Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

A Proof That God Exists

365 posts in this topic

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.

Because not only have I posted the videos but I have also provided links to two papers on the subject, what is it about you and not confronting the subject head on?

You have not countered a single thing in those videos, you have not put up one piece of evidence of any kind on this thread that refutes what I have said.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Which specifically states it is a different kind of multiverse.
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?
Now can you do what was asked of you and post scientific papers shows God exists, is the creator and is outside the universe? Wait.. you don't know what a scientific paper is do you?

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

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.

Show me the paper he brings up God's existence. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because not only have I posted the videos but I have also provided links to two papers on the subject, what is it about you and not confronting the subject head on?

You have not countered a single thing in those videos, you have not put up one piece of evidence of any kind on this thread that refutes what I have said.

Thats not the way it works, I don't need to refute anything because you said science supports your position. You have yet to post one scientific paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

How about Logic? Doesn't it enjoy the same credibility of a scientific evidence? "God did it" is good only for entertainment to atheists from believers of "talking serpents."

"God did it" is not logical. But the fact that matter could not have created itself leads to the Creator from the outside of it is.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?"

He would not be God if He had been created. That's why classic Philosophers would "eat" themselves from inside out in their esoteric conteplation of themselves.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Logic? Doesn't it enjoy the same credibility of a scientific evidence? "God did it" is good only for entertainment to atheists from believers of "talking serpents."

"God did it" is not logical. But the fact that matter could not have created itself leads to the Creator from the outside of it is.

Ben

Sounds logical, but then its opens new questions that are Old.... What created God - He couldnt create himself could he. thats not logical... but if he didnt have a beginning? thats not logical either.

Sorry your Logic only goes so far before it fails.

Will the next post say, but hes god? he doesnt need to follow logic.... thats when I get myself a coffee and have a laugh at how there topics always end in a stalemate for both parties :) - can't agrue with that answer really.. but ill say prove it, and you can;t.......

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That's a good one SW, Baruch de Spinoza loved to contemplate the Creator in every piece of nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds logical, but then its opens new questions that are Old.... What created God - He couldnt create himself could he. thats not logical... but if he didnt have a beginning? thats not logical either.

Sorry your Logic only goes so far before it fails.

Will the next post say, but hes god? he doesnt need to follow logic.... thats when I get myself a coffee and have a laugh at how there topics always end in a stalemate for both parties :) - can't agrue with that answer really.. but ill say prove it, and you can;t.......

I don't think you got the idea that if God had been created He couldn't be God. I think you have learned too fast from believers of "talking serpents" to anthropomorphize God down to the level of man. I did not need the next post to say, "But he is God." You had only to focous better on the previous one that God wouldn't be God if He had to be created. I have proved already in the thread that since something cannot create itself a Creator had to have done the job.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think you got the idea that if God had been created He couldn't be God. I think you have learned too fast from believers of "talking serpents" to anthropomorphize God down to the level of man. I did not need the next post to say, "But he is God." You had only to focous better on the previous one that God wouldn't be God if He had to be created. I have proved already in the thread that since something cannot create itself a Creator had to have done the job.

Ben

Sorry are you saying that to be God. You cannot be created?

Edited by The Id3al Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry are you saying that to be God. You cannot be created?

Yes, Id3al, if you can prove to me that God was created He will immediately cease to be a god to me. As you can see the second word "god" is not captalized. why?

Because from the first to second he is no long God if you can come up with the proofs.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Id3al, if you can prove to me that God was created He will immediately cease to be a god to me. As you can see the second word "god" is not captalized. why?

Because from the first to second he is no long God if you can come up with the proofs.

Ben

I now call Stalemate. We cannot go futher into this without Me calling BULL.

I believe in a God of the evolved universe. That makes logical sence. I guess we must first Define what a God is.. If its all powerfull, its a illogical conclusion, and cannot accept that. .

You said yourself, Something cannot create itself, So let me ask the grand old question? How did God come to be?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with you Aquila. The big bang does give off the idea that the universe created and designed itself as if something can create itself. That's another evidence for

the Creator. That nothing can be the creator of itself. That's simple Logic.

