Why do you believe God exists and why?

[Moral Orel]

I think we've beaten this horse to death. Thanks for the dialog.

Okay. How about a somewhat different angle? Whatever begins to exist has a cause. And we know this because every time we have observed something begin to exist it has had a cause. Well, every time we've observed something "beginning to exist" it has been a reconfiguring of already existing stuff. There's never been a time that anyone has observed anything completely new coming into existence. So we should conclude that any time something begins to exist, it is a reconfiguring of already existing stuff. Yes?

 

[bling]

I don't know where you're getting this from. The singularity is all of the matter/energy/spacetime scrunched up into an infinitely small point. Krauss talks about "nothing" as being empty space which isn't actually "nothing" nor "empty". You shouldn't get those two things mixed up.

Do you believe something has always existed or do you believe something came from nothing?

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you believe something has always existed or do you believe something came from nothing?

I dunno. You get that the singularity isn't nothing, right?

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you believe something has always existed or do you believe something came from nothing?

The problem is that nothing tends to entail absolute negation, which isn't what is described scientifically, even when talking about quantum mechanics where virtual particles supposedly pop into existence. Nothingness couldn't be a thing from which something comes from, because it would then be something itself for us to even meaningfully describe it, paradoxically.

That whole ex nihilo phrasing for creation seems to be the description of what God does for the universe, but the full context of that is from Parmenides, ex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing nothing comes, which applies as much to any "god" entity as it does to the universe as a whole, because nothing would be something that is incoherent in speaking as if it really exists, since it would have to be something to have that factor of existing in any meaningful sense rather than just being a pure void that somehow could be in time and space, for that's what is necessary for things to happen at all.

 

[Moral Orel]

That whole ex nihilo phrasing for creation seems to be the description of what God does for the universe

Yeah, I noticed that too. The only theory on the origins of the universe that resembles something coming from nothing is creation. I get that a something (God) caused the universe to exist, but there wasn't a thing that became the universe except in some specific conceptualizations of how God done it like folks that think the universe is God, or at least made of part of Him. Every scientific theory I've heard starts with eternal stuff. The singularity is eternal. The multiverse is eternal. The universe itself is eternal. Etc.

So the whole "Do you think the universe came from nothing?!" Sounds like a strawman to me. Who proposes that? Maybe I'm just ignorant of some theory that says it, and I ain't even ruling it out personally, but it doesn't seem like anything that anyone in mainstream science is proposing. Even including Krauss and his admittedly misleading title to his book "A Universe from Nothing".

 

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, I noticed that too. The only theory on the origins of the universe that resembles something coming from nothing is creation. I get that a something (God) caused the universe to exist, but there wasn't a thing that became the universe except in some specific conceptualizations of how God done it like folks that think the universe is God, or at least made of part of Him. Every scientific theory I've heard starts with eternal stuff. The singularity is eternal. The multiverse is eternal. The universe itself is eternal. Etc.

So the whole "Do you think the universe came from nothing?!" Sounds like a strawman to me. Who proposes that? Maybe I'm just ignorant of some theory that says it, and I ain't even ruling it out personally, but it doesn't seem like anything that anyone in mainstream science is proposing. Even including Krauss and his admittedly misleading title to his book "A Universe from Nothing".

Basically they have to posit God as something that is wholly unique, but also not nothing, because then they'd be in a major paradox, if not outright contradiction in claiming it exists, unless you fudge the word nothing to near incoherence

I wouldn't say it's eternal, per se, we just can't claim anything concrete beyond the Big Bang, because it could be eternal in the sense that it keeps resetting the linear pattern we're used to, but it isn't eternal in that it creates an infinite regress problem, which only happens if you have a string of cause and effect in that specific sense that doesn't factor in quantum aspects

It's likely in the same vein as people who don't understand what a natural scientific theory is (versus social science theories and such, which are potentially subject to scientific investigation, but not in the same way as natural science, like theory of gravity, germs, evolution, Big Bang, atomic, etc)

 

[bling]

I dunno. You get that the singularity isn't nothing, right?

