A Proof That God Exists

[Jor-el]

No such paper exists which is absolutely normal, a scientist is a human being and is not suicidal as far as I know, but then there is this...

Actually I was wrong about this...

Alexander Vilenkin’s “tunneling from literally nothing” model (pdf of 1982 paper; pdf of 1988 paper) for the origin of the universe is brought up frequently in both scientific and religious arenas: In the context of science, the model is just plain interesting. And in the context of religion, it has an unique parallel to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo – the belief that God created the universe from nothing – a doctrine to which William Lane Craig subscribes (and, incidentally, is part of his Kalam Cosmological Argument).

In a nutshell, Vilenkin’s model is a variation on Edward Tryon’s “vacuum fluctuation” model, but instead of the universe appearing within a background of space, the universe appears from an empty geometry (i.e. “nothing”). As Vilenkin’s colleague Alan Guth explains,

Putting [general relativity and quantum mechanics] together, one can imagine that the universe started in the total empty geometry – absolute nothingness – and then made a quantum tunneling transition to a nonempty state. Calculations show that a universe created this way would typically be subatomic in size, but that is no problem . . . Vilenkin was able to invoke inflation to enlarge the universe to its current size.

The Inflationary Universe

(1997), Page 275

But perhaps calling this creation from “absolute nothingness” is a bit confusing. As Guth points out, Vilenkin’s “absolute nothingness” is “mathematically well-defined, and can be used as a starting point for theories of creation” (Pg. 273). In fact, Vilenkin himself seems to dislike the terminology.

The state of “nothing” cannot be identified with

absolute

nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus “nothing” should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe.

- Alexander Vilenkin in his book

Many Worlds in One

(2006), Page 181

Alexander Vilenkin (Russian: Алекса́ндр Виле́нкин; 13 May 1949, Kharkiv,^[1] Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.

He received his undergraduate degree in physics in 1971 in the former Soviet Union. He later moved to the United States, where he obtained his Ph.D. at Buffalo. His work has been featured in numerous newspaper and magazine articles in the United States, Europe, Russia, and Japan, and in many popular books.

[Ben Masada]

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?

Whether there was a BB or not, we have the universe. So, the point is not absolutely the BB per se but the universe. Since the universe could not have created itself which it would imply that it did not exist prior to its creation, we are back to the point to consider which is the Creator.

God could not have been created because then He would not be God. And He could not have created Himself because it would imply that He did not exist before He created Himself.

The cultural bias point is baseless because the most monotheistic of all cultures is the one derived from the Abrahamic theology.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

God cannot be proven to exist, the best you can do is present an argument where his existence can be seen as a possibility. That being said why bother trying to prove God at all? I mean honestly he either exists or not. Either way it has little to do with everyday life because even if God does exist he seems to be uninterested in dealing with human beings. So why worry about it all? If God wants to get our attention I think he can do so whenever he wants.

IMHO, you imply a personal proof for the existence of God. You will never have it. Einstein himself declared to believe in God but not on a personal basis. Therefore, the best proof for the existence of God is the exestence of the universe itself. Not in pantheistic terms of course because the universe is composed of matter and matter could not have created itself. But the whole of the universe according to the Psalmist in 19:1 declare the handiworks of God. Now, to be interested in dealing with human beings and to do it whenever He is, it would be tantamount to a personal connection. Since God is not like a man to connect personally with another the connection is performed through the law of cause and effect.

Ben

Edited March 30, 2013 by Ben Masada

[Ben Masada]

It is simple logic, which is why there is no excuse for mankind's denial of God. Machines don't make themselves. Simple logic. However I can understand and sympathize with those who still doubt. I did for quite some time. Mostly over the constant bombardment of materialist dogma that has been thrown at me ast truth, claiming to be supported by large amounts of evidence, the likes of which I've yet to see. That's why I believe without a doubt that God's existance can be proven, and that the only real issue with God is purely based on two things: lack of understanding, and willful denial. It has nothing to do with lack of evidence.

"Willful denial" alright. It is much more convenient that way. It gives the apparent feeling of irresponsibility.

[Ben Masada]

I think man created God.

