Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 4

# A Proof That God Exists

## 365 posts in this topic

What we call causality is what I already explained is a result of the law of large numbers. We think it works because so often we see A always followed by B, but even then we know that there can be unseen third causes or other much more complicated connections. There seems to be hardwiring in our brain that assigns causation even when pure coincidence is at fault.

That a given uranium nucleus will decay with a half-life of several billion years is a measure of the probability. What "causes" a given nucleus to decay when it does is unpredictable, and, in theory, completely random since all such nuclei are identical.

I have to tell you that I am not a nuclear physicist and should be careful not to get myself into this too deeply. This is just the understanding I have acquired.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

What we call causality is what I already explained is a result of the law of large numbers. We think it works because so often we see A always followed by B, but even then we know that there can be unseen third causes or other much more complicated connections. There seems to be hardwiring in our brain that assigns causation even when pure coincidence is at fault.

You're saying causality is just our interpretation of connected events (aka causality), isn't that somewhat contradictory?
That a given uranium nucleus will decay with a half-life of several billion years is a measure of the probability. What "causes" a given nucleus to decay when it does is unpredictable, and, in theory, completely random since all such nuclei are identical.

Actually I was talking about the decay of subatomic particles like the muon.

##### Share on other sites

And your view is somehow verifiable?

No more so than yours, and that is what I have been saying this entire time.

##### Share on other sites

This may be (and I think probably is) how time began. People think cause and effect are principles of logic; they are not. In fact, the opposite -- there is no logical reason why things should cause other things other than magic. What we see as cause and effect are our brain's interpretation of the law of large numbers being applied to random events at the atomic or smaller level.

I agree a lot, but be careful. There is nothing in physics that's says that the fluctuating vacuum itself began at that moment. Which of course means by sheer probability there are other universes beyond the expansion horizon or one could pop out of your nose. This could bring about and infinite of existence of sorts. Then there is the question of the rules governing what's happening between the Planck space. Some sort of instruction must exist for one virtual particle to carry information to another. Resonance Mabey... I dunno, but then that opens another can of worms.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

No more so than yours, and that is what I have been saying this entire time.

So since neither view is verifiable one cannot say that one is superior to the other, in fact the the choice of one over the other is simply a matter of belief.... in which case you guys in the opposition cannot stte that our side is wring, which pretty much sums up what many are doing here on this thread.

##### Share on other sites

And yet both evolution and the big bang is supported by scientific evidence. God isn't.

"God did it" is an unsubstantiated statement, it is no more verifiable than Zeus throwing lightning bolts. How much thought do you put into these questions?

The house analogy is clear creationist ignorance. You don't understand the difference between the natural and man made.

Science can be wrong. It is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. You look at the universe expanding and conclude that at one time it had to of been down to its very beginning point and of course a big bang happened to spread the matter outward from its initial point. Okay. Well, the term "big bang" shouldn't even be a scientific term since there was no "bang", but that's just semantics. Even the bible says that "God stretches out the heavens" thousands of years before any scientist discovered that the universe is expanding.

I do understand the difference between natural and man-made. Nature has no intelligence. It has no power to create anything. It can only take what has already been created. Scientifically, we are not evolving and bettering ourselves, we are only decaying. So the opposite is true just from what is observed. If evolution is true that is. It SHOULD be that everything started out simple and it leads up to everything bettering itself over time. But that's not what we see. No NEW information is ever added. Only mutations of what has already been created. We've never seen any animal or bug or plant become anything other than what its been. A horse has always been a horse and will always be a horse. Now, different variations of that horse has existed, but it will always be a horse. It will never become anything else. Horses give birth to horses.

Like I asked the question, what came first the chicken or the egg and someone told me, "The egg. Eggs have been around longer than birds." So I asked, "What laid that egg then?" "Something that was not quite a chicken yet." "Okay, so then what laid the first egg? How did that animal just suddenly decide it was going to start laying eggs? How in the world did this species that was laying eggs suddenly lay an egg and produce something that was different than the species that laid it?" It's impossible. God created chickens and chickens lay eggs to produce other chickens and no other thing can be laid by chickens than chickens. Now, you can get black chickens, red chickens, orange chickens or whatever color was put into it by the original creation by God, but you'll never get anything other than a chicken. Ever. And there's no scientific evidence to support otherwise, either in the fossil record or by visual evidence.

All science does is see that the universe is expanding and creates theories. There may be many different scientific theories outside of the Big Bang, but it is the most widely accepted. But they could be wrong. Because there was no one there to witness it to prove the theory true. But common sense tells me that you cannot have nothing and suddenly you have everything. What exploded? How did all the matter suddenly just form out of nothing? If you took a space ship that could travel to the edge of the universe, what would happen if you flew beyond that? Would you just hit a "wall" of some kind because nothing exists beyond the edge of the universe?

