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

#46    awest

awest

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2011

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:15 PM

The big bang theory doesn't imply we came from nothing. In fact, scientist are still debating what nothing is, so stating it came from something without a set of rules to describe it would be silly. As last I checked with current big bang theory models the vacuum in which the universe now fills was already here, and I believe the source for the big bang were virtual particles which pop in and out of existence. These particles have been demonstrated before, a vacuum, despite being filled with "nothing" actually has the potential to create unlimited energy. In fact, some physicist posited that this energy could be the source of the "dark energy" that is causing the universe to expand.
http://hetdex.org/da...cuum_energy.php
http://www.scientifi...-particles-rea"
In 1978, R. Brout, P. Englert, E. Gunzig and P. Spindel at the University of Brussels, proposed that the fluctuation that led to the creation of our universe started out in an empty, flat, 4-dimensional spacetime. The fluctuation in space began weakly, creating perhaps a single matter- antimatter pair of supermassive particles with masses of 10^19 GeV. The existence of this 'first pair' stimulated the creation from the vacuum of more particle-antiparticle pairs which stimulated the production of still others and so on. Space became highly curved and exploded, disgorging all of the superparticles which later decayed into the familiar leptons, quarks and photons."
http://www.astronomy...eyondbb.html
But
of course there are about as many variations of each theory as there are people in the world. Who knows.</p>

Edited by awest, 28 March 2013 - 10:17 PM.


#47    awest

awest

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2011

Posted 28 March 2013 - 10:23 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.

"But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded." While the creation of a particle from nothing has not been measured, the existence of the virtual particle was measured a along time ago.
http://www.scientifi...l-particles-rea


#48    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 - 10:59 PM

View Postawest, on 28 March 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

"But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded." While the creation of a particle from nothing has not been measured, the existence of the virtual particle was measured a along time ago.
http://www.scientifi...l-particles-rea

My point specifically was that these virtual particles although they may seem to pop into existence, does not mean that they actually only started to exist then at that moment, these particles, especially the ones I mentioned have no mass or very little mass and thus travel close to or at the speed of light or even faster according to a number of views, thus they could possibly be particles that simply moved in time and only appear to pop into existence.

Edited by Jor-el, 28 March 2013 - 10:59 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


#49    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 28 March 2013 - 11:03 PM

View PostJor-el, on 28 March 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

Please elaborate what statements you are referring to...

It is the exact statement I quoted from you.  Maybe I'm misreading you, but I thought your quote was saying that it is the 'truth' that singularites are composed of nothing.

Quote

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".

I don't think 'singularity' has only this definition.  From wiki:  "A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system".  It also discusses black holes as 'singularities', which is the usage I've heard and I don't think black holes are accurately described as merely 'beginnings' and I don't know if we know if they are composed of 'nothing' or not.

Quote

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/

Thanks for the link!  Fascinating stuff, and I do like scienceblogs, good site.  I'm way beyond my pay grade here as far as physics comprehension, I can't even translate into English what I just quoted from wiki, but I do know that speaking of scientific 'truths', especially in the realm of theoretical physics, is not really consistent with science.  Science is always tentative, and rightly so as ably shown by your link, the idea that the Big Bang started with a singularity has prevailed for decades, and now that may be incorrect.  Do we really know enough about the beginning of the universe to say that we are confident now that there's little chance we will find problems or inconsistencies with a non-singularity explanation?  Enough to call it the truth?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#50    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 - 11:29 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 28 March 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

It is the exact statement I quoted from you.  Maybe I'm misreading you, but I thought your quote was saying that it is the 'truth' that singularites are composed of nothing.

No that wasn't what I was saying at all, I was referring specifically to the term "singularity" as applied to the origin of the universe, where a  destabilized "singularity" is said to be the cause of the Big Bang. In essence they idea is that everything we know came from this supposed singularity.


Quote

I don't think 'singularity' has only this definition.  From wiki:  "A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system".  It also discusses black holes as 'singularities', which is the usage I've heard and I don't think black holes are accurately described as merely 'beginnings' and I don't know if we know if they are composed of 'nothing' or not.

