waterdog

Proof of God's Existence

Recommended Posts

i found this on a website. it proves the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible.:

I'm curious, would you mind providing a link the website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read Scientific American please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Ape,

Assumptions and premises:  the universe and all that is in it.  Thus,

Conclusion: ...

There is no logical conclusion that follows from the universe and everything in it.  Hence, the universe and everything in it isn't really evidence, is it?

Ah but it is evidence of the most substantial sort! It is evidence of reality. It is evidence that you and I exist. The existance of the universe is evidence that there was indeed a big bang. It is evidence of creation (note the lower case "c" in creation).

Science accepts / theorizes that everything has a beginning and an end does it not? And therefore the Universe, in that it exists, must have had a begining musn't it?

You must accept that the universe was created by something or someone. Otherwise you are at direct odds with science. Because the only alternative view to it having been created is that it has always been and always will be. And science tells us this is just not possible and is certainly not the case.

Rosenberg, you have quite mistaken what I am trying to accomplish with my comments.  I understand faith -- as jtr mentioned, it isn't really foreign to anyone who believes in something that has no complete explanation.  In addition, I understand religious faith, which is different in my mind from faith in science -- I've had this discussion with fool; I consider faith in science as "confidence" because we can rate our "faith" based on our ability to use theories to predict future outcomes given certain circumstances, whereas religious faith is, to me, having 100% confidence in an idea that has no verifiable predictive ability whatsoever (hence, my definition of faith as "knowledge without evidence").

My comment regarding your lack of faith was in reference to a faith in God only. Again, the creation of the universe has no complete scientific explanation. You cannot be confident in anything about it with the exception of the big bang theory. But then we simply move to the next level in our thinking and ask what is it that caused the big bang? And who or what was that created the matter to "bang" in the first place? Science cannot answer these latter two questions. And so there are no grounds really at all for you to feel any more confident with science than you do with religion when it comes to the creation of the universe.

think there is a fundamental problem with the concept "trust" here.  By trusting something, you are placing your faith in it (not your confidence, as that is knowledge).  You argue that by trusting, I will gain faith.  But to trust in the first place, I need to have faith.  Trust is not the means to the end, but rather the end itself, it would seem.

No you don't need to have faith to trust. What you need is courage and the willingness to try it. Nothing else is required. Faith and trust will come in time. And fear will leave. You have to take chances if you wish to grow.

I am of the opinion that on strictly logical grounds, trusting that god exists or not doing so are equally ambiguous.  So why not just trust?  Why not place my trust in a higher being?  Well, for starters, which higher being (or beings) should I choose?  I mean, if I'm going to place my trust in something with no evidence whatsoever, surely you don't expect me to try and reason out which set of principles to trust.  Does god care?  Does god punish?  Has god even been present since the Beginning?  Do I trust god, or do I merely trust that god has existed, or exists?  I'm certainly willing to believe that there is something beyond our understanding, but what should I believe it is?

You don't have to place your trust or faith in anything if don't wish to. I am not trying to convert you here. But to answer your question, it doesn't really matter which "higher beings" you use. Does God care? Certainly in my opinion he does. And more importantly on a more more personal level, those who have faith in him know that he cares specifically for them.

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

confession is not an easy way out. if you're not sorry but you go and confess anyway, i dont think that you have done anything for yourself. you have to be sorry to be forgiven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be carefull with your words Gurl:

"if you're not sorry but you go and confess anyway"

Sometimes a man wants to confess to get it of his chest, to clear his mind, to feel better.

That does not mean he is sorry.

You know the : " i did something wrong, so i must confess...." option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did "god" come from?  Who created him/her/it?

HMTK,

I have no idea.

Rosenberg

Since Rosenberg cannot help you King, i will:

"Who created him". Jesus Christ himself......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God did not come from anything. He is the Unmoved Mover

Oh... So it's impossible that the universe has always existed, exploding and imploding time and again but god has always been. Please tell me why this isn't hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you sure that verse is correct?  Matthew 5:18 reads (from KJV):

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Given the context of that passage, I'd say Jesus is talking about the Law (the Jewish Law, by which Jews had to live to maintain their convenant with god and work towards shalom, if I am remembering my limited religious education correctly).  Keep this idea in mind -- I'll get back to it in a moment.

An alternative interpretation, and more believable in light of the book as a whole, is that Christ fulfilled the Law on his resurrection. This was prophesied many times in the old testament.

This is patently false.  There are many historical documents far, far more verfiable than the Bible.  However, for the period of history it covers, you may be right (and I suspect that is what you really meant).  Archaeology has not disproved anything in the Bible, to my knowledge.  However, it has thus far lent pretty much zero evidence to the more spiritual issues in the Bible.  There are no first-hand accounts of any of the spiritual events in the Bible -- it is told at best by people who spoke with people who saw it.  This is from the perspective of a "historical text."

Define "spiritual issues"? Based on the context I would assume that you would accept first hand accounts of miracles as spiritual issues. Or perhaps a personal explaination of a parable?

The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2 & 3 John and Revelations are understood to be written by people who knew Jesus personally. My memory is iffy on James. IIRC, some believe this was Jesus' brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I'm more easily "sold" on a scientific track is that science is trying to advance our knowledge, while religion is holding it back. Scientists are currently trying to answer the questions about the origin of the universe that we are asking, and I'm pretty sure they won't come back to us in 1000 years and say "god did it". While religious leaders are pointing to a book finnished at least 500 years ago. Why aren't there more books? Why isn't the vatican cranking out the books of fred, todd, and amy (ooooh, a female).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
confession is not an easy way out. if you're not sorry but you go and confess anyway, i dont think that you have done anything for yourself.  you have to be sorry to be forgiven.

