Why is there no world-wide proof of God?

Mortensen · May 19, 2006

It is not up to us to find out a way that God can prove his existence, Im sure he can find a way him selves if he wanted. The topic is; why isn't he?

First: According to the bible once upon a time he did. It didn’t work out so well. First we dwelt with God (in Eden), but then we choose to end that fellowship. God still had direct interaction with people (Israel), but that fellowship didn’t work out so well because yet again of choices we made. So basically, because we communicated to God that was not our desire via our actions.

God is allmighty. He knows our actions, he actually dessides our actions (or else he wouldn't be allmighty) so these examples was (from gods side) meant to fail. Why, I don't know.

And Thirdly: God wants a consentient world. My epistemological view is the only knowledge people can have is hypothetical. So “proof” doesn’t exist

So he allowes all the conflicts that different believes causes? How kind....

Mortensen · May 21, 2006

No replyes... strange

JonF · May 22, 2006

The first question has already been addressed. Second is a view of fatalism that most Christians don’t hold so I didn’t even bother responding. And I have no clue what you are trying to communicate in your third comment.

I think you the problems you are suggesting are there stem from an unbiblical view of fatalism.

DeepThinker · Jun 3, 2006

Mortensen said:
It is not up to us to find out a way that God can prove his existence.

Is it not? well it might not be, but I belive that I have found a way of proving God must exist and by useing the laws of science.

One of the fundimental laws of physics proclaims that something cannot come from nothing. Therefore at the dawn of time where did the Big bang come from? Even If you argue that it was something we do not understand like a rift in space time or it came from the last universe that imploded in on itself, where, right at the very beggining of everything did that first little spark come from?
Well I can think of no way but God.

Of course you may agrgue "but where then did God come from?" however if you look at what it says in the Beggining of the Bible and many other relegious books "God creates everything in existance" existance consists of 4 dimentions that we know of, 3 of space and 1 of time this means that God also created time, so God did not have to come from anywhere, he is outside of the laws that he created beacause before he created them they did not exist, put simply nothing came before God because before as a concept did not exist.

Secondly the laws of physics are extreemly fragile, a minor change in the law of Gravity for example would mean that nothing in the whole universe would be held together... therefore no universe would exist. Does it not strike you as a miricle in itself that these laws work so perfectly?

I am a Christian as you can see but I am a fairly liberal one and do not personally belive everything that comes out of the Bible, I belive what my head and heart tells me. My head knows that the Universe must have been created by something ie a God my heart tells me that Christianity is one way of pleasing that God, though I do not belive it to be the only way. Fine by me if you dont belive in christianity the most immportant thing to me if for people to realise there is a God, not because we are told to, because it makes sense.

Sorry about the spelling, Im a little dyslexic

God bless

Mortensen · Jun 3, 2006

One of the fundimental laws of physics proclaims that something cannot come from nothing. Therefore at the dawn of time where did the Big bang come from? Even If you argue that it was something we do not understand like a rift in space time or it came from the last universe that imploded in on itself, where, right at the very beggining of everything did that first little spark come from?
Well I can think of no way but God.

What you say don't add up. If fundimental laws of physics proclaims that something cannot come from nothing, then science laws would prove gods exictence, which it far from do.

Secondly the laws of physics are extreemly fragile, a minor change in the law of Gravity for example would mean that nothing in the whole universe would be held together... therefore no universe would exist. Does it not strike you as a miricle in itself that these laws work so perfectly?

I highly dissagree. Small changes in the physics laws don't have to have change the universe so highly. If the laws of gravity didn't exict however, nothing would be held together, but there would still be a universe. The physics laws is fragile for existence of life, but not crucal to the universe.

Back to topic. Im saying that different believes cause massive conflicts. What reason has god to not prove his existence and end all the different believes. The world would be a better place where there is no doubt that there is a beloving god out that that would allways love us.

DeepThinker · Jun 3, 2006

Mortensen said:
What you say don't add up. If fundimental laws of physics proclaims that something cannot come from nothing, then science laws would prove gods exictence, which it far from do.

Well this is what I'm saying the fundimental laws of physics do support Gods existance, you need to study this a little better, in science something cannot arrise from nothing thats a plain fact.

