Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[Slidey]

OK Answer my question, you science elitists. Apparantly the matter that exploded in the big bang came from energy, where did the energy come from. Don't flame me, I've lurked the internetz for answers. Cheers Sam, at least someone doesn't just claim 'BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS SO, IT IS NEVAR WRONG'

Edit: Was the big bang the first true beginning or a result of previous causes?

A serious answer: all ongoing questions in science. We can't say with certainty what the answer is, but we can say what it probably is not. Once we've done that, we work with what's left. It may not be perfect, but it's the least imperfect! The good thing is, we also have multiple theories to competing against each other; don't for a second think the big bang is a single cohesive theory - there are various interpretations, many of which support each other but also many of which are mutually exclusive. The 'big bang' is a reference to the common characteristics of all such theories. Common characteristics which unanimously dismiss alternate explanation attempts such as Creationism.

Basically, nobody here is arguing science is immutable, EXCEPT sam04u!

Look up vacuum energy and you'll discover that 'nothing' isn't actually nothing. There's not a point in the universe where energy doesn't exist. There's even the possibility that the amount of energy in the universe may change one day, which is known as a vacuum metastability event.

 

[Captin gay]

For anybody interested, Physics Lectures from the Great Explainer, Richard Feynman

Feynman Lectures on Physics

Feynman Lectures on Physics (download)

Serway's Physics, popular undergrad physics textbook.

This site (Take a look around)

 

[sam04u]

I'm sorry, sam, but I can't help but not take you seriously. It's not because you didn't get into uni. It's not because you don't know much physics. It's because what little physics you do know, you try to match to your religious world-view and then ignore the rest of physics; it's because you don't want to know more.

Well it couldn't because I didn't get into uni. Because you're very wrong. I did get into uni.
And it also can't be because I don't know much physics, because I do know physics. (Alot of applications of physics though derives from mathematics, which I admit is not my strongest subject.)

However, to claim that I'm trying to match my understanding of physics to my religious beliefs is ludicrous. Irrespective of views, modern science (and I suspect future science) arrives at one conclusion about the origin of the universe. What differs between people is how they define that point of origin. Nothing has changed to be frank. The discoveries of the last few centuries have not diminished the capacity of the argument for or against god.

 

[Garygaz]

A serious answer: all ongoing questions in science. We can't say with certainty what the answer is, but we can say what it probably is not. Once we've done that, we work with what's left. It may not be perfect, but it's the least imperfect! The good thing is, we also have multiple theories to competing against each other; don't for a second think the big bang is a single cohesive theory - there are various interpretations, many of which support each other but also many of which are mutually exclusive. The 'big bang' is a reference to the common characteristics of all such theories. Common characteristics which unanimously dismiss alternate explanation attempts such as Creationism.

Basically, nobody here is arguing science is immutable, EXCEPT sam04u!

Look up vacuum energy and you'll discover that 'nothing' isn't actually nothing. There's not a point in the universe where energy doesn't exist. There's even the possibility that the amount of energy in the universe may change one day, which is known as a vacuum metastability event.

Why thank you, a reasonable answer. I guess it may be beyond the human brain (well, at least mine) to grasp the concept of energy that has ALWAYS been and never will cease to exist. I guess I'm under that idea that everything has to be created, I just can't grapple the idea of something which just is.

 

[Slidey]

Why thank you, a reasonable answer. I guess it may be beyond the human brain (well, at least mine) to grasp the concept of energy that has ALWAYS been and never will cease to exist. I guess I'm under that idea that everything has to be created, I just can't grapple the idea of something which just is.

Nobody here is saying that the universe always has and always will exist (I hope). Even the expansion model of the universe doesn't claim that the universe will never end.

It's just that we're open to the possibility that is true.

Personally, the big bang, energy conservation (or not), etc are all fine with me. They offer potential explanations for observations and possibilities.

But they still don't explain the beginning or the end (and neither does the existence of God). That is what you should be questioning, not the veracity of the big bang model. You'll find atheists become agnostic at this point.

