wondering when the reality of infinite dimensions, that my math shows, other than the ten or eleven posited by string theory, will rear its ugly head. You heard it here first. It is coming.

String theory/M-theory is not yet a complete theory. Their problems are several fold. One is the unavailability of computers that can handle the overwhelming deluge of calculations. String theory brings a gaggle of Crays to a pitiful crawl.

M-theory also invalidates the law of conservation of energy. They're calling it a special occasion, an 'exception.' The problem with this is that the law of conservation of energy IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LAW. Not a theory to be later discarded. Sounds so suspiciously self-serving to me, as non-believers accuse Christians. Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. What other laws and theories will science discard in its desperate attempt at erasing the notion of a Deity. Perhaps they should just try whiteout, as their equations can hardly hold water in light of their own contradictions, or their own confidence, it seems.

M-theory involves too many assumptions that are taken on 'blind faith.' The same blind faith that isn't a good thing, when applied to Christians. Go figure.

At any rate, string theory has taken a serious hit. It proceeds to make predictions of an unformulated theory. Huh? In Foundations of Physics special issue on “Forty Years of String Theory” entitled String and M-theory: is revealed that the British *EPSRC “office rejecting” without peer review grant proposals on string theory. Which does not bode well for String theory.

*The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is the UK's main agency for funding research in engineering and the physical sciences. EPSRC invests around £800 million a year in research and postgraduate training, to help the nation handle the next generation of technological change.

Einstein hit the nail on the head when he said that a new form of mathematics is needed. I am working on that. At the moment, string theory and M-theory are making assumptions its check can't cash.

Annachie wrote:
Cthia, what happens to your thought experiment when you extend it to God? Don't you end up at the same void? Wouldn't Occam's razor say then that there is no God is the answer? (actually the answer is we don't know enough to conduct the first thought experiment, let alone the follow up one)

In a nutshell, Annachie, Occam's razor cautions us against overthinking — the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. It is a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct. My belief centers around one thing - there is a Supreme Being. Or more succinctly GOD EXISTS.

Theories of how the Universe came to be, is a very complicated bag of tricks. Not to mention that after a theory is finalized, as to how the Universe progressed after the Big Bang, it will need to be trashed. Because now you have to explain, in the interim before the Big Bang - the who put, or what put, the gasses and masses and asses in our realm for the Big bang to have occured. The Big Bang - out of nothing? Discard all of your sciences, because nothing that we know indicates that something can materialize from nothing. (Spontaneous combustion in a void?) So, you'll have to create an entirely new science from scratch. Ouch! - I'm afraid that Occam's razor screams Supreme Being! Not to mention that God created Occam.

Current theories do not explain how its building blocks (enough gasses and matter to do the job) got there. It only attempts to explain how it multiplied. How it continued. Indeed, how it perpetuated itself. It only attempts to explain (and by inference claim that it can explain) why the Universe is the only perpetual system. Science implies that the Universe is a perpetual system when it is Science that says perpetuation isn't possible.

CONTRADICTIONS OF SCIENCE:

Wiki:
Perpetual motion is motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy. This is impossible to ever achieve because of friction and other sources of energy loss. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.

—> The Universe is a perpetual system. (An X number of billion-year-old system and still going sounds perpetual enough to me.) Sure, some scientists are pretty sure it is going to stop expanding. Some day. And then it will begin to collapse and snap back into nothingness again. Of course, that return voyage isn't going to require nearly as long in its collapse. lol You see, light travels much faster in reverse. And that is if the Universe ever stops expanding. I do not believe that it will ever stop. Not on its own anyways- not unless acted upon by an outside force.

Objects in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Assertion - Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Contradiction - Except once, before the beginning.
Assertion - The idea of an infinitely existing being is preposterous.
Contradiction: However, via the magic that is Steady State Theory, the idea of infinitely existing matter isn't.

The Big Bang theory is science's best explanation of how the Universe was created. The theory asserts that our entire Universe was created when a tiny (billions of times smaller than a proton), super-dense, super-hot mass exploded and began expanding very rapidly, eventually cooling and forming into the stars and galaxies with which we are familiar.

And we shall build our theory on an incorrect definition of void. Frankly, I'm appalled at some scientists. And just where in the *hell did you get this super-dense, super-hot mass of handwavium in a void? *Hell didn't even exist yet! That's a hefty use of handwavium even more than any sci-fi read I've ever read!

And for the coup de gras. Drum roll please...

Assertion - There was no living thing before the Big Bang. Just a few rocks and gasses. No life.
Contradiction - The rocks became aware and started talking.
By any chance, were these 'pop rocks?'

Current thinking assumes that the Big Bang explains how the Universe came to be. It doesn't. As it has no building blocks to begin with. But scientists and laythinkers cheat. "Oh, it was a little of something lying around. You gotta allow us that. A void doesn't really mean there was nothing." Yes it does! And no, I cannot give you anything. I cannot grade you on a curve even if I wanted to. Curves did not exist then either, as spacetime (and curved space) did not yet exist.

