Prove God exists...sure, no problem.

[Lord Emsworth]

Why aren't you a Jew then?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, Benjamin Disraeli (twice the Prime Minister of Great Britian and a converted Jew) was once asked a very similer question. He stated in in two words, "The Jew." There is no other logical explanation that this vastly ancient culture group has not been assimilated or long destroyed except GOD has a promise & purpose for them.

"The Jew" is not a logical explanation. "The Hindus" have been around for longer.

 

[Contracelsus]

Why aren't you a Jew then?

He is, isn't he? He's just an heretical jew, whose sect broke off from mainstream Judaism about 2000 years ago over doctinal issues around the Messiah.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

He is, isn't he? He's just an heretical jew, whose sect broke off from mainstream Judaism about 2000 years ago over doctinal issues around the Messiah.

No, I do think that he is at all a part of this "vastly ancient culture group" that has not been "assimilated or [...] destroyed."

I think that he is part of one of the biggest obstacles that "the Jew" had to overcome.

 

[MemeBuster]

Is there any possible way to explain the origins of the universe using purely natural means?

We do not have complete answers to your questions, yet! But there are some good popular science books out there that discuss these topics. For example,

- A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

- The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? by Victor Stenger

Yours and countless other questions have occupied the human mind throughout most of our history. In the past, when our ancestors' knowledge of natural sciences was far more limited, people often explained their observations by imagining anthropomorphic (i.e. intelligent and purposeful) [supernatural] agents. These agents allowed people to explain what they observed in the world without having to know the details of how things happened (i.e. agent did it, case closed!). They also gave people bargaining power, i.e. you bargain with an intelligent agent, but it is pointless to blame or argue with the mindless nature.

For example, people would observe that childbirth is a painful affair and that snakes move around in a peculiar manner. So, they explained these observations by imagining an agent (a god) who was responsible for these things.

If you find the questions in the OP fascinating, you should try to read the above-mentioned books.


MB.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Why is this so difficult to a logical mind?

My first question is this...

If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?

Second question...

If there is no God, where did energy come from?

Third question...

If there is no God, is there any way for something to come from nothing?


4 Is there any possible way to explain the origins of the universe using purely natural means?

I say there's not...it's impossible for something to come from nothing. You can't have space just appear. And there's no such thing as physics creating time.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. It came from a battle between the IPU and the FSM over whose turn it was to take out the trash.
2. The IPU
3. Yes. the FSM made everythign from nothing.
as a matter of fact the other day my fridge was empty and it came over and made a realy nice seafood alfredo from nothing. I was surprised.
4. yes.

 

[Asimov]

If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?

The Big Bang, as far as we can tell.

If there is no God, where did energy come from?

If there is no SuperGod, where did God come from?

If there is no God, is there any way for something to come from nothing?

If there is a God, is there any way for something to come from nothing?

Is there any possible way to explain the origins of the universe using purely natural means?

I say there's not...it's impossible for something to come from nothing. You can't have space just appear. And there's no such thing as physics creating time.

I'd say your cosmology is a little out of date.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

There's a lot wrong.

 

[Asimov]

a more important question to me is, where did the laws of physics come from?

They formed after the Big Bang.

We already know the law of gravity works, and we already know how it works, what we dont know is why it works.

There is no law of gravity. There is a force of gravity, and a number of theories which explain it.

 

[Raphael45]

But you almost have to accept that there was something infinite, right? Maybe some people don't, but that's my view. You either believe God is infinite or the universe is or there were a series of infinite causes, but at the base of those causes also there must be something infinite. So what's infinity? Something has existed forever.

So now you come to, is that God, or is it just the universe, or like, a living universe in a way of "living" that we don't understand or know of yet. So the real point is, is it living or inanimate? Either one you pick you've got a 50:50 chance, eh?

But Wait!

But what about the Bible and the prophets and people and miracles. And the miracles that churches and faith say happen today. Sure, you might just say miracles and stuff like the story of Exodus was going to happen anyway or a coincidence. But how then did someone know it was going to happen, the prophets, and nothing is really coincidence, as everything has a reason(I think :O).
And then there's all the people, whatever religion, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, ect. who believe. So many believe there is a higher power out there than themself. Great numbers. Why? Is there something in us that tells us so, or are we just dumb? There's a lot of dumb people if we're just dumb, and a lot of smart-dumb people, at that! Though, still, that may be the case.

Anyway, this belief must count for something, so instead of simply is the infinite thing alive or inanimate, the alive(I'm thinking in the spiritual sense) has more going for it, so many that believe it is so and things that happen that supposedly point to it. Even if that counts for only 5% or so, it's 55% to 45% now. The inanimate doesn't have extra, less, in fact, because only science points to it, and science also at least half seems to point to God.

