Is there a God?

[George-ananda]

Is there a God?
　
Well, as in any debate we'd have to start with the definition of God. And you'll find that both those that say 'Yes' and those that say 'No' have many different definitions and nuances. So really, it shouldn't be looked at as a Yes/No question but a 'describe your beliefs on the nature of the universe' question.

My beliefs come from non-dual Hinduism. By 'non-dual' I mean there literally is no two; a God/not God duality and the name given to it is Brahman. Brahman alone is real.What we call the ever-changing universe is Brahman's sport/play/illusion/maya. Until the actors realize they are just Brahman, they believe the illusion to be the only real. While these actors are still living in the illusion some of the more traditional God concepts are helpful to giving up worldliness.

 

[1robin]

[quote=savagewind;3120684]Nothing physical can come from nothing. People can not even define what the spirit is, how can they claim spirit cannot come from nothing? There might not be a need for a designer. But without a designer there could be no life imo.

Actually the technical definition or theorem for what you are describing exists in philosophy and does not differentiate between material and the non-material. The theorem says that ANYTHING that begins to exist must have a cause outside of itself. The universe can't possibly either be eternal or have an infinite number of causes. At some point even in a mental hypothetical case we are left with a necessary uncaused first cause. You can use philosophy to derive what characteristics that first cause must have had in order to produce the universe. The description given for God thousands of years before anyone could have known what he should have exactly match what philosophy dictates as necessary for the production of the universe. Naturally our secular scientists couldn't stand for that so along comes the oscillating universe model and the bubble universe model. Neither of which either have a shred of evidence nor can they ever provide any even if true. There for God is the likely candidate for what we see. In fact he is the only candidate.

 

[PolyHedral]

Actually the technical definition or theorem for what you are describing exists in philosophy and does not differentiate between material and the non-material. The theorem says that ANYTHING that begins to exist must have a cause outside of itself. The universe can't possibly either be eternal or have an infinite number of causes.

This is not a theorem. It is an intuition-based supposition that has no basis in physical theory.

It's true that causality usually works, and things become very strange if it doesn't. However, in terms of quantified physics, it is a fluke of statistics. There is no proof that it must work. In fact, in circumstances like the Big Bang, it probably doesn't.

 

[1robin]

Nothing, because there was no start. There is no point in time in which energy did not exist. (Because the Big Bang was the earliest possible moment.)

You are implying that the universe must be infinately old. This is an impossability. Time can not stretch back into infinity because and infinate string of seconds could never be crossed in order to reach now. Nor can energy be infinate in duration because an infinate string of energy fluctuations (or any other change in energy states that has duration) can be traversed in order to arive at this current one. What you are reffering to is that we do not know of a method within natural law that energy may be created or destroyed by. That is far from knowing it can't be. The infinate universe idea has been cast away by even most major modern secular scientists. In professional debates they do not even bother with it. Instead they pull out their oscilating universe or bubble universe ideas to get out of a reality that implies God. Neither of which have a scrap of evidence or can ever have any.

 

[sandandfoam]

then it is only for those that believe already.

I disagree. God found me. For all my twenties and a sizeable part of my thirties I thought the notion of God completely absurd.

you first have to believe in a god in order to see the evidence.

Not so in my experience.

that is a bit backwards in science.

Should I care?

its why i don't follow any kind of holy text.

Many don't need a holy text. If it works it works.

you dont pick up a random puzzle piece and make it fit. you look for the puzzle piece to match the space you already created.

I don't believe in universal truths.

Occam's Razor.

Says a lot about the human mind but little about the world.

so you believe god is separate from but works with nature. Why?

Because that makes sense to me

Why can't nature act alone?

Just not how I see it.

Well I would question my own ethics if I were talking to Frank the bunny who tells me the world is going to end. (Donnie Darko)

fine

But I think I would be just as insane if I were seeing things no one else were seeing.

Like simplicity insanity is the product of the human mind. Nothing more.
I want things to understand things, if I'm the only one who sees them my way I'm ok with that.