##### Share on other sites

saucy, near the end of your post #306 you state that " common sense tells you that you cannot have nothing and then suddenly have everything" negates the big bang theory. Does this not negate the creation story also?

##### Share on other sites

I agree a lot, but be careful. There is nothing in physics that's says that the fluctuating vacuum itself began at that moment. Which of course means by sheer probability there are other universes beyond the expansion horizon or one could pop out of your nose. This could bring about and infinite of existence of sorts. Then there is the question of the rules governing what's happening between the Planck space. Some sort of instruction must exist for one virtual particle to carry information to another. Resonance Mabey... I dunno, but then that opens another can of worms.

A universe that popped out of my nose from a random quantum fluctuation would exist in its own set of dimensions. I don't think I would have the slightest notion it had happened.

Regarding the Plank space, I suspect there is no such thing. The "space" is nothing -- dimensionless. From outside we measure a distance, but it isn't real space. The particles might as well be cheek-by-jowl. This quantizes it all and makes the "instantaneous" transitions seem like that to us. Am I making any sense?

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Science can be wrong. It is just as much of a religion as Christianity is.

It can be wrong, but it is certainly not a religion. Completely different methodology.
You look at the universe expanding and conclude that at one time it had to of been down to its very beginning point and of course a big bang happened to spread the matter outward from its initial point. Okay. Well, the term "big bang" shouldn't even be a scientific term since there was no "bang", but that's just semantics. Even the bible says that "God stretches out the heavens" thousands of years before any scientist discovered that the universe is expanding.
If you've got a problem with the word "bang" then "God stretches out the heavens" is even more incorrect.
I do understand the difference between natural and man-made. Nature has no intelligence. It has no power to create anything. It can only take what has already been created.
Okay then. God can't create either, he's imaginary.
Scientifically, we are not evolving and bettering ourselves, we are only decaying.
Then you didn't understand evolution even when you believed it, evolution by natural selection is the survival of species through favorable traits.
So the opposite is true just from what is observed. If evolution is true that is. It SHOULD be that everything started out simple and it leads up to everything bettering itself over time.
Someone lied to you, that is not biological evolution. Logically evolution applies to biological life and the "bettering" is the population's success at reproduction.
But that's not what we see. No NEW information is ever added. Only mutations of what has already been created.
I'm not sure why you're using this as an argument, we've seen new genes, but yes they are made up of chemicals that already exist. In the same sense new words are made up of letters that already exist. Edited by Rlyeh

##### Share on other sites

A universe that popped out of my nose from a random quantum fluctuation would exist in its own set of dimensions. I don't think I would have the slightest notion it had happened.

Regarding the Plank space, I suspect there is no such thing. The "space" is nothing -- dimensionless. From outside we measure a distance, but it isn't real space. The particles might as well be cheek-by-jowl. This quantizes it all and makes the "instantaneous" transitions seem like that to us. Am I making any sense?

Kinda... I think... Not necessarily . The bb creating its dimensions and extra ones is just some interesting maths that pop out of string theory. Its not necesserily how it works. Every particle in existence has a non zero chance of tunneling instantaneously to some other part of the universe. In an infinite sea of quantum fluctuations there is a non zero chance any amount of virtual particles will tunnel away from its anti particle before it annihilates and pop up at some random spot thereby becoming a 'real' particle. The energy density of universe does not change just fluctuates ...only Occasionally and a very big occasionally like 10^1,000,000 years in certain places a vast amount of energy just happened to tunnel to basically the same spot creating what we might call a bb. No need for extra dimensions, no need for anything other than what we already know happens. Ocams razor at its finest.

##### Share on other sites

I never said that I do not believe in a creator, just that because of our lack of knowledge at the moment there is not definitive way to know if there is or is not a creator. This 'magic' I speak of (quantum physics) has tons of evidence to back it up. Modern computers would not be possible without understanding it. The world changed because of our understanding of it. It is real and measurable, and able to be utilized for real technological purposes. How can you say that a creator is any more likely than beautiful mathematics and laws of nature that lead to a spontaneous creation? I admit it could be either way, but that we just do not know. You argue like you know, but faith is not knowledge, and belief is not evidence. To me each choice could be equally as probable, but those spooky magical quantum physics that you do not understand are proven. I do not think that "Satan is inside me" because I am not filled with any hatred, any malice, any anger. Just a desire to know truth, and a wonder and awe of nature and its beauty. Whether God did this or not I am perfectly happy either way.

