Ohhhhhhhh Proletaria... I have already diffused you on this argument. Theres a fact you simply cannot and or willnot and or don't want to understand, and that is that God does not require an origin.
As I have stated multiple times now if god (whatever he or it is) designed the universe ... including time and all that governs it (physics... quantum dynamics) ... these laws do not apply to him. I am going to use a Nerd Metaphor for you... and hope you understand it:
If a dungeon master in D&D decides that it is night time during the campaign he is designing... does that necesarily make it night for him in real life? No, because the DM is simply the creator and he is designing the rules/laws/status of the game.
Time is something that we interpret in order to necesitate an origin for something. As I've said 5x now... the universe holds to the necessity to have an origin as time is part of the universe. Time is NOT part of god... it is the ruling decided by the dungeon master.. it is in the realm of his mind and his creation but not part of his reality.
To quote _Salvation "Proletaria you silly goose".
That's awesome. You just proved that Deism could be possible.
Now...what about Theism?
In addition to that, to quote Carl Sagan, "If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of matter and then suddenly somehow created, how did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must of course ask the next question, where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. Or, if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed, there was no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions, cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries. With questions that were once treated only in religion and myth."
Carl Sagan. <3
As I said when Proletaria used this quote... and to reiterate the point from my last point you ignored. GOD DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ORIGIN.
If god created this universe, the laws of the universe are not necessarily applicable to him. Carl Sagan is thinking in terms of what we understand from this universe, drawing from his knowledge of this universe.
Time is something that was created and defined by God (again whatever he is). If time does not exist in whatever realm/dimension/whatever the heck you want to call in that god exists in... then there is no such thing as a beginning or an end.
Time is a proven dimension... although it is temporal, it is affected by the universe. Scientific evidence proves that the faster you get to the speed of light, the slower time moves. The same is said in the theory of relativity in the case of extreme gravity (singularitys - frame dragging - space time warping - etc).
I understand this is a hard concept to grasp, but there are a few things the human brain cannot grasp (EVER).
1.) Multiple dimensions in a non-mathematical way
2.) God
3.) The multiverse
4.) The true meaning and power behind infinity.
But, we should not take the next mistaken step of assuming that this is a blank-check to infer whatever we want about a god that we have no reason to suppose exists at all.
I don't think it's a blank-check. My point is science must have an testable object, if you can't test it, you can't apply scientific method to it. So science can't discuss god at all. But logic is not susceptible to such constrains because it works with premises, that can be valid or not valid, and, true or false. "God as the origin" is one premise, is valid (as a premise) because you can't deny it, but you can't say it's true nor false.
For that we must use other premises, already confirmed as valid and true, to deduce and not infer a possible god. Premises such as in chemistry (Lavoisier's mass conservation), thermodynamics ones (again conservation of energy within a system) and Newton's laws.
All this leaves no room for a system without energy to become, by itself, what we have now. The big-bang needs a prior state, and this one needs its own prior state.... this will go back ad infinitum and you can't have "something" from "nothing". The paradox is: unless you find an "uncreated origin" you won't be able to scientifically justify any other point as the origin.
As for science -never- being able to assert thing about the big-bang, prior to it, or what might happen in the "end," I think that is expressing certainty about something we have no room to be certain about. We do not know what we will understand in a hundred years or a thousand years.
We can't be certain about new experiments, measuring and counting methods, but logic will still be same.
I am unwilling to accept that people must infer something outside our box of understanding because that makes no logical sense. If you are going to tell me that the understanding of our universe we have gained in the last couple thousand years is without value or just as good as the baseless god concept, I invite you to explain to me why that is.
It's not valueless, but since illuminism science got materialistic, it's not bad don't get me wrong in here, was the only way to evolve society, but god and soul are taboo and scientists are willingly avoiding to theorise about them even if it´s still a (as non denied) possibility, which is totally contrary to its own rule of always research.
BTW I'm not religious, I just think there's still a reasonable doubt and we can't jus blindly pick one side, any side.
I don't think it's a blank-check. My point is science must have an testable object, if you can't test it, you can't apply scientific method to it. So science can't discuss god at all. But logic is not susceptible to such constrains because it works with premises, that can be valid or not valid, and, true or false. "God as the origin" is one premise, is valid (as a premise) because you can't deny it, but you can't say it's true nor false.
For that we must use other premises, already confirmed as valid and true, to deduce and not infer a possible god. Premises such as in chemistry (Lavoisier's mass conservation), thermodynamics ones (again conservation of energy within a system) and Newton's laws.
All this leaves no room for a system without energy to become, by itself, what we have now. The big-bang needs a prior state, and this one needs its own prior state.... this will go back ad infinitum and you can't have "something" from "nothing". The paradox is: unless you find an "uncreated origin" you won't be able to scientifically justify any other point as the origin.