 

[1robin]

This is not a theorem. It is an intuition-based supposition that has no basis in physical theory.

It's true that causality usually works, and things become very strange if it doesn't. However, in terms of quantified physics, it is a fluke of statistics. There is no proof that it must work. In fact, in circumstances like the Big Bang, it probably doesn't.

If it has no basis in reality then you should be quickly able to give me a verifiable exception to this mere idea. Actually it is called the LAW of cause and effect because there is no known example of an exception. If you can produce something testable that violates it you will probably be on a short list for an award somewhere and will be the bell of the ball at every atheist convenion on Earth. It is their Holy Graile.

 

[ChristineES]

The question "Is there a God?" can't really be answered- there is no proof either way. The best we can do is ask "Do you believe there's a God?". And yes, I believe there's a God.

 

[PolyHedral]

You are implying that the universe must be infinately old. This is an impossability. Time can not stretch back into infinity because and infinate string of seconds could never be crossed in order to reach now.

Of course they can. It would merely take an infinitely long amount of time.

What you are reffering to is that we do not know of a method within natural law that energy may be created or destroyed by. That is far from knowing it can't be.

If it is possible to destroy energy, then the laws of physics are not consistent throughout time. That's a very, very big problem.

Instead they pull out their oscilating universe or bubble universe ideas to get out of a reality that implies God. Neither of which have a scrap of evidence or can ever have any.

There was a first moment in the universe, probably. But during that first moment, the energy was already there. It therefore never came into existence.

If it has no basis in reality then you should be quickly able to give me a verifiable exception to this mere idea. Actually it is called the LAW of cause and effect because there is no known example of an exception.

Then you should be able to cite me, in algebra, where in quantum mechanics it specifies the "law" of cause and effect.

A hint: it doesn't. The closest equivalent is the second law of thermodynamics, which, as mentioned, is a statistics fluke. There is no guarantee that time will flow forwards

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I want to start an all out debate of whether or not there is a God.

I am sure this has been done but I want to hear it from you and I want to share my feed back.

I want to note that we will not come to a conclusion because no one can actually "know" there is a God. You will only have faith that you do.

If you know me, you know that I will answer "no, there is no God because there is no substantial evidence to show there is".

Please post your best evidence and reasoning behind why you think God exists.

My concept of Hinduism Brahman (God) is

There is Brahman (God)

There is Prakriti (nature)

There is Atman (soul)

Brahman exists because Prakriti is non intelligent and cannot manifest itself into the known universe inc time, space and energy, so Brahman is the generator of who lays down the laws to turn un-manifest prakriti to manifest universe including time, space and energy.

 

[dantech]

Nothing, because there was no start. There is no point in time in which energy did not exist. (Because the Big Bang was the earliest possible moment.)

This doesn't really make any sense. You honestly believe that there was absolutely nothing in the universe until the big bang? You believe that from one second to the next, energy appeared, and somehow heated up, and ended up giving life, out of nothing?

Anyways, moving on....

What do you think causes us to live or die. Why do perfectly healthy human beings die, while others who have been sick for years are still alive? Scientifically, what is the difference between the corpse of a healthy man who died 10 seconds ago, and that of a sick man who is still alive? How does science define life? Why aren't we able to just give life back to a man?

Surely life has to be a spiritual aspect of our body, given and taken away, by God Himself...

 

[Debater Slayer]

This doesn't really make any sense. You honestly believe that there was absolutely nothing in the universe until the big bang? You believe that from one second to the next, energy appeared, and somehow heated up, and ended up giving life, out of nothing?

Anyways, moving on....

What do you think causes us to live or die. Why do perfectly healthy human beings die, while others who have been sick for years are still alive? Scientifically, what is the difference between the corpse of a healthy man who died 10 seconds ago, and that of a sick man who is still alive? How does science define life? Why aren't we able to just give life back to a man?

Surely life has to be a spiritual aspect of our body, given and taken away, by God Himself...