It is not demanded of you to believe in a Creator but just to leave the option open as a probability. As you say nobody is sure of anything. But about the "tons of evidences

you claim for quantum physics I wonder why Einstein never lost a minute of life to check them out. On the contrary, he criticized them as "God does not play dice." And you do not have to think that "Satan is inside you." I don't believe this nonsense either. I just mentioned it as a joke.

Ben

##### Share on other sites

The designer is not implied, all that is implied by your logic is that there was a cause. What that cause is, remains unknown. We can speculate all we want but it will remain unknown barring some fantastic breakthrough in science.

If the the arguments for the existence of a designer were argued in court, there would be plenty of reasonable doubt.

Just like arguments for M-theory, or others.

We just do not know, why are you so threatened by the truth that we just simply do not know for sure?

That's not the "truth" I am threatened by but the arrogance of atheists that there is a probability for every thing but for the existence of a divine Creator.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

The origin of the universe is explicable - you may not like the explanation and therefore disagree with it, but that is not the same as saying it can't be explained. "Since the universe did not cause itself into existence" is an assumption. Working from that, your logic appears sound - but that does not mean any god has to be the default designer. He's a candidate, but not the only one. But all that's irrelevant seeing as you base your conclusions on an unwarranted assumption.

At least I have an assumption to share. Do you have one about what caused the universe into existence? Never mind that I won't like the explanation. Just shoot it! That it is eternal and it had always been there does not work anymore. That assumption died in 1922 under the surgical knife of LaMaitre and all cosmologists paid their homage to it. And the irony about this is that it was a theist who fixed that more than 2000 years old mistake.

Ben

##### Share on other sites

Who created god.And then who created him. etc

He wouldn't be God if He had been created.

##### Share on other sites

That's not the "truth" I am threatened by but the arrogance of atheists that there is a probability for every thing but for the existence of a divine Creator.

Sigh.....another man of religion trying to lump all atheists together basically saying that we atheists don't leave open the possibility of a god, or "creator" if you like that term better.

I am an atheist (and damn proud of it.....does that make me arrogant)? Does your belief in a god make you arrogant? Try to look at things from our perspective. Pull you head out of your religious books and try to understand us instead of calling us arrogant for not seeing things your way. Has the idea that you could be wrong ever passed through your head?

Only absolute proof will change most atheists minds, but I do leave open the possibility however infinitesimal it might be and I personally don't know of a single atheist that completely rules out the possibility of a god.

The problem is that we atheists require proof...you know, evidence for a god or gods. So far, we haven't found anything that even remotely qualifies as evidence. Some of the religious say things like "look around, you will see evidence of god all around you". Sorry, I've been around roughly five decades and have never seen, read, or heard any argument that makes sense to me....nothing convincing at all. If you feel I am arrogant for my thoughts and are threatened by them because I can't see the logic in a god, then I truly feel sorry for you!

The bible: Written by ancient man...not inspired by god. Prove me wrong.....that's right, you can't! Nor can I prove you wrong. Will this ever sink into your head?

I still can't get past the old "Everything in existence must of had a creator" bit yet then state that god gets a pass from that rule. "He's always existed."

You know this how?

Like others have said on this thread, we are learning new facts about our known universe on a daily basis. We, as a species will never have a complete understanding of all that there is, but throwing god into the mix doesn't make sense without something other than conjecture......

Edited by Euphorbia

##### Share on other sites

So since neither view is verifiable one cannot say that one is superior to the other, in fact the the choice of one over the other is simply a matter of belief.... in which case you guys in the opposition cannot stte that our side is wring, which pretty much sums up what many are doing here on this thread.

I am not trying to 'prove you wrong'. I am only trying to counter-balance your views, as both of the viewpoints are equally probably in my mind, and therefore should be equally represented and equally debated.

##### Share on other sites

It is not demanded of you to believe in a Creator but just to leave the option open as a probability. As you say nobody is sure of anything. But about the "tons of evidences

you claim for quantum physics I wonder why Einstein never lost a minute of life to check them out. On the contrary, he criticized them as "God does not play dice." And you do not have to think that "Satan is inside you." I don't believe this nonsense either. I just mentioned it as a joke.

Ben

You are right, Einstein hated the very ideas of quantum physics that he discovered. He worked tirelessly to disprove it and come up with something that in his mind would make more sense. He failed, and after his death his initial ideas about quantum physics were proved correct as new technology and measurement capability was invented that allowed his theories to be tested.

Edited by Einsteinium
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Sigh.....another man of religion trying to lump all atheists together basically saying that we atheists don't leave open the possibility of a god, or "creator" if you like that term better.

