INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

"Beginning" is where someone draws an arbitrary line and says something like "Here's the beginning". I really don't have much doubt that there were events that preceded the BB.

 

[Willamena]

It is the beginning of *OUR* universe, not of everything that ever existed anywhere. We just don't have the ability to pierce the edge of our universe and see what lies beyond at the moment.

The universe is everything. If there was a "beyond," it would be the universe. Still.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There is a scientific consensus that the BBT does not include or entail any beginning of the universe in anything resembling the relevant sense. This is simply a matter of fact, and one you can verify via the links I provided, or any other source on the subject you care to pick. Models which do include any absolute beginning of the universe(such as the zero-energy proposal) are distinct from, and go beyond, the standard BBT.

Yeah I'm reading through one of hte articles you posted and while I get the words, I don't have the background to really understand what it entails.

like this quote

"The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe"

That does not seem like Time is in anyway involved in that appearence, or even a cause/effect model.

 

[metis]

Yeah I'm reading through one of hte articles you posted and while I get the words, I don't have the background to really understand what it entails.

like this quote

"The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe"

That does not seem like Time is in anyway involved in that appearence, or even a cause/effect model.

Some have asked where the BB occurred in our universe, but the answer is that our entire universe was the center. Nor was it an explosion, but more of an expansion that had two major "pushes" a small fraction of a second apart.

A reminder that "time" is merely sequencing put to measurement, so if there was some conditions that caused the BB, time would be intrinsic. Where you read or hear "time began at the BB", this is more in reference to the fact that time as we know it was so slow that it would basically be imperceivable and unimaginable today.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Some have asked where the BB occurred in our universe, but the answer is that our entire universe was the center. Nor was it an explosion, but more of an expansion that had two major "pushes" a small fraction of a second apart.

A reminder that "time" is merely sequencing put to measurement, so if there was some conditions that caused the BB, time would be intrinsic. Where you read or hear "time began at the BB", this is more in reference to the fact that time as we know it was so slow that it would basically be imperceivable and unimaginable today.

Right the point of there being no center I get. It would be as if our Universe is jus the outside of a balloon, the entire surface is the universe and there is no particular center.

What I don't get is why would the inside not count, or is that the parts outside of our universe?

 

[metis]

Right the point of there being no center I get. It would be as if our Universe is jus the outside of a balloon, the entire surface is the universe and there is no particular center.

What I don't get is why would the inside not count, or is that the parts outside of our universe?

Depending on how one looks at it, it can. Our solar system, the Milky Way, is no where near the center of our universe, nor is Earth near the center of the Milky Way.

To picture our universe, imagine a thick Frisbee that's slightly flattened on one side, and the same general pattern is also true of the Milky Way minus the flattened analogy. This flattened part of our universe has drawn a lot of attention recently because some cosmologists think it might possibly reflect some interaction with some other universe(s) as some point during our expansion.

Cosmologists have lots of questions with far fewer answers.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Depending on how one looks at it, it can. Our solar system, the Milky Way, is no where near the center of our universe, nor is Earth near the center of the Milky Way.

To picture our universe, imagine a thick Frisbee that's slightly flattened on one side, and the same general pattern is also true of the Milky Way minus the flattened analogy. This flattened part of our universe has drawn a lot of attention recently because some cosmologists think it might possibly reflect some interaction with some other universe(s) as some point during our expansion.

Cosmologists have lots of questions with far fewer answers.

But if there is no center part, wouldn't the flattening be all around? Essentially at any point you choose the flatten region would be near it because you can arbitrarily make any point the center.

 

[metis]

But if there is no center part, wouldn't the flattening be all around? Essentially at any point you choose the flatten region would be near it because you can arbitrarily make any point the center.

That's what I meant when I said it depends on how one looks at it. We know what the general dimensions of our universe are, and we know the expansion has not been of equal proportion, therefore a center can be calculated on that basis.

The "not being a center" concept is based on the idea that we all at one time were in the center since the mathematical calculations have it that our entire universe at the BB was roughly the size of a present day atom.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's what I meant when I said it depends on how one looks at it. We know what the general dimensions of our universe are, and we know the expansion has not been of equal proportion, therefore a center can be calculated on that basis.

The "not being a center" concept is based on the idea that we all at one time were in the center since the mathematical calculations have it that our entire universe at the BB was roughly the size of a present day atom.

Lol this is starting to go over my head.