In the beginning there was nothing. And then there was one God. O and 1. Binary arithmetic? lol

—> The hypocrisy of the illogic of non-believers.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.[2]

Your own Simon err science says:
1. Rocks DO NOT just appear out of thin air err don't just appear out of nothingness.
2. Energy DOES NOT just appear out of nothingness.
3. Estimates of the amount of energy required to `assemble' an electron are very large indeed.

Yet non-believers believe that the void before the Big Bang did somehow immaculately conceive of rocks - matter and gasses and enough energy (infinite) to make it go boom.

Creation is a perpetual system. Unless you think that man and woman will all join nunneries and will talk the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees into following suit. Unless you dispute your own science again that the Universe has been going and going and going for billions of years and still expanding. That is one Heaven of a perpetual energizer bunny to me.

Eveready never had it so good.

Despite sensational claims of finding all six types of quarks predicted by modern theory, a quark has never been directly observed, and its existence is known only by inference and correspondence of its expected properties with the light, heat and path generated by a violent collision. It is logically inconsistent, of course, for the electron to be an elementary particle that has no quarks when it is the decay product of a neutron that is supposed to be composed of three quarks. -CSS

Part of a Christians' proof is that GOD is known also by the same mechanism as 'inference,' except that in addition, there is also someone, ONE, telling us ALL who would hear, the truth - I AM. We have a witness ( JESUS), a claimant (God), and a defendant (again Jesus), all wrapped into one. And a Holy Ghost, to boot.

“The key to growth is the introduction of higher dimensions of consciousness into our awareness.”
— Lao Tzu, Chinese philosopher, 6th century BC

Lest we will forever remain blind to the truth.

Scientists and non-believers have an inherent problem with the notion of a Supreme Being. At the heart of this discomfort lie their non-affinity for anything metaphysical. Yet, therein lies more of a non-believer's hypocrisy. Science places the idea of a 'consciousness' into the realm of the metaphysics. Consciousness is highly debated within the science of philosophy and meta science. Yet not one single person on this Earth will dispute the validity of his own consciousness - which we all agree is metaphysical. We agree that the core of 'who' we are is metaphysical, yet non-believers believe that there cannot be a metaphysical being??? Consciousness is just as difficult to ground as a Supreme Being - that is no coincidence!

Non-believers do not believe in a metaphysical being. Yet man is metaphysical -- At the core of 'who' man is is metaphysical. Man's consciousness and man's soul (if you accept that you have a soul) is metaphysical. It is what separates us from the animals. It is what makes 'us' us. It is what makes 'we' we. It is what makes 'you' you. It is what makes 'me and myself' able to say [ i am].

Yet I agree that by the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence of the appalling actions of some men -- there is no soul, no conscience and no heart and therefore they are not separate from animals. Which is a good argument that some are not even conscious.

Higgs-Boson particle
Yes, it's the God-particle, so called because the group of scientists that study this particular topic have discovered it's so fast that this particle holds the Universe, and everything in it, together. So if the particle didn't exist we wouldn't.

It proves that Einstein's theory that nothing is faster than the speed of light, wrong. Which is a huge revolution in the science.

Then there are scientists that have seen the light and thusly have become true believers. They have come to realize that science will never disprove our God. They realize that indeed science supports the notion of a God at every turn.

The Big Bang Theory is our most popular theory of how the Universe came to be. Christians think that if science is right and the Universe began with a big bang then what does that say about their beliefs? Scientists cannot believe that a God created the Universe because science points at a big bang as being the creator.

The E wrote:I was going to write a reply to this, but why even bother? If you start off with an argumentam ad populum fallacy, show yourself to be ignorant on the topic of abiogenesis, claim to have invented a theory of everything and I don't know what else because TL;DR, it is very clear that you have left the realm of logic and reason and entered the valley of crank science and bullshit.

The E wrote:I was going to write a reply to this, but why even bother? If you start off with an argumentam ad populum fallacy, show yourself to be ignorant on the topic of abiogenesis, claim to have invented a theory of everything and I don't know what else because TL;DR, it is very clear that you have left the realm of logic and reason and entered the valley of crank science and bullshit.

peke wrote:

The E wrote:I was going to write a reply to this, but why even bother? If you start off with an argumentam ad populum fallacy, show yourself to be ignorant on the topic of abiogenesis, claim to have invented a theory of everything and I don't know what else because TL;DR, it is very clear that you have left the realm of logic and reason and entered the valley of crank science and bullshit.

Thumbs up

One day, "A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. `Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?' `No,' answered Bohr, `I certainly do not believe in this superstition. But you know,' he added, `they say it brings luck even if you don't believe in it.' "

Daryl wrote:Rereading this topic after a break reminds me of a "holy clapper" workmate years ago who could debate miniscule biblical references all day rather than actually doing his share of the work.

You can play word games and waffle on about comparing various ancient texts as much as you like but the scientist/engineer in me simply asks "where is the factual proof?".

My simple (perhaps superficial) approach is to compare all the "born again, holy clappers, god botherers" that I have known to my average person, and they come across as a judgmental, intolerant, and unloving lot. The average person just wants people to feel safe, secure and valued; whether they are gay, black, disabled, atheist or whatever; but most conservative religious types tend to find that they are beneath them.

Rant over.