I am an atheist (and damn proud of it.....does that make me arrogant)? Does your belief in a god make you arrogant? Try to look at things from our perspective. Pull you head out of your religious books and try to understand us instead of calling us arrogant for not seeing things your way. Has the idea that you could be wrong ever passed through your head?

Only absolute proof will change most atheists minds, but I do leave open the possibility however infinitesimal it might be and I personally don't know of a single atheist that completely rules out the possibility of a god.

The problem is that we atheists require proof...you know, evidence for a god or gods. So far, we haven't found anything that even remotely qualifies as evidence. Some of the religious say things like "look around, you will see evidence of god all around you". Sorry, I've been around roughly five decades and have never seen, read, or heard any argument that makes sense to me....nothing convincing at all. If you feel I am arrogant for my thoughts and are threatened by them because I can't see the logic in a god, then I truly feel sorry for you!

The bible: Written by ancient man...not inspired by god. Prove me wrong.....that's right, you can't! Nor can I prove you wrong. Will this ever sink into your head?

I still can't get past the old "Everything in existence must of had a creator" bit yet then state that god gets a pass from that rule. "He's always existed."

You know this how?

Like others have said on this thread, we are learning new facts about our known universe on a daily basis. We, as a species will never have a complete understanding of all that there is, but throwing god into the mix doesn't make sense without something other than conjecture......

Instead of all this stormy reaction you could simply tell me how something can cause itself into existence and the possibility would increase for my considering Atheism. See, how simple? Go ahead. I am all ears.

Ben

##### Share on other sites

You are right, Einstein hated the very ideas of quantum physics that he discovered. He worked tirelessly to disprove it and come up with something that in his mind would make more sense. He failed, and after his death his initial ideas about quantum physics were proved correct as new technology and measurement capability was invented that allowed his theories to be tested.

So Einstein's ideas about quantum physics were proved after his death. How about sharing those proofs with us? Or perhaps you want us to take your word for it?

Ben

##### Share on other sites

So Einstein's ideas about quantum physics were proved after his death. How about sharing those proofs with us? Or perhaps you want us to take your word for it?

Ben

I had assumed that you could use Google, but anyways here are several links that explain it far better than I could explain it:

http://physics.aps.org/story/v16/st10

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=10483

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_completeness/#L933

##### Share on other sites

Instead of all this stormy reaction you could simply tell me how something can cause itself into existence and the possibility would increase for my considering Atheism. See, how simple? Go ahead. I am all ears.

Ben

Well, I would say how did your (alleged) god cause itself into existence, but I wouldn't want you to think I was arrogant or make you feel threatened or anything.......Let me know when you have actual proof of anything pertaining to god or the creation of our universe.

Good luck with that!

##### Share on other sites

Well, I would say how did your (alleged) god cause itself into existence, but I wouldn't want you to think I was arrogant or make you feel threatened or anything.......Let me know when you have actual proof of anything pertaining to god or the creation of our universe.

Good luck with that!

What's the use? In this gun-shot approach between us you seem not to have enough ammunition to feedback. I gave you a good evidence but you dodged the issue. Again in case you have changed your mind. Since the universe did not cause itself into existence the Creator is implied. Don't you see a great evidence of

that fact in here?

Ben

##### Share on other sites

What's the use? In this gun-shot approach between us you seem not to have enough ammunition to feedback. I gave you a good evidence but you dodged the issue. Again in case you have changed your mind. Since the universe did not cause itself into existence the Creator is implied. Don't you see a great evidence of

that fact in here?

Ben

All that is implied by your logic is that there was a cause. That cause does not have to be God or a creator- we do not have enough information to be able to answer this question.

##### Share on other sites

I think man created God.

Man has created many, many gods. People just choose which ones they want to believe in.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

What's the use? In this gun-shot approach between us you seem not to have enough ammunition to feedback. I gave you a good evidence but you dodged the issue.

Ammunition?

All you've given on this thread is your opinion......and I don't think you know what "evidence" actually is.

Again in case you have changed your mind. Since the universe did not cause itself into existence the Creator is implied. Don't you see a great evidence of

that fact in here?

Ben

The creator is implied only in your mind.........do you know what facts are?......you know.....things that can actually be proven, things that stand up to scientific scrutiny. You are very liberal with the term "fact".

And again, I find it to be total hypocrisy to state that everything had to have a creator yet you conveniently leave your god out of the equation.

You may have those that are already religious on your side, but your going nowhere with us atheists........so why bother? I'm done with you unless you can show actual proof......no opinion....no YouTube video's, but actual proof!

1 person likes this

## Create an account

Register a new account