I'll freely admit I'm not intelligent enough to understand this or even envision it. Which is the issue that science has with the public. Even the way you are explaining it is simple but the idea itself is something that my head can't really wrap itself around.

 

[1robin]

You say "Time cannot be applied to God." So, where did it come from?

The latest cosmology posits a finite universe. Matter, time, and space are not eternal. Whatever created them must exist outside of them. If God is that cause he exists independently from time. If there is another source then it must but as of now there is no other probable source.

 

[metis]

Lol this is starting to go over my head.

I'll freely admit I'm not intelligent enough to understand this or even envision it. Which is the issue that science has with the public. Even the way you are explaining it is simple but the idea itself is something that my head can't really wrap itself around.

I agree it's really quite complicated, so join the club if you're confused-- I'm the CEO of that club, btw.

 

[metis]

Matter, time, and space are not eternal. Whatever created them must exist outside of them. If God is that cause he exists independently from time. If there is another source then it must but as of now there is no other probable source.

Sorry, but you've gone too far with the above. Most cosmologists lean in the direction that sub-atomic particles, which is the source for energy and matter, may well go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

Secondly, since we can not even objectively find evidence for God, how can we actually describe God in a way like you did above? And are you sure it's not "Gods"? How could one tell?

I don't know what caused this universe/multiverse, but I'm willing to call it "God" and pretty much leave it at that. At me age, I've gotten used to not finding answers to all my questions.

Shalom, and have a nice weekend to you and all here.

 

[Repox]

There is a scientific consensus that the BBT does not include or entail any beginning of the universe in anything resembling the relevant sense. This is simply a matter of fact, and one you can verify via the links I provided, or any other source on the subject you care to pick. Models which do include any absolute beginning of the universe(such as the zero-energy proposal) are distinct from, and go beyond, the standard BBT.

I am not disputing that inf. about the BB, which I am familiar with. I am just proposing that it is a beginning. Cosmic radiation studies of the BB in particular are revealing of a time line for the universe. Based on those studies science has calculated to age of the universe. So there seems to be scientific consensus for a beginning, or at least a point from which time began.

There can be no scientific proof for God, a spiritual being. Neither can science prove a natural cause explanation for the universe. Because we have some eyewitness accounts of spiritual beings in the Bible, it is not unreasonable to propose God as the creator.

An interesting comment in the op is that "something cannot create itself." That seems to be a key for our understanding of why science can't propose a theory for explaining the beginning of matter and energy. Since there can never be a scientific explanation, a spiritual being is the most logic answer.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am not disputing that inf. about the BB, which I am familiar with. I am just proposing that it is a beginning. Cosmic radiation studies of the BB in particular are revealing of a time line for the universe. Based on those studies science has calculated to age of the universe. So there seems to be scientific consensus for a beginning, or at least a point from which time began.

There can be no scientific proof for God, a spiritual being. Neither can science prove a natural cause explanation for the universe. Because we have some eyewitness accounts of spiritual beings in the Bible, it is not unreasonable to propose God as the creator.

An interesting comment in the op is that "something cannot create itself." That seems to be a key for our understanding of why science can't propose a theory for explaining the beginning of matter and energy. Since there can never be a scientific explanation, a spiritual being is the most logic answer.

Not saying I don't believe in God.

But A spiritual being is the most logical answer doesn't mean much. What does spirit even mean?

That's the first part you'd have to define what the word spirit means. Then you'd have to explain how spirit could engage itself with this Universe, and where that spirit resides. Is it in the Universe? Outside of the Universe and if it is outside of it, should we consider that being part of another Universe? Or is that being it's own Universe, is it part of another Universe, is it part of a different type of space?

Or is it not space, if there is no space, how can that being act? If there is no time? How can it act? There is no causality for such a being it just simply is.

 

[Cephus]

Sorry, but you've gone too far with the above. Most cosmologists lean in the direction that sub-atomic particles, which is the source for energy and matter, may well go back into infinity, which is slightly older than I am.

Secondly, since we can not even objectively find evidence for God, how can we actually describe God in a way like you did above? And are you sure it's not "Gods"? How could one tell?

I don't know what caused this universe/multiverse, but I'm willing to call it "God" and pretty much leave it at that. At me age, I've gotten used to not finding answers to all my questions.

Shalom, and have a nice weekend to you and all here.

