Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[MoonlightSonata]

Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist. It wasn't even a physical place, (this is not like the space we know of, because it consists of all the laws of physics) It was law-less. Untill the creation of the first law, which was the Law of Energy. It was this: (Energy exists, and it is a finite ammount it is this much exactly "y.yyx10^y".) So, there would be Energy but it would not be the Energy whcih we know today, which is governed by thermodynamics, it would exist as a type of Force. However, this energy would have needed to sustain itself as it would be under pressure as a whole. It would have had to transfer into something else to maintain the energy and this would have been Billions of small particles. (This would make the 2nd Law of physics in our universe. "The Law of Matter". )

Matter would not be the particles we know today as they wouldn't be governed by the laws of thermodynamics, and would have existed motionless. (Properly in a huge or tiny ball depending on your definition of huge and tiny. ) They would have Energy, they would not be energy anymore, (Energy could not be lost because of the first Law, the finite ammount of energy could never be lessened or lost, because of the first Law. )

So, the particles needed a way to maintain the energy. The birth of the third law was created, 'all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter', this law was created so that the energy could be maintained as it would be all positive, motionless energy which stressed the particle's form. The Law of gravity meant all the energy particles would 'come closer and closer together', this tightness would be the next challenge to the energy in an almost lawless universe, the first law has to be followed though and the pressure of the paticles compacting together gave birth to the next law. It was that energy could be 'transfered, but never lost.' which is the first law of thermodynamics. So, as the charged particles began colliding together, they were stressed enough to release another kind of energy particles. (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The gravity in the radiation would cause it to travel in a wave, as it would leave the 'scene' on an angle whilst maintaining it's own 'gravity'. (The energy would not just have been waves, but tiny particles from the collision.. extremely tiny...)

Therefore the second law of thermodynamics was created, to protect the 2nd law of our universe (matter), so that matter could exist. (maintaining the energy which is held within them). The rest is pretty much how we know it today. Then energy became a hot, heap and bundle. It became overly hot, and the electromagnetic radiation, seeped through the particles (which slowly developped, through collisions and stresses, including negative particles which were a result of equalising 2 positive particles clashing, there would have to be an opposite force as energy woudl transfer from one particle to the other, leaving one half negative. )

Slowly, these electrons and protons exploded together, transfering negative's to positives, the energy from there crashes produced the energy needed for the block to explode and.


Here are things which you may ask:
How long between process one till the explosion: (I'd say less then 1x10^-999)

You said that the particles existed in a 'ball', isn't a sphere only a sphere because of the 4th law 'gravity'? : Yeah, that's probably right too but it's the best way to explain it.

Who made the first law? : I say god, because the entity could not have been from within the universe.

1. Read the very first page of this thread.

2. Saying 'God did it' is not an explanation. It is the same as saying "it's magic".

3. If God need not have come from something, then by the same reasoning neither does the universe.

4. Even accepting all of what you say, it has absolutely no connection to the religious conception of God.

 

[sam04u]

It proves that a 'being', not from the 'universe', created the universe. It fits with my logic on the creation of the Universe. ( I argue it's god, but you can't disprove this. ) Even though it doesn't suggest that it would need to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenelovent, it doesn't rule out the possibility. (It could be satan right? But, It still proves that there is a 'God', which atheists are against. Agnostics aren't sure. )

Prime Mover? It was a force, not from this universe, powerful enough to create the universe. -God

 

[sam04u]

1. Read the very first page of this thread.

2. Saying 'God did it' is not an explanation. It is the same as saying "it's magic".

3. If God need not have come from something, then by the same reasoning neither does the universe.

4. Even accepting all of what you say, it has absolutely no connection to the religious conception of God.

It's nice for you to just drop in and think you've understood what i've been arguing. I've already explained that I've not tryed to prove what God is, just that God exists. It still is just theory, even though it does not necessarily 'explain', it fits with the logic which I have provided.

A being 'not' from this Universe, which 'created' the universe. (theoretically there is no universe untill the first law is defined. ) I also never suggested the energy was all positive, but in matter there isn't necessarily negative energy untill it is negative in relation to the positive energy in a matter which has force. You're arguing that negative gravitational energy is the same type of negative energy in an electron, which clearly isn't the case.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So, You challenge institutionalised religion because of it's extremes yet you support atheism which admits it doesn't know the answers because of some weak 'theories' which they hold.

Atheism admits it doesn't know the answers for certain because it is an honest position anyone should take.

Atheism was built off the Big Bang theory, which is the most idiotic theory to have ever existed. (In its entirety, not single parts which are somewhat plausible. )

No it wasn't... Atheists were around long before the Big Bang theory you dope. Alot of atheists used to support the idea of a 'constant universe', the big bang theory/begining of the universe shown through dopler affect left room open for the possibility of God.

