Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A Proof That God Exists


  • Please log in to reply
364 replies to this topic

#31    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:31 PM

View Postredhen, on 26 March 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

No, I am not an astrophysicist, if that's what you are asking.



Even if there was a big bang with no corresponding big crunch, that's not a proof for God. It has been established that certain particles can "pop" into existence out of "nothing". Mind you they don't last very long, but it proves the principle that nature abhors a vaccuum.

Also there's the circular reasoning argument, which begs the question who or what created God?

Then there's the cultural bias. How do you know it's the Abrahamic god that created the cosmos and not a different deity?

Hmm interesting so certain particles can "pop" into existence out of nothing?

Please give reference here, purely for the sake of completeness.

Now, regarding that statement, what makes people think that they "popped" out of nothing? One of the interesting things about certain particles is that "tachyons" for example or "neutrinos" also seem to be able to "pop" into existence without evidence of causality, but then again such "hypothetical particles" if they did in fact break or bend around the light speed barrier, could theoretically travel into the past and thus seem to "pop" into existence....

just saying.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#32    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:45 PM

View PostJor-el, on 27 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Hmm interesting so certain particles can "pop" into existence out of nothing?

Please give reference here, purely for the sake of completeness.

Now, regarding that statement, what makes people think that they "popped" out of nothing? One of the interesting things about certain particles is that "tachyons" for example or "neutrinos" also seem to be able to "pop" into existence without evidence of causality, but then again such "hypothetical particles" if they did in fact break or bend around the light speed barrier, could theoretically travel into the past and thus seem to "pop" into existence....

just saying.

The biggest issue with things "popping" into existance out of nothing is of course the Law of Causality. It's common sense that effects have a cause. As you said, there is more and more evidence that particles, as well as the entire universe and the laws that govern it, popped into existance out of what appears to be nothing. But is it really "nothing?" That's the question we need to ask. It's obviously something that everything seems to be coming from, therefore the question we should ask is "What is that something that everything in the universe keeps coming from?"

I personally believe based on multiple evidences that that "something" is actually God. However Materialists seem to believe that something can come from literally nothing, thus negating the basic common sense Law of Causality. Therefore if Materialists and Atheists wish to still have a stake in this debate, they're going to have to leave the idea that "something can come from nothing" and instead find a reasonable explanation for what that thing is of which particles keep coming from, while also refuting the existance of God in the process. Which in my opinion is a pretty tough venture... However if I were to hear a reasonable explaination otherwise, than I'd certainly be open to accepting it.

Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#33    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:16 PM

View PostJor-el, on 27 March 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Hmm interesting so certain particles can "pop" into existence out of nothing?

Please give reference here, purely for the sake of completeness.

Again, I'm not a particle physicist so I am definitely open to corrections. I forgot where I first read this, but I found this page with several quotes from physicists, here's one from Paul Davies. n.b. I realize this is a biased site (infidels.org) so again, if there are any errors please let me know.

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. "(Davies 1983: 162)

I've also heard a witty quote from another physicist (I'd have to search for it again) when questioned "Why is there something instead of nothing?" his answer: "Because nothing is unstable".

Quote

Now, regarding that statement, what makes people think that they "popped" out of nothing? One of the interesting things about certain particles is that "tachyons" for example or "neutrinos" also seem to be able to "pop" into existence without evidence of causality, but then again such "hypothetical particles" if they did in fact break or bend around the light speed barrier, could theoretically travel into the past and thus seem to "pop" into existence....

just saying.

Sure, I'll buy that as a possibility. I'm no expert so I don't know how probable it is.


#34    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,937 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:22 PM

View Postredhen, on 27 March 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

Again, I'm not a particle physicist so I am definitely open to corrections. I forgot where I first read this, but I found this page with several quotes from physicists, here's one from Paul Davies. n.b. I realize this is a biased site (infidels.org) so again, if there are any errors please let me know.

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. "(Davies 1983: 162)

I've also heard a witty quote from another physicist (I'd have to search for it again) when questioned "Why is there something instead of nothing?" his answer: "Because nothing is unstable".



Sure, I'll buy that as a possibility. I'm no expert so I don't know how probable it is.
But this is all theoretical, and it's only theoretical because otherwise the math in their theory would not work.  It is the expansion of Schrodinger's cat, but in any real experiment, the cat is definitely either alive or dead, it is not both.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#35    spayneuter

spayneuter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 132 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Washington State

  • Live Long And Prosper.
    Please spay and neuter.

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:23 PM

I think man created God.

What a man dwells on, he becomes.