This is what I've been saying all along: The universe itself without a god is a paradox. How can the universe have always existed in some form of infinite cycle when that cycle involves time? A dimension that has been proven to be a manipulatible part of the universe .. but simultaneously govern it.
In order for time (I'm setting you up Umpa) to exist, time itself must have an origin and an end (and along with it the entire universe).
If god created this universe, the laws of the universe are not necessarily applicable to him. Carl Sagan is thinking in terms of what we understand from this universe, drawing from his knowledge of this universe.
And, like I said, that is a perfectly good explanation for a DEISTIC god. But that is not a good explanation for a THEISTIC god. Unless you are a Deist, you still have a lot of work ahead of you.
It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's actually quite easy. And the older I get the easier the concept is to grasp. The problem is, however, that I'm not five years old, and I don't believe in Santa.
And again, if you are not a Deist, you still have a lot of work ahead of you proving the THEISTIC god. (I don't understand why that's a hard concept for theists to understand.)
1.) Multiple dimensions in a non-mathematical way
Multiple dimensions, as in a fourth dimension, or multiple dimensions as in multiple universe in the same space-time location.
2.) God
Gods and Goddesses are very simple to understand. Whether it be a Bible, a TaNaKh, a Rede, or any other religious book or sheet, deities are very simple to understand when you have a truly open mind.
3.) The multiverse
Actually this is quite fun to theorize over. The idea is sound, though I have some doubts on it. We have quite a bit of work to do before we can even say there is a multiverse, let alone what that fact would entail. (That's not to say we don't understand it, however.
4.) The true meaning and power behind infinity.
Invinity, the idea of forever. This one is, I'll admit, the most difficult one to understand. But that's not saying a lot, as we have to grasp it to understand what we already know of the Universe.
I dont believe there is a God. I don't care if you believe there is a God or not. As long as you don't try to convince me there is one (or 2 or a thousand), we'll get along just fine. Leave God out of all your conversations with me and around me. Otherwise, believe whatever you want. It doesn't affect me in any way. I just don't care.
LinkX ... by continuing to bring up Deism versus Theism are you simply trying to infer that in order for God to interact with the universe, he must therefore adhere to the laws of the universe?
I dont believe there is a God. I don't care if you believe there is a God or not. As long as you don't try to convince me there is one (or 2 or a thousand), we'll get along just fine. Leave God out of all your conversations with me and around me. Otherwise, believe whatever you want. It doesn't affect me in any way. I just don't care.
How does it not affect you?
I can only hope you are against blue laws? And I can only hope you are against teaching intelligent design in public schools? And I can only hope you are against the banning of teaching evolution in public schools? And I can only hope you are for a non-theistic democratically elected leader of the free world?
LinkX ... by continuing to bring up Deism versus Theism are you simply trying to infer that in order for God to interact with the universe, he must therefore adhere to the laws of the universe?
No, I am infering that you have given no proof that a THEISTIC god exists.
And no, I will straight up say that for any being, god or mortal, to interact with a physical object, it must be at least temporarily physical and temporarily in the realm that the physical object exists in.
So yea, your god, if it exists, must be bound by the laws of physics. Period.
Even if you take a live and let live attitude, faith still affects you to a great, great degree.
I dont believe there is a God. I don't care if you believe there is a God or not. As long as you don't try to convince me there is one (or 2 or a thousand), we'll get along just fine. Leave God out of all your conversations with me and around me. Otherwise, believe whatever you want. It doesn't affect me in any way. I just don't care.
Interesting thread to post this in... considering the topic name is " Prove to me that your God exists."
LinkX ... by continuing to bring up Deism versus Theism are you simply trying to infer that in order for God to interact with the universe, he must therefore adhere to the laws of the universe?
No, I am infering that you have given no proof that a THEISTIC god exists.
And no, I will straight up say that for any being, god or mortal, to interact with a physical object, it must be at least temporarily physical and temporarily in the realm that the physical object exists in.
You understand the fundamental concept of mainstream string theory i'm assuming, correct?
Depending on the particular theory, the universe is made up of an infinite (or near it) amount of micro folding dimensions. These dimensions "vibrate", and depending on the frequency of these vibrations determines everything in the universe including: light, quantums, quarks, gravity, etc.
If string theory is true and the universe as we know it is made up, and the laws of the universe are designing through these vibrating dimensions... then theoretically if mankin spent 100,000,000 years researching it... we might someday achieve the ability to manipulate these dimensions. By doing so we could store the information that is our conciousness in a free floating form ... processing information directly from the universe... theoretically we could manipulate the universe to our will... and quite literally be everywhere at once.
If string theory, or something similiar to it really is true... then why couldn't "god" be able to be a "living conciousness" that is essentially "part of the universe" ?
What if the Diest god in making the universe transplanted his conciousness... or a copy of it within the universe?
You understand the fundamental concept of mainstream string theory i'm assuming, correct?
I have mixed feelings about String Theory. People like Michio Kaku make it sound a lot more romantic then it really is. (Not to say he's wrong or bad, I absolutely love the guy.)