Ben

I like the watchmaker argument, I literally found a watch in the surf one day. Now had I been unfamiliar with the concept of mechanical devices (say I was from a very primitive society) I might pick this device up and examine it. With its seemingly magical sweeping second hand, polished metal casing and glass front it would perhaps be more amazing than anything in my experience. But it is unlikely that I would think that this watch came into being all by itself. A watch implies a watchmaker. The universe is complex beyond our understanding, though we are making good progress. The atom was once thought to be the smallest component of matter, now we are faced with an ever widening number of sub-atomic particles. We cannot adequately explain for certain how DNA, one of the most complex molecules in existence could supposedly have come from non-living things to suddenly become the driving self-replicating programming behind the cell. The so-called simple cells were once thought to be mere little blobs of jelly when seen under early microscopes are fantastically complex, take away one organelle and the cell cannot operate.

My point is that if a relatively simple watch suggests a watchmaker, how much more does a hugely complex and intricate universe suggest an infinite being?

1 Or as King David said in Psalm 19

The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they reveal knowledge.

3 They have no speech, they use no words;

no sound is heard from them.

4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont think the reason you said is true. Although i am almost certain there is a god. They did this one test where they cut off all this guys senses and susposedly after some amount of time he said there is no good he has abandonded and looked straight at one of the scientists even though he was blind. If god truely is the almighty with an infinite power then only he will truely know it. Even if we do find or meet god then how are we gonna know he has infinite powers. Infinite means never ends and our life does so thus wed never know if he really was god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said yourself, Something cannot create itself, So let me ask the grand old question? How did God come to be?

The old gods or the titans, the ones zeus(our true god) hades and poseidon faught off. Jesus is a son of zeus ie he was a sagittarius thats why his spanish name litterally translates to jay zeus. He is the son of the king of stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j

The old gods or the titans, the ones zeus(our true god) hades and poseidon faught off. Jesus is a son of zeus ie he was a sagittarius thats why his spanish name litterally translates to jay zeus. He is the son of the king of stars.

And who created the Titans (old Gods)? This can go on for infinity. until someone answers saying that God is ALL mighty, He does break logic because hes God.

Nobody can agure with that point.

But I can now turn around and say. Well If God has the power to do everything that the universe is capable of, Then couldnt there be a certain type of energy that has the same power as God, but is completely natural? For examples the Strings from String Theroy?

Both points are valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who created the Titans (old Gods)? This can go on for infinity. until someone answers saying that God is ALL mighty, He does break logic because hes God.

To answer your question The Titans (old gods) where descendants of Uranus (sky) and gaia (earth). And to answer your next question Uranus and gaia came from chaos the primal form of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this sort of argument is based on the idea that everything has to have a prior cause. Why? There is no logical reason this has to be so and in fact Hume rather clearly showed that it is very much a trick of our minds.

http://m.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/section4.rhtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS.

According to Moses Maimonides, a Philosopher, Theologian and Medical Doctor in his book "The Guide for the Perplexed," there would be no need for a Creator if the universe was eternal, without beginning or end. In other words, God would not exist. However, if the universe did have a beginning, God by necessity would exist.

Nonsense. That is one of the standard "proofs" that William Craig Lane routinely cites. Nice to learn he got it from Maimonides; however that does not make it convincing.

Fact is we can neither prove nor disprove the existance of good. But since it is the theists who make the claim, the burden of proof is on their side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that if a relatively simple watch suggests a watchmaker, how much more does a hugely complex and intricate universe suggest an infinite being?

You mean in the same way that an infinitely powerful and magnificent god suggests the existance of a god-maker?Y

You can continue this non-argument at will...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was god born before the universe or after. bit like the chicken and egg.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was god born before the universe or after. bit like the chicken and egg.

When humans thought him up.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Which specifically states it is a different kind of multiverse.

Would you like to clarify that statement please, how in your view is it a different kind of multiverse?

In my view your are confusing a number of different aspects saying that they are different when ultimately they are all variants of the same thing. on the one hand you describe a brane (D-Brane) as that which holds a universe within it (loosely translated), wheras the other view is simply describing a pocket universe in a much larger structure (multiverse).

Either way we are left with only two essential possibilites. Either there is only one universe or there is a multiverse of which our observable universe is only one of an infinite variety and possibilties.

Within the concept of either propositions, M-Theory plays a role in that each of these universe theories will have multiple dimensions just as our universe does. The laws governing those universes will either be identical, similar or radically different from the laws in our own universe.