Yes, it is something.
Could that singularity come from literally nothing and even if it did what would keep this from happening the same way an infinite number of times?

 

[bling]

The problem is that nothing tends to entail absolute negation, which isn't what is described scientifically, even when talking about quantum mechanics where virtual particles supposedly pop into existence. Nothingness couldn't be a thing from which something comes from, because it would then be something itself for us to even meaningfully describe it, paradoxically.

That whole ex nihilo phrasing for creation seems to be the description of what God does for the universe, but the full context of that is from Parmenides, ex nihilo nihil fit, from nothing nothing comes, which applies as much to any "god" entity as it does to the universe as a whole, because nothing would be something that is incoherent in speaking as if it really exists, since it would have to be something to have that factor of existing in any meaningful sense rather than just being a pure void that somehow could be in time and space, for that's what is necessary for things to happen at all.

I agree with you on this.
Since, our universe does exist, something has always existed and if our universe is not the result of intelligence, then would there have to be an infinite number of similar universes?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, it is something.
Could that singularity come from literally nothing and even if it did what would keep this from happening the same way an infinite number of times?

Stephen Hawking was sure that the singularity didn't ever come from anywhere. There was no "before" the singularity because time was all turned around back on itself. It's like asking "What's further north than the north pole?".

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Science seems to believe that nothing cannot exist.

This is a hypothesis that has no evidence yet.

Science has really been working on this, for the most part science has to redefine nothing as something. I have a copy and read “A Universe from Nothing”: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. Please read peer reviews of Krauss work to see the scientific issues with his conclusions. The problem is really with trying to determine what it was like just before the “Big Bang”.

It is not relevant to the discussion of your claim that god created everything. Not knowing why we are here does not make god the default answer.

Explanations are given with circular reasoning: The universe is here; it had a beginning and we know this because the universe is here.

We believe it had a beginning because we have evidence for the expansion. We do not have evidence for the singularity was there.

The universe started from a singularity, which we will call “nothing”, since nothing cannot exist as nothing.

No, we call it everything. That is where everything came from when it expanded.

If you want to say: “Intelligence came from space, time, energy and matter” is not an issue, but we all agree it would be much easier to create another intelligence from “space, time, energy, matter and intelligence.

Maybe, but that is not evidence that it came from intelligence.

I am just talking about the raw materials from which intelligence came from and if the raw material included intelligence or not. Like I said there was always “something” (even if you want to redefine nothing as something), so was intelligence more likely to be part of that something then just the raw materials of energy, matter, time and space?

Can you demonstrate that intelligence is more likely to be part of creating our intelligence?

The process used can be evolution with intelligence or without intelligence, but what is more likely?

Without. We have so much good evidence that evolution happened without any intelligence and we have none for an intelligence being involved.

Evolution does provide a way for intelligence to increase with knowing all there is to know the upper limit. Super Intelligence might be reached inorganically evolving from a “computer”.

If there is an infinite amount of time with multiple universes then “Super Intelligence” has already evolved, prior to man.

Where is your evidence for multiple universes? or for an infinite time?

When I ask: “What is more likely”, intelligence has come about, you are proof of intelligence, so what is the likelihood of earth having the first intelligent beings, because it would be infinitely more likely that intelligence came prior to earth intelligence, so that earlier intelligence would be the likely source of human intelligence.

I concur that we may not be the first intelligent animals on the universe. But to say that earlier intelligence that came about is the author of our intelligence is more assertion.

Does it take more or less assertions to believe intelligence would come without former intelligence then with intelligence?

Less.

God defines Himself as being Love and defines Love. All humans glorify Love, so if God is different than this Love we are not glorifying the Creator of the universe, but something the Creator is not, so why create us?

I don't know. Show me God exists and we can talk.

God defines Himself as being Love and defines Love. Jesus defines that Love in all He said and did. Total unselfishness is part of being the epitome of Love.