Agreed, and it is this specific idea that people use when confronted with the term as applied to the "big bang", that is the error,

A singularity implies existence of something, but truthfully all the measurements made to date as I stated earlier demonstrate that the enrgy in existence by our universe is "borrowed", but it has to be paid back eventually. An example of this is a simple sum... What is 0 X 1015?

We know the answer is 0, but 1015 is a huge number, that is the number we live in so to speak, that number represents our universe, its energy, but ultimately it has to be paid back and the real and ultimate answer is that there is no energy in the universe. It may sound contradictory, but if one thinks about it, it makes sense.

So, when scientists speak of astounding levels of energy during the 1st few seconds of the big bang, they ultimately make us assume that all that energy was somehow compressed into something called "The singularity". The truth is that all that energy simply comes from nothing and will return to nothing.


Quote

Thanks for the link!  Fascinating stuff, and I do like scienceblogs, good site.  I'm way beyond my pay grade here as far as physics comprehension, I can't even translate into English what I just quoted from wiki, but I do know that speaking of scientific 'truths', especially in the realm of theoretical physics, is not really consistent with science.  Science is always tentative, and rightly so as ably shown by your link, the idea that the Big Bang started with a singularity has prevailed for decades, and now that may be incorrect.  Do we really know enough about the beginning of the universe to say that we are confident now that there's little chance we will find problems or inconsistencies with a non-singularity explanation?  Enough to call it the truth?

Yeah well, that is simply the way I express myself, to make an impact one needs to go a little further than one normally does in a purely scientific discussion. Ultimately this discussion is about God, neh?

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


#51    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 29 March 2013 - 01:35 AM

View PostJor-el, on 28 March 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Yeah well, that is simply the way I express myself, to make an impact one needs to go a little further than one normally does in a purely scientific discussion. Ultimately this discussion is about God, neh?

Ha, indeed, that was also going to be one of my comments, that you are speaking of scientific topics with the words of an apologist.  I really don't know why one 'needs to go a little further' in a discussion about God actually, to me that's just ultimately needless marketing and distortion, and seems to imply that whatever point cannot be made on it's own merits with no embellishments or exaggeration.

If there is no energy in the universe, what word would you like to use in the explanation of why people get sunburns?  It sure seems amazing that a concept like energy that has so much utility in our civilization doesn't actually exist.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#52    highdesert50

highdesert50

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Joined:09 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 March 2013 - 01:59 AM

Where probabilities encounter the infinitesimal. There you have God.


#53    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 29 March 2013 - 01:55 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 29 March 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

Ha, indeed, that was also going to be one of my comments, that you are speaking of scientific topics with the words of an apologist.  I really don't know why one 'needs to go a little further' in a discussion about God actually, to me that's just ultimately needless marketing and distortion, and seems to imply that whatever point cannot be made on it's own merits with no embellishments or exaggeration.

If there is no energy in the universe, what word would you like to use in the explanation of why people get sunburns?  It sure seems amazing that a concept like energy that has so much utility in our civilization doesn't actually exist.

Hey, I'm like that on all subjects, it is my specific way of expressing myself, it just so happens that this debate contains a scientific component, but that doesn't and shouldn't change the way aperson expresses himself.

Oh there is energy in the universe but it is borrowed energy as I stated, just we ourselves are also made of atoms which again is part of that same borrowed energy, what I am saying is that at its ultimate point all the energy in the universe negates itself to one big fat zero, which indicates that at the beginning when the energy was actually borrowed it was also zero, or is it possible to get something from nothing?

The answer to that question is no, but you can borrow that energy for a time, it ultimately has to be payed back.

Stephen Hawking syays much the same thing in his book Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays...

This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale, and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

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


#54    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:35 PM

View PostJor-el, on 29 March 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Hey, I'm like that on all subjects, it is my specific way of expressing myself, it just so happens that this debate contains a scientific component, but that doesn't and shouldn't change the way aperson expresses himself.