BTW, Poking holes in a theory doesn't mean it's "Idiotic". It is possible to challenge the basic premise of the big bang theory, but you're going to have to do that with evidence just as proponents of the big bang theory do.

I provided scientific theory, and you brush it off as pseudo-scientific jargon without even properly contemplating it. (Because you're inadequate too)

Err... I asked you a hundred times and you never rejected what I said. Your theory is basically that 'something' began the universe that we cannot explain. It's not new.

Untill the creation of the first law, which was the Law of Energy. It was this: (Energy exists, and it is a finite ammount it is this much exactly "y.yyx10^y".) So, there would be Energy but it would not be the Energy whcih we know today, which is governed by thermodynamics, it would exist as a type of Force.

Sounds alot to me like the basic idea of the big bang theory. Somehow all of a sudden a huge amount of energy exploded into the universe . If you want to say that 'somehow' is <insert supernatural whatever> then fine, go ahead, it's not scientific tho. The rest doesn't really interest me as I don't know too much about the field. I will post it on another forum however, to see what some people with actual degrees in cosmology/physics have to say about it and report back to you. That's how nice I am.

 

[c_james]

It's nice for you to just drop in and think you've understood what i've been arguing. I've already explained that I've not tryed to prove what God is, just that God exists. It still is just theory, even though it does not necessarily 'explain', it fits with the logic which I have provided.

A being 'not' from this Universe, which 'created' the universe. (theoretically there is no universe untill the first law is defined. ) I also never suggested the energy was all positive, but in matter there isn't necessarily negative energy untill it is negative in relation to the positive energy in a matter which has force. You're arguing that negative gravitational energy is the same type of negative energy in an electron, which clearly isn't the case.

In order to prove God exists, you need to know what he is. Otherwise I could say God is my toaster.

Far out, I sound like a kindergarten teacher.

 

[withoutaface]

In order to prove God exists, you need to know what he is. Otherwise I could say God is my toaster.

Far out, I sound like a kindergarten teacher.

But if we define God we can't move the goalposts to refute any possible arguments thrown at us by the atheist infidels! :mad1:

Sam: Conservation of matter/energy can be refuted by the idea that both matter and anti-matter were created during the big bang, and matter + antimatter cancels out under addition. The exact details I'm not that sure of, but I do know that conservation of matter/energy doesn't completely refute the big bang theory, otherwise it would have been dropped long ago.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's nice for you to just drop in and think you've understood what i've been arguing. I've already explained that I've not tryed to prove what God is, just that God exists.

The problem there is that you've simply found something we cannot yet sufficiently explain with a naturalistic explanation and have said 'that's god'... it proves nothing, if you want to call god 'whatever' thing began the universe, than fine, but that's a pretty damn loose definition of God. I'm sure years ago theists would look up to the sun and say 'That is god!', the atheists responding 'It is a bright thing in the sky'.

A being 'not' from this Universe, which 'created' the universe.

Don't use the word being, you are making a big assumption. It is a 'thing', good work.

 

[sam04u]

You really are an idiot, I don't think you would qualify to teach children. (They don't allow racist, xenophobes who aren't open to criticism to teach young children) I think I've explained how you're racist based on your double standards and I wont bother re-discussing it with you.

I don't think you understand what this topic is about, it's about the question 'does god exist?', not 'what is god?', I don't expect you to know the difference though, even though they're completely different questions. I'm sure you would like to believe that it was a natural event? that you can't explain? I bet your ideas are supposed to be more plausible then mine? Explain the laws which exist in the universe, the ideas of negatives and positives and everythign you understand? I'm sure the universe pre-existed with all those laws, and it als has a built-in soup which explodes to make procarions and other matter to form hydrogen right? It's all natural right? Imbecile.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't think you understand what this topic is about, it's about the question 'does god exist?', not 'what is god?'

If you provide no definition of God then answering 'Does God Exist?' is a redundant question... It's like saying 'Does Xaldfpgpallg Exist?'.

I don't expect you to know the difference though, even though they're completely different questions.

Either way you have to state what God is.

 

[sam04u]

I already explained what God is, God created the 'first laws which govern our universe', the rest occur naturally as a result. God, is not from our universe and existed before our universe. God must also be 'very powerful', as to define such a law.