Why do you believe him?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, it is something.
Could that singularity come from literally nothing and even if it did what would keep this from happening the same way an infinite number of times?

Multiverse theory would have universes popping up an infinite amount of times. They don't come "from literally nothing", but if you can explain why an infinite regress is logically impossible, then I'm all ears. I've always wanted someone to do that, because I just don't see the problem.

 

[Lukaris]

When I read the basic definitions of the laws of conservation of energy & matter, the matter of belief in a creator God or not, seems about the same as belief in life beyond death or not.

The laws of science point to life & death and the laws of energy & matter work within that framework. Ultimately, I believe in a creator God Who creates matter but Who has an uncreated energy that makes creation & life possible.

A person need not even believe in a creator God to believe that there is a spiritual realm. Or, a non God belief can just believe in birth & then death.

I do warehouse & janitorial work, I hope that society is stable & that people will be as humane as possible. I believe in God but Mr. XYZ does not; we can discuss each other’s views, convince the other or not, and otherwise work & pay our taxes.

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree with you on this.
Since, our universe does exist, something has always existed and if our universe is not the result of intelligence, then would there have to be an infinite number of similar universes?

Why would there not be a multitude of possible universes if they are the result of nature's variations even on a quantum level creating various universes with slight differences in what occurs? Intelligence is distinct from intelligibility, we can understand the universe, it just means we have to understand our anthropocentric perspective is not going to always make sense of the universe, because it isn't beholden to humans, we survive in spite of the universe

Something doesn't have to have always existed in the manner we think and the more practical conclusion would be that the universe is in a cycle, not an infinite line, not suffering the infinite regress problem that would come about otherwise

 

[muichimotsu]

When I read the basic definitions of the laws of conservation of energy & matter, the matter of belief in a creator God or not, seems about the same as belief in life beyond death or not.

Did you catch that the laws of conservation of matter and energy apply only to isolated systems? We are not absolutely certain that the universe is an isolated system and the sheer scale is such that its end point is calculated in the billions of years from now

The laws of science point to life & death and the laws of energy & matter work within that framework. Ultimately, I believe in a creator God Who creates matter but Who has an uncreated energy that makes creation & life possible.

First off, science only speaks about life and death in the sense that we can observe and measure aspects for it, it says nothing about the soul, speculative at best in the idea of a persistent consciousness beyond biological death

And that feels far more like you're making special pleading for God to violate the rules you appear to acknowledge for everything else, which isn't being consistent in the slightest or applying the ideas you acknowledge in a neutral and objective fashion

I do warehouse & janitorial work, I hope that society is stable & that people will be as humane as possible. I believe in God but Mr. XYZ does not; we can discuss each other’s views, convince the other or not, and otherwise work & pay our taxes.

Unfortunately not even those who believe in God will even agree on the necessity of paying taxes (which is especially ironic if they're Christian, given several instances where that is basically encouraged for believers, by both Jesus and Paul).

 

[bling]

Stephen Hawking was sure that the singularity didn't ever come from anywhere. There was no "before" the singularity because time was all turned around back on itself. It's like asking "What's further north than the north pole?".

Stephen Hawking is a smart guy with a very vivid imagination. He has imagined something that have shown to be most likely right and others have been shown to be wrong. These ideas of his from 30 years ago on the beginning of the universe are today very controversial especially with late developments in math. Before you accept Stephen Hawking’s conclusions of 30 years ago please read what others are saying.

 

[bling]

This is a hypothesis that has no evidence yet.

It is not relevant to the discussion of your claim that god created everything. Not knowing why we are here does not make god the default answer.

We believe it had a beginning because we have evidence for the expansion. We do not have evidence for the singularity was there.

No, we call it everything. That is where everything came from when it expanded.

Maybe, but that is not evidence that it came from intelligence.

The original question is: “Why do I believe God exists” and I have been giving some science behind the existence of God:

Something does not come from pure nothing.

There would need to be multiple universes to have one suitable for life.