So when you play a game aren't you going to go for the better chance of winning? Which one do you think that is? From above, I say God, you may say it's not so. Maybe I overlooked something or there's some little loophole. But then look at this.

If you take the better chance of winning and you win, then you've been on the right track and maybe there will be a God waiting to welcome you and reward you. (I say maybe because I'm trying to right this from Atheist perspective, but sorry if I've kinda got that wrong. I'm no atheist.)
But even if you pick the lesser percentage and you win, what do you got? Nothing, because there was no God. (Unless you believe in reincarnation or something, but I don't want to go into details about that, much less know much about that belief.)

But never mind for now the winning or not. The point is that for now you can't really know for sure whether there is a God or not according to science. Well, some say there is, but not enough of that science "fact" that will sway either side very much, if at all. So you pick the side you are on. And if you believe in Jesus and miracles then it's a definite for you. But that's not some people's book, so for them it's 50:50.

I'll try to do more research and learn more on science and religion, as I admit I don't know much, or anything, really. I'm only 14! Sorry, I don't have a major in anything, yet.

And anyway, there's more to see than just on these debate threads. Read more of the forums, have fun!

 

[UncleHermit]

So when you play a game aren't you going to go for the better chance of winning? Which one do you think that is? From above, I say God, you may say it's not so.

Belief is not a game, and it can't be chosen based on preference of consequences. At least not for me.

 

[uberd00b]

I'll attempt to answer your questions.

Why is this so difficult to a logical mind?

Because there is no logical reason to assume a god.

If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?

Seems to have condensed from the energy of the big bang.

If there is no God, where did energy come from?

Something that wasn't God.

If there is no God, is there any way for something to come from nothing?

I've never understood this argument, it's Christians who claim something came from nothing, not non-believers.

In response to my own questions, I have to say "I don't have the slightest idea" to each one.

Which is no reason to start adding unnecessary entities like gods to the mix.

Now, I realize that I am not the most intelligent person on the planet, so if anyone has a simple, concise answer with scientific proof of bringing matter or energy from a vaccuum, then I would love to hear about it.

No one really knows (currently) what originated the big bang. There are a few theories, hopefully with advances in technology we should be able to test them. There is certainly no reason to assume these things came from an intelligent agency.

I also would like to know how you can have a vaccuum without the idea of "space", which is considered to be one of the things created in the "Big Bang Theory" along with matter and time.

I think as the theory goes that space and therefore the vacuum itself originated with the big bang, what went on "before" it is unknown.

Is there any possible way to explain the origins of the universe using purely natural means?

EVerything else is explainable by purely natural means, why not that? Is there anything to indicate that there must be a supernatural (whatever that is) cause?

I say there's not...it's impossible for something to come from nothing. You can't have space just appear. And there's no such thing as physics creating time.

Once again, something coming from nothing is what Christianity teaches. No one is saying that the big bang happened for no reason and had no cause, we just don't know what it was yet. This is no reason to start imagining deities.

Hope this gives you a little understanding of the non-supernatural viewpoint.

 

[nvxplorer]

Why is this so difficult to a logical mind?

My first question is this...

If there is no God, and all we have to go by are the laws of physics, then where did all the matter in the universe come from?

Second question...

If there is no God, where did energy come from?

Third question...

If there is no God, is there any way for something to come from nothing?

In response to my own questions, I have to say "I don't have the slightest idea" to each one. Now, I realize that I am not the most intelligent person on the planet, so if anyone has a simple, concise answer with scientific proof of bringing matter or energy from a vaccuum, then I would love to hear about it.

I also would like to know how you can have a vaccuum without the idea of "space", which is considered to be one of the things created in the "Big Bang Theory" along with matter and time.

So, ultimately my question is this...

Is there any possible way to explain the origins of the universe using purely natural means?

I say there's not...it's impossible for something to come from nothing. You can't have space just appear. And there's no such thing as physics creating time.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Classic.

You are using "God" as a metaphor for "I don't know."

 

[FishFace]

But you almost have to accept that there was something infinite, right? Maybe some people don't, but that's my view. You either believe God is infinite or the universe is or there were a series of infinite causes, but at the base of those causes also there must be something infinite. So what's infinity? Something has existed forever.

If there were a series of infinite causes, then it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of its base - it has no base, it just keeps on going.
Remember, infinity is not a number. You can't "get to" infinity.

So now you come to, is that God, or is it just the universe, or like, a living universe in a way of "living" that we don't understand or know of yet. So the real point is, is it living or inanimate? Either one you pick you've got a 50:50 chance, eh?

