Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Thief]

last weekend I watched scientists........describe the universe......
as bubbles

and some of these bubbles are soooooooooooooo far away
the light hasn't reached us yet

 

[ratiocinator]

ok....just for fun.....

explain...manifold

hehehehehe

Why don't you do some homework?

Spacetime - Wikipedia
Manifold - Wikipedia

In this context it's a mathematical model of space and time combined. Its geometry at any point is defined by a metric (which is a rank 2 tensor, if you're interested) from which we can calculate the line element. It's changes in geometry that explain gravity and the expansion of the universe.

 

[Thief]

explain gravity

post this much as a topic........

 

[F1fan]

The response I expected.

Thanks.

Let me ask you a question that maybe you could answer so that I can understand your epistemology.

Do you believe in a method of infinite regression of answers when it comes to the question I asked about the universe or since you mentioned energy always existed that the Big Bang model has a flaw in it or/and how the expanding universe at a critical manner enough to avoid a crunch or a collapse?

Apart from what I've already written I defer to experts in cosmology and physics to explain the nature of the known universe. I don't have any particular belief about it one way of the other.

Only if you explain your position on this "AT LEAST" one could even engage with you. If you just resort to another ad hominem it is impossible.

I've b\given an answer to the best of my knowledge. If that isn't enough for you then that's it. Why don't you give us your answer if you have one that differs from mine or has better details from experts in science that I am not aware of.

I'm not sure how your questions are relevant to the topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

hehehehehe

So that was your plan all along.

 

[firedragon]

Apart from what I've already written I defer to experts in cosmology and physics to explain the nature of the known universe. I don't have any particular belief about it one way of the other.



I've b\given an answer to the best of my knowledge. If that isn't enough for you then that's it. Why don't you give us your answer if you have one that differs from mine or has better details from experts in science that I am not aware of.

I'm not sure how your questions are relevant to the topic.

No answer.

Heres the question.

Do you believe in a method of infinite regression of answers when it comes to the question I asked about the universe or since you mentioned energy always existed that the Big Bang model has a flaw in it or/and how the expanding universe at a critical manner enough to avoid a crunch or a collapse?

 

[F1fan]

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is evidence that indicates that my beliefs are true, and if they are true that means God exists.[/.quote]
Then present the facts and the logical, unbiased conclusion that a God exists. Thus far I see you interpreting facts as if a God exists. For example I see people say that a sunrise proves God exists, or the feeling of seeing a sunrise proves God exists. No, a sunrise proves our planet is spinning and a new day is dawning where the witness is. At the same time it's sunset for other witnesses, or the middle of the afternoon. The "eye of the beholder" is a serious liability for those who interpret mundane things as evidence of God.

The evidence is the Messengers of God. Nobody can ever prove that God sent those Messengers and that is why it is a religious belief rather than a fact. However, there are facts about the Messengers that indicate that they were sent by God.

There are no actual facts that support this. There is your BELIEF there are facts. Again it's your interpretation that is coloring your conclusion.

No, I am not saying the hijackers had authentic evidence. The authentic evidence would be the Qur’an but since they twisted the meaning it then ceased to be evidence at all.

See what I mean?

This is why people who have no interest in a God existing is who we should listen to and not believers who have a huge meaning investment in a God existing.

As long as you get caught up in what happened to other people you will never be able to proceed on your own spiritual path. It is irrelevant what happened to people who have false beliefs, all that matters is that you do not fool end up with false beliefs. If you cannot trust yourself to recognize truth from falsehood then that is another matter.

You're warning people not to accept religious things they hear from others in their social experience. That's why I'm an atheist. I followed my own path. That is how I'm free of the limits of religious belief.

It is not odd at all because the people who already believe a God exists believe that because they looked at the evidence God provided.

If you assume a God exists you will find out it does, and that it provided evidence. That is how bias works. If a God exists and provides evidence then non-bleievrs will recognize it. They don't.

You are absolutely right, God knows what it would take to convince nonbelievers, but God has no need to convince nonbelievers since God does not need their belief, so God does not do what it would take to convince them. Another reason God does not do what it would take to convince them is because God wants them to come to believe by looking at the evidence He provided.

Almost as if a God doesn't exist.

 

[F1fan]

It depends how you vew or see faith.

I see religious faith as the behavior of accepting selected religious concepts for meaning and to conform to these social norms. It is non-rational and appeals to the emotions.