If string theory, or something similiar to it really is true... then why couldn't "god" be able to be a "living conciousness" that is essentially "part of the universe" ?
We would still be subject to the laws of the Universe. Just because the laws change doesn't mean that you can ignore them.
Likewise, any supernatural being would also be subject to the laws in exactly the same fashion.
You understand the fundamental concept of mainstream string theory i'm assuming, correct?
I have mixed feelings about String Theory. People like Michio Kaku make it sound a lot more romantic then it really is. (Not to say he's wrong or bad, I absolutely love the guy.)
If string theory, or something similiar to it really is true... then why couldn't "god" be able to be a "living conciousness" that is essentially "part of the universe" ?
We would still be subject to the laws of the Universe. Just because the laws change doesn't mean that you can ignore them.
Likewise, any supernatural being would also be subject to the laws in exactly the same fashion.
I am not denying that they would still be subject to he laws. However, think about the most recent Tron Movie. Think about how the creator made a near copy (except in god's case exact) of himself in the universe he created. This copy had the knowledge and the power to manipulate his reality, but was created by his "god" from the other reality.
Otherwise, as I understand about string theory... the governing laws of the universe (relativity, quantum dynamics, etc) are all dependant on these vibrating dimensions . If a being can gain the ability to manipulate the frequencies of these dimensions... he can manipulate the laws of the universe and therefore not adhere to them.
You understand the fundamental concept of mainstream string theory i'm assuming, correct?
I have mixed feelings about String Theory. People like Michio Kaku make it sound a lot more romantic then it really is. (Not to say he's wrong or bad, I absolutely love the guy.)
If string theory, or something similiar to it really is true... then why couldn't "god" be able to be a "living conciousness" that is essentially "part of the universe" ?
We would still be subject to the laws of the Universe. Just because the laws change doesn't mean that you can ignore them.
Likewise, any supernatural being would also be subject to the laws in exactly the same fashion.
I am not denying that they would still be subject to he laws. However, think about the most recent Tron Movie. Think about how the creator made a near copy (except in god's case exact) of himself in the universe he created. This copy had the knowledge and the power to manipulate his reality, but was created by his "god" from the other reality.
Otherwise, as I understand about string theory... the governing laws of the universe (relativity, quantum dynamics, etc) are all dependant on these vibrating dimensions . If a being can gain the ability to manipulate the frequencies of these dimensions... he can manipulate the laws of the universe and therefore not adhere to them.
I never saw Tron so I have no idea what you are talking about. Didn't seem like something that would interest me.
Also, the way I understand String Theory, you can still change the vibrations but the laws are still there, with new laws based on String Theory. It allows for more freedom, but the laws are still there and you still have to follow them.
(Kinda like speeding laws. You think the speed limit is 65, then you find another road that has a speed limit of 75. Still have to adhere to the law, but its different. Not sure if that makes sense or confuses moreso...)
When it comes down to answering your "why" question, the only thing can say without evidence or proof is: I want to believe. I want to believe the Bible is true. I want to believe my God is real.
Oh hey guys! Just dropping by to say this is a cool thread, but I guess the thread purpose is unachievable, because the whole concept of gods is they exist, watch upon us and all, but can't be seen or anything, and that "evidence" stuff doesn't even prove anything, so have fun talking
I should first state that I haven't read every page in this thread. I apologize if something similar to this has been said before.
The only reason proving God's existence would be impossible or unachievable is because God doesn't exist, especially when talking about the biblical God. It would be impossible or at the least very unlikely to prove a God from a pantheistic view, but God in the Bible is much different. Numerous times God manifests itself in or interacts with the material world. He revealed himself to an entire nation/tribe, physically handed Moses stone tablets, talks to many people, creates a demi-god (Jesus), floods the entire world, splits the worlds population into many nations, and probably many more that I am missing.
In 1 Kings there is even a test that a couple of prophets do to prove their God exists. One prophet believes in Yahweh and the other in Baal, and they call on their respective Gods to light an unlit pile of wood. Of course Yahweh's fire lights and the other doesn't, after all this is the Bible we are talking about. If the Bible is true and the word of God, could we not just call upon God in a similar fashion to prove his existance?
Looking at the Bible critically , I can see only a few possible conclusions regarding God's manifestation/interaction.
A ) The Bible isn't factual or the word of God. <----my personal choice
B ) God has been hiding and non-interactive for the last 2000+ years.
C ) He is just really sneaky??
Feel free to explain why it is not possible to prove that God exists? Maybe I am missing something.
So you want me to prove a negative? Or is this just an elaborate troll?
Normally how this would go is: You ask me to state said assumptions. I state said assumptions. Then you proceed to refute what I claim to be assumptions. And nobody comes out with a different perspective. Why bother doing the same internet bs?