And who created man? The man before that. And the man before that? If with your discovery you thought you had got rid of the vicious thrend of questions about what came first if the chicken or the egg you might want to think again. According to the classic Philosophers the Primal Cause will be there.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

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?

God does connect to the created universe through universal laws. And the universe could not be eternal because it has been proved before our own eyes that it is composed of matter. Since matter by necessity is subject to the the law of genesis and destruction aka beginning and end, God, by lack of any other reason is evidenced.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

the big bang is still a theory, physicist don't really know if it actually happened. But for some reason, most of them thinks it did happen.

Of course it is and a very young one given the age of the universe. It did not exist until 1922. I wonder how long it will live until it dies and is raised anew as what.

[Euphorbia]

*Snip*

One part in 10³⁷ is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10³⁷ (p. 115)

*Snip*

Not to nitpick......but I will anyways. This book was published in July of 1995 and this bit of information is now completely outdated.

One dime measures .705 inches in diameter and .053 inches thick.

It takes 453 dimes stacked to make two feet.

One mile = 63,360 inches.

It would take 89,872.34 dimes to go one mile.

It would take 8,077,037,572 dimes to make one single layer of dimes to cover one square mile. That's Eight billion dimes.

Multiply by 453 makes a total of 3,658,898,020,116 dimes to make one square mile of dimes two feet high. Yes, that's over three and a half trillion dimes.

Since a dime is only a tenth of a dollar, we move the decimal place over one and come out with a grand total of $365,889,802,011.60

365 billion dollars is not even close to our national debt. Our current national debt as of today is $16,774,952,910,927.01 Sixteen trillion approaching seventeen. Ouch!

So......it would currently take 91.694 feet of dimes covering a one square mile area to pay off our current national debt, not just under two feet........

Sorry, I was bored.........

[Rlyeh]

No such paper exists which is absolutely normal, a scientist is a human being and is not suicidal as far as I know, but then there is this...

Non sequitur, should've just ended it with "No such paper exists". Suicide has nothing to do with it.

The rest of your post you're clutching at straws.

The premise of the fine tuned universe is IF the fundamental constants where slightly altered, the universe would be vastly different.

Asserting something has altered the universe is not what the fine tuning argument states. Now if something had, that would be a lot of coincidences.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

Actually I was wrong about this...

And you still are, you've failed yet again to provide evidence of God. You can list all the experiments and scientific terms you like, your God is no where to be seen in them.

BTW String theory makes God redundant.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Jor-el]

And you still are, you've failed yet again to provide evidence of God. You can list all the experiments and scientific terms you like, your God is no where to be seen in them.

BTW String theory makes God redundant.

No, just your version of it does... Alexander Vilenkin is one of the "pivotal" scholars involved with string theory, his work in that field is widely recognized, but you just dismissed that.

[Rlyeh]

No, just your version of it does... Alexander Vilenkin is one of the "pivotal" scholars involved with string theory, his work in that field is widely recognized, but you just dismissed that.

Wait.. so Stephen Hawking accepts my version? String theory explains the origin of the universe from nothing, as Hawking puts it God is not necessary.

But please educate yourself in future before quote mining.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Rlyeh

[+Liquid Gardens]

But I do not mean the exact opposite, the energy that you and I use and exist from is nothing more than an unpaid bill.

Uh, the only way I can know what you mean is going by what you say, are you expecting me to telepathically know that when you say 'there is no energy in the universe, isn't that surprising?' that you don't mean there is no energy in the universe? Ha, and if the energy that you and I use is something more than an unpaid bill, so what? Doesn't change the sunburns I get, our ability to communicate via electricity, etc.

Who said the "end result" is zero?

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

An interesting site, the title I think spells it out.

I don't think you understand my question. Just as energy does exist, like it does right now with positive and negative energy existing but balancing to zero, why should we think that at any point there was absolutely nothing? If particles are popping in and out of existence from 'nothing', if at no point there are actually none of these particles in existence, then at no point do you ever have ultimately 'nothing'.

I'm not inventing anything here, just demonstrating what others already know.

No, you are taking scientific hypotheses and trying to support your unscientific conclusions with them, unscientifically.

Oh I do, because no evidence is good enough when seen in the light of the existence of a God, even when said evidence is equally and abundantly accepted within scientific circles, as long as there is no mention of a God.