Most of these questions seem to take the form of "I don't know; therefore, a deity [or deities] exists." I think that not having an adequate explanation for something doesn't necessarily equate to any specific entity's existence (be it any given deity concept or otherwise) if there isn't enough evidence clearly pointing toward that.

 

[1robin]

Of course they can. It would merely take an infinitely long amount of time.

I am not sure if this was attempted humor or supposed to be for real. You could never get here if time is infinately old.

If it is possible to destroy energy, then the laws of physics are not consistent throughout time. That's a very, very big problem.

That not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that within the small percentage of natural law we know of that energy can't be destroyed or created. For one thing we have no way of knowing what percentage of natural law we are aware of and the strict empirical study of natural law leaves out most of reality. 200 years ago we would have said that natural law does not allow dor an aton to oscillate in one location and cause another oscillation at another location. Now we know that is possible with quantum physics. Not to mention even if we did know 100% of natural law that does not mean God could't do anything he chooses. What we do know is that energy could not have always existed because energy always seeks to be equally dispersed over all area available. The universe would have reached heat death long before now if energy was infinately old.

There was a first moment in the universe, probably. But during that first moment, the energy was already there. It therefore never came into existence.

That is impossible in many ways.

Then you should be able to cite me, in algebra, where in quantum mechanics it specifies the "law" of cause and effect.

There is no requirement for it to be found in quantum language. There is more truth that does not exist in quantum mechanics than does. The laws of non contradiction, cause and effect, and empirical adequecy etc..... do not exist in quantum mechanics and yet are just as true. Quantum mechanics in fact does not even contain macro mathematics and physics, it only concerns the physics of very small things and is still very little understood.

A hint: it doesn't. The closest equivalent is the second law of thermodynamics, which, as mentioned, is a statistics fluke. There is no guarantee that time will flow forwards

Themodynamics far from being a fluke is described by Einstein as the most immutable law in nature. There exists no concept more absolute. There is not a single know or even concievable exception. Even computer generated natural law experiments run at millions of times a second have never violated it.

“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.”
[Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.]
Look up his credentials if you doubt him.

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]​

 

[PolyHedral]

This doesn't really make any sense. You honestly believe that there was absolutely nothing in the universe until the big bang?

I believe that there was not an "in the universe" until after the Big Bang.

You believe that from one second to the next, energy appeared, and somehow heated up, and ended up giving life, out of nothing?

There was no second in which the energy did not exist. (And of course it was very hot; it was in a space too small to imagine.)

What do you think causes us to live or die. Why do perfectly healthy human beings die, while others who have been sick for years are still alive? Scientifically, what is the difference between the corpse of a healthy man who died 10 seconds ago, and that of a sick man who is still alive? How does science define life? Why aren't we able to just give life back to a man?

Microscopic chemistry, which is what "life" is actually made of in the first place. And we can't resurrect someone because we don't have the fidelity and control needed.

I am not sure if this was attempted humor or supposed to be for real. You could never get here if time is infinately old.

Correction: no finite amount of time is enough to get here. Isn't obvious that I will travel an infinite distance if I travel at a finite speed for infinite time?

That not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that within the small percentage of natural law we know of that energy can't be destroyed or created.

One of the mathematical laws we know says that "energy is conserved" is synonymous with "physics is the same no matter what time it is." This is a far stronger a statement than any theory of physics, and so will never be refuted by future research.

200 years ago we would have said that natural law does not allow dor an aton to oscillate in one location and cause another oscillation at another location. Now we know that is possible with quantum physics.

Faster-than-light spooky action at a distance is actually a causality violation, so be careful where you go with this argument.

That is impossible in many ways.

Then elaborate. Keep in mind that absurd does not equal impossible.

There is no requirement for it to be found in quantum language. There is more truth that does not exist in quantum mechanics than does. The laws of non contradiction, cause and effect, and empirical adequecy etc..... do not exist in quantum mechanics and yet are just as true. Quantum mechanics in fact does not even contain macro mathematics and physics, it only concerns the physics of very small things and is still very little understood.