IMHO it is an easy way out. Just being sorry isn't enough in the eyes of the people, so making it enough in the eyes of God is a sales pitch for the church. It clearly is the more attractive option for sinners. And I do mean people who are honestly sorry for their sins, not those who pay lip-service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to explain the "lip-service" thing, Ddrueding1 :D  :D

You are a sick, sick man.....(just like me ;))

lip-service is an expresion meaning someone who preaches, but doesn't have true faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God did not come from anything. He is the Unmoved Mover

Oh... So it's impossible that the universe has always existed, exploding and imploding time and again but god has always been. Please tell me why this isn't hypocrisy.

HMTK,

Ah but it is not Rosenberg who says it is impossible for God to have always been. For you see it is only science which says everything must have a begginning and must have an end. It is not Rosenberg who says this.

And the cycle you describe regarding the unviverse, as with everything else, must have had a begining according to science.

So there is no hypocricy, only a misunderstanding on your part.

Rosenberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But science does not require a beggining as you suggest. The conservation of mass is a fundamental rule, and dictates that all that is now is all that has ever been, and all that will ever be. It may change size, temperature, or chemical composition, but it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely its the conservation of energy, although one could argue that, in light of deltaE=deltaMC^2, the two terms are synonymous, I always found* it more useful to think of mass as being a subset of energy.

*I say found as were I forced to name my faith I would probably respond with a cold look and the words lapsed reductionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely its the conservation of energy, although one could argue that, in light of deltaE=deltaMC^2, the two terms are synonymous, I always found* it more useful to think of mass as being a subset of energy.

*I say found as were I forced to name my faith I would probably respond with a cold look and the words lapsed reductionist.

Indeed, but I still think of it the other way 'round. Consider the concept of potential energy in a gravitational field. It's far easier to "eyeball" it starting with the mass. I am but a simple person :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While personally I don't mind looking in the mirror and thinking that Me and my abilities are all that enable my existance, thinking that there might be an outside force or being that has some control over your existance may offer hope or escape to those unable to deal with hopelessness.

I have a problem with god creating everything because something would have to create god first.

I have a problem with everything just always being here, because at some point there had to be nothing.

Now, the hopeless part is that something can't come from nothing.

If something can't come from nothing, then I must still be nothing.

I don't expect to see a solution to the problem in my lifetime, and don't think people chasing the start of the universe scientifically is a bad Idea, because they are finding much useable and useful information. I also don't care about religion explaining creationism, but I do think it is harmful to have one religious leader forcing doctrine on a whole state/country/world.

If we don't search for the start of the universe scientifically there will likely never be an explanation for the connection between gravity and magnetism. This is just an off the wall example that comes to mind because I had a college professor who spent his entire life searching for the gravity-magnetism connection/equation.

Science has cured and prevented more diseases that religion has, so I believe in it.

I simply refuse to believe just because I cannot explain something rationally that an imaginary deity has to be involved....I can accect that I do not possess the mental facilities to understand everything.

cass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But science does not require a beggining as you suggest. The conservation of mass is a fundamental rule, and dictates that all that is now is all that has ever been, and all that will ever be. It may change size, temperature, or chemical composition, but it is.

Well help an old man out here. Does not science believe that all matter exists only within our universe? Can we or they do anything more than guess when in comes to matters outside of our own universe? I think not. Therefore the law of conservation of energy and matter relate only to, and perhaps exist only within our universe does it not? Hence, prior to the big bang there was no matter correct? Or wrong? If wrong, where was the matter used to create the universe prior to the big bang? That is, where was it physically located? In a previous universe which imploded? If so can we really say with any certainty that this previous unviverse was "our universe" in a different form which had the same laws as this one? How could know such things? Furthermore does not the big bang theory specifically state that prior to the big bang there was "nothingness"? That it was the result of a "quantum fluctuation"? Does that not discount the possibility that a prior universe existed?

I do not see how on the one hand science can state the "law of conservation of matter and energy" while in the other hand propose the "big bang theory". They seems at odds with one another. If the big bang threory as I understand it is correct then it would seem to be the beginning of all, including all matter, as we know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, The work that brought Hawking to prominence was his proof (along with someone whose name I embarrassingly forget) that time is/was concomitant with the big bang. In which case one cannot apply the concept of “before” to any events in some way prior to the big bang. So yes the big bang is "the beginning of all, including all matter, as we know it." but also the beginning of time as we know it.

FWIW, to my mind the chief attraction of a "scientific" worldview, as opposed to a " religious" worldview, is that the former states; This is what we know, to within these limits, and we're working on the rest.

The latter; This is how it is, end of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you will permit me, I quote the following interesting work which is very relevent to what we are discussing;

INTRODUCTION

We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.

We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.

Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being. It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.

THE BIG BANG

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.

In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.

DEEP THOUGHTS

It is extremely difficult to separate this subject of science from daily existential pondering. Everyone at some point in time has grappled with the question of why we are here? Some have found refuge in the sheer philosophic nature of this question while others have taken a more scientific approach. These particular wanderers have taken the question to a higher level, concentrating not only on human existence but the existence of everything we know as real.

If you sit and try to imagine the whole of the entire universe it would be mind-boggling. However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. It is easy to get caught up in the large scale of the issue in discussing years by the billions, yet, this time still passes. As we travel through our own lives here on Earth, we also travel through the life of our universe.

In this chapter, we have made some attempts to explain this journey. It is odd that we will never truly know how it began. We can only speculate and give our best guess. Through our own devices we have been able to produce evidence that these guesses are close to the truth. But centuries from now, will the human race compare us to those who once thought of the Earth as the center of the universe?

I apologize for the length. Here is a link to the source of both quotations - http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now