No, there's no way of knowing the chance. Just because a question is yes or no does not mean it is 50:50 - for example, "Will I roll a six on this fair dice" is a yes or no question, but the odds are 1/6 on yes and 5/6 on no.

But what about the Bible and the prophets and people and miracles. And the miracles that churches and faith say happen today. Sure, you might just say miracles and stuff like the story of Exodus was going to happen anyway or a coincidence. But how then did someone know it was going to happen, the prophets

I'm sorry, what? Show me a well-documented miracle that I can actually study and you'll be onto something. If someone wrote that there was a miracle thousands of years ago, that doesn't hold much water; people were more superstitious, and there is more time for the text to have been augmented.

and nothing is really coincidence, as everything has a reason(I think :O).

Everything may have a sufficient cause, but that does not mean there is no such thing as coincidence. For example, It is just a coincidence that my uncle has the same birthday as me, even though there is a reason for each of our birthdays.
See Antony Flew and the 5 Eskimos. (Suppose there are 5 Eskimos standing on street corners in New York. No doubt they all have their reasons for being there, but they could all be completely independent)

And then there's all the people, whatever religion, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, ect. who believe. So many believe there is a higher power out there than themself. Great numbers. Why? Is there something in us that tells us so, or are we just dumb? There's a lot of dumb people if we're just dumb, and a lot of smart-dumb people, at that! Though, still, that may be the case.

Religion preys on people's fears, irrationality and gullibility. Just because people believe it doesn't make it true.

Anyway, this belief must count for something, so instead of simply is the infinite thing alive or inanimate, the alive(I'm thinking in the spiritual sense) has more going for it, so many that believe it is so and things that happen that supposedly point to it.

No. The only thing going for a proposition are rational arguments for that proposition. For example, if I were to claim that there is a teapot orbiting out in the asteroid belt, that on its own counts for nothing not 50:50. If lots of people agree with me, then that still counts for nothing. If I present you with photographs from telescopes, spectroscopic analysis showing that silicon and oxygen are present in abundance, in line with a clay object, and so on, then I have something going for it.

So when you play a game aren't you going to go for the better chance of winning? Which one do you think that is? From above, I say God, you may say it's not so. Maybe I overlooked something or there's some little loophole. But then look at this.

Well, you were off when you started with an even chance, and unfortunately the rest was just an argumentum ad populum.

If you take the better chance of winning and you win, then you've been on the right track and maybe there will be a God waiting to welcome you and reward you. (I say maybe because I'm trying to right this from Atheist perspective, but sorry if I've kinda got that wrong. I'm no atheist.)
But even if you pick the lesser percentage and you win, what do you got? Nothing, because there was no God. (Unless you believe in reincarnation or something, but I don't want to go into details about that, much less know much about that belief.)

Pascal's Wager, eh? I guess then we should believe in Santa, too, just in case he brings us presents? Or wait, should we believing in Allah, because he threatens us with damnation if we believe in anything else!

 

[uberd00b]

a more important question to me is, where did the laws of physics come from?

This is a fascinating question and has some really interesting answers.

There are only 4 known forces in the entire universe, these are responsible for everything that we see around us. The search has been going on for years to find out where these four forces came from, with some interesting discoveries.

(Now correct me if I'm wrong on this, I've purely a laymans understanding of the situation).

There have been serveral theories proposed like string theory or brane (M) theory and recently the E8 symetry. In these theories the four forces that make up this universe (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces and gravity) actually appear all by themselves from a greater "unified" theory which become available at higher energies (read temperature). So as the universe cooled these four forces broke from the original "superforce". We've had some success uniting three of the four (all except gravity) at high energy levels, and are still trying to unify gravity with the rest.

That is everything that is needed to hold this universe together comes from the characteristics of the universe itself, and not from any external agency.

I hope that made sense, and was correct.

 

[Ferran]

Well, this right here is 8 pages of what I cal a non-issue. I dont have to dispute the contentions of your argument because I find fault with the legitimacy and idea of your argument in the first place.

But first, I just have to speak to this...

Why is this so difficult to a logical mind?

I also would like to know how you can have a vaccuum without the idea of "space", which is considered to be one of the things created in the "Big Bang Theory" along with matter and time.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. The Big Bang didn't create space. The Big Bang didn't create a vacuum. The definition of "space" in astronomic terms is nothingness. It is, quite simply, the absence of anything else. You don't create nothing. Nothing is nothing. Same concept with a vacuum. A vacuum is simply the conditions associated with nothingness. Hold out your hand. Look at the palm of it. There! You've created 10 metric tons of nothing in an instant! Right?...No, you haven't. You cannot create nothingness.