All of the things you mention are statements of logic and math, not of physics. Quantum physics represents our most accurate model of physics so far, across the universe. (Macroscopic physics should fall out of aggregate quantum behaviour. Although we do not have definite proof of this, we have every indirect reason to think its true.)

Themodynamics far from being a fluke is described by Einstein as the most immutable law in nature. There exists no concept more absolute. There is not a single know or even concievable exception. Even computer generated natural law experiments run at millions of times a second have never violated it.

Quantum mechanics tells us that there is a non-zero chance for any given object to spontaneously re-organize itself and decrease entropy. It is simply so overwhelmingly more likely that entropy will increase that you'd have to wait trillions and trillions of years to see it happen. This is, in all respects, equivalent to time flowing backwards.

 

[1robin]

Correction: no finite amount of time is enough to get here. Isn't obvious that I will travel an infinite distance if I travel at a finite speed for infinite time?

This is not so. Let me remind you that virtually all modern scientists and philosophers believe that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago specifically because of this problem. If you froze this current second and looked backwards they would stretch infinitely backwards. There would be infinite seconds of that time live. It is quite absolutely impossible to cross that infinite number of seconds. There is no end to them. In fact if you can cross them then you could count them and that makes them finite. Infinite means no matter where you stop there are infinite more left. It is philosophical nonsense to suggest you can cross an infinite distance or number of things. If you could they would be finite. It just can't happen. By the way if infinite then energy would have become equally dispersed throughout the universe infinitely long ago. It isn't. Every thing actually known suggest a finite past.

One of the mathematical laws we know says that "energy is conserved" is synonymous with "physics is the same no matter what time it is." This is a far stronger a statement than any theory of physics, and so will never be refuted by future research.

The first part is correct. There is no known mathematical reason that energy can be created or destroyed. Mathematics is a tiny sliver of reality. There is no reason that quantum mechanics, God, or a trillion other things could not create it or destroy it. Physics does depend on the size of the physical object considered. One type of physics applies to large objects (Newtonian physics) and another to small things (quantum physics). The great search is for a unified theory but we have none as of yet.

Faster-than-light spooky action at a distance is actually a causality violation, so be careful where you go with this argument.

My claim did not mention light.

Then elaborate. Keep in mind that absurd does not equal impossible.

All of the things you mention are statements of logic and math, not of physics. Quantum physics represents our most accurate model of physics so far, across the universe. (Macroscopic physics should fall out of aggregate quantum behavior. Although we do not have definite proof of this, we have every indirect reason to think it’s true.)

If energy has always been there: 1. It would have already reached maximum dispersion. 2. It would have had an infinite amount of fulgurations and therefore time (duration) and that is not possible. 3. There are others but no need to list them. By the way I do not consider quantum physics at this time to be a well established or understood field. We are still tweeking Newtonian physics, I take nothing as concrete, in quantum theory.

Quantum mechanics tells us that there is a non-zero chance for any given object to spontaneously re-organize itself and decrease entropy. It is simply so overwhelmingly more likely that entropy will increase that you'd have to wait trillions and trillions of years to see it happen. This is, in all respects, equivalent to time flowing backwards.

What? If it takes trillions of years and the human race is less than .00000000000001% of that then how is that verified? There is no known violation of that law. Even momentary slight (lower than equilibrium) fluctuations are destroyed as soon as they form. No building has ever built itself, no informational message has been received from outer space (they even gave it up and closed SETI), no wave action has produced the menu for Denny’s of the shore, and no monkeys could ever type Shakespeare (because if reflecting nature the letters can untype as well as be typed). Thermodynamics is a descriptive law not a prescriptive one. Even if it could be reversed which it can't that would still not mean time ran backwards. The concept doesn't even make sense. Time is basically duration. Nothing has a negative duration. If it has a duration equal to or less than zero then it has no duration.

