I don't know why people extrapolate things . In the Bible it says he created the heaven and earth. The word heaven is extrapolated to universe , I don't thing it should be . By extrapolation the atheist like you have a premise to discredit His existence, as you point in your argument.
Existence of god
- Thread starter shivansh
- Start date
I don't know why people extrapolate things . In the Bible it says he created the heaven and earth. The word heaven is extrapolated to universe , I don't thing it should be . By extrapolation the atheist like you have a premise to discredit His existence, as you point in your argument.
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
Well, not quite. Theists scoff at science as a way of explaining the existence of the Universe. They consistently claim a Universe cannot be explained without God and insist a god had to create the Universe.
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
Thank you for generalising all of us based on Creationist Christianity.
Oh I'm sorry...I'm generalizing? I retract that part. You are welcome to share your own position of how the Universe came into being and we can proceed from there. Otherwise, are you fine with a non-deity explanation for the Universe's existence?
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
Some theists. Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07b6BnXg5n8
And here's another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k782BqrvfMM
It's really just the way you said "theists" and followed it with dogma that's really quite specific to Intelligent Design and Creationism. Both of which are largely Abrahamic schools of thought. Most Christians and Jews don't view things in a literal Creationist fashion. I've met very few Neopagans that think that way about the creation myths, same with Polytheistic Reconstructionists. I've not met enough Hindus or Buddhists, but I'd expect the same.
Yes. I agree with current scientific theory of the universe's expansion. I don't believe the gods created the universe, not in the sense that monotheists think of their as having created the universe. So, in effect, I do not disagree with non-theistic explanations and scientific theory.
How the gods interplay with reality and the physical universe is something I have only speculation on, and no solid opinion. First off, I believe that they exist independent of and outside of physical reality; physical laws and logic don't necessarily apply to them, I view them as beings of pure will or spirit. Because of this, I speculate that they may exist in a non-linear fashion in relation to time. So, they didn't so much "create" the universe as are, have been, and will "create" it. But even then, I don't think "create" is the right term as it implies a chronological causal relationship. And I do not think that is the case when it comes to the gods and their place in the universe. Again, just speculation based on how I've interacted with my gods. I don't have a solid opinion on it, and I refrain from making one until I am better informed.
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
Putting aside the contradictory concept of something "exist"ing independent of physical reality for later, and also of abandoning scientific explanations for one "existent" but yet adopting them to explain another, what is the point of postulating a God or gods that are unnecessary to explain anything? If the Universe arose without their assistance, what need do we have to explain anything that occurred after that, such as the formations of the galaxies and planets and the evolution of Life, by invoking a God or gods?
The whole point of invoking a God or gods today is something theists use to counter atheists/scientists when they make claims something could have occurred without intelligent assistance; without a God or gods. But if gods aren't needed to explain any of it, why are we even bothering to bring them up?
Last edited:
Probably because discussions about how things arose without intelligent assistance are just as superfluous as you anticipate the topic of god is.
Makes me laugh hearing and reading science people talk of god and ridiculing it.
I saw a bob lazar vid the other day, and what he said was that science when confronted with such things label it higher dimensions. He scoffed at the idea, and said that is just them saying it as they had no idea.
Like also the idea of coincidence, another term by science to label something they have no idea on.
Science knows barely nothing, at least the part they tell us. Science has no answers beyond there own mind, like the rest of the world.
Yep in the universe a being may be able to answer everything, but that being is not humans, our brains are as useless as an ants trying to understand us. I am sure beings with far greater capacity than ours to work out the universe exist, but that is not us. At least they understand probably the futility of being inside the problem they are trying to solve.
The universe exists in space-time, but at the speed of light, time and space are not relevant. This can be inferred from Einsteins Special relativity. Also science has shown that the speed of light is the same in all references; omnipresent. God would need to exist at the speed of light to be consistent with the historical claims and the needed physics.
At the speed of light, space-time breaks down into separated time and space. This allows one to move in time without space limitations or move in space without time limitations. By tradition, God is defined as spirit and not matter, with spirit more of an energy concept, which would need to travel at the speed of light.
In Genesis, God said, let there be light. God uses the speed of light to make creation easier, since this allowed time without space and space without time, allowing things to come together in synchronized ways, far and wide.
So why is science using such a nonsense as a Big bang , Nothing rises from nothing , Inflation , and other imaginary terms to fit their explanation . It is fine to set a model but coming up with vacuum energy and more , it is just plain bull.