No, it's that the evidence isn't very good. There's all kinds of evidence that could be good enough for the existence of God, but he does a wonderful job of hiding his existence. Which is of course equal to him not existing at all.

And do I really need to bother providing quotations from physicists concerning how inferring God from these scientific findings is erroneous, since the opinions of physicists now counts as evidence? Notice how many times just in your quotes the scientists properly qualify their statements say 'to me' and 'for me', and I'm pretty sure Paul Davies in his books comes right out and says clearly that his opinions are entirely subjective concerning his deism (you accept this deist God yourself right, after all 'the evidence is there, whether you accept it as such or not'), which is the honest thing to do of course.

The freedom of your choice is yours alone, the evidence is there, whether you accept it as such or not.

Yea, I didn't think you had any answer for my questions despite you saying you understand the issue with 'God of the gaps' arguments. And the above is false anyway, unless you think you can just choose to believe in Zeus, Cthulhu, Bigfoot by will alone. Don't blame me if the evidence for your God is no better than the evidence for those.

Hope you and everyone here has a good Easter!

[Jor-el]

Wait.. so Stephen Hawking accepts my version? String theory explains the origin of the universe from nothing, as Hawking puts it God is not necessary.

But please educate yourself in future before quote mining.

And you seem to think that Stephen Hawking is the big answer to your argument. Stephen Hawking is wrong... I don't say that lightly, his pathetic sxcuse and way out of the proof of the cosmological constant is to postualter something called M-Theory, the theory of the multiverse, or an unlimited number of universe encapsulated in something called a Megaverse, there are whole groups of scientists every bit as authorative as he is that have publicly denounced this view as even worse than the idea of a creator....

Oh but don't take my word for this, see the video...

There is one small thing Mr. Hawking also seems to forget in this little theory... Who created the Multiverse?

[Jor-el]

Non sequitur, should've just ended it with "No such paper exists". Suicide has nothing to do with it.

The rest of your post you're clutching at straws.

The premise of the fine tuned universe is IF the fundamental constants where slightly altered, the universe would be vastly different.

Asserting something has altered the universe is not what the fine tuning argument states. Now if something had, that would be a lot of coincidences.

Maybe you should pay attention to what was said instead of trying to assert that it is false.

[media=]

[/media]

Edited March 31, 2013 by Jor-el

[Jor-el]

Uh, the only way I can know what you mean is going by what you say, are you expecting me to telepathically know that when you say 'there is no energy in the universe, isn't that surprising?' that you don't mean there is no energy in the universe? Ha, and if the energy that you and I use is something more than an unpaid bill, so what? Doesn't change the sunburns I get, our ability to communicate via electricity, etc.

I thought I was being very clear in my posts, it seems that is not the case. My posts state quite clearly that the total energy of the universe equals Zero. We drifted from this because of a simple phrase of mine instead of actuially concentrating on the Issue itself, so lets get back to the subject instead of playing around with words... The total energy of the universe equals Zero. Do you deny that?

I don't think you understand my question. Just as energy does exist, like it does right now with positive and negative energy existing but balancing to zero, why should we think that at any point there was absolutely nothing? If particles are popping in and out of existence from 'nothing', if at no point there are actually none of these particles in existence, then at no point do you ever have ultimately 'nothing'.

This is why...

CREATION OF UNIVERSES FROM NOTHING by Alexander VILENKIN

Physics Department, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA

Quantum cosmology and the initial state of the Universe by Alexander Vilenkin

Physics Department, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155

No, you are taking scientific hypotheses and trying to support your unscientific conclusions with them, unscientifically.

No such thing, the very scientific Hypotheses I am using directly support my assertions, If you would so kindly see the videos I posted then you can

see that I am not blowing hot air. I am backed by a very wide slection of scholars who are in fact astrophycists and physcists who know what they are talking about.

No, it's that the evidence isn't very good. There's all kinds of evidence that could be good enough for the existence of God, but he does a wonderful job of hiding his existence. Which is of course equal to him not existing at all.

It is good enough that even these scholars are publicaly on record with their opinions, which you don't seem to consider good enough. You must think everybody just automatically agrees with Hawking and that they all back this crazy Hypothesis of his.