 

[Warren Clark]

What Energy?How does energy exist without a source of energy? Today, yes, Space is full of energy, but this energy derives from the planets, the sun, the stars... How could energy exist when nothing else does to produce it? How do you heat something without a source of heat? Probably through speed or friction. Either way, it would require movement. How could movement exist without someone or something being there causing it to move.
I am not saying that the big bang is Impossible. I am saying that the initial spark of it, is. I am saying it doesn't matter how it was created, as long as someone was there to create it.

Well maybe you haven't researched all the theories out there?
I mean, there are countless theories, some more plausible than others.

But the truth is they remain theories until we can make them fact. Which is hard to do since we can't go into the past. So the theory that something had to make the big bang start is very possible, but just as possible as any other theory yet to be made.

There is the Heating and Cooling theory that says that the universe is always contracting and expanding, which is what builds its own momentum like the moon spinning around earth by the use of gravity.

No one will every say that energy was created by the big bang. They will always tell you that energy is what created the "big bang". Energy in a sense always was, and it just is.

We see energy today in every manifestation possible. A rock, water, air, metal, etc.
Whether you can see it or not there is energy flowing in us, through us, and around us. Its what creates magnetism and the elements. Some elements have a stronger electromagnetic pull than others.

Now in the beginning there was this energy flying around, and just like splitting an atom created massive explosion, imagine what a slight misdirection of one of these energy particles flying at each other at unknown speeds could do.

Of course, they are only theories, but there is no reason to assume anything as fact. Its good to keep an open mind to endless possibilities.

I could say the very same thing about the bible. Not everyone takes the time to comprehend what their religion teacher tell them. Only problem with religion, is that there are too many. So you might assume that I am defending religion all together, when really, i am not. I can't make a strong enough case for others, but I certainly can for Judaism. I don't know what bible you read when you were a teenager. I don't know who taught you what you know about religion. But I assure you, that if you were to read a few passages of the Torah, you would see that there are passages that simply could not have been written by man.

I have read both the torah and the Bible extensively. I still read them for reference.
But they are both filled with fallacies and are not fully reliable as they have been edited by dictators and leaders over the last few thousand years.
Not only that but the science does not meet congruently with the books. The torah however is more adaptable and more reasonable than the Christian bible is.
However there is no absolute truth in either of them... unless you bring yourself to believe so with out empirical evidence.

Science is indeed an amazing thing. All the theories, however, are just theories. They are assumptions of the possibilities, and that is all. I make a living with technology, so I am not opposed to science in any way. I am writing to you using the internet, another science invention. However the theories do not all fit together as you say. They fit together now, until one of them is proven wrong. Countless theories were proven wrong in the passed, and they will keep being proven wrong in the future. All it takes is for one individual to come prove to you that evolution and the big bang could not have happened, and you will believe him.

I, on the other hand, know there is a God. I have read things, I have learned things, that could not be written by man. They could, at the limit, have been written by some sort of way more knowledgeable being, but it would only make sens that is was written by someone who knows things that Science doesn't or didn't when it was written.

First, you can not use the excuse "It's Just a Theory".


[youtube]mLeztJkhi4U[/youtube]



I am sorry to burst your bubble but everything you are able to read was more than likely written by a tangible being we know as "man".
There is no reason to believe that it was supernaturally written.
Unless you want to call DaVinci "God".
He thought of inventions that were thousands of years ahead of his time.
People believe aliens gave him insight, along with other brilliant ancestors.
Science doesn't know or expect to know things. Science is a method of research and discovery that we use everyday.
A person can claim to know something, and they usually use science in that matter.
So i am sure that if someone knew something before the general public accepted it, they were a scientist with magnificent unrecognized knowledge.
We are all generally scientists seeking out answers to our questions. Only some of us find the answers...

And I can promise you that you don't "know" there is a God.
You have faith that you know there is a God.

It's not like Gravity.
I can tell you that Gravity exists because I am standing on earth and I can toss a ball up and watch it fall. Its testable.
Gravity has come a long way since Newton thanks to Einstein.
You can't test there being a God, and if you try you will fail miserably.
There is no room for God in science. Its not testable.