Well, I kinda disagree, everyone can express themselves more clearly including myself; to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I express myself any clearer than you.  Yes, I do think when you discuss scientific topics you should likewise try to stick to what is generally accepted as the philosophy of science, namely it's tentativeness; words like 'truth' and 'know' are not consistent with that.  You just gave me the impression with the statement, "Ultimately this discussion is about God, neh?", that you were expressing yourself in this way because we are talking about God, not just because it's your way of expressing yourself, as if there is some argument or reason to discuss God with less than literally accurate language so as to make an 'impact'.  

More to the point, you said earlier, emphasis mine, "We know the answer is 0, but 10^15 is a huge number, that is the number we live in so to speak, that number represents our universe, its energy, but ultimately it has to be paid back and the real and ultimate answer is that there is no energy in the universe." and now you say, "Oh there is energy in the universe but it is borrowed energy as I stated".  Your effort to make an impact here results in you making contradictory statements if taken literally.  I don't have an issue, nor do I think it's contradictory or surprising, that what we recognize as energy in our universe, which we'll call positive energy, is exactly equaled by negative energy that results in the net energy contained in the universe being zero.  As an aside, it also seems to me a little misleading, if I'm understanding the science and your point correctly, to say 'there is no energy in the universe', because at the point where all energy actually cancels each other and this 'borrowed energy' is repaid, there is no universe either.  But as you agree, I think, there is energy in the universe now, a lot of it.  Again, I'm not saying I'm any better or clearer at communication than you, but I'm definitely willing to receive feedback on when I'm not being clear so I can improve it, and I definitely won't justify it with 'that's just the way I express myself and I shouldn't change it'.

Quote

, just we ourselves are also made of atoms which again is part of that same borrowed energy, what I am saying is that at its ultimate point all the energy in the universe negates itself to one big fat zero, which indicates that at the beginning when the energy was actually borrowed it was also zero, or is it possible to get something from nothing?

We don't know though that it came from 'nothing', whatever that is.  It is possible that it does come from something but we don't know or can't detect yet (or possibly ever) what that something is.  I believe Hawking also said that if there was anything 'prior' to the Big Bang, we would have no way of knowing as there seems to be no way for us to detect any information that could have been transmitted through that event.  Again though, mind-blowing and fascinating stuff to me at least, no matter what turns out to be the truth, thanks for the info.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#55    stillvoice

stillvoice

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:53 PM

If God does exist should there be an indication of an underlying connectedness to the universe which would suggest a creator and is this possibility already being considered in the cutting edge field of quantum physics?

Also if the universe is eternal does that necessarily rule out the existence of God if as some thinkers have put it that 'mind precipitates matter' then could it be that the universe is an emanation of God or the universe is actually a cosmic Mind thinking itself?

Edited by stillvoice, 29 March 2013 - 07:59 PM.


#56    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 29 March 2013 - 08:19 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 29 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

Well, I kinda disagree, everyone can express themselves more clearly including myself; to be clear, I'm not trying to say that I express myself any clearer than you.  Yes, I do think when you discuss scientific topics you should likewise try to stick to what is generally accepted as the philosophy of science, namely it's tentativeness; words like 'truth' and 'know' are not consistent with that.  You just gave me the impression with the statement, "Ultimately this discussion is about God, neh?", that you were expressing yourself in this way because we are talking about God, not just because it's your way of expressing yourself, as if there is some argument or reason to discuss God with less than literally accurate language so as to make an 'impact'.

Well I'm glad you you think that way, however I do not. The subject at hand as I pointed out is the proof that God exists as demonstrated by Ben Masada, this makes it a discussion that includes scientifc explanations but it is not about science in the end. Since we are ultimately free to express ourselves the way we wish I see nothing wrong with using forceful language, like the term "truth". You can of course disagree, but it won't change my approach as I'm sure you wouldn't change yours if someone dispproved of yours. So here, we must agree to disagree.

