Existence of god

Discussion in 'Religion' started by shivansh, Mar 27, 2013.

  1. arauca Banned Banned

    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.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. 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.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for generalising all of us based on Creationist Christianity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. arauca Banned Banned


    Who are they ?
  8. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

    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?
  9. cosmictotem Registered Senior Member

  10. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    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.
  11. 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: May 6, 2013
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Probably because discussions about how things arose without intelligent assistance are just as superfluous as you anticipate the topic of god is.
  13. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    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.
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    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.
  15. arauca Banned Banned

    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.
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    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.
  17. arauca Banned Banned

    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.
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Have you learned about atoms? Most of it is empty. A teaspoon of matter in a neutron star is about a billion tons!
  19. 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.
  20. rr6 Banned Banned

    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.

    "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
    consciously apprehended
    and communicated (to self or others)

    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
    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-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
  21. arauca Banned Banned

    According to my calculation 10000 Kg of neutron will occupy one Cm3 not billions of tons.
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    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.
  23. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    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 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.

Share This Page