The plane was a metaphor.... I just meant that nothing could create itself. You can't be born without sperm and a uterus.

I can't be born with out sperm, but technology today would've allowed me to be birthed without a uterus.

Before me, there were my cells. My cells reproduced without sperm or a uterus.
Did you know frogs don't even need to copulate to reproduce. They have a hermaphrodite like biological system.

How do you know? Because scientists say?

True, scientists do generally agree on the statement...
But science isn't about he said she said. its about looking for yourself...
The scientific method is used to conclude which hypothesis' are true and which are not.
You can look for yourself, but it takes some basic knowledge of science and the scientific method.

 

[PolyHedral]

This is not so. Let me remind you that virtually all modern scientists and philosophers believe that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago specifically because of this problem.

The evidence we have of a universe with a finite past is that the universe appears to be expanding, and so would logically collapse to a single point some time in the past. However, we also know that our current theories of physics do not accurately describe the very hot and dense stuff that appeared when the universe was very small. Therefore, a finite past is a stupendously well thought out and well-educated guess, not immutable fact. There are many other ways to explain why the universe looks the way it does, and a lot of them don't have beginnings.

If you disagree, feel free to earn your Nobel prize for the complete theory of gravity you have.

If you froze this current second and looked backwards they would stretch infinitely backwards. There would be infinite seconds of that time live. It is quite absolutely impossible to cross that infinite number of seconds. There is no end to them. In fact if you can cross them then you could count them and that makes them finite.

I can count the integers. How many are there?

It is philosophical nonsense to suggest you can cross an infinite distance or number of things. If you could they would be finite. It just can't happen.

So what other answer is there to, "If I walk for at a finite speed for an infinite amount of time, how far do I go?"

The first part is correct. There is no known mathematical reason that energy can be created or destroyed.

"physics is the same no matter what time it is" is synonymous with "Inductive logic works." Since everything humans have ever reasoned about relies on inductive logic,

Ergo, energy is conserved or nonsense ensues.

Mathematics is a tiny sliver of reality

Mathematics is a superset of reality. The universe will conform to mathematical results - but mathematics can reason about universes that aren't what is.

Physics does depend on the size of the physical object considered. One type of physics applies to large objects (Newtonian physics) and another to small things (quantum physics). The great search is for a unified theory but we have none as of yet.

Quantum mechanics applies to all objects, except those smaller/hotter than a certain size/temperature. (The only such objects I know of are the singularities involved in black holes and the big bang, and the high energies of modern particle accelerators.) Newtonian physics is merely what quantum tells us happens to large, slow-moving, cool objects.

My claim did not mention light.

Quantum mechanical effects can appear to travel faster than light, and so do weird things to causality.

If energy has always been there: 1. It would have already reached maximum dispersion. 2. It would have had an infinite amount of fulgurations and therefore time (duration) and that is not possible.

Except, as mentioned, energy can spontaneously rearrange itself, so 1 doesn't apply.

By the way I do not consider quantum physics at this time to be a well established or understood field. We are still tweeking Newtonian physics, I take nothing as concrete, in quantum theory.

Quantum mechanics is the most well-tested and accurate theory in history, more so than even Newtonian physics.

What? If it takes trillions of years and the human race is less than .00000000000001% of that then how is that verified?

because quantum mechanics tells us so. See above. (Also, it's quite a lot less than that number.)

Thermodynamics is a descriptive law not a prescriptive one.

So you agree with me!

Even if it could be reversed which it can't that would still not mean time ran backwards. The concept doesn't even make sense. Time is basically duration. Nothing has a negative duration. If it has a duration equal to or less than zero then it has no duration.

The only reason that time flows one way but not the other is thermodynamics. If you got rid of, or reversed it, then time would flow backwards, as much as it made sense to define time at all.

 

[tempter]

I want to start an all out debate of whether or not there is a God.

I am sure this has been done but I want to hear it from you and I want to share my feed back.

I want to note that we will not come to a conclusion because no one can actually "know" there is a God. You will only have faith that you do.