#36    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe"

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:26 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 27 March 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

I personally believe based on multiple evidences that that "something" is actually God. However Materialists seem to believe that something can come from literally nothing, thus negating the basic common sense Law of Causality. Therefore if Materialists and Atheists wish to still have a stake in this debate, they're going to have to leave the idea that "something can come from nothing" and instead find a reasonable explanation for what that thing is of which particles keep coming from, while also refuting the existance of God in the process. Which in my opinion is a pretty tough venture... However if I were to hear a reasonable explaination otherwise, than I'd certainly be open to accepting it.

Well the law is essentialy broken in regards to causality with Virtual particles eg. The Casimir effect

Basicaly 2 sheet metal is placed apart in a vacuum and lefted to be observed. Over time the sheet metal is pushed together by what seems to be nothing. So in effect the virtual particles coming into and out of existence is pushing the plates together.

Watch this space

#37    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 917 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe"

Posted 28 March 2013 - 01:41 AM

May I ask you a question AquilaChrysaetos.

Lets say your hypothesis is correct. If God created the universe. What did he create it from?

Thanks for your answer in advance! :)

Watch this space

#38    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 28 March 2013 - 03:22 PM

View PostThe Id3al Experience, on 28 March 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

May I ask you a question AquilaChrysaetos.

Lets say your hypothesis is correct. If God created the universe. What did he create it from?

Thanks for your answer in advance! :)

He created it from nothing... Interestingly phycisists seem to be coming to that same understanding when looking at the origins of the universe. The view now is that the total enrgy of the universe is.... Zero.

http://www.lifeslitt...verse-zero.html

Considering the amount of energy packed in the nucleus of a single uranium atom, or the energy that has been continuously radiating from the sun for billions of years, or the fact that there are 10^80 particles in the observable universe, it seems that the total energy in the universe must be an inconceivably vast quantity. But it's not; it's probably zero.
Light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy." And yes, there's a lot of it (though no one is sure quite how much). Most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. The positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.

Negative energy?

Stephen Hawking explains the concept of negative energy in his book The Theory of Everything (New Millennium 2002): "Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less [positive] energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together," he wrote.

Essentially, when the the universe began, it was brought into being in much the same way that "virtual particles" are created.

In order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe, a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle; thus, many physical processes lead to pair creation.

The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later.
Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become actual particles.

http://en.wikipedia....Pair_production

The key to understanding events at very early existence of the universe, lies in a process called pair production, in which two photons give rise to a particle–antiparticle pair, for the particular case of electrons and positrons. Through pair production, matter is created directly from energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. The reverse process can also occur—a particle and its antiparticle can annihilate each other to produce radiation. In other words, energy in the form of radiation can be freely converted into matter in the form of particles and antiparticles, and particles and antiparticles can be freely converted back into radiation, subject only to the law of conservation of mass and energy.

As a result, space seethed with electrons and positrons, constantly created from the radiation field and annihilating one another to form photons again. Particles and radiation are said to have been in thermal equilibrium—new particle–antiparticle pairs were created by pair production at the same rate as they annihilated one another. As the universe expanded and the temperature decreased, so did the average photon energy. By the time the temperature had fallen below a billion or so kelvins, photons no longer had enough energy for pair production to occur, and only radiation remained.

Pair production in the very early universe was directly responsible for all the matter that exists in the universe today. Everything we see around us was created out of radiation as the cosmos expanded and cooled. Because we are here to ponder the subject and we ourselves are made of matter, we know that some matter must have survived these early moments. For some reason there was a slight excess of matter over antimatter at early times. A small residue of particles that outnumbered their antiparticles was left behind as the temperature dropped below the threshold for creating them. With no antiparticles left to annihilate them, the number of particles has remained constant ever since. These survivors are said to have frozen out of the radiation field as the universe cooled.


The present form of the universe is the residue of this leftover matter, since the very beginning of the universe after these events occured, no new matter has since been created.

http://astronomy.nju...TML/AT42701.htm

What this actually means in simple language is that the universe, no matter how great and energetic it may seem, is a process of creation from nothing at all.

So what is the Big Bang then?

The Big Bang is what scientists term "a quantum fluctuation".

In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The big problem with this idea is then, what caused the Quantum fluctuation to occur?

http://physics.stack...um-fluctuations

My answer is simply nothing less than God makes any kind of sense....

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#39    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 28 March 2013 - 04:46 PM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 26 March 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

God does exist and he can be scientifically proven, so that mankind is without excuse. The biggest evidence can be found simply in the air you breath every day, but nevertheless, more proof has, can, and will be given.
So God is found in the air?