Instead, being the intelligent man with 3+decades(150% of my life) of knowledge and experience I think you can figure out what I was alluding to when I said assumptions. Sure I could point them out. But that would defeat the purpose of my post saying that I wasn't going to point them out.
So, from my perspective, what about that post would seem like a vast assumption? Let's pretend for a second that I'm not a 21 year old kid and instead, a 50 year old bible scholar who knows everything there is to know about the bible and the world/culture and time period that it was written in. What problems could someone find in your post?
I think if you do this, instead of controlling and fueling an debate/argument, we can come away with a different perspective. See, I have no desire to argue and debate with people anymore. I avoid it as much as possible. I want to learn. I have no need to compete intellectually. Now, I'm not saying you do and that I'm some enlightened individual or anything like that. I just want to change shit up and do this a bit differently.
So, if you will, point out for me, what might be construed as more or less here say opinion rather than "fact".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
When it comes down to answering your "why" question, the only thing can say without evidence or proof is: I want to believe. I want to believe the Bible is true. I want to believe my God is real.
Oh hey guys! Just dropping by to say this is a cool thread, but I guess the thread purpose is unachievable, because the whole concept of gods is they exist, watch upon us and all, but can't be seen or anything, and that "evidence" stuff doesn't even prove anything, so have fun talking
I should first state that I haven't read every page in this thread. I apologize if something similar to this has been said before.
The only reason proving God's existence would be impossible or unachievable is because God doesn't exist, especially when talking about the biblical God. It would be impossible or at the least very unlikely to prove a God from a pantheistic view, but God in the Bible is much different. Numerous times God manifests itself in or interacts with the material world. He revealed himself to an entire nation/tribe, physically handed Moses stone tablets, talks to many people, creates a demi-god (Jesus), floods the entire world, splits the worlds population into many nations, and probably many more that I am missing.
In 1 Kings there is even a test that a couple of prophets do to prove their God exists. One prophet believes in Yahweh and the other in Baal, and they call on their respective Gods to light an unlit pile of wood. Of course Yahweh's fire lights and the other doesn't, after all this is the Bible we are talking about. If the Bible is true and the word of God, could we not just call upon God in a similar fashion to prove his existance?
Looking at the Bible critically , I can see only a few possible conclusions regarding God's manifestation/interaction.
A ) The Bible isn't factual or the word of God. <----my personal choice
B ) God has been hiding and non-interactive for the last 2000+ years.
C ) He is just really sneaky??
Feel free to explain why it is not possible to prove that God exists? Maybe I am missing something.
The bible is never meant to be taken literally. And the Noah's ark is almost entirely true, remember when it was written? Their version of "the world" was probably all of Jerusalem and that is about it. So technically by their writings saying it flooded the world then they are correct because they had no knowledge of the other nations of places. Just thought that was worthy of pointing out also, Since most of the bible is not meant to be taken literally but very very figuratively then we can assume these people did not interact with my god. I believe he is there, there no way for you to prove/disprove my beliefs so far so I'm sticking with he's up there. The whole bible is like a guide to life, an ethics guide for everyone if you will. Basically it just wants you to be a good respectable adult. There are some stories that pertain to God and worshiping him or following his laws, which by the way were not handed literally in tablets but spoken to Moses who then inscribed more than 600 commandments 10 of which were the most important that we follow. I believe It is my choice you do not it is your choice I respect that choice and don't want to argue I'm just stating common misconceptions about the way roman Catholics view the bible and certain bible stories. I hate the "christian" Who devoutly believe every word the bible says. It is so obvious to be taken figuratively and not literally but people blinded say it is the exact word of god which is complete bullshit. It's if anything what God wants us to act like to be peaceful and humble instead of raging savages. Allah doesn't want muslims to kill others for him so Why do they do it? they are extremist retards who don't understand their teachings simple as that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
K explain to me this if somebody shows you a car and tells you it just appear why wont you believe him you would tell him somebody build the car, But if somebody shows you the universe and tells you God made it you wont believe him. The universe is prove that God exist, Why is it that earth is just on the right spot for life.
Christian allot of people think Christian is about going to church and praying for God and reading the bible, but it is about more Christian is relationship you form between you and God, you talk to God by praying to him and he answers you by stuff that happens in your life, or you can feel the holy Spirit working in you or by reading the bible.
Another thing about Christian it totally different from any other religion. God send his ONLY Son to die for us to pay for our sins in other religions it is always about proving you are worthy going to heaven(the ones that have a heaven)all God Ask form us is to live like the bible says and to believe he exist and believe in Him, Believe his Son died for our sins.
What is said allot of Christians don't know how to learn somebody about God. They think just use the bible, but if you just use your heart and show you care about the person and you want the person not one day to go to hell and you want God to work in his life. What ever you all believe i respect that and all i ask is you respect what i believe.
I love science, but remember allot of science is based on theory what is again based on theory and not everything can be proven by it. God made the rules of the natural world. He wants us to go and discover what He made for us and learn more about Him.