On one hand we have the theory that there are no multiple universes in a greater multiverse, but rather that all that exists is within our one universe, The typical big bang theory if you will. It is within this universe that we find all those amazing "coincidences" that you and a few others so blatantly dismiss, when even sscientists who are not theists in any way admit that that is what it looks like to them. Somehow you seem to "know more" than them?

Within this concept of a singular universe, we then have what is known as the quantum universe, alternate realities, many worlds theory and the parallel universe theory, which all describe the same thing. In that a collapse of a probability wave function allows two different universes to come into existence, using the well known schrodingers cat example of the uncertainty principle. In this scenario, the natural physical laws do not vary but are in fact identical for the most part.

This is the idea that most people are familiar with as there have been many TV shows that rely on this technique, like the 90's TV series, Sliders. This type of universe we can also describe as a branching universe because whenever an event has more than one probable result, the universe will branch off to accomodate all those probabilities.

On the other hand, in a multiverse the are an infinite number of universes, each one different to the others, where all possible variations exist in regard to the cosmological constant as regarded within our own universe. As such you will have universes that will have different values for the parameters of each universe. You can have differences in the strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, gravitational force constant, ratio of electron to proton mass and so on. Some of these universe will be unstable and self destruct, others will have no , light, or even suns, others will be composed only of neutron stars, and so on. There will be universes where carbon will never exist.

Another aspect of this multiverse is that each universe may have a membrane that encapsulates that universe and expands as the universes do (those that actually do so), "pocket universes" for all intents and purposes. Each one cut off from the other. When you combine this with string theory, the emergent local laws of physics in the different pocket universes can be very different; they can have different particles, different forces, even different numbers of dimensions. So there is a good reason to think about them as separate universes, even if they’re all part of the same underlying spacetime or supraverse. (Your D-Branes)

As referred to earlier in the debate, this is the theory held by Stephen Hawking as an explanantion for the fine tuning of the universe

Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained and raises the natural question of why it is that way… The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer…. That is not the answer of modern science…our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.

Stephen Hawking, The Grand design

There a few other variations but essentially that is how it all stands.

Within all these different variations there are essentially 4 possible outcomes in regard to the universe or multiverse.

30516113.jpg

Simply put, the reason Hawking and many others seem to prefer the multiverse theory, is that it is their only way out of an uncomfortable position that is well known and admitted by scientists... that the universe had a designer, a 1st cause, a 1st cause we can call God.

Disagree if you want, it doesn't change how things are at this time.

Now can you do what was asked of you and post scientific papers shows God exists, is the creator and is outside the universe? Wait.. you don't know what a scientific paper is do you?

http://en.wikipedia....entific_journal

Are you being obnoxious or is it simply that you do not understand what I have been writing about, I'm talking of science, not God. It is the science that forces us to admit that a 1st cause is necessary, either that or go for the multiverse route and a random event within it.

So what you are implying here is that if you do not get on Nature or Science then you have no credibility? Just so you know, a scientific paper can exist without actually being published in a scientific Journal.

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0/0110012v2.pdf

http://mukto-mona.ne...rom_nothing.pdf

A scientific paper is also a term used for a thesis or a dissertation...

Academic publishing describes the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in journal article, book or thesis form. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called the "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

Most established academic disciplines have their own journals and other outlets for publication, although many academic journals are somewhat interdisciplinary, and publish work from several distinct fields or subfields. There is also a tendency for existing journals to divide into specialized sections as the field itself becomes more specialized. Along with the variation in review and publication procedures, the kinds of publications that are accepted as contributions to knowledge or research differ greatly among fields and subfields.

Academic publishing is undergoing major changes, as it makes the transition from the print to the electronic format. Business models are different in the electronic environment. Since the early 1990s, licensing of electronic resources, particularly journals, has been very common. Currently, an important trend, particularly with respect to scholarly journals, is open access via the Internet. There are two main forms of open access: open access publishing, in which a whole journal (or book) or individual articles are made available free for all on the web by the publisher at the time of publication (sometimes, but not always, for an extra publication fee paid by the author or the author's institution or funder); and open access self-archiving, in which authors themselves make a copy of their published articles available free for all on the web.

http://en.wikipedia....cientific_paper

As you well know these scientific papers as you call them do not mention God, that is another of your assumptions in our discussion. All these papers actually demonstrate is that the universe had a beginning and was created not from a singularity (singularity meaning that there was something to work with) but rather from "nothing" or as it is scientifically called a "quantum fluctuation".