And do I really need to bother providing quotations from physicists concerning how inferring God from these scientific findings is erroneous, since the opinions of physicists now counts as evidence? Notice how many times just in your quotes the scientists properly qualify their statements say 'to me' and 'for me', and I'm pretty sure Paul Davies in his books comes right out and says clearly that his opinions are entirely subjective concerning his deism (you accept this deist God yourself right, after all 'the evidence is there, whether you accept it as such or not'), which is the honest thing to do of course.

Oh and their opinions do not count concerning what they actually know about the subject?

When Hawking gives his opinion on M-Theory do you actually think he is giving us anything more than his opinion?

He HAS NO WAY TO TEST HIS HYPOTHESIS, as such it is useless and nothing more than an opinion as well, but my goodness what an opinion!

Yea, I didn't think you had any answer for my questions despite you saying you understand the issue with 'God of the gaps' arguments. And the above is false anyway, unless you think you can just choose to believe in Zeus, Cthulhu, Bigfoot by will alone. Don't blame me if the evidence for your God is no better than the evide

Hope you and everyone here has a good Easter!

I'm not asking anyone to believe in the God of the bible or in any other God, that is not what this debate is about even though some think it is. It is about taking down this preconcieved idea that such a being cannot exist no matter what his name is, even when there is evidence to the contrary.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Jor-el

[Rlyeh]

And you seem to think that Stephen Hawking is the big answer to your argument. Stephen Hawking is wrong... I don't say that lightly, his pathetic sxcuse and way out of the proof of the cosmological constant is to postualter something called M-Theory, the theory of the multiverse, or an unlimited number of universe encapsulated in something called a Megaverse, there are whole groups of scientists every bit as authorative as he is that have publicly denounced this view as even worse than the idea of a creator....

Nope, you're the one who brought Hawking into the discussion. Now you don't like when when it is used against you.

However you're wrong, the M-Theory refers to branes that make up the universe. But your point shows you haven't paid attention, there is no before because time is formed by strings. The M-Theory is based on the string theory.

Like I said, educate yourself.

Maybe you should pay attention to waht was said instead of trying to assert that it is false.Maybe you should pay attention to waht was said instead of trying to assert that it is false.

You claimed your God is supported by science, when asked to support it all you've done is inserted God in the gaps.

Put up or shut up.

Edit: Why are you posting videos (and opinions of scientists) when asked for scientific evidence? The last video doesn't refute what I said of the fine-tuned universe.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Jor-el]

Nope, you're the one who brought Hawking into the discussion. Now you don't like when when it is used against you.

However you're wrong, the M-Theory refers to branes that make up the universe. But your point shows you haven't paid attention, there is no before because time is formed by strings (or branes in M-Theory).

Like I said, educate yourself.

Oh please. is that your rebuttal?

M-theory

See also: Introduction to M-theory, M-theory, Brane cosmology, and String theory landscape

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within string theory and its higher-dimensional extension, M-theory. These theories require the presence of 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions respectively. The extra 6 or 7 dimensions may either be compactified on a very small scale, or our universe may simply be localized on a dynamical (3+1)-dimensional object, a D-brane. This opens up the possibility that there are other branes which could support "other universes". This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.

Some scenarios postulate that our big bang was created, along with our universe, by the collision of two branes.

Thank you so much for that information.... It doesn't change one iota of what has been stated.

You claimed your God is supported by science, when asked to support it all you've done is inserted God in the gaps.

Put up or shut up.

Demonstrated and demonstrated, you on the other hand have not said one thing to counter my position. Saying its false just ain't good enough and doesn't make it so.

[Jor-el]

Not to nitpick......but I will anyways. This book was published in July of 1995 and this bit of information is now completely outdated.

One dime measures .705 inches in diameter and .053 inches thick.

It takes 453 dimes stacked to make two feet.

One mile = 63,360 inches.

It would take 89,872.34 dimes to go one mile.

It would take 8,077,037,572 dimes to make one single layer of dimes to cover one square mile. That's Eight billion dimes.

Multiply by 453 makes a total of 3,658,898,020,116 dimes to make one square mile of dimes two feet high. Yes, that's over three and a half trillion dimes.

