INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[metis]

That's probably not accurate. Unless you're talking about the general public, rather than professional scientists in a relevant field- I'd imagine there, many if not most have abandoned the notion of the initial singularity pictured by classical physics (which we know to be wrong).

Yes. Amongst the cosmologists that I have read, singularity is alive and well.

 

[Meow Mix]

I feel compelled to butt in as a cosmology grad to point out that singularities are NOT alive and well. They're thought tools and approximations, but not many cosmologists treat the notion as representative of something real.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes. Amongst the cosmologists that I have read, singularity is alive and well.

Such as? And are you perhaps thinking of works that are potentially old enough for the authors have subsequently changed their views? Cosmology and physics have been moving pretty fast over the last few decades; what was in vogue in the '80's or '90's is likely not as credible anymore, and this seems to include the standard picture of the very early universe- it does not seem that many professionals endorse the universe having an absolute beginning in the form of an initial singularity, as pictured by classical physics...

In any case, the larger point is that "there had to be a beginning" is basically just an article of faith, and not a justifiable inference from any body of established science (and even if it were, any divine involvement in the matter is purely non-sequitur). Modern cosmology really does not have much too say about Christian creation mythology.

 

[metis]

Such as? And are you perhaps thinking of works that are potentially old enough for the authors have subsequently changed their views? Cosmology and physics have been moving pretty fast over the last few decades; what was in vogue in the '80's or '90's is likely not as credible anymore, and this seems to include the standard picture of the very early universe- it does not seem that many professionals endorse the universe having an absolute beginning in the form of an initial singularity, as pictured by classical physics...

In any case, the larger point is that "there had to be a beginning" is basically just an article of faith, and not a justifiable inference from any body of established science (and even if it were, any divine involvement in the matter is purely non-sequitur). Modern cosmology really does not have much too say about Christian creation mythology.

I'm really quite up to date on this, and my favorite three cosmologists are Kaku, Susskind, and Gasparini.

However, I am not in any way implying that the BB was the beginning-- quite the oppostie, and I've mentioned this on actually quite a few posts lately. Nor I am I basing it on faith, especially since I'm an agnostic.

Singularity is a hypothesis, and one that seems consistent with what limited information that we do have. However, singularity in no way suggests a "creator", and it's quite possible there was a cause to singularity, such as M-Theory suggests.

 

[metis]

I feel compelled to butt in as a cosmology grad to point out that singularities are NOT alive and well. They're thought tools and approximations, but not many cosmologists treat the notion as representative of something real.

It's a hypothesis that does have some support based on mathematical models and red-shift. Also, the current analysis of the "afterglow" (background radiation from the BB), leaves open the possibility that we might actually soon know what caused the expansions we call the "Big Bang".

 

[ladybug77]

Such as? And are you perhaps thinking of works that are potentially old enough for the authors have subsequently changed their views? Cosmology and physics have been moving pretty fast over the last few decades; what was in vogue in the '80's or '90's is likely not as credible anymore, and this seems to include the standard picture of the very early universe- it does not seem that many professionals endorse the universe having an absolute beginning in the form of an initial singularity, as pictured by classical physics...

In any case, the larger point is that "there had to be a beginning" is basically just an article of faith, and not a justifiable inference from any body of established science (and even if it were, any divine involvement in the matter is purely non-sequitur). Modern cosmology really does not have much too say about Christian creation mythology.

Lets try looking at it from a different perspective. No. There didnt HAVE to be a beginning. There didnt HAVE to be anything.

Remember this silly question?: if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound??
Is there a 'correct' answer?

It depends on how you answer this silly question...as to whether or not you will understand my next point. (And its not a 'silly' question at all really.)

So if matter, and space, and the universe exist...but nothing has enough thought or awareness to acknowledge it...is it even there?

Let go of the word 'God' momentarily...and think about this: the very first conscience thought...the original ah-hah! Moment. Even if the universe already existed...it takes two to tango. The acknowledger didnt 'create' the universe...but since it was the first awareness of it...it now 'truly' exist.

The tree in the forest exist already...no one is around to hear it fall...so yes...it makes a sound. Its metaphorical to a 'level 1' existence. It reaches a true and COMPLETE 'level 2' existence...when awareness is around to scientifically test.

So this 'God' we search for...could quite possibly be 'conscience'. Oddly enough...the word 'conscience'...means: 'with science'.
Another logical reason this could be true is that we are: 'made in God's image'
Translate: we are made conscience, (God) in seeing. (Image). (Suggestions are open...its not exact.)
'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image'...if 'God' is 'conscience'...its impossible to create an image of the very thing that sees. Its like having no mirror, and trying to stare yourself in the eye.
Perhaps this is the reason the commandment is there? So we dont worship false idols? (If this idea speaks truth...it makes the first two commandments impossible to defy.)

Is there anything wrong with being grateful for life?? Would life really exist if we were not aware of it??
Does it make it wrong or right to say: 'whoever or whatever gave me my life. Thank you.' ?? (Even if whatever it was (or is) knows we are greatful or not.)

We are ALL conscience. Even Atheists...the only difference there is whether or not you choose to believe the conscience actually contains a 'spirit'. Thats when faith comes in.

We are all 'conscience'...it makes us all equals. (And no one is obligated to branch out from that if they dont wish too.)

Is this not reason enough?? At the very least...we should ponder my point...and respect that i made a decent effort to explain it clearly.

 

[ladybug77]

Lets try looking at it from a different perspective. No. There didnt HAVE to be a beginning. There didnt HAVE to be anything.

Remember this silly question?: if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound??
Is there a 'correct' answer?