No, the burden of proof does not lie on the atheist.
If you want proof, here's 50 simple ones that even a religious person should be able to grasp: http://godisimaginary.com/
If the TC is asking us to prove in a deity, I don't see what the problem is in asking him to the same thing. If in fact, it is true that there is no Creator I don't see what the problem is, he should be able to whip up the 'true' answer immediately.
and you're site is just atrocious. As a Jew I would like to dispute some of those points.
#1/2 prayer. Think of prayer as a request to your father. After all Don't we say that Gd is like our father? and sometimes your father simply says 'NO'. (On the side, the site gave examples of enormous caliber such as curing cancer, things that are life-changing to everyone. Maybe that person deserved to get sick and a simple prayer is not adequate or the answer is simply 'no', the person needed to get sick for punishment or whatever Gd decided is. If every answer was 'yes' then the world wouldn't be able to function, little kids asking for spider-man powers or a punished student asking for an injury (or death) of a teacher or what not who punished him, who in the child's eyes was mistreated, I can go on and on but I won't. ALSO - I know this is a bit superstitious, but my rabbi gave over this psalm to me to say when an object is misplaced, dozens of items I've been looking for over hours, once I say the prayer within 10minutes the item is in my hands. I am NOT using this as a refute that prayers are everything, but try the little things. especially if you're not the believer, maybe your father will be a bit more inclined to listen to you if you start of small instead of bombarding Him with such high demands) This reminds me of a joke I've heard; This man late to a meeting was circling his office looking for parking. "Gd, if You find me a spot I will give 5% of the profits to charity. No spot. 'Gd, I'll give 20% to charity! no spot. "I'll sponsor an entire fundraiser! As he pulls by a car leaves, giving him a spot, the man looks up and says 'Deals off, I found a spot'. So in other words, its what you make of it. Sometimes prayer doesn't actually cure that person of cancer but it helps the person, gives the person strength, otherwise he would have lost all hope and would've simply died due to lack of will.
#3. Jews.. yea, not saying anything about any other religion but we've been known from day 1 (sorta, or at least in our books, Adam the first man created) and we're still here.
#4. My post is long enough as it is so I don't want to go too deep, but personally I really don't see why science needs to oppose religion, I see them coinciding. Why does there need to be ONLY science, or ONLY religion, I believe that Gd created the world, and like any novelist (especially those of sci-fi or fantasy) set 'rules' for that universe. In video games or books, where magic exists, someone argues- like in the case of Diablo when the DH was announced, some complained that the crossbows needed to be reloaded and it 'broke immersion' that it had rapid fire, (I'm not here to argue this point but as an example), people who didn't care or whatever argued back 'Oh, you're okay with a wizard shooting fireballs from his fingertips but not self-reloading crossbows?' and to me that is a stupid argument, the creators of diablo made a Universe-Sanctuary, and usually the rule of thumb is that it is generally the same as our universe unless specifically noted. So the creators pointed out that a wizard CAN control the elements and conjure up a fireball yet, being that it wasn't pointed out otherwise, crossbows SHOULD work like a normal crossbow [in our world]. It might be a crude example, but Gd created the Universe and SET His own rules [of physics, of biology, of chemistry, etc] and set that into how this world works. Just because humans are of limited knowledge and things and theories are newly discovered or re-discovered and sometimes completely change or contradict old ones, is that Gd's fault? Once again, I apologize for the poor example, it is late and I can't think of something better at the moment, if it wasn't clear, the point of bringing in Diablo is that Gd created the world and created the 'blueprints' of different studies to sort of get the world to function on a set of 'rules' instead of things just being completely in disarray (which things would also be if ALL answers were answered with a 'yes', as shown in some 'crazy requests' that I brought up before.
And I can't even read the rest, besides for my post being huge as it is, reading this far proved to me that this site is crap.
But to note, if anyone else wants to have a further discuss this I am fine with that BUT I am NOT a rabbi, nor priest nor scholar, nor professor, but a simple kid who picked this up from observation and life. So I might be able to discuss some things with you, though I doubt I will have EVERY answer, or that all of them will be 100% clear
good night
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I agree with feminism. I don't think that it's right that for every dollar a man makes, a women gets 70 cents. Why do I only get 30 cents and some chick gets the rest?
As I said when Proletaria used this quote... and to reiterate the point from my last point you ignored. GOD DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ORIGIN.
If god created this universe, the laws of the universe are not necessarily applicable to him. Carl Sagan is thinking in terms of what we understand from this universe, drawing from his knowledge of this universe.
Time is something that was created and defined by God (again whatever he is). If time does not exist in whatever realm/dimension/whatever the heck you want to call in that god exists in... then there is no such thing as a beginning or an end.
Time is a proven dimension... although it is temporal, it is affected by the universe. Scientific evidence proves that the faster you get to the speed of light, the slower time moves. The same is said in the theory of relativity in the case of extreme gravity (singularitys - frame dragging - space time warping - etc).