Quote

More to the point, you said earlier, emphasis mine, "We know the answer is 0, but 10^15 is a huge number, that is the number we live in so to speak, that number represents our universe, its energy, but ultimately it has to be paid back and the real and ultimate answer is that there is no energy in the universe." and now you say, "Oh there is energy in the universe but it is borrowed energy as I stated".  Your effort to make an impact here results in you making contradictory statements if taken literally.  I don't have an issue, nor do I think it's contradictory or surprising, that what we recognize as energy in our universe, which we'll call positive energy, is exactly equaled by negative energy that results in the net energy contained in the universe being zero.  As an aside, it also seems to me a little misleading, if I'm understanding the science and your point correctly, to say 'there is no energy in the universe', because at the point where all energy actually cancels each other and this 'borrowed energy' is repaid, there is no universe either.  But as you agree, I think, there is energy in the universe now, a lot of it.  Again, I'm not saying I'm any better or clearer at communication than you, but I'm definitely willing to receive feedback on when I'm not being clear so I can improve it, and I definitely won't justify it with 'that's just the way I express myself and I shouldn't change it'.

Are you stating that you don't understand what it is I'm communicating?

I think I was pretty clear on this, you even demonstrated this by repeating the idea back to me, so what is it that you are not understanding here?

Quote

We don't know though that it came from 'nothing', whatever that is.  It is possible that it does come from something but we don't know or can't detect yet (or possibly ever) what that something is.  I believe Hawking also said that if there was anything 'prior' to the Big Bang, we would have no way of knowing as there seems to be no way for us to detect any information that could have been transmitted through that event.  Again though, mind-blowing and fascinating stuff to me at least, no matter what turns out to be the truth, thanks for the info.

Equations must balance and if the end result is zero, what does that tell you of the beginning?

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


#57    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 29 March 2013 - 08:20 PM

View Poststillvoice, on 29 March 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

If God does exist should there be an indication of an underlying connectedness to the universe which would suggest a creator and is this possibility already being considered in the cutting edge field of quantum physics?

Also if the universe is eternal does that necessarily rule out the existence of God if as some thinkers have put it that 'mind precipitates matter' then could it be that the universe is an emanation of God or the universe is actually a cosmic Mind thinking itself?

And yet those very connections do exist but the very same scientists will not accept "God" as an answer under any circumstances.

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


#58    stillvoice

stillvoice

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:33 PM

View PostJor-el, on 29 March 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

And yet those very connections do exist but the very same scientists will not accept "God" as an answer under any circumstances.

Well this is probably due to the darwinistic orthodoxy which holds sway in the scientific community I hope that a paradigm shift eventually happens which will allow notions such as the possibility of God or a Creator to be seriously discussed.


#59    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,722 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 29 March 2013 - 08:42 PM

View Poststillvoice, on 29 March 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Well this is probably due to the darwinistic orthodoxy which holds sway in the scientific community I hope that a paradigm shift eventually happens which will allow notions such as the possibility of God or a Creator to be seriously discussed.

I seriously doubt that will ever happen, because science needs evidence that can be confirmed by experimentation. Since God is not a part of this universe, but its creator, they won't find him anywhere within the creation.

Imagine if you will a car. Now take away the knowledge of the process and tools used to build it. Can you work from the created artefact, and from it create an image of the creator?

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


#60    stillvoice

stillvoice

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 26 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 March 2013 - 09:35 PM

View PostJor-el, on 29 March 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

I seriously doubt that will ever happen, because science needs evidence that can be confirmed by experimentation. Since God is not a part of this universe, but its creator, they won't find him anywhere within the creation.

Imagine if you will a car. Now take away the knowledge of the process and tools used to build it. Can you work from the created artefact, and from it create an image of the creator?

The current and incomplete standard model of the universe necessitates the existence of hypothetical matter and energy which is invisible perhaps in time the model we use to map the universe will encompasses the true extent of creation which might necessitate the existence of a creator?

Edited by stillvoice, 29 March 2013 - 09:36 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users