INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Koldo]

What do you mean as source? Its well known or theorized that time was created when the Bang was created simply because existences as we know it came to live. The Bang was the place were our universe started when it either imploded or exploded it has to do with atoms, potential gravity and so forth. If you follow anything in our Universe backwards in time, you will eventually arrive at the Big Bang.

As for Time-Fluxes learn Physics and Mathematical models it has to do with space-time continuum's i actually learned this stuff when i was younger after watching to many Star-Trek. Lol! I can try to explain it if you want.

If it is all well known, then you won't have a problem to cite a source, correct?

Out-side of time is out of our comprehension in practical ways but in theory it works however these theories have to do with super-galactic and subatomic levels, in the end it has to do with 3 to 4 dimensions that acquire typically three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one temporal dimension (time).

I have absolutely no idea where you are trying to get at and how this could be related to the question i have made.

Do you even know that Time slows at a higher speed?

Yes, i do.

 

[F0uad]

Ouroboros and Koldo i will reply tomorrow off watching a movie and to sleep.

See you then.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ouroboros and Koldo i will reply tomorrow off watching a movie and to sleep.

See you then.

No worries. I hope it's a good movie.

 

[F0uad]

Which means, nothing existed before that first thing. The first thing, think about that, the first thing that existed in a universe of things. God must be a thing. The first thing, not the first mind, not the first thought. It's also simple logic. The first number in the natural number set is 1. It's still a number. You can't say the first number in the set is blurghurgy because he is a powerful mind who exists beyond number sets. God must be part of the universe or the logic is faulty.

You keep forgetting that god lives outside of hes creation lets call it temporal space that is unreachable for any of the creation he created (i know its a flawed example but you get the point hopefully). I never said the first being or first thing there is no first there i just IT there is no comparison with the number 1 you can compare it with the mathematical alpha and omega.

There is also a other argument what i do not belief in and that is the big-bang could have created god however since i do not hold this belief there is no need to discuss it.

Therefor a "designer" comparison/analogy/allegory is flawed. Can't argue that apples exist because they're more awesome than oranges.

Only if you compare it to human-traits or human-natures so your arguing that if a all-powerful, all-knowing god exists he can't design laws and the universe as we have it? Please clarify.

Sure. Agree.

Finally something

Whatever. Your logic is still flawed.

How is my logic flawed? Your making the assumption that nothing (completely nothing) can create something not me.

 

[F0uad]

If it is all well known, then you won't have a problem to cite a source, correct?

That we can't have a infinite history?
Its basic Physics i am not sure what kind of source do you want? Wikipedia?
I gave you certain examples you still did not refute or replied to it so what i said earlier makes no sense to you?

Scientists believe that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang.
This was the singular start to everything that exists. The beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Nothing we observe today existed prior to that exact moment.
Further, it was something outside of time, outside of space, and outside of matter that caused all of this to come into existence call it god or not.

Now you can keep asking for a source but quote me well known scientist who disagree that the universe come to existence and lets compare that with the majority belief.

I have absolutely no idea where you are trying to get at and how this could be related to the question i have made.

You asked me about ''Time-fluxes'' and if there is such a thing outside of time.

Yes, i do.

Well if you agree that time slows at higher-speeds what if this speed is fast as light or even faster then surely in that speed time stops to exist. Even something that is slower then our own time-line is outside of our time-boundaries.

Now i gave you many examples please clarify what kind of answers you really want if your still confused.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Highly disputable

 

[Ouroboros]

How is my logic flawed? Your making the assumption that nothing (completely nothing) can create something not me.

Actually, I haven't done much of assumptions yet at all. I have been trying to question you and your position and the problems with it.

I believe that some-THING existed and exists beyond and outside of this universe. "Outside" and "beyond" are probably the wrong words to describe it even. I believe that all things, including this universe, is part of something greater. But... I don't assume that this some-THING is a some-BODY or a disembodied, non-temporal super-mind. Because that's putting a human mind concept unto the unknown. I don't like to tag or plaster human attributes on something we can't understand.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Scientists believe that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang.

I'm going to assume you're being poetic with your language here, as anyone who understands the big bang should already know it wasn't a literal "explosion".

This was the singular start to everything that exists.

We don't know that yet.

The beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Again, we don't know that yet.

Nothing we observe today existed prior to that exact moment.

As far as we are aware.