I would also argue the point that time, or for that matter, the laws of physics, were created. Time is simply the word we give to our perception of it. A minute isn't 60 seconds because it just is, its 60 seconds because that's the way we choose to represent our perception of it.

Finally, the whole argument is, in fact, a non-argument. You're trying to prove God. Read the Bible. God doesn't want to be proved. If God exists at all, he has intentionally made himself unprovable. It's spelled out over and over again in the Bible that God wants faith and belief. If he could be proven, then we would all be forced to acknowledge his existence like we can't help but acknowledge gravity's existence. It'd be a foregone conclusion, thus undermining the basis of the faith-based following God wants. To prove God would be to A) somehow be smarter than him, since you got around the roadblocks he put in place to prevent that and B) shatter any concept of spiritual justice. If God is a matter of fact, and not belief, then there is no way to decide who goes to Heaven and Hell - because everyone believes in God.

I submit to you, that your attempt to prove God is heresy.

 

[Genre]

Well, this right here is 8 pages of what I cal a non-issue. I dont have to dispute the contentions of your argument because I find fault with the legitimacy and idea of your argument in the first place.

But first, I just have to speak to this...



You are wrong. The Big Bang didn't create space. The Big Bang didn't create a vacuum. The definition of "space" in astronomic terms is nothingness. It is, quite simply, the absence of anything else. You don't create nothing. Nothing is nothing. Same concept with a vacuum. A vacuum is simply the conditions associated with nothingness. Hold out your hand. Look at the palm of it. There! You've created 10 metric tons of nothing in an instant! Right?...No, you haven't. You cannot create nothingness.

According to the Big Bang Theory, both time and space began with the Big Bang. Pure space may be void of matter, but that does not mean that space is nothingness. Nothingness has no properties, while space has the property of being able to hold mass and energy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are wrong. The Big Bang didn't create space. The Big Bang didn't create a vacuum. The definition of "space" in astronomic terms is nothingness. It is, quite simply, the absence of anything else. You don't create nothing. Nothing is nothing. Same concept with a vacuum. A vacuum is simply the conditions associated with nothingness. Hold out your hand. Look at the palm of it. There! You've created 10 metric tons of nothing in an instant! Right?...No, you haven't. You cannot create nothingness.

Hold out our hand, and you'll have (among other things) a handful of air molecules. Even in a 'vacuum', your would have a handful virtual particles and energy: particles that pop into and out of existance in the smallest fraction of time.

Space is not a vacuum, it is simply the set of position vectors particles can occupy (and indeed do occupy). Modern physics tells us that no given volume of space is completely empty.

I would also argue the point that time, or for that matter, the laws of physics, were created. Time is simply the word we give to our perception of it. A minute isn't 60 seconds because it just is, its 60 seconds because that's the way we choose to represent our perception of it.

Ah, but relativity puts an interesting spin on things: what lasts 60 seconds for one person lasts a different amount of time for a different person (the exact difference depends on the speed of the latter as observed by the former).

So time isn't quite as straightforward as you're making out.

 

[Ferran]

Hold out our hand, and you'll have (among other things) a handful of air molecules. Even in a 'vacuum', your would have a handful virtual particles and energy: particles that pop into and out of existance in the smallest fraction of time.

Space is not a vacuum, it is simply the set of position vectors particles can occupy (and indeed do occupy). Modern physics tells us that no given volume of space is completely empty.

Well, put, and you're essentially correct. Still, we're arguing semantics here, which is a little nit-picky. Using that vocabulary, space is constantly being created from nothingness, due to the expanding universe. An interesting take on spontaneous generation.

Ah, but relativity puts an interesting spin on things: what lasts 60 seconds for one person lasts a different amount of time for a different person (the exact difference depends on the speed of the latter as observed by the former).

So time isn't quite as straightforward as you're making out.

The relativity of perception is an entirely different debate. Again, I concede you have a point. Mine, however, was simply that the relativity of time, and the "creation" of space in no way supports the existence of a God. Christians talk about The Big Bang having an origin. So what's your God's origin? You dont know? So that makes your explanation better than ours...why?

 

[Genre]

Well, put, and you're essentially correct. Still, we're arguing semantics here, which is a little nit-picky. Using that vocabulary, space is constantly being created from nothingness, due to the expanding universe. An interesting take on spontaneous generation.

Space isn't really created from nothingness. Space simply expands. You are making it sound like just outside the boundaries of the universe exists nothingness. Clearly, nothing is outside the boundaries of space, and clearly nothingness cannot exist.

 

[necroforest]

I like the idea put forth by Hawking (probably someone else, but that's where I heard it from):

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Granted, I'm not advocating that this is necessarily correct, but it's a nifty thing to think about!