These fit with my religious beliefs, and they 'are against yours', do you see what I'm trying to prove with my theory, which is more plausible then the big-bang theory. (In it's entirety where it suggests a 'soup', with energy pre-existed in a universe with 'pre-existing laws'. ) If 'God', is no less then what I mentioned above, he is still much more then what you would have him be. Even if the 'creation of the universe is an accidental process', it could not be from the universe or a natural occurence. Do you have a better explanation? It seems the 'idea' that something more powerful then you exists is what is most contradictory to your belief. Religion aside, a celestial force took part in the creation of the universe. What created the celestial force? That's a question with way more 'difficulty' then the one which is questioned by this thread. But by theoreticising how 'god' could have created the universe and by showing how it could fit with the religious 'beliefs' of Islam which existed 'before the fact', i can make a pretty sustainable argument as to how 'God' which I can't define through science, created the universe. (and it is alot more plausible then the big bang theory which assumes way to much of a universe which is made of nothing, including laws which it 'suggests' already existed. )

 

[MoonlightSonata]

It's nice for you to just drop in and think you've understood what i've been arguing. I've already explained that I've not tryed to prove what God is, just that God exists.

Good. But you will eventually be left with a conception of God that is so vague that it really is of very little meaning or consequence to human life (not to mention completely detached from your evident religious beliefs).

It still is just theory, even though it does not necessarily 'explain', it fits with the logic which I have provided.

Anything fits within the logic you provided. You say the universe has laws and you postulate that these laws were created by a being. I can just as easily postulate that these laws weren't. You are not explaining anything by saying "God did it". The fact that the laws exist in no way illustrates that they were created.

A being 'not' from this Universe, which 'created' the universe.

And what created the being that created the universe?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I already explained what God is, God created the 'first laws which govern our universe', the rest occur naturally as a result. God, is not from our universe and existed before our universe. God must also be 'very powerful', as to define such a law.

So God is;

- The thing that began the universe.
- Therefore also powerful.

It didn't 'define' the Law, that seems to suggest consciousness - you have no reason to add consciousness/thought or even continued existance.

These fit with my religious beliefs, and they 'are against yours', do you see what I'm trying to prove with my theory which more plausible then the big-bang theory (In it's entirety where it suggests a 'soup', and pre-exists in a universe with 'pre-existing laws'. )

Naturalistic theories are always more plausible than any theory where you posit 'then some magical force', even if that naturalistic theory doesn't quite get there. BTW it's not 'against mine', your ideas don't really affect my view of the world, even if I accept them. So there's some powerful thing that began the universe (big bang) that's awesome, you call it god? I call it 'something' because God is usually a conscious being and you've gone no where near showing that.

If 'God', is no less then what I mentioned above, he is still much more then what you would have him be.

I have no problem with accepting that a powerful thing created the universe. Stop using 'he', you're giving it personality still and you have NO reason to suspect that.

Even if the 'creation of the universe is an accidental process', it could not be from the universe or a natural.

Well not natural as we understand nature, but it essentially doesn't bother me too much either way. It is still possible that it is a part of a 'wider' (beyond our universe) natural process.

Do you have a better explanation? It seems the 'idea' that something more powerful then you exists is what is most contradictory to your belief.

I believe in the sun... it's more powerful than me :/

Religion aside, a celestial force took part in the creation of the universe. What created the celestial force?

Erm... I wouldn't use the word celestial;

Of or relating to the sky or the heavens: Planets are celestial bodies.
2. Of or relating to heaven; divine: celestial beings.
3. Supremely good; sublime: celestial happiness.
4. Celestial Of or relating to the Chinese people or to the former Chinese Empire.

It seems to imply you're saying a 'heavenly' force took part in the creation of the universe. It doesn't bother me too much, the idea that some 'force' we can't yet explain (and maybe never will be able to) created the universe.... not in a bit. It falls WAY short of proving the existance of God as he would normally be defined.

But by theoreticising how 'god' could have created the universe and by showing how it could fit with the religious 'beliefs' of Islam which existed 'after the fact', i can make a pretty sustainable argument as to how 'God' which I can't define through science, created the universe. (and it is alot more plausible then the big bang theory which assumes way to much of a universe which is made of nothing, including laws which it 'suggests' already existed. )

But all you've done is called the thing that began the universe 'God'. It goes nowhere to showing a consciousness or anything, you've just pointed to something unexplainable and said 'LOLZ DATZ GAWD' - it doesn't prove anything, if that's what you want to CALL God, then fine, but don't get deluded and think it gives any more crede to your muslim beliefs.

It DOESN'T do better than the big bang theory because you've basically just given up and posited 'a magical force'. It's like trying to explain where cancer comes from, we can do the solid research, or we can just posit that it's 'evil magic dust' or some shit.

 

[sam04u]

It's nothing like arguing where cancer came from, cancer abides by certain rules as does everything else in the universe. Besides, I've already come up with ways in which the cancer could be destroyed pretty simply in a number of days. (It's just very costly. )

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's nothing like arguing where cancer came from, cancer abides by certain rules as does everything else in the universe. Besides, I've already come up with ways in which the cancer could be destroyed pretty simply in a number of days. (It's just very costly. )

It's not for certain that it has to abide by those rules, If you're willing to accept that something came from outside of the universe to create the universe why not accept that something with magical powers from outside the universe could come in and magically give people cancer ?