I understand this is a hard concept to grasp, but there are a few things the human brain cannot grasp (EVER).
1.) Multiple dimensions in a non-mathematical way
2.) God
3.) The multiverse
4.) The true meaning and power behind infinity.
For that we must use other premises, already confirmed as valid and true, to deduce and not infer a possible god. Premises such as in chemistry (Lavoisier's mass conservation), thermodynamics ones (again conservation of energy within a system) and Newton's laws.
All this leaves no room for a system without energy to become, by itself, what we have now. The big-bang needs a prior state, and this one needs its own prior state.... this will go back ad infinitum and you can't have "something" from "nothing". The paradox is: unless you find an "uncreated origin" you won't be able to scientifically justify any other point as the origin.
We can't be certain about new experiments, measuring and counting methods, but logic will still be same.
It's not valueless, but since illuminism science got materialistic, it's not bad don't get me wrong in here, was the only way to evolve society, but god and soul are taboo and scientists are willingly avoiding to theorise about them even if it´s still a (as non denied) possibility, which is totally contrary to its own rule of always research.
BTW I'm not religious, I just think there's still a reasonable doubt and we can't jus blindly pick one side, any side.
This is what I've been saying all along: The universe itself without a god is a paradox. How can the universe have always existed in some form of infinite cycle when that cycle involves time? A dimension that has been proven to be a manipulatible part of the universe .. but simultaneously govern it.
In order for time (I'm setting you up Umpa) to exist, time itself must have an origin and an end (and along with it the entire universe).
If that is the case then [b]THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ORIGIN.[b]
See, I can do that caps/bold thing too.
Also, Occams Razor.
And, like I said, that is a perfectly good explanation for a DEISTIC god. But that is not a good explanation for a THEISTIC god. Unless you are a Deist, you still have a lot of work ahead of you.
It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's actually quite easy. And the older I get the easier the concept is to grasp. The problem is, however, that I'm not five years old, and I don't believe in Santa.
And again, if you are not a Deist, you still have a lot of work ahead of you proving the THEISTIC god. (I don't understand why that's a hard concept for theists to understand.)
1.) Multiple dimensions in a non-mathematical way
Multiple dimensions, as in a fourth dimension, or multiple dimensions as in multiple universe in the same space-time location.2.) God
Gods and Goddesses are very simple to understand. Whether it be a Bible, a TaNaKh, a Rede, or any other religious book or sheet, deities are very simple to understand when you have a truly open mind.3.) The multiverse
Actually this is quite fun to theorize over. The idea is sound, though I have some doubts on it. We have quite a bit of work to do before we can even say there is a multiverse, let alone what that fact would entail. (That's not to say we don't understand it, however.4.) The true meaning and power behind infinity.
Invinity, the idea of forever. This one is, I'll admit, the most difficult one to understand. But that's not saying a lot, as we have to grasp it to understand what we already know of the Universe.Why do you have faith though?
I dont believe there is a God. I don't care if you believe there is a God or not. As long as you don't try to convince me there is one (or 2 or a thousand), we'll get along just fine. Leave God out of all your conversations with me and around me. Otherwise, believe whatever you want. It doesn't affect me in any way. I just don't care.
How does it not affect you?
I can only hope you are against blue laws? And I can only hope you are against teaching intelligent design in public schools? And I can only hope you are against the banning of teaching evolution in public schools? And I can only hope you are for a non-theistic democratically elected leader of the free world?
No, I am infering that you have given no proof that a THEISTIC god exists.
And no, I will straight up say that for any being, god or mortal, to interact with a physical object, it must be at least temporarily physical and temporarily in the realm that the physical object exists in.
So yea, your god, if it exists, must be bound by the laws of physics. Period.
Even if you take a live and let live attitude, faith still affects you to a great, great degree.
Interesting thread to post this in... considering the topic name is " Prove to me that your God exists."
Do a little Peyote, hot damn, there he is again FIST BUMP, DEUCES UUUUP!
for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
You understand the fundamental concept of mainstream string theory i'm assuming, correct?
Depending on the particular theory, the universe is made up of an infinite (or near it) amount of micro folding dimensions. These dimensions "vibrate", and depending on the frequency of these vibrations determines everything in the universe including: light, quantums, quarks, gravity, etc.
If string theory is true and the universe as we know it is made up, and the laws of the universe are designing through these vibrating dimensions... then theoretically if mankin spent 100,000,000 years researching it... we might someday achieve the ability to manipulate these dimensions. By doing so we could store the information that is our conciousness in a free floating form ... processing information directly from the universe... theoretically we could manipulate the universe to our will... and quite literally be everywhere at once.
If string theory, or something similiar to it really is true... then why couldn't "god" be able to be a "living conciousness" that is essentially "part of the universe" ?
What if the Diest god in making the universe transplanted his conciousness... or a copy of it within the universe?