Supposedly when the vacuum energy level falls, you essentially get a 'big bang'. But the thing is, it looks like it will eventually keep doing that till it falls to an absolute minimum energy level at which point the universe (rather, 'time') ends. Then doesn't that mean there was an absolute beginning? We're back to square one; what caused the first vacuum energy to exist in the first place, whatever level it was at. Certain cyclic models exist, such as some in super-string theory (periodically vibrating 'dimensions' that create a big bang whenever they collide), but it's all metaphysics because a lot of it is untestable.

Basically, it ends up that a 'cyclic' model without a beginning or an end actually makes more sense than not, even if we can't comprehend it, whether you believe in God or science - where did God come from? Did it create itself?

 

[Garygaz]

Nobody here is saying that the universe always has and always will exist (I hope). Even the expansion model of the universe doesn't claim that the universe will never end.

It's just that we're open to the possibility that is true.

Personally, the big bang, energy conservation (or not), etc are all fine with me. They offer potential explanations for observations and possibilities.

But they still don't explain the beginning or the end (and neither does the existence of God). That is what you should be questioning, not the veracity of the big bang model. You'll find atheists become agnostic at this point.

In hinting towards I couldn't understand something that just 'is' I was sort of inferring towards the true beginning. But yes, Agnostic here, most likely to be pondering on these questions for as long as I live. The thing that really gets me is the quote:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Makes my head err in pain

 

[Slidey]

However, to claim that I'm trying to match my understanding of physics to my religious beliefs is ludicrous.

I apologise. It just seems that way because you're treating certain aspects of science as immutable even though they are metaphysics.

Irrespective of views, modern science (and I suspect future science) arrives at one conclusion about the origin of the universe.

Eh. No it doesn't. As I said, the 'big bang' is not a single conclusion or theory; it's an overarching collection of all the traits which the various scientific origin theories have in common generally without delving into metaphysics (such as "What came before the big bang?")

 

[Slidey]

http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

So what are your thoughts on the LHC? Greatest scientific invention of all time or the end of humanity, as some believe. It is said that it will be able to recreate conditions of the universe just after the occurance of the big bang so that scientests will be better able to understand our origins.

Here are some of the reasons for it possibly being dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider


(Wiki, the ultimate source )

What do YOU think?

It's bemusing (for the end of the world couldn't really be called amusing) because you can't assign a probability to it.

Just because the number of mathematical models where doomsday events happen is less than the number where it doesn't, doesn't mean the the probability is less than 50%.

Indeed, I'd be tempted to say there's a 100% probability it won't happen, because the only outcome it is possible to observe (in the quantum sense, not the human one) is one where it doesn't happen. Does that make me a Many Worlds adherent?

It's not something you can worry about, but the fact is, the only way to determine whether or not it will destroy the world is to do it. That's kind of disturbing. It's a situation science has never been in before. Do we really have the right to perform such an experiment?

I don't know. I don't fear death, but this is more like having never existed at all.

 

[Enteebee]

The Big bang was caused by some kind of matter exploding

lol

 

[katie tully]

I don't get how these guys can say God exists because he just has and always did, but they question the idea of the Big Bang theory ferociously...

 

[*TRUE*]

I don't get how these guys can say God exists because he just has and always did, but they question the idea of the Big Bang theory ferociously...

Why? I mean what are you saying with regards to the big bang theory?
Are you saying that 'if Christians think God is eternal and not bound by physical laws, why can they not think that some other source might not be so bound?'

 

[katie tully]

Basically.
If you guys are willing to except that God has always existed, out of nothingness, and that he had no creator he just was... Then why is the concept of the Big Bang such a hard thing to accept?
On one hand these guys are like, GOD JUST IS. And on the other hand they're like 'BUT WHERE DID THE ENERGY COME FROM????'

 

[Enteebee]

Basically.
If you guys are willing to except that God has always existed, out of nothingness, and that he had no creator he just was... Then why is the concept of the Big Bang such a hard thing to accept?
On one hand these guys are like, GOD JUST IS. And on the other hand they're like 'BUT WHERE DID THE ENERGY COME FROM????'

But god has super powers.

 

[katie tully]

What colour is his cape?