If you know me, you know that I will answer "no, there is no God because there is no substantial evidence to show there is".

Please post your best evidence and reasoning behind why you think God exists.

The fundamental reason to believe God exists is for those believers to get something out of it (heaven) and to justify justice in those who don't believe as they do (hell).
So is there a God? Maybe, but I've seen nothing that can only point to the biblical God. And, frankly, the biblical God is quite offensive and hopefully doesn't exist in reality.

 

[George-ananda]

I want to start an all out debate of whether or not there is a God.

I am sure this has been done but I want to hear it from you and I want to share my feed back.

I want to note that we will not come to a conclusion because no one can actually "know" there is a God. You will only have faith that you do.

If you know me, you know that I will answer "no, there is no God because there is no substantial evidence to show there is".

Please post your best evidence and reasoning behind why you think God exists.

Well, let me throw this out there.

I came upon my belief (not faith) in God (or actually Brahman in Hinduism) starting from the paranormal. In my earlier years it seemed the materialistic explanations (admitting we just didn't know all the details yet) was the sensible rational view. However, I had paranormal experiences that in no way could be explained in the materialist's world-view. I began to study so-called paranormal phenomena in-depth and the materialists response to these phenomena. I objectively came to the certainty that sometimes **** happens that can not be explained in the materialist world-view. In fact for any of these happenings to have occured, the materialist world-view must be DRAMATICALLY incomplete.

Through my study of Theosophy and eastern (Indian) thought I learned there are models of our existance that included non-physical planes/dimensions/realms. And that so-called western paranarmal phenomena is actually normal and can be explained through these more advanced world-views.

After much study I concluded to my satisfaction that these world-views were the highest understandings man has reached. And the ultimate conclusion was that there is one basis (Brahman) for all reality. A non-duality without the god/not god duality of western thinking.

So the original OP question...Is there a God?....does not really apply to non-dual thinking. But not to be too obtruse, put me down with a 'Yes' answer.

 

[skywrath32]

I want to start an all out debate of whether or not there is a God.

I am sure this has been done but I want to hear it from you and I want to share my feed back.

I want to note that we will not come to a conclusion because no one can actually "know" there is a God. You will only have faith that you do.

If you know me, you know that I will answer "no, there is no God because there is no substantial evidence to show there is".

Please post your best evidence and reasoning behind why you think God exists.

God exists in my opinion. Life is the reason. Every life in this universe has its own free will which means you cant predict its next actions. Humans are an example, Can you predict the next thing that i will say? no. Another one is the awareness of your existence and your actions. Why do you exist? havent you asked yourself? Can our personalities be different if you dont have free will? Certainly no. We will all be the same. Can scientists create a formula that can predict your next action? I really doubt it. Can you explain why people tend to fall in love to just one person? Nope.

 

[1robin]

The evidence we have of a universe with a finite past is that the universe appears to be expanding, and so would logically collapse to a single point some time in the past. However, we also know that our current theories of physics do not accurately describe the very hot and dense stuff that appeared when the universe was very small. Therefore, a finite past is a stupendously well thought out and well-educated guess, not immutable fact. There are many other ways to explain why the universe looks the way it does, and a lot of them don't have beginnings.

If you disagree, feel free to earn your Nobel prize for the complete theory of gravity you have.

I have not mentioned gravity. The issue of infinite verses finite past can be actually proven however as you admit:

Therefore, a finite past is a stupendously well thought out and well-educated guess, not immutable fact

And the argument for a infinite past besides violating philosophic laws in not indicated by any scrap of evidence we have then it is by far the most reliable bet to choose a finite past as the most reasonable.

I can count the integers. How many are there?

Always infinitely more than where ever you stop.

So what other answer is there to, "If I walk for at a finite speed for an infinite amount of time, how far do I go?"

I notice all your allegories are non mathematical. If you use mathematical proofs like infinity minus infinity or asymptotic equations it is far more relevant and apparent that crossing anything infinite is logically ludicrous. If you can tell me at what point you started walking I will answer your question. You are imposing finite assumptions on an infinite system.