#40    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,521 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 28 March 2013 - 05:01 PM

View PostJor-el, on 28 March 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

The big problem with this idea is then, what caused the Quantum fluctuation to occur?

http://physics.stack...um-fluctuations

My answer is simply nothing less than God makes any kind of sense....

Which is of course classic 'God of the gaps' reasoning:  'nothing less than God makes any kind of sense as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth'.  

The Big Bang theory is a theory of how the early universe developed; I'm not sure that it is currently a theory explaining how the universe came from 'nothing', I thought it was how the universe developed from a singularity.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#41    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 28 March 2013 - 06:15 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 28 March 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Which is of course classic 'God of the gaps' reasoning:  'nothing less than God makes any kind of sense as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth'.  

The Big Bang theory is a theory of how the early universe developed; I'm not sure that it is currently a theory explaining how the universe came from 'nothing', I thought it was how the universe developed from a singularity.

Oh yes, that singularity....

Well the logical question is what was that singularity?

If all the energy existent in the entire universe (positive and negative) were put together the result is zero energy. I'm pretty sure that was in my earlier post. So this "singularity consists of what exactly?

The only answer to the question then is "nothing".

A singularity is a term that leads people to think that it "must" consist of something, but the truth is exactly the opposite.

Edited by Jor-el, 28 March 2013 - 06:15 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#42    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,381 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 28 March 2013 - 06:24 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 25 March 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

A PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.

The line of thought that God's existence was depending on the universe having had a beginning lasted from about 330 BCE with Aristotle and until 1922 ACE with Georges Lemaitre a Catholic priest who brought the news about the Big Bang to the whole world as the beginning of the universe. Cosmologists throughout the world had to adopt Lemaitre's discovery as the nearest approach to the truth they had ever achieved. Now, since the universe had indeed a beginning, a proof had be established for the existence of God, blessed be He!

Ben
I hate to pop your bubble, but the universe having a beginning does not require the existence of a god.

And even if it did, you have just pushed the problem back:  what created God?

And that doesn't consider whether time had a beginning.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#43    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,521 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 28 March 2013 - 06:35 PM

View PostJor-el, on 28 March 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

A singularity is a term that leads people to think that it "must" consist of something, but the truth is exactly the opposite.

No, not 'the truth', that has been far from demonstrated; you mean 'what Jor-el calls the truth'.  Good question, what is the singularity?  Why do you think that science has definitely determined what that singularity is or that there was not one?  There is considerable debate in the scientific community concerning how well our scientific understanding of things at a macro level apply as you get closer and closer in time to the singularity, a fact that does not seem to be represented in some of your statements.  Here's a quote from Hawking from wiki on the page concerning the zero-energy universe hypothesis, emphasis mine:  "we might decide there is no singularity."  How did 'might' get translated to 'the truth'?  And maybe you've answered this previously, are you a physicist?

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#44    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:04 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 28 March 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

I hate to pop your bubble, but the universe having a beginning does not require the existence of a god.

And even if it did, you have just pushed the problem back:  what created God?

And that doesn't consider whether time had a beginning.
Doug
People seem to forget the most essential aspect of God, he is not part of our universe, he is the ultimate 1st cause from which everything else came. Why do I say this? Because we can't even grasp what it means to be outside of our universe and what it means not to be subjected to matter, movement or time.

Time did have a beginning in our universe, if I'm not mistaken, it started the moment length started, in the most simple of terms. Before then time did not exist because not only was it not measured but there was no movement from a A point to a B point. Since neither of these two prerequisites were in effect, there was effectively, no time before that moment.

Edited by Jor-el, 28 March 2013 - 09:07 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#45    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 8,026 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 28 March 2013 - 09:21 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 28 March 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

No, not 'the truth', that has been far from demonstrated; you mean 'what Jor-el calls the truth'.  Good question, what is the singularity?  Why do you think that science has definitely determined what that singularity is or that there was not one?  There is considerable debate in the scientific community concerning how well our scientific understanding of things at a macro level apply as you get closer and closer in time to the singularity, a fact that does not seem to be represented in some of your statements.  Here's a quote from Hawking from wiki on the page concerning the zero-energy universe hypothesis, emphasis mine:  "we might decide there is no singularity."  How did 'might' get translated to 'the truth'?  And maybe you've answered this previously, are you a physicist?

Please elaborate what statements you are referring to...

Ultimately, the term singularity is a misleading term, it implies that something was there, but rather it refers to an event, rather than an actual something. The term is interchangeable with "The beginning".

Yes there is considerable debate, I do not deny that but within the terms of that debate I am a proponent of the "non-singularity".

Here is a good explanation why... http://scienceblogs....e-start-from-a/

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users