Dude, the Big Bang theory doesn't say it all came from nothing. The theory doesn't in fact say anything about the physics at T=0, because we don't know.
It does say the so called grain was very small, in comparing to what we see now. from that highly compressed mass we have now a hell of a large mass. I follow that bs and it is interesting wen is it going to cave in. Or do they have the guts to admit it is a nonsense whre the Jesuit pries come up with.
Have you learned about atoms? Most of it is empty. A teaspoon of matter in a neutron star is about a billion tons!
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
You've made some interesting points. While not enough to make me believe in God, I'll have to think about them.
Fuller's proof of God
Since 1927, whenever i am going to sleep, i always concentrate my thinking on what i call "Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer" (Richard Buckminister Fuller)
I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically
meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God.
Since 1927, whenever i am going to sleep, i always concentrate my thinking on what i call "Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer" (Richard Buckminister Fuller)
I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically
meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God.
"Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer
July 12 1979
To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.
I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.
In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.
Firstly I mean:_
those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicated upon past successions
which are unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
physically demonstrable answers
to what thereto fore had been missassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that
scientifically explainable answers
may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is:-
all the experientially explained
or explainable answers
to all questions
of all time-
Secondly I mean;-
The individual's memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehension's
of as interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance-
the meaning-
of all experiences.
Thirdly, I mean:-
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically stateable
family
of generalized principles-
cosmic laws-
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal,
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tuneable
micro- and macro-Universe events.
Fourthly, I mean;-
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never -ending
cosmic scenario serials.
With these four meanings I now directly
address God.
"Our God-
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest:-
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehrension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do
Yours , dear God,
is the only and complete glory.
By glory I mean the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but non-unitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potentials
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity's non redundant
syntropic integrating
Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
is interceptible, separatist, and biasble-
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;
Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is non-focusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative;
all of which characteristics gravity
are also the characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.
(eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these
two opposite forces.)
You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvement's, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous
omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe
You eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally inter-complementary
totally inter-transforming
non-simultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but non-unitarily conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.
Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.
To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.
Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen."
July 12 1979
To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.
I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.
In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.
Firstly I mean:_
those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicated upon past successions
which are unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
physically demonstrable answers
to what thereto fore had been missassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that
scientifically explainable answers
may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is:-
all the experientially explained
or explainable answers
to all questions
of all time-
Secondly I mean;-
The individual's memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehension's
of as interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance-
the meaning-
of all experiences.
Thirdly, I mean:-
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically stateable
family
of generalized principles-
cosmic laws-
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal,
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tuneable
micro- and macro-Universe events.
Fourthly, I mean;-
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never -ending
cosmic scenario serials.
With these four meanings I now directly
address God.
"Our God-
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest:-
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehrension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do
Yours , dear God,
is the only and complete glory.
By glory I mean the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but non-unitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potentials
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity's non redundant
syntropic integrating
Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
is interceptible, separatist, and biasble-
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;
Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is non-focusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative;
all of which characteristics gravity
are also the characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.
(eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these
two opposite forces.)
You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvement's, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous
omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe
You eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally inter-complementary
totally inter-transforming
non-simultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but non-unitarily conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.
Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.
To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.
Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen."
According to my calculation 10000 Kg of neutron will occupy one Cm3 not billions of tons.
8x10[sup]13[/sup] g/cm[sup]3[/sup] is 80 billion Kg/cm[sup]3[/sup]. That's a whole lot more than 10,000 kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
Before I go any further, please take note that I am not trying to convince you that they exist. I have no reason to do so. I am merely explaining my perspective.
I believe that they exist because I have had personal experiences involving them, and have listened to others' accounts of their personal experiences to compare and corroborate. This thread is all about whether or not we believe in a god or gods, and why. My reasons are wholly separate from teleological and ontological arguments. My beliefs are subjective; they are based on experience and perception. Like literally any other kind of opinion.
I may not have been clear about my reasons for believing in the gods. I do not use them as a fall-back point when explaining the natural world. I don't believe that they necessarily have "a point". Not anymore than we do, or anything else does.
I believe that they exist because I have had personal experiences involving them, and have listened to others' accounts of their personal experiences to compare and corroborate. This thread is all about whether or not we believe in a god or gods, and why. My reasons are wholly separate from teleological and ontological arguments. My beliefs are subjective; they are based on experience and perception. Like literally any other kind of opinion.