 

[*TRUE*]

Basically.
If you guys are willing to except that God has always existed, out of nothingness, and that he had no creator he just was... Then why is the concept of the Big Bang such a hard thing to accept?
On one hand these guys are like, GOD JUST IS. And on the other hand they're like 'BUT WHERE DID THE ENERGY COME FROM????'

Its because they're using the first cause argument; and the Christian God claims to be eternal , without beginning nor end. (I think thats why)

 

[squeenie]

Its because they're using the first cause argument; and the Christian God claims to be eternal , without beginning nor end. (I think thats why)

So couldn't they say something along the lines of "God caused the Big Bang"? God is supposed above everything else, right?

Anyways, I can't really say much about the Big Bang, because I don't know a lot of the physics behind it.

 

[sam04u]

Basically.
If you guys are willing to except that God has always existed, out of nothingness, and that he had no creator he just was... Then why is the concept of the Big Bang such a hard thing to accept?
On one hand these guys are like, GOD JUST IS. And on the other hand they're like 'BUT WHERE DID THE ENERGY COME FROM????'

Well, my personal belief is that the universe must be created by something. Let me explain why I believe that. If you look at the physical laws of our universe (Quantum Mechanics) you see that the universe is very finely tuned, and all the processes and laws all work in unison, supporting one another. If we look at the universe through that approach, the possibilities are almost limitless. There is only one limit in the universe which is the key to mine and many others understanding of the universe. That is the Conservation of Energy, and the Continuity Theory. (Both of which have been proven time and time again, through mathematics, science and theory.)

That is to say energy can neither be destroyed, nor created. And the total amount of energy in the world can never change. That is to say that there is a finite amount of energy in the world.

Now with that in mind (all of which is without a doubt accurate), we must question the purpose of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which support energy. They all work in order to conserve energy, and that is their only function and purpose So we can now make one of two assumptions. Either they exist because of energy, or energy exists because they exist. In reality, that's a distinction without a difference. They are infact one in the same.

So, basically everything from mass, to radiation, to the laws of thermodynamics, to every function and particle in the universe comes down to one common unit. Energy.

But where did energy come from? The laws of the universe didn't come from energy, and energy didn't come from the laws of the universe. (Chicken and Egg)

So, prior to the Big Bang there was nothing. We can't say there was energy before the Big Bang, because the Big Bang is where the laws governing and conserving energy come into existence. So you have nothing. There is no universe even, without energy. (That is to say the universe in which we come from, can not possibly be created from a god within it.)

So the next method of understanding where energy and the laws governing and conserving it come from, is to understand energy.

What is energy? You can't really define energy, because energy is the definition of energy. It's power, it's force, it's a mover, and there is only a finite amount of it. Energy can sometimes function in a way which we can understand to be a "charge", and some foolishly assume that means that the total amount of energy equals 0. (But that is foolish) If you have one unit of negative energy, and one unit of positive energy, you have two units of energy. Not zero. (Some people just don't get that.)

Because energy can have a charge, we understand a bit about energy. What would happen, theoretically if you had a unit of energy that neither functioned in a way that we would call was "positively charged" or "negatively charged"? It's quite simple. It would not exist. That is because all energy in the universe has a value associated with it. All energy has a value, that if changed to zero, would mean that energy ceases to exist. But how was that value defined?

In theoretical physics, we can say as some do that if something has no value, in a non-existant universe, that is to say that the sum is 0, and the net or value of material in the universe is 0, then that universe can come into existance spontaneously. Ofcourse that universe would be very different to ours in which there is tangible, defined material. It would rather be a universe of nothing, in which nothing can exist, but at the same time, there is something there. There are infinite amounts of these universes, and as time progresses, some will either go back out fo existance, and some will later define new universes (like ours was).

Depending on the complexity of these net value of zero universes, they can have complicated relationships with universes defined by them, and they can also have very simplistic relationships.

(I'm not apt enough in mathematics to show how this can happen, so criticise it all you like.)

So what we see is that there are four types of universes.

1) A net value of zero universe, that is simplistic. (It does nothing)
2) A net value of zero universe, that defines another universe and has a simplistic or non-existant relationship with that universe.
3) A net value of zero universe, that defines another universe and has a complicated relationship with that universe.
4) A defined universe, that does not have a net value of zero. It is complicated, and it is made of tangible material.