I have mixed feelings about String Theory. People like Michio Kaku make it sound a lot more romantic then it really is. (Not to say he's wrong or bad, I absolutely love the guy.)
We would still be subject to the laws of the Universe. Just because the laws change doesn't mean that you can ignore them.
Likewise, any supernatural being would also be subject to the laws in exactly the same fashion.
I am not denying that they would still be subject to he laws. However, think about the most recent Tron Movie. Think about how the creator made a near copy (except in god's case exact) of himself in the universe he created. This copy had the knowledge and the power to manipulate his reality, but was created by his "god" from the other reality.
Otherwise, as I understand about string theory... the governing laws of the universe (relativity, quantum dynamics, etc) are all dependant on these vibrating dimensions . If a being can gain the ability to manipulate the frequencies of these dimensions... he can manipulate the laws of the universe and therefore not adhere to them.
I never saw Tron so I have no idea what you are talking about. Didn't seem like something that would interest me.
Also, the way I understand String Theory, you can still change the vibrations but the laws are still there, with new laws based on String Theory. It allows for more freedom, but the laws are still there and you still have to follow them.
(Kinda like speeding laws. You think the speed limit is 65, then you find another road that has a speed limit of 75. Still have to adhere to the law, but its different. Not sure if that makes sense or confuses moreso...)
I should first state that I haven't read every page in this thread. I apologize if something similar to this has been said before.
The only reason proving God's existence would be impossible or unachievable is because God doesn't exist, especially when talking about the biblical God. It would be impossible or at the least very unlikely to prove a God from a pantheistic view, but God in the Bible is much different. Numerous times God manifests itself in or interacts with the material world. He revealed himself to an entire nation/tribe, physically handed Moses stone tablets, talks to many people, creates a demi-god (Jesus), floods the entire world, splits the worlds population into many nations, and probably many more that I am missing.
In 1 Kings there is even a test that a couple of prophets do to prove their God exists. One prophet believes in Yahweh and the other in Baal, and they call on their respective Gods to light an unlit pile of wood. Of course Yahweh's fire lights and the other doesn't, after all this is the Bible we are talking about. If the Bible is true and the word of God, could we not just call upon God in a similar fashion to prove his existance?
Looking at the Bible critically , I can see only a few possible conclusions regarding God's manifestation/interaction.
A ) The Bible isn't factual or the word of God. <----my personal choice
B ) God has been hiding and non-interactive for the last 2000+ years.
C ) He is just really sneaky??
Feel free to explain why it is not possible to prove that God exists? Maybe I am missing something.
Normally how this would go is: You ask me to state said assumptions. I state said assumptions. Then you proceed to refute what I claim to be assumptions. And nobody comes out with a different perspective. Why bother doing the same internet bs?
Instead, being the intelligent man with 3+decades(150% of my life) of knowledge and experience I think you can figure out what I was alluding to when I said assumptions. Sure I could point them out. But that would defeat the purpose of my post saying that I wasn't going to point them out.
So, from my perspective, what about that post would seem like a vast assumption? Let's pretend for a second that I'm not a 21 year old kid and instead, a 50 year old bible scholar who knows everything there is to know about the bible and the world/culture and time period that it was written in. What problems could someone find in your post?
I think if you do this, instead of controlling and fueling an debate/argument, we can come away with a different perspective. See, I have no desire to argue and debate with people anymore. I avoid it as much as possible. I want to learn. I have no need to compete intellectually. Now, I'm not saying you do and that I'm some enlightened individual or anything like that. I just want to change shit up and do this a bit differently.
So, if you will, point out for me, what might be construed as more or less here say opinion rather than "fact".
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
The bible is never meant to be taken literally. And the Noah's ark is almost entirely true, remember when it was written? Their version of "the world" was probably all of Jerusalem and that is about it. So technically by their writings saying it flooded the world then they are correct because they had no knowledge of the other nations of places. Just thought that was worthy of pointing out also, Since most of the bible is not meant to be taken literally but very very figuratively then we can assume these people did not interact with my god. I believe he is there, there no way for you to prove/disprove my beliefs so far so I'm sticking with he's up there. The whole bible is like a guide to life, an ethics guide for everyone if you will. Basically it just wants you to be a good respectable adult. There are some stories that pertain to God and worshiping him or following his laws, which by the way were not handed literally in tablets but spoken to Moses who then inscribed more than 600 commandments 10 of which were the most important that we follow. I believe It is my choice you do not it is your choice I respect that choice and don't want to argue I'm just stating common misconceptions about the way roman Catholics view the bible and certain bible stories. I hate the "christian" Who devoutly believe every word the bible says. It is so obvious to be taken figuratively and not literally but people blinded say it is the exact word of god which is complete bullshit. It's if anything what God wants us to act like to be peaceful and humble instead of raging savages. Allah doesn't want muslims to kill others for him so Why do they do it? they are extremist retards who don't understand their teachings simple as that.