As to your second point: again mabey you should learn your science a little better, a finite change in a law of gravity DOES make the whole universe and all in it imposible, planets just would not form. Ever read "A brief history of time" by steven hawkins, he supports my veiws here. (Contrary to popular belife, this man who many belive to be the most intelegent man alive does support that the existance of God is the only explanation)

This third question is a quandry, something that no one will ever understand but its fair to question it. My best guess, (which is all anyone can offer when trying to psychoanalise a supreme being) is that it is the best way to teach us morals, mabey the best way to teach is the school of hard knocks from my understanding this method of teaching on earth works very well indeed. I dont veiw the world as the final stop off point for life but a way of teching us how to cope with the after life, in this case it would be in our best interests that we do not have an easy ride.

Mortensen · Jun 3, 2006

No, Im not a genius when it comes to science, no but I try to keep updated

But could you give me some examples about these changes in the laws of physics? What change (and how) could eliminate the unierse?

Why cant the universe have come from nothing?

DeepThinker · Jun 3, 2006

Mortensen said:
No, Im not a genius when it comes to science, no but I try to keep updated

But could you give me some examples about these changes in the laws of physics? What change (and how) could eliminate the unierse?

Why cant the universe have come from nothing?

Well lets stick to the gravity example, as this is the one I understood the most ( I'm no genius myself ).

First I will explain (in very simplified terms) how a planet is formed. At the beggining of existance just after the big bang there was only gas (which later came to form solids and liquids) and this reacted causing explosions which resulted in the creation of stars these stars were only comprised of the first element in the periodic table I belive its hydrogen if my memory serves, from here they burnt to such high temporatures that they actually created new elements (not how I used to belive it but apparently true) from these new elements more solid forms were alowed to form and so the first planets came into being.
However, if gravity is not tuned to its exact proportions (which of course it is) these tiny particles would have never held onto each other that is if gravity was weaker than it actually is (remember gravity is created by everything not just huge planets, though it is more apparent in their case) Therefore a planet could never formed. Take it the other way and these particles would implode in on themselves and cause massive explosions on themselves as the atom splits. So there we have it, one example of how the universe would not exist.

To answer your second point this is slightly more simple, no where in the universe can something come from nothing, (tell me if you come up with an example please) even in the chain reaction that caused stars to produce new elemements, without the reaction would not have been there. To take a simple example in energy: though it seems we can creat energy from nothing this is actually transferance from another type of energy. ie kicking a football comes from kenetic energy, but you dont produce that energy, it comes from stored chemicle energy in your muscles, which you obtained from your food and so on and so forth, this is the nature of everything in the universe, it is one of the fundemental laws of physics.

Mortensen · Jun 3, 2006

Cant quote you on the law issue, don't have the knowledge

But on the second issue. Yes, I agree that everything in the world we live in now works that way that every reaction have to have an action, but this doesn't mean that the creaton of the universe had to have a cause, something triggering it. The "triggering" had to be "before" (spite that there is no time, "before" is a kind of wrong expression, but it couldn't be after" the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the creation of the universe, the universe with the laws of physics, so why shoud these laws count to something that isn't a part of this universe?

DeepThinker · Jun 3, 2006

Mortensen said:
Cant quote you on the law issue, don't have the knowledge

But on the second issue. Yes, I agree that everything in the world we live in now works that way that every reaction have to have an action, but this doesn't mean that the creaton of the universe had to have a cause, something triggering it. The "triggering" had to be "before" (spite that there is no time, "before" is a kind of wrong expression, but it couldn't be after" the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the creation of the universe, the universe with the laws of physics, so why shoud these laws count to something that isn't a part of this universe?

Well the fact still remains that something cannot come from nothing, are you saying that there was nothing.... no time... no particles.... not even the void that is space (as even a vacume is held to the laws of physics) and then, without reason, everything just happened?

If this is your final conclusion I think we can bring the thread to a close. You wanted proof and I gave it to you, science proclaims that I am right, religion and philosophy agree, if you can come up with any reason, any at all that I may be wrong, please post back, or admit defeat gracefully.

God Bless

Mortensen · Jun 3, 2006

Well the fact still remains that something cannot come from nothing, are you saying that there was nothing.... no time... no particles.... not even the void that is space (as even a vacume is held to the laws of physics) and then, without reason, everything just happened?