Err yea... we already know how to destroy cancer, you take the malignant out. This is impossible once it spreads to certain parts of the body, however.

 

[sam04u]

I think my theory is very plausible and with the right exposure has pretty weighty implications. It's also more plausible then what the big bang theory implies. Here is what I've defined God as in the model whcih I've explained.

God:
-Supernatural.
-Not of this Universe.
-Powerful enough to Create the Universe.
-Created the Universe
-Older then the Universe.

Is that magic? I guess so, Its still more plausible then anything you could suggest, and this being does fit with what Islam suggest. Islam suggested that 'God' was not in a transitory state (life), and was not made of flesh or bones, and that you could not see him. It spoke to you(but never with words), it was like light.

Do you disagree? and If so, what do you Disagree with?

 

[sam04u]

It's not for certain that it has to abide by those rules, If you're willing to accept that something came from outside of the universe to create the universe why not accept that something with magical powers from outside the universe could come in and magically give people cancer ?

Err yea... we already know how to destroy cancer, you take the malignant out. This is impossible once it spreads to certain parts of the body, however.

I said 'destroy' cancer not 'take the malignant out', besides it's very simple I just wouldn't expect you to understand how.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think my theory is very plausible and with the right exposure has pretty weighty implications.

Nope... It's basically this;

- Universe was created by something.
- That something was supernatural and not from our universe.
- That makes it pretty powerful.

Has no other implications.

It's also more plausible then what the big bang theory implies.

Impossible. Whenever you assert something with supernatural powers it cannot be more 'plausible' than a naturalistic explanation, even if the naturalistic explanation has its holes and the supernatural one does not (other than the big glaring 'LOLZ MAGIK' hole).

Here is what I've defined God as in the model whcih I've explained.

God:
-Supernatural.
-Not of this Universe.
-Powerful enough to Create the Universe.
-Created the Universe
-Older then the Universe.

Not that it matters too much, but older than the universe seems silly to me, unless you're claiming time existed before both? As far as supernatural goes, I don't see how it necessarily has to be something supernatural more that it could be something natural which we do not yet understand/may never. You heard of the 'multiverse' theory?

I said 'destroy' cancer not 'take the malignant out', besides it's very simple I just wouldn't expect you to understand how.

lol so you're telling me you have a 100% effective way to destroy cancer (any form?) .... LOL you fucking monster, how dare you not share that with the world?

 

[sam04u]

No, it's just the standard rhetoric. That's been used for thousands's of years to try and justify the existence of a Prime Mover.

It doesn't prove jack. What's to say this universe wasn't caused by the collapse of another universe?

Keep in mind the creation of the Universe has, for all intents and purposes, been considered a bad idea.

Because, I think if you bothered to read my theory on the creation of the Universe you would see that certain laws need to be created. A universe could not just collapse Nolanistic, that's what you learn in movies. Our universe in particular is governed by certain laws, and therefore could never just collapse. There is a certain ammount of energy within our universe and It cannot be lost nor destroyed, so It would always exist. The 2nd and 3rd and 4th Law, make it impossible for our universe to collapse, you see? It would always exist. Unlike the universe I theoreticised with the 'xxx', being the first law where it would continually 'collapse' and then 'regenerate'.

I think you need to know a little more about science. (I'm sure you think black-holes are used for time travel right?)

 

[sam04u]

lol so you're telling me you have a 100% effective way to destroy cancer (any form?) .... LOL you fucking monster, how dare you not share that with the world?

It's 100% effective, but it only destroys 'individual' cancer, since no two cancers are alike. It's difficult to explain but it's very expensive.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Our universe in particular is governed by certain laws, and therefore could never just collapse. There is a certain ammount of energy within our universe and It cannot be lost nor destroyed, so It would always exist.

If the universe continues to expand (more than gravity causes it to collapse), eventually everything will cool down and reach maximum entropy. Life is just a mechanism to redirect entropy (more or less, in my opinion), so it won't have any impact on physics. Matter will continue to be distict, as much as it is distinct right now.

Alternatively, the universe will collapse down to a singularity (gravity wins, compared to expansion), where all bets are off.

It depends which you think will win in our universe expansion/entropy or compression/gravity. ATM I believe alot of scientists favor entropy, but meh these things change.

The 2nd and 3rd and 4th Law, make it impossible for our universe to collapse, you see? It would always exist.

Then those laws contradict known science, prove them and win yourself a nobel prize.

[/QUOTE]