Since a dime is only a tenth of a dollar, we move the decimal place over one and come out with a grand total of $365,889,802,011.60

365 billion dollars is not even close to our national debt. Our current national debt as of today is $16,774,952,910,927.01 Sixteen trillion approaching seventeen. Ouch!

So......it would currently take 91.694 feet of dimes covering a one square mile area to pay off our current national debt, not just under two feet........

Sorry, I was bored.........

Thanks for that information, it just goes to show how deep in the pooh we are all in, because the other countries have it just as bad.

[Rlyeh]

Thank you so much for that information.... It doesn't change one iota of what has been stated.

Too bad none of your links say what you just pasted. Maybe this will help you (which IS from M-Theory wiki);

"In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. Proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five 10 dimensional string theories and supersedes them. Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes."

Someone who is easily confused (like yourself) might think a dimension is a universe, it's not http://en.wikipedia....ics_and_physics)

Demonstrated and demonstrated, you on the other hand have not said one thing to counter my position. Saying its false just ain't good enough and doesn't make it so.

You don't like that you've been called on your crap.

Calling your position scientific while refusing to support it with scientific evidence or papers shows you're a liar, that is all you have demonstrated unfortunately.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

It boils down to whether you can support your claim and show with scientific evidence that God exists, is the creator and is outside the universe.

Scientific evidence with "God did it" stuck in doesn't count sorry.

[spayneuter]

And who created man? The man before that. And the man before that? If with your discovery you thought you had got rid of the vicious thrend of questions about what came first if the chicken or the egg you might want to think again. According to the classic Philosophers the Primal Cause will be there.

Ben

Chemical reactions created man. Who created chemical reactions? Just because humans can't comprehend that some things have no beginning nor end doesn't mean it's impossible for something to have existed forever. I might as well ask you, "Who created God?"

[SpiritWriter]

I think a blade of grass is proof personally and that doesn't exist by itself. I also see proof in the sky, the trees, animals, people, especially in thier thoughts and emotions. I love how thoughts and emotions are invisible yet we know they are there.

[Jor-el]

Too bad none of your links say what you just pasted. Maybe this will help you (which IS from M-Theory wiki);

"In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified. Proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five 10 dimensional string theories and supersedes them. Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes."

Someone who is easily confused (like yourself) might think a dimension is a universe, it's not http://en.wikipedia....ics_and_physics)

You don't like that you've been called on your crap.

Calling your position scientific while refusing to support it with scientific evidence or papers shows you're a liar, that is all you have demonstrated unfortunately.

Rlyeh, if you wanted a link all you had to do was ask, I simply forgot to add the link.

So for your perusal, here it is, as it so happens I was quoting wiki as well.If you had actually bothered to ask for the link you are speaking of instead of making assumptions you would have been better off, don't you think? I find your aggresive responses to be strange in a debate.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Multiverse

Notice please, as I am sure all the other people who are keeping up with this debate will do as well, that this particular section of M-Theory is part of a larger page on the Multiverse Theory.

Calling someone ignorant is not the way to go, especially since you actually have no idea who is on the other side...

As for the rest of your post, I have at this time posted 3 videos, I have posted two positional papers by Alexander Vilenkin, I have posted numerous quotes by phycists on their position on this issue, which as it so happens bear out what I've said, never mind the numerous links I have also posted, each one supporting each part of my position and all you have to say for yourself is the above?

How about actually opening those videos, how about actually reading the papers I linked to, how about actually commenting on the subject. I have yet to see you do any such thing...

So let us stop horsing around, please go back and actually answer the statements on those videos by actual scientists, please provide a refutation of the papers by Alexander Vilenkin.

If you do not, then you are not actually in a debate anymore, just humming to yourself, He's is not right, he is not right.....

Edited March 31, 2013 by Jor-el

[Jor-el]

It boils down to whether you can support your claim and show with scientific evidence that God exists, is the creator and is outside the universe.

Scientific evidence with "God did it" stuck in doesn't count sorry.

As opposed to a very foolish assumption that there is multiverse, right? As I am sure you must be aware, that is the only "refutation" you are likely to get from a phycisist. They have no answer other than that one.

If they had, Hawking himself would have used it...