Christian allot of people think Christian is about going to church and praying for God and reading the bible, but it is about more Christian is relationship you form between you and God, you talk to God by praying to him and he answers you by stuff that happens in your life, or you can feel the holy Spirit working in you or by reading the bible.
Another thing about Christian it totally different from any other religion. God send his ONLY Son to die for us to pay for our sins in other religions it is always about proving you are worthy going to heaven(the ones that have a heaven)all God Ask form us is to live like the bible says and to believe he exist and believe in Him, Believe his Son died for our sins.
What is said allot of Christians don't know how to learn somebody about God. They think just use the bible, but if you just use your heart and show you care about the person and you want the person not one day to go to hell and you want God to work in his life. What ever you all believe i respect that and all i ask is you respect what i believe.
I love science, but remember allot of science is based on theory what is again based on theory and not everything can be proven by it. God made the rules of the natural world. He wants us to go and discover what He made for us and learn more about Him.
If the TC is asking us to prove in a deity, I don't see what the problem is in asking him to the same thing. If in fact, it is true that there is no Creator I don't see what the problem is, he should be able to whip up the 'true' answer immediately.
and you're site is just atrocious. As a Jew I would like to dispute some of those points.
#1/2 prayer. Think of prayer as a request to your father. After all Don't we say that Gd is like our father? and sometimes your father simply says 'NO'. (On the side, the site gave examples of enormous caliber such as curing cancer, things that are life-changing to everyone. Maybe that person deserved to get sick and a simple prayer is not adequate or the answer is simply 'no', the person needed to get sick for punishment or whatever Gd decided is. If every answer was 'yes' then the world wouldn't be able to function, little kids asking for spider-man powers or a punished student asking for an injury (or death) of a teacher or what not who punished him, who in the child's eyes was mistreated, I can go on and on but I won't. ALSO - I know this is a bit superstitious, but my rabbi gave over this psalm to me to say when an object is misplaced, dozens of items I've been looking for over hours, once I say the prayer within 10minutes the item is in my hands. I am NOT using this as a refute that prayers are everything, but try the little things. especially if you're not the believer, maybe your father will be a bit more inclined to listen to you if you start of small instead of bombarding Him with such high demands) This reminds me of a joke I've heard; This man late to a meeting was circling his office looking for parking. "Gd, if You find me a spot I will give 5% of the profits to charity. No spot. 'Gd, I'll give 20% to charity! no spot. "I'll sponsor an entire fundraiser! As he pulls by a car leaves, giving him a spot, the man looks up and says 'Deals off, I found a spot'. So in other words, its what you make of it. Sometimes prayer doesn't actually cure that person of cancer but it helps the person, gives the person strength, otherwise he would have lost all hope and would've simply died due to lack of will.
#3. Jews.. yea, not saying anything about any other religion but we've been known from day 1 (sorta, or at least in our books, Adam the first man created) and we're still here.
#4. My post is long enough as it is so I don't want to go too deep, but personally I really don't see why science needs to oppose religion, I see them coinciding. Why does there need to be ONLY science, or ONLY religion, I believe that Gd created the world, and like any novelist (especially those of sci-fi or fantasy) set 'rules' for that universe. In video games or books, where magic exists, someone argues- like in the case of Diablo when the DH was announced, some complained that the crossbows needed to be reloaded and it 'broke immersion' that it had rapid fire, (I'm not here to argue this point but as an example), people who didn't care or whatever argued back 'Oh, you're okay with a wizard shooting fireballs from his fingertips but not self-reloading crossbows?' and to me that is a stupid argument, the creators of diablo made a Universe-Sanctuary, and usually the rule of thumb is that it is generally the same as our universe unless specifically noted. So the creators pointed out that a wizard CAN control the elements and conjure up a fireball yet, being that it wasn't pointed out otherwise, crossbows SHOULD work like a normal crossbow [in our world]. It might be a crude example, but Gd created the Universe and SET His own rules [of physics, of biology, of chemistry, etc] and set that into how this world works. Just because humans are of limited knowledge and things and theories are newly discovered or re-discovered and sometimes completely change or contradict old ones, is that Gd's fault? Once again, I apologize for the poor example, it is late and I can't think of something better at the moment, if it wasn't clear, the point of bringing in Diablo is that Gd created the world and created the 'blueprints' of different studies to sort of get the world to function on a set of 'rules' instead of things just being completely in disarray (which things would also be if ALL answers were answered with a 'yes', as shown in some 'crazy requests' that I brought up before.
And I can't even read the rest, besides for my post being huge as it is, reading this far proved to me that this site is crap.
But to note, if anyone else wants to have a further discuss this I am fine with that BUT I am NOT a rabbi, nor priest nor scholar, nor professor, but a simple kid who picked this up from observation and life. So I might be able to discuss some things with you, though I doubt I will have EVERY answer, or that all of them will be 100% clear
good night