Stephen Hawking himself says much the same thing: We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. God really does play dice.

What this really means my friend is that these models have only one of two ways to go, either a 1st cause existed, which produced the big bang, or it arose as the product of a random event within a much larger structure called a multiverse. Scientists unwillingly admit as much, hence the multiverse option and its gaining popularity.

http://discovermagaz...lligent-creator

Show me the paper he brings up God's existence.

This merely shows me that you have not read a single document I have posted. Maybe the problem here is that the word "God" immediately causes you to attack without actually considering anything else that is said.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extreme unlikelihood of the laws of physics being such that we could exist, in even the grossest form, is something I have worried about. I don't think God is the answer, but it may be that design is.

(I don't want to go into detail, but there are constants that if they were different by only a small percent would make the existence of chemicals and stars and even space impossible, so the argument that we evolved to fit doesn't succeed).

A variety of universe-selection models have been proposed, and of course the fact that we are here demonstrates that our universe by chance happened to have the needed properties (the odds against are really immense -- exponents exceeding 100 if not 1000).

I tend to take it we are the product of definite design, maybe by some super-being teenagers building model universes in their garage, but more likely on purpose. That beings go about causing universes that can contain life quite on purpose, even though they can never know the details of what they create.

Of course it could also be taken as evidence that we are an artificial construct, a model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put, the reason Hawking and many others seem to prefer the multiverse theory, is that it is their only way out of an uncomfortable position that is well known and admitted by scientists... that the universe had a designer, a 1st cause, a 1st cause we can call God.

You of course mean 'believed by some scientists', not just 'admitted by scientists'; you seem to want to smash together scientific opinions and theological ones. To call this 1st cause 'God' is misleading; I asked before why what you call the 'designer' needs to be an entity or a being at all, why can it not be yet another natural process we do not understand, as it historically has always turned out to be? I believe you essentially dodged these questions when I asked them previously and let me know that it's all up to me and the choices I make from this 'evidence', essentially a sermon.

Again, you are heavily indulging in 'God of the gaps' reasoning here, which is why I'm sure Hawking is not 'uncomfortable' despite your assertions. You could just as easily put up a chart concerning the diversity of life circa the bronze age and just label the diversity of life arising from natural processes, 'improbable', which is of course at best unknown and at worst blatantly incorrect. If you think the existence of one universe is 'improbable', then who has calculated these probabilities? What are the range of values that these supposedly 'fine-tuned' parameters of the universe can have, and what is the probability of them having any specific value? Can they even have different values, and how do they interrelate, are they independent? Are there answers to these questions (I don't believe there are) or do you think these are irrelevant questions?

God and the supernatural have been offered up as explanations for aspects of this universe for millenia now, and have had to retreat nearly every single time. Now though we've finally got some good evidence that is best explained by God? Not only do I not think that is good scientific reasoning, I personally don't think it's particularly good theological reasoning either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Would you like to clarify that statement please, how in your view is it a different kind of multiverse?

The M-Theory allows for the possibility of other universes.
On one hand we have the theory that there are no multiple universes in a greater multiverse, but rather that all that exists is within our one universe, The typical big bang theory if you will. It is within this universe that we find all those amazing "coincidences" that you and a few others so blatantly dismiss, when even sscientists who are not theists in any way admit that that is what it looks like to them. Somehow you seem to "know more" than them?
What theory is this called? The big bang theory doesn't address other universes.
Are you being obnoxious or is it simply that you do not understand what I have been writing about, I'm talking of science, not God. It is the science that forces us to admit that a 1st cause is necessary, either that or go for the multiverse route and a random event within it.
Is this when you start back peddling? You stated your position of God being the creator is supported by science. Now you're being asked to support it, or you can continue to dodge.
So what you are implying here is that if you do not get on Nature or Science then you have no credibility? Just so you know, a scientific paper can exist without actually being published in a scientific Journal.
I think it is quite clear you're twisting science to support your unscientific position. Scientific papers have criteria to meet.

The request is quite straightforeword, it seems you've wasted much of your post rambling which I've ignored.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.