So, what I'm saying is God is not a magic man with a beard that lives in the sky. No, God is a universe (a complicated one, that has a relationship with ours). Dun, Dun, Dun.

 

[Enteebee]

Well, my personal belief is that the universe must be created by something. Let me explain why I believe that. If you look at the physical laws of our universe (Quantum Mechanics) you see that the universe is very finely tuned, and all the processes and laws all work in unison, supporting one another. If we look at the universe through that approach, the possibilities are almost limitless. There is only one limit in the universe which is the key to mine and many others understanding of the universe. That is the Conservation of Energy, and the Continuity Theory. (Both of which have been proven time and time again, through mathematics, science and theory.)

That is to say energy can neither be destroyed, nor created. And the total amount of energy in the world can never change. That is to say that there is a finite amount of energy in the world.

Now with that in mind (all of which is without a doubt accurate), we must question the purpose of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics which support energy. They all work in order to conserve energy, and that is their only function and purpose So we can now make one of two assumptions. Either they exist because of energy, or energy exists because they exist. In reality, that's a distinction without a difference. They are infact one in the same.

So, basically everything from mass, to radiation, to the laws of thermodynamics, to every function and particle in the universe comes down to one common unit. Energy.

But where did energy come from? The laws of the universe didn't come from energy, and energy didn't come from the laws of the universe. (Chicken and Egg)

So, prior to the Big Bang there was nothing. We can't say there was energy before the Big Bang, because the Big Bang is where the laws governing and conserving energy come into existence. So you have nothing. There is no universe even, without energy. (That is to say the universe in which we come from, can not possibly be created from a god within it.)

So the next method of understanding where energy and the laws governing and conserving it come from, is to understand energy.

What is energy? You can't really define energy, because energy is the definition of energy. It's power, it's force, it's a mover, and there is only a finite amount of it. Energy can sometimes function in a way which we can understand to be a "charge", and some foolishly assume that means that the total amount of energy equals 0. (But that is foolish) If you have one unit of negative energy, and one unit of positive energy, you have two units of energy. Not zero. (Some people just don't get that.)

Because energy can have a charge, we understand a bit about energy. What would happen, theoretically if you had a unit of energy that neither functioned in a way that we would call was "positively charged" or "negatively charged"? It's quite simple. It would not exist. That is because all energy in the universe has a value associated with it. All energy has a value, that if changed to zero, would mean that energy ceases to exist. But how was that value defined?

In theoretical physics, we can say as some do that if something has no value, in a non-existant universe, that is to say that the sum is 0, and the net or value of material in the universe is 0, then that universe can come into existance spontaneously. Ofcourse that universe would be very different to ours in which there is tangible, defined material. It would rather be a universe of nothing, in which nothing can exist, but at the same time, there is something there. There are infinite amounts of these universes, and as time progresses, some will either go back out fo existance, and some will later define new universes (like ours was).

Depending on the complexity of these net value of zero universes, they can have complicated relationships with universes defined by them, and they can also have very simplistic relationships.

(I'm not apt enough in mathematics to show how this can happen, so criticise it all you like.)

So what we see is that there are four types of universes.

1) A net value of zero universe, that is simplistic. (It does nothing)
2) A net value of zero universe, that defines another universe and has a simplistic or non-existant relationship with that universe.
3) A net value of zero universe, that defines another universe and has a complicated relationship with that universe.
4) A defined universe, that does not have a net value of zero. It is complicated, and it is made of tangible material.

So, what I'm saying is God is not a magic man with a beard that lives in the sky. No, God is a universe (a complicated one, that has a relationship with ours). Dun, Dun, Dun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryl9HoX5xco

 

[Captin gay]

so umm, "God as the universe" is pretty much atheism. It's the view that Einstein held (atleast publically)

 

[Kwayera]

Exactly. When Einstein referred to the God that be believed in, it was as something totally different to the Biblical god. Thus one can refer to "Einsteinian belief", almost, as a separate system of beliefs.