"physics is the same no matter what time it is" is synonymous with "Inductive logic works." Since everything humans have ever reasoned about relies on inductive logic,
Ergo, energy is conserved or nonsense ensues.

You are saying the same things in different ways. There is no known reason in natural law that allows energy to be created or destroyed. What about the portion of natural law we have yet to discover, what about the rest of reality that lies outside empirical proofs, what about supernatural issues? Anyway time changes based on physics so it might also change the other way around. Time changes based on gravity and speed. It is relative but absolute. I do not see how what we have learned about our relatively small blink of time we have studied such things can then be reliably applied to the other 99.9999999999999999% percent of time and space. It is like examining a blade of grass and implying that all the grass in the Nebraska prairie must be the same. May be but it isn't logical to assume so. That is why I say science is based on faith. It has faith in the uniform rational intelligibility of the universe. Regardless by natural law if the universe was infinitely old why has energy dissipated evenly by now.

Mathematics is a superset of reality. The universe will conform to mathematical results

Mathematics does not force anything to submit. It is a passive abstract concept. It is descriptive not proscriptive. I have a degree in math and no well that it does not make anything do anything, it only describes what it did. There is a vast amount of truth that mathematics has no access to or application on.

- but mathematics can reason about universes that aren't what is.

I did not understand this.

Quantum mechanics applies to all objects, except those smaller/hotter than a certain size/temperature. (The only such objects I know of are the singularities involved in black holes and the big bang, and the high energies of modern particle accelerators.) Newtonian physics is merely what quantum tells us happens to large, slow-moving, cool objects.

The mathematic principles in Quantum systems and in Newtonian systems are completely different. That is why there is a great push on for a super unified theory that would apply to both.

Quantum mechanical effects can appear to travel faster than light, and so do weird things to causality.

I have as of yet to hear of anything that has been proven to go faster than light. I know that Einstein showed that mathematics becomes undefined at light speed and suggests it is a unattainable speed. Until they can prove it I will doubt it.

Except, as mentioned, energy can spontaneously rearrange itself, so 1 doesn't apply.

Energy dissipates and disperses over time. There is no exception to this except for small local anomalies that quickly dissipate and the irresistible march to universal dispersion continues. There is absolutely no escape from the fact that if the universe were infinitely old all energy and even matter would be evenly dispersed.

Quantum mechanics is the most well-tested and accurate theory in history, more so than even Newtonian physics.

No it isn't. It is far younger than Newtonian physics. I have seen shows and read papers where the scientists admit they do not know much about it. It is much easier to see how a basketball behaves rather than a quark. I have even seen the same scientists claim the universe is a 2 dimensional hologram in one interview and said to have 11 dimensions in another on string theory. They don't know a fraction of what they claim to.

because quantum mechanics tells us so. See above.

(Also, it's quite a lot less than that number.)

Now I get it. You defend an infinite universe against all known facts because you think it allows the impossible to become possible. Please tell me what complex system produced the first complex system that could convert energy into order.

So you agree with me!

Thermodynamics describes how the universe operates it does not force it to operate that way. If you remove thermodynamics (a strange task) the universe would still operate the same without out description of it. Gravity was still gravity long before Newton invented

to describe it.

The only reason that time flows one way but not the other is thermodynamics. If you got rid of, or reversed it, then time would flow backwards, as much as it made sense to define time at all.

I will agree that if you could remove all natural law then there is no way to prove time always acts in one direction. That is hardly a worthwhile pursuit. I think I understand your position now. You think infinite time gets rid of all the God implications of thermodynamics, fine tuning, time, causality, and life. So it will be clung to like a life raft even if that requires attempting to allow for the disappearance of the most immutable laws in physics, making a negative duration a reality instead of a contradiction, and the denial of all proven natural law or the assumption that natural law describes all of reality (which is demonstrably false). If I had to deny thermodynamics to support my claim I would give it up.