Well... there is a alot of atheists out there and I see no other way that atheists would answer "yes" to this question. Im sure there is someone smarter than me that could quote you better than me, cuz your points really set my mind working . I admit that it would have been strange. Have to sleep on this one...

If this is your final conclusion I think we can bring the thread to a close. You wanted proof and I gave it to you, science proclaims that I am right, religion and philosophy agree, if you can come up with any reason, any at all that I may be wrong, please post back, or admit defeat gracefully.

Yes, you praised me Pray for God allmighty

DeepThinker · Jun 4, 2006

Mortensen said:
Well... there is a alot of atheists out there and I see no other way that atheists would answer "yes" to this question. Im sure there is someone smarter than me that could quote you better than me, cuz your points really set my mind working . I admit that it would have been strange. Have to sleep on this one...

Well as I said I gave you an answer to your question, it would of course be foolish to say it was an absolute cirtainty. "Wisest is he who knows that he does not know" (wish I could remember who said that) however, if there is evidence for the existance of God yet there is none to support that he does not exist it makes sense which is more likely.

michabo · Jun 4, 2006

DeepThinker said:
One of the fundimental laws of physics proclaims that something cannot come from nothing.

No such law exists.

And, FYI, scientific theories are constantly subject to revision as we learn more. So if we do learn that something can come from nothing, the answer is to falsify the theory, and not to reject this observation. That means there are no theories so fundamental that they trump others.

Now, as to this specific theory, apart from not existing, it is actually opposite to what we know occurs. Whenever there exists the potential for a vacuum ("nothing"), particles ("something") wink into existence ("coming from nothing"). In spite of what ancient philosophers (you're really talking philosophy here, and not science) might have believed, matter really does come from nothing.

Even If you argue that it was something we do not understand like a rift in space time or it came from the last universe that imploded in on itself, where, right at the very beggining of everything did that first little spark come from?
Well I can think of no way but God.

So now you contradict yourself! Either something can come from nothing, in which case you may as well conceed that the universe can come from nothing. Or nothing can come from nothing in which case you need to explain where God came from.

Of course you may agrgue "but where then did God come from?" however if you look at what it says in the Beggining of the Bible and many other relegious books "God creates everything in existance" existance consists of 4 dimentions that we know of, 3 of space and 1 of time this means that God also created time, so God did not have to come from anywhere, he is outside of the laws that he created beacause before he created them they did not exist, put simply nothing came before God because before as a concept did not exist.

Special pleading, yadda yadda yadda.

Citing the bible is one of the worst retorts if you want to discuss scientific evidence. What ancient philosophers thought about anything has no bearing on reality. Give us some evidence.

We can just as easily say that the universe itself exists outside of time (though it contains it), so it did not come from anywhere, either.

Does it not strike you as a miricle in itself that these laws work so perfectly?

Irrelevant to this argument.

If you want to make a second argument, fine. Do it, but not as an afterthought. If this was meant as an argument, you should know that if our universe had different physical constants then there would either be no life to notice it, or the life would exist but be different. So what.

Now if the gravitational constant was such that life could not exist naturally, then you'd be onto something...

Fine by me if you dont belive in christianity the most immportant thing to me if for people to realise there is a God, not because we are told to, because it makes sense.

Whatever floats your boat. Don't lie to yourself and say that it is because of science, or logic or reason. It is faith, pure and simple.

DeepThinker · Jun 4, 2006

michabo said:
No such law exists.

And, FYI, scientific theories are constantly subject to revision as we learn more. So if we do learn that something can come from nothing, the answer is to falsify the theory, and not to reject this observation. That means there are no theories so fundamental that they trump others.

Now, as to this specific theory, apart from not existing, it is actually opposite to what we know occurs. Whenever there exists the potential for a vacuum ("nothing"), particles ("something") wink into existence ("coming from nothing"). In spite of what ancient philosophers (you're really talking philosophy here, and not science) might have believed, matter really does come from nothing.

So now you contradict yourself! Either something can come from nothing, in which case you may as well conceed that the universe can come from nothing. Or nothing can come from nothing in which case you need to explain where God came from.

Special pleading, yadda yadda yadda.