It depends on how you answer this silly question...as to whether or not you will understand my next point. (And its not a 'silly' question at all really.)

So if matter, and space, and the universe exist...but nothing has enough thought or awareness to acknowledge it...is it even there?

Let go of the word 'God' momentarily...and think about this: the very first conscience thought...the original ah-hah! Moment. Even if the universe already existed...it takes two to tango. The acknowledger didnt 'create' the universe...but since it was the first awareness of it...it now 'truly' exist.

The tree in the forest exist already...no one is around to hear it fall...so yes...it makes a sound. Its metaphorical to a 'level 1' existence. It reaches a true and COMPLETE 'level 2' existence...when awareness is around to scientifically test.

So this 'God' we search for...could quite possibly be 'conscience'. Oddly enough...the word 'conscience'...means: 'with science'.
Another logical reason this could be true is that we are: 'made in God's image'
Translate: we are made conscience, (God) in seeing. (Image). (Suggestions are open...its not exact.)
'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image'...if 'God' is 'conscience'...its impossible to create an image of the very thing that sees. Its like having no mirror, and trying to stare yourself in the eye.
Perhaps this is the reason the commandment is there? So we dont worship false idols? (If this idea speaks truth...it makes the first two commandments impossible to defy.)

Is there anything wrong with being grateful for life?? Would life really exist if we were not aware of it??
Does it make it wrong or right to say: 'whoever or whatever gave me my life. Thank you.' ?? (Even if whatever it was (or is) knows we are greatful or not.)

We are ALL conscience. Even Atheists...the only difference there is whether or not you choose to believe the conscience actually contains a 'spirit'. Thats when faith comes in.

We are all 'conscience'...it makes us all equals. (And no one is obligated to branch out from that if they dont wish too.)

Is this not reason enough?? At the very least...we should ponder my point...and respect that i made a decent effort to explain it clearly.

^^^anyone willing to discuss?^^^

 

[Thief]

I feel compelled to butt in as a cosmology grad to point out that singularities are NOT alive and well. They're thought tools and approximations, but not many cosmologists treat the notion as representative of something real.

Saw a recent documentary yesterday morning to the contrary.
Expansion indicates a 'point' of 'origin'.

Which I think coincides to Genesis.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Saw a recent documentary yesterday morning to the contrary.
Expansion indicates a 'point' of 'origin'.

Which I think coincides to Genesis.

Why don't you think it coincides with the Tao?

 

[Thief]

Why don't you think it coincides with the Tao?

Feel free to expand on this.
My fingers are busy supporting my own view.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Feel free to expand on this.
My fingers are busy supporting my own view.

The (ca. 4th-3rd centuries BCE) Daodejing suggests a less mythical Chinese cosmogony and has some of the earliest allusions to creation.
There was something featureless yet complete, born before heaven and earth; Silent – amorphous – it stood alone and unchanging. We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name, I style it the "Way." (tr. Mair 1990:90)
The Way gave birth to unity, Unity gave birth to duality, Duality gave birth to trinity, Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures. The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms. They neutralize these vapors and thereby achieve harmony. (tr. Mair 1990:9)

 

[Thief]

The (ca. 4th-3rd centuries BCE) Daodejing suggests a less mythical Chinese cosmogony and has some of the earliest allusions to creation.
There was something featureless yet complete, born before heaven and earth; Silent – amorphous – it stood alone and unchanging. We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name, I style it the "Way." (tr. Mair 1990:90)
The Way gave birth to unity, Unity gave birth to duality, Duality gave birth to trinity, Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures. The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms. They neutralize these vapors and thereby achieve harmony. (tr. Mair 1990:9)

This one portion can never work for me.
God is the one and only.....never born.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This one portion can never work for me.
God is the one and only.....never born.

Which again just shows how dogmatic you are.

You say the singularity coincides with genesis.

The description of the way coincides with it far more...but you know...to each their dogmas.

 

[Thief]

Which again just shows how dogmatic you are.

You say the singularity coincides with genesis.

The description of the way coincides with it far more...but you know...to each their dogmas.

Dogma is belief without the reasoning.

I believe in cause and effect....science.
I believe in God as the Cause and the universe (one word) as the effect.

 

[metis]

And what caused God?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Dogma is belief without the reasoning.

I believe in cause and effect....science.
I believe in God as the Cause and the universe (one word) as the effect.

Right, you believe in your interpretation of Genesis. Your dogma.

It would not matter if something new was to be presented. You would only go forth and mold what you have to fit it. Admirable what the human mind can do.

Do you believe that Man was cast out of the Garden because they had become like God?

Who was the Us that God was speaking of in Genesis when man was created if there is only one.

 

[McBell]

Dogma is belief without the reasoning.

I believe in cause and effect....science.
I believe in God as the Cause and the universe (one word) as the effect.

dog·ma
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them

What you claimed:

This one portion can never work for me.
God is the one and only.....never born.

Yeppers, it is dogma.

Let the denial begin.

 

[Thief]

Right, you believe in your interpretation of Genesis. Your dogma.

It would not matter if something new was to be presented. You would only go forth and mold what you have to fit it. Admirable what the human mind can do.

Do you believe that Man was cast out of the Garden because they had become like God?

Who was the Us that God was speaking of in Genesis when man was created if there is only one.

God would be the only one not born.....that doesn't mean he would remain alone.
and the Garden was used for the scenario of Chapter Two.
After the manipulation the garden was no longer needed.

 

[Thief]

What you claimed:


Yeppers, it is dogma.

Let the denial begin.

Yours or mine?

 

[McBell]

Yours or mine?

Ah, trying for the stupid approach.
Problem is that you have already revealed you are not stupid.
Merely dogmatic.