Intelligence, matter, time, space and energy has created “intelligence” (depending on how you define intelligence) while a path to intelligence without the help of intelligence would be extremely more difficult.

My personal believe in God comes from the indwell Holy Spirit which is a personal guarantee for all true Christians.

I also look at this messed up world and see how it perfectly fits man’s objective while on earth and God is doing everything to help those willing to accept His help.

Everything is fitting the objective.





Can you demonstrate that intelligence is more likely to be part of creating our intelligence?

Without. We have so much good evidence that evolution happened without any intelligence and we have none for an intelligence being involved.

Where is your evidence for multiple universes? or for an infinite time?

I concur that we may not be the first intelligent animals on the universe. But to say that earlier intelligence that came about is the author of our intelligence is more assertion.



Less.



I don't know. Show me God exists and we can talk.



Why do you believe him?

The original question is: “Why do I believe God exists” and I have been giving some science behind the existence of God:

Something does not come from pure nothing.

There would need to be multiple universes to have one suitable for life.

Intelligence, matter, time, space and energy has created “intelligence” (depending on how you define intelligence) while a path to intelligence without the help of intelligence would be extremely more difficult.

My personal believe in God comes from the indwell Holy Spirit which is a personal guarantee for all true Christians.

I also look at this messed up world and see how it perfectly fits man’s objective while on earth and God is doing everything to help those willing to accept His help.

Everything is fitting the objective.

 

[bling]

Multiverse theory would have universes popping up an infinite amount of times. They don't come "from literally nothing", but if you can explain why an infinite regress is logically impossible, then I'm all ears. I've always wanted someone to do that, because I just don't see the problem.

The original question is: “Why do I believe God exists” and I have been giving some science behind the existence of God:

Something does not come from pure nothing.

There would need to be multiple universes to have one suitable for life.

Intelligence, matter, time, space and energy has created “intelligence” (depending on how you define intelligence) while a path to intelligence without the help of intelligence would be extremely more difficult.

My personal believe in God comes from the indwell Holy Spirit which is a personal guarantee for all true Christians.

I also look at this messed up world and see how it perfectly fits man’s objective while on earth and God is doing everything to help those willing to accept His help.

Everything is fitting the objective.

 

[bling]

Why would there not be a multitude of possible universes if they are the result of nature's variations even on a quantum level creating various universes with slight differences in what occurs? Intelligence is distinct from intelligibility, we can understand the universe, it just means we have to understand our anthropocentric perspective is not going to always make sense of the universe, because it isn't beholden to humans, we survive in spite of the universe

Something doesn't have to have always existed in the manner we think and the more practical conclusion would be that the universe is in a cycle, not an infinite line, not suffering the infinite regress problem that would come about otherwise

The original question is: “Why do I believe God exists” and I have been giving some science behind the existence of God:

Something does not come from pure nothing.

There would need to be multiple universes to have one suitable for life.

Intelligence, matter, time, space and energy has created “intelligence” (depending on how you define intelligence) while a path to intelligence without the help of intelligence would be extremely more difficult.

My personal believe in God comes from the indwell Holy Spirit which is a personal guarantee for all true Christians.

I also look at this messed up world and see how it perfectly fits man’s objective while on earth and God is doing everything to help those willing to accept His help.

Everything is fitting the objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

Stephen Hawking is a smart guy with a very vivid imagination. He has imagined something that have shown to be most likely right and others have been shown to be wrong. These ideas of his from 30 years ago on the beginning of the universe are today very controversial especially with late developments in math. Before you accept Stephen Hawking’s conclusions of 30 years ago please read what others are saying.

I'm not accepting his "conclusion". I'm accepting his description of the singularity. He was still working on it with other physicists up until he died. If you want to talk about the singularity, then you should accurately represent what has been said about it. That's all I intended to convey when I responded to your post.

 

[Moral Orel]

Something does not come from pure nothing.

Who ever said that something comes from pure nothing? I don't know why you keep saying this, because as far as I can tell, no one is proposing it as a theory.