Citing the bible is one of the worst retorts if you want to discuss scientific evidence. What ancient philosophers thought about anything has no bearing on reality. Give us some evidence.

We can just as easily say that the universe itself exists outside of time (though it contains it), so it did not come from anywhere, either.

Irrelevant to this argument.

If you want to make a second argument, fine. Do it, but not as an afterthought. If this was meant as an argument, you should know that if our universe had different physical constants then there would either be no life to notice it, or the life would exist but be different. So what.

Now if the gravitational constant was such that life could not exist naturally, then you'd be onto something...

Whatever floats your boat. Don't lie to yourself and say that it is because of science, or logic or reason. It is faith, pure and simple.

A number of points to make here.

Firstly I did not get the something cannot come from nothing law from philosophy its a scientific FACT its true we dont know everything or we would not have this discussion. Where did you get the particles winking into existance thing from? If its about the theory of event horisens of black holes then without a black hole this could not happen anyway, if its a different theory please tell me.

I did explain the whole God coming into existance thing, the fact that he did not have to, but you obviously were not paying attention. God created existance, ie time and space, before existance there were no laws of physics science did not exist. Therefore there is no reason for God to apply to these laws before they came to be.

The argument about gravity was not that life could not have existed, it was that nothing, no planets, no suns, nothing could have existed. Again if you read my argument properly you may have grasped this.

Try to get your facts straight before you critisise someone

DeepThinker · Jun 4, 2006

michabo said:
Citing the bible is one of the worst retorts if you want to discuss scientific evidence. What ancient philosophers thought about anything has no bearing on reality. Give us some evidence.

lol this was no citation from the Bible but a general rule from many religions, if I am to argue that religion is Justified how can I do this without telling you what it says?!

michabo · Jun 4, 2006

DeepThinker said:
Firstly I did not get the something cannot come from nothing law from philosophy its a scientific FACT its true we dont know everything or we would not have this discussion.

Nothing in that sentence makes me think you understand science at all.

First, science deals with theory and observations, not facts. You might argue that an observation is a fact (it is close enough), but you seem to believe that your theory is a fact. Not even GR is a fact.

Where did you get the particles winking into existance thing from? If its about the theory of event horisens of black holes then without a black hole this could not happen anyway, if its a different theory please tell me.

Virtual particles.

God created existance, ie time and space, before existance there were no laws of physics science did not exist. Therefore there is no reason for God to apply to these laws before they came to be.

The universe contains time and space but isn't itself within time and space. So your argument applies equally well to the universe as to God.

The argument about gravity was not that life could not have existed, it was that nothing, no planets, no suns, nothing could have existed. Again if you read my argument properly you may have grasped this.

I am aware of the anthropic argument.

Without stars, planets, etc., there would not be life so if there are any universes which are unsuitable to life, we should not expect life to exist there. It should be obvious that, as living organisms, our universe should support living organisms! Do you not understand that?

Now, as I said, if you showed that the universe's constants should not support life but yet life exits, then you might be onto something. Right now you're just observing that we're living in a universe which has properties which allow us to live. Colour me unimpressed.

DeepThinker · Jun 4, 2006

michabo said:
Nothing in that sentence makes me think you understand science at all.

First, science deals with theory and observations, not facts. You might argue that an observation is a fact (it is close enough), but you seem to believe that your theory is a fact. Not even GR is a fact.

Virtual particles.

The universe contains time and space but isn't itself within time and space. So your argument applies equally well to the universe as to God.

I am aware of the anthropic argument.

Without stars, planets, etc., there would not be life so if there are any universes which are unsuitable to life, we should not expect life to exist there. It should be obvious that, as living organisms, our universe should support living organisms! Do you not understand that?

Now, as I said, if you showed that the universe's constants should not support life but yet life exits, then you might be onto something. Right now you're just observing that we're living in a universe which has properties which allow us to live. Colour me unimpressed.

I dont think your opening your mind up enough here. But if you want to try and shout me down with arguments that are not taking what I am saying into account thats your choice, Ill say this once more shall I

If God created "EVERYTHING" he creates time and space, not everything in the universe that involves time and space, thats time and space as a whole, God does not have to apply to a law that did not exist untill he created it.