 

[Thief]

I see religious faith as the behavior of accepting selected religious concepts for meaning and to conform to these social norms. It is non-rational and appeals to the emotions.

have you read Thomas Aquinas?

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps you should link to an actual (science) source that describes what you're on about. The 'radius' could be the scale factor or perhaps the Hubble radius.



I have done.



It's too incoherent. You seem to be talking about things you don't understand.

Please read on the hot Big Bang model.

Rest are rhetoric.

 

[F1fan]

have you read Thomas Aquinas?

Back in college.

Have you read Wilfred Cantrell Smith? I found his writing on faith pretty interesting from a theological perspective.

 

[firedragon]

I see religious faith as the behavior of accepting selected religious concepts for meaning and to conform to these social norms. It is non-rational and appeals to the emotions.

Scripts. Just like religious zealots.

 

[Thief]

Back in college.

Have you read Wilfred Cantrell Smith? I found his writing on faith pretty interesting from a theological perspective.

high school for me....

but I will take a look at Wilfred

 

[ratiocinator]

Please read on the hot Big Bang model.

I have done. The point is that you clearly don't understand - otherwise you wouldn't have started an 'argument' talking about the centre and edge of the universe and its radius.

I'm happy to talk about whatever you want in cosmology but your post made very little sense. So how about you start with a reference to what you actually mean by the centre, edge and radius of the universe?

The 10^10^123 figure is about volumes in phase space (Chapter 2.6 in Cycles of Time where it's actually given as 10^10^124), that is, it's about entropy and the condition he introduces to (direct quote) "characterize the very special nature of the Big Bang" is the vanishing of the Weyl tensor.

You also mention the critical expansion rate but then jump off into infinite regression for no readily apparent reason. It looks like a very confused version of some type of fine tuning argument.

 

[Thief]

the bio found in Wiki seems to say Wilfred had argument with everyday terms
such as religion

and here we are

 

[Thief]

infinite regression

regression is not infinite

in the beginning ......Someone had to be First

 

[Link]

After reading a bunch of post this past week, I've decided to create this thread and list all the evidence I found for a god existing and all the evidence for a god not existing.

For a god existing the evidence is...

For a god not existing the evidence is...


There you have it. Look all the evidence over. Compare all the evidence, debate it and see what you come up with. No need to thank me. Its all in a weeks work

There are 8 type of signs (proofs) of God, as for miracles and the reality of the day of judgment are hidden from public view. As for miracles not being in public view, it's a huge problem, requires a wise explanation, and the Quran shows why miracles would be in the public view, and why they would be hidden..

To be short, if those ******* generations born from the devil fought their low desires, fought Iblis, and submitted tot God's proofs and the miracles they offered which are both a proof of themselves and their authority, and God and his authority, we would still have miracles in public and probably all be blessed and ruled by a holy king from God.

As for the generations of the past of the Shiites, who failed to help the Imams, and to this day, we ought to choose a different path and improve, taking from them guidance but leaving what misguidance and blindness they upon.

Why do I bring this up, because, the the type of intellectual proofs for God and his religion and scripture type miracle eloquence, doesn't convince all humans. We need miracles to come back, but in a state which humans are ready to receive God's Messenger when he performs the miracles. You aren't convinced, and we all know it maybe that if miracles were presented, you wouldn't be stubborn and reject the leader performing it as proofs from God to his authority and a proof for God and his Lordship.

At the end, the test of faith and disbelief, is extremely complicated as Islam is in a severely corrupted state, and miracles are not in the open because of the legacy of generations that reject the signs, and created a culture of hostility towards the truth and God's chosen and their beleivers.

This is the longest and darkest of dark times, it's indeed it is dark times when children laugh at the concept of magic and people don't know the sorcery that afflicts their minds, stealing their wits.

 

[ratiocinator]

regression is not infinite

Wasn't my idea. However, there is no reason in principle why space-time can't be infinite in the past direction.

in the beginning ......Someone had to be First

Someone is begging the question.

 

[Thief]

Wasn't my idea. However, there is no reason in principle why space-time can't be infinite in the past direction.



Someone is begging the question.

I do not have a question.....

the line of thought is simple
in regression ....there is a starting POINT
and Someone there to make that happen

 

[Thief]

otherwise known as.....Genesis