The real problem is that we have an unknown source, people slap a label of "God" on it, then start assigning all kinds of arbitrary and undemonstrable characteristics to it and before long, you're out in the middle of lala land somewhere talking about something that's wholly made up. There's no reason to think that whatever kick-started the universe was intelligent, cares about us or anything else. That's just an unwarranted emotional reaction and wishful thinking.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So there seems to be scientific consensus for a beginning, or at least a point from which time began.

"Seems to be" based on what? What makes you think there is a scientific consensus in favor of models which include an absolute beginning? There seems to be plenty of proponents of both views- that universe had a beginning, or that it did not. And in any case, since this question currently falls outside of the scope of the current state of science (due to a lack of an adequate theory of quantum gravity), everything is speculative at this point.

There can be no scientific proof for God, a spiritual being.

This isn't true. God is reported as being a causal agent- as being responsible for causing changes in the world (divine intervention/retribution, communicating with mortals, etc.); changes which, if they indeed occurred, would entail worldly evidence. If such evidence obtains, it corroborates these truth-claims RE God- but if it does not, it discredits these claims.

Because we have some eyewitness accounts of spiritual beings in the Bible, it is not unreasonable to propose God as the creator.

So... Because we have some eyewitness accounts of UFO activity, its not unreasonable to propose aliens as, say, the creators of the pyramids?

Since there can never be a scientific explanation, a spiritual being is the most logic answer.

Or not.

 

[Cephus]

There can be no scientific proof for God, a spiritual being. Neither can science prove a natural cause explanation for the universe. Because we have some eyewitness accounts of spiritual beings in the Bible, it is not unreasonable to propose God as the creator.

The problem is, these are just unjustified claims, pulled out of thin air. There is no objective evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god, yet here you are, and I'm not picking on you alone, arbitrarily assigning characteristics to this unknown and unseen entity. That's a massive problem. You posit the existence of this entity without any evidence to support it, then you start to describe what this entity is like, it's wants and desires and all that, still with nothing demonstrable to go on, and you expect people to take you at your word for what this unverifiable thing actually is like?

Seriously?

Just because you want this thing to be real doesn't mean this thing is real and you have to recognize that creating a list of unwarranted characteristics because they make you feel good, or going by a bunch of bronze-age primitives who did exactly the same thing and wrote it down, is just not a rational way of living one's life.

 

[Cephus]

But A spiritual being is the most logical answer doesn't mean much. What does spirit even mean?

That is exactly the point I keep trying to make. Exactly what is "a spiritual being" and how do you know it actually exists? It's just a wholly made up term until someone can define it and then provide evidence for it. Besides, the above statement really makes no sense whatsoever. How can an undefined and unproven entity be the most logical answer? That's like saying a unicorn is the most logical answer to the existence of the universe. Why not? And before anyone starts looking for that unicorn, I'm going to define it's characteristics as "invisible and undetectable", but you have to understand that, because I say so, that unicorn loves you.

Can't people see why these claims about gods are just so asinine?

 

[Repox]

The problem is, these are just unjustified claims, pulled out of thin air. There is no objective evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god, yet here you are, and I'm not picking on you alone, arbitrarily assigning characteristics to this unknown and unseen entity. That's a massive problem. You posit the existence of this entity without any evidence to support it, then you start to describe what this entity is like, it's wants and desires and all that, still with nothing demonstrable to go on, and you expect people to take you at your word for what this unverifiable thing actually is like?

Seriously?

Just because you want this thing to be real doesn't mean this thing is real and you have to recognize that creating a list of unwarranted characteristics because they make you feel good, or going by a bunch of bronze-age primitives who did exactly the same thing and wrote it down, is just not a rational way of living one's life.

Therefore, we must discount the Bible, Jews, and Israel. It was all because some craze men had hallucinations. Then, there is Judaism based on prophets experiences. Wow, there were a lot of crazy people in the world back then. Even today, we have all those crazy Jews in Israel. What a crazy world!

 

[Thief]

Not saying I don't believe in God.

But A spiritual being is the most logical answer doesn't mean much. What does spirit even mean?

That's the first part you'd have to define what the word spirit means. Then you'd have to explain how spirit could engage itself with this Universe, and where that spirit resides. Is it in the Universe? Outside of the Universe and if it is outside of it, should we consider that being part of another Universe? Or is that being it's own Universe, is it part of another Universe, is it part of a different type of space?

Or is it not space, if there is no space, how can that being act? If there is no time? How can it act? There is no causality for such a being it just simply is.

Spirit first?...or substance?