Further, it was something outside of time, outside of space, and outside of matter that caused all of this to come into existence call it god or not.

How can you possibly make such an assumption? Upon what evidence do you base this?

 

[Ouroboros]

The Singularity was the beginning of "God." That's the First Cause, right there. No thought. No action. No power. No actual being until it began.

 

[Gui10]

Yet you bind yourself to circular reasoning since you still didn't solve the problem that nothing.. Zero (Completely nothing) created something so impressive with those ''Laws''. Just a question to add on do you belief that Chaos can create harmony? (Just a question).

My reasoning is not anymore circular than your thought that god himself always existed and needed no creation.

 

[F0uad]

Actually, I haven't done much of assumptions yet at all. I have been trying to question you and your position and the problems with it.

I believe that some-THING existed and exists beyond and outside of this universe. "Outside" and "beyond" are probably the wrong words to describe it even. I believe that all things, including this universe, is part of something greater. But... I don't assume that this some-THING is a some-BODY or a disembodied, non-temporal super-mind. Because that's putting a human mind concept unto the unknown. I don't like to tag or plaster human attributes on something we can't understand.

I can agree here.

 

[F0uad]

Not all of them. Check out No Big Bang : Contents




No, working with the BB idea (again some scientists don't take it seriously) this still doesn't fly: Stephen Hawking Explains Spontaneous Creation in Discovery Channel Series

And I get really sick of religious idiots, typically scientifically illiterate, pull the science card to cover their rear ends.

Can you please ignore all my posts on this Forum i am going to ignore yours you are disrespectfull and i wasn't even talking to you.
Stop copying out the things i said without reading the context i said those things.
The Majority does belief what i said and not sure why you copied a link about how creation came to existences from from Stephen Hawking when i was talking about time-fluxes.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can agree here.

Awesome! :bow:

 

[dantech]

How do you explain that a 79 year old man with missing limbs, weak heart, only one kidney, cancer and diabetes could live while a perfectly healthy 22 year old man could just go to sleep and not wake up the next morning. Life itself is proof that God exists. It is proof that there is someone out there deciding when someone's time is up, when someone deserves to get sick, and when someone deserves to heal.

Please do not start arguing on the morality of God with something like: "why he would keep a 90 year old criminal alive, and kill a newborn?" If you would like to argue on this specific subject, just start a new thread.

 

[Tristesse]

How do you explain that a 79 year old man with missing limbs, weak heart, only one kidney, cancer and diabetes could live while a perfectly healthy 22 year old man could just go to sleep and not wake up the next morning. Life itself is proof that God exists. It is proof that there is someone out there deciding when someone's time is up, when someone deserves to get sick, and when someone deserves to heal.

Please do not start arguing on the morality of God with something like: "why he would keep a 90 year old criminal alive, and kill a newborn?" If you would like to argue on this specific subject, just start a new thread.

So, a 79 year old man who dies of missing limbs, weak heart, one kidney, cancer and diabetes while a healthy 22 year old lives is evidence that a god doesn't exist? Going by your logical train of thought this should be a true statement. By the way, life is evidence of life, not how it got here.

 

[dantech]

So, a 79 year old man who dies of missing limbs, weak heart, one kidney, cancer and diabetes while a healthy 22 year old lives is evidence that a god doesn't exist? Going by your logical train of thought this should be a true statement. By the way, life is evidence of life, not how it got here.

No, it is evidence that science and medical studies work. But in the other way around, it proves that science doesn't always work, and you do need a higher power to run things and make sure that everything works.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, it is evidence that science and medical studies work. But in the other way around, it proves that science doesn't always work, and you do need a higher power to run things and make sure that everything works.

Hah! Well, that didn't work for us. Religion was an utterly failed experience in my life. Perhaps I can find it again, but it won't be based on trust in a higher power anymore.

 

[Willamena]

Hah! Well, that didn't work for us. Religion was an utterly failed experience in my life. Perhaps I can find it again, but it won't be based on trust in a higher power anymore.

Be the skeptic. Don't discount anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

Be the skeptic. Don't discount anything.

Sure. Why not.

I'm keeping my options open, and have done so for a long time. Whenever God wants to reveal himself, he's free to do so.

 

[Tristesse]

No, it is evidence that science and medical studies work. But in the other way around, it proves that science doesn't always work, and you do need a higher power to run things and make sure that everything works.

Ok, please don't use an argument that is clearly false, that was my only point.