Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[Photonic]

I am assuming your talking about electrons, which are energy, which as I have been stating seems to have an intellect of their own which they have used to "shape" the universe since the beginning.

I also assume your talking about M-theory. M-theory tends to relate to inner dimensions not much different than our own. How could our M-verse keep everything similar if their wasn't a consciousness behind it in order to remember it or at least explain it between dimensions?

I would advise reading this before continuing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

 

[Pozessed]

I would advise reading this before continuing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

TY I always appreciate information.

 

[McBell]

All you are doing is announcing that you are ignorant, therefore you are right.

For some people not only is that enough, but they are actually proud of it.
especially if they can convince themselves that god supports their willful ignorance.

 

[Photonic]

For some people not only is that enough, but they are actually proud of it.
especially if they can convince themselves that god supports their willful ignorance.

I don't think I could adequately describe how dangerous such a mindset truly is.

 

[McBell]

I don't think I could adequately describe how dangerous such a mindset truly is.

I had a signature a while back that went something like:

I would rather be with one hypocrite, myself, than in a group of hypocrites arguing over whose hypocrisy is sanctioned by god.
​

 

[otokage007]

Oh, so you must have a new theory that you are developing, and that is to suggest that the dogs of today are not descendents of the grey wolf. See if you can get this theory in to a science journal.

Large scale evolution is a myth too. Unless you see an animal produce a different kind of animal, lets just call it a myth for now.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Being the animal lover that I am, and all of the wild discovery/national geographic I've watched and read, I've never seen anything otherwise.

I think evolution goes against Christian theology. The bible say that God man made in his own image, but I don't think this is possible if humans are here do to the evolutionary process of ape to man. Makes no sense. Second, even if someone does believe in God and the ToE, at least they believe that an Intelligent Designer was in charge of the process, and not that mindless and blind process that can't see or think being the originator of intelligent beings that are able to think and see.

Yes it does. Perhaps maybe it is you that should read up on evolution.

Yeah, a different species within the kind, different kind of animal. I don't think you understand the distinction, unfortunately.

Yeah nice straw man.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In quantum mechanics, an event can be it's own cause, which in turn is it's own effect. So yes. It happens INSIDE the known universe too.

To make this clearer, an effect in quantum mechanics can come BEFORE the cause.

As I stated before, there are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum physics and no one knows which one is correct, and this whole "something from nothing" concept is only one interpretation out of 10...and there is no reason to think that this interpretation is true as opposed to the other 9 or so. Second, even under this interpretation, those virtual particles are not nothing, but a sea of fluctuating energy within the vacuum, and the particles are physical structures and govern by physical law. Third, if these particles within quantum mechanics does come from nothing, then why doesn't any and everything pop in to being from nothing??? The state of "nothingness" doesn't have any pre-existing conditions that allow only virtual particles to come from nothing, so why not anything? Why not horses? Why not cars? Why not money.

So this whole "something from nothing" stuff is a distortion of the word "nothing". The vacuum is not nothing. The particles are not nothing. The state of "nothingness" has no properties because there is nothing there for properties to be had. It never fails, quantum physics is always the naturalist "last resort"....and they actually believe that something can come from nothing, but yet they make it seem as if it is so absurd to believe in God, but it is ok to believe that nothing can produce something. It blows my mind.

 

[PolyHedral]

So this whole "something from nothing" stuff is a distortion of the word "nothing". The vacuum is not nothing. The particles are not nothing. The state of "nothingness" has no properties because there is nothing there for properties to be had. It never fails, quantum physics is always the naturalist "last resort"....and they actually believe that something can come from nothing, but yet they make it seem as if it is so absurd to believe in God, but it is ok to believe that nothing can produce something. It blows my mind.

In that case, there never was nothing. The universe has always been here.

 

[ArtieE]

The state of "nothingness" doesn't have any pre-existing conditions that allow only virtual particles to come from nothing, so why not anything? Why not horses? Why not cars? Why not money.

Why not universes?

So this whole "something from nothing" stuff is a distortion of the word "nothing". The vacuum is not nothing. The particles are not nothing. The state of "nothingness" has no properties because there is nothing there for properties to be had. It never fails, quantum physics is always the naturalist "last resort"....

Quantum physics is based in reality. The last resort of a theist is always one or more gods.

and they actually believe that something can come from nothing, but yet they make it seem as if it is so absurd to believe in God,

Here are 108 creator gods since it's not absurd to believe in gods I assume you believe in all of them then?

 

[Photonic]

As I stated before, there are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum physics and no one knows which one is correct, and this whole "something from nothing" concept is only one interpretation out of 10...and there is no reason to think that this interpretation is true as opposed to the other 9 or so. Second, even under this interpretation, those virtual particles are not nothing, but a sea of fluctuating energy within the vacuum, and the particles are physical structures and govern by physical law. Third, if these particles within quantum mechanics does come from nothing, then why doesn't any and everything pop in to being from nothing??? The state of "nothingness" doesn't have any pre-existing conditions that allow only virtual particles to come from nothing, so why not anything? Why not horses? Why not cars? Why not money.

So this whole "something from nothing" stuff is a distortion of the word "nothing". The vacuum is not nothing. The particles are not nothing. The state of "nothingness" has no properties because there is nothing there for properties to be had. It never fails, quantum physics is always the naturalist "last resort"....and they actually believe that something can come from nothing, but yet they make it seem as if it is so absurd to believe in God, but it is ok to believe that nothing can produce something. It blows my mind.

Dunning

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In that case, there never was nothing. The universe has always been here.

But we already have evidence that it wasn't........next.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Dunning

As it is evident, it is awful hard to have a rebuttal for the truth

 

[McBell]

As it is evident, it is awful hard to have a rebuttal for the truth

:biglaugh:

 

[PolyHedral]

But we already have evidence that it wasn't........next.

We have evidence that it began. This isn't the same thing.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We have evidence that it began. This isn't the same thing.

Either the cause of had to be natural, or supernatural....and a natural cause would give rise to the infinity problem that no one on here or anywhere seem to be able to refute.

 

[PolyHedral]

Either the cause of had to be natural, or supernatural....and a natural cause would give rise to the infinity problem that no one on here or anywhere seem to be able to refute.

What's wrong with an infinite recurrence?

 

[idav]

Either the cause of had to be natural, or supernatural....and a natural cause would give rise to the infinity problem that no one on here or anywhere seem to be able to refute.

Saying it was just supernatural/magic gives rise to another sort of problem. Natural means matter and energy naturally exist without having to invoke the supernatural.

 

[otokage007]

:biglaugh:

please lemme join you.

:biglaugh:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What's wrong with an infinite recurrence?

If you add to infinity, you still have infinity...if you subtract from infinity, you still have infinity. This is absurd, because anytime you add to something you are supposed to have more, and when you subtract you are supposed to have less. This is the problem of infinity, it doesn't exist in reality, it only exist in our mind as a concept, but this concept cannot actually exist in reality.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Saying it was just supernatural/magic gives rise to another sort of problem. Natural means matter and energy naturally exist without having to invoke the supernatural.

Well, when you identify the problem, let me know.