The issue about the laws of physics being just right.
I am not just explaining that life exists, I am suggesting that all the laws of physics are just right, its a hell of a fluke dont you think?! Steven hawkins seems to think so. As do many other scientists.

Your right that a fact is not a cirtainty, nothing is "wisest is he who knows he does not know" Socrates right? So I apologise for that hicup

Care to explain Virtual particles, or are you going to tell me a theory and assume ill take it at that?

Mortensen · Jun 4, 2006

Thanks michabo I kind of ran out of arguments up there :S

But how do you explain that the beginning of the universe, the creation of the universe happened exactly 13.7 billion years ago? Something scientific triggering it? In that case, what triggered that...

michabo · Jun 4, 2006

DeepThinker said:
If God created "EVERYTHING" he creates time and space, not everything in the universe that involves time and space, thats time and space as a whole, God does not have to apply to a law that did not exist untill he created it.

If God is a magical fairy, then God can do whatever the heck he pleases, so no use bothering with trivial details like evidence. You should content yourself with faith and drop the justification.

I don't care if you think my mind is open. I see you with philosophical arguments you claim to be scientific, claims of knowledge of advanced scientific research when you don't demonstrate an understanding of the basics science itself. You may not like how I respond to you, and I'm sure that I would respond better on other days, but it is not I with a closed mind. You have made up your mind what your conclusions will be, and show little regard for supporting them in any methodical fashion. You're taking any argument regardless of its merits, provided it agrees with your conclusions.

This is the very definition of a closed mind. You will not let trivial details like evidence come between you and your beliefs.

I am not just explaining that life exists, I am suggesting that all the laws of physics are just right, its a hell of a fluke dont you think?! Steven hawkins seems to think so.

It's Hawking, not "hawkins". And you are beyond reach if you believe that he would support this nonsense.

Care to explain Virtual particles, or are you going to tell me a theory and assume ill take it at that?

If you are interested in knowledge (you know, learning) then you can look it up for yourself. Your esteemed Hawking discusses them in several of his books, as does Brian Greene in "Elegant Universe". You can google them, read up on them in Wikipedia, check physics sites, learn about their history, their several different independent lines of evidence, and their relationship to black holes, the big bang, the Casimir Effect, and spectroscopy.

DeepThinker · Jun 4, 2006

michabo said:
If God is a magical fairy, then God can do whatever the heck he pleases, so no use bothering with trivial details like evidence. You should content yourself with faith and drop the justification.

I don't care if you think my mind is open. I see you with philosophical arguments you claim to be scientific, claims of knowledge of advanced scientific research when you don't demonstrate an understanding of the basics science itself. You may not like how I respond to you, and I'm sure that I would respond better on other days, but it is not I with a closed mind. You have made up your mind what your conclusions will be, and show little regard for supporting them in any methodical fashion. You're taking any argument regardless of its merits, provided it agrees with your conclusions.

This is the very definition of a closed mind. You will not let trivial details like evidence come between you and your beliefs.

It's Hawking, not "hawkins". And you are beyond reach if you believe that he would support this nonsense.

If you are interested in knowledge (you know, learning) then you can look it up for yourself. Your esteemed Hawking discusses them in several of his books, as does Brian Greene in "Elegant Universe". You can google them, read up on them in Wikipedia, check physics sites, learn about their history, their several different independent lines of evidence, and their relationship to black holes, the big bang, the Casimir Effect, and spectroscopy.

Hehe whos the one contradicting himself now, I thoght evidence or truth did not matter?

sorry for the typo but iassure you he does support this veiw, Brief history of time, read it Steven hawkins belives in Gid deal with it.

Dont talk to me about cliaming to know things I dont if you cant do the same.

And in my experience, when someone gets angry in an agrument they know they are loosing.

Off to bed with me, ill deal with your angry retort in the morning

Why is there no world-wide proof of God?

Mortensen

Guest

Mortensen

Guest

Sapere Aude!

Active Member

Mortensen

Guest

Active Member

Mortensen

Guest

Active Member

Mortensen

Guest

Active Member

Mortensen

Guest

Active Member

reason, evidence

Active Member

Active Member

reason, evidence

Active Member

Mortensen

Guest

reason, evidence

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency