No Possibility of God

[Super Universe]

Because it wasn't that all the matter was in a single location within space, it was a totally different situation in that it involved all of space.

Do you really think all the people who study these things are idiots? It's all described mathematically by the same theory that describes gravity. You made the claim that "gravity would never allow a big bang to happen" so it's rather up to you to show your working, that is, do the maths and show why it's wrong. Don't forget to invite me to your Nobel prize ceremony.



You really haven't bothered to find out anything at all about this, have you? It's the space between any two points (on a large enough scale) that is getting bigger, not that stuff is moving away from a point that is in space. Going back in time, the space between any two points gets smaller and approaches zero. This isn't happening against some fixed background of space, it is happening to space itself.



Which wasn't the point. You said: "this idea of the universe being 13.8 billion light years old is entirely based upon the fact that we can only see 13.8 billion light years with our current telescopes" - the wiki page tells you that that age isn't based on how far we can see with current telescopes.

The bb wasn't within space but all matter and all space? And where was gravity?

Do I really think that scientists are idiots? I think that they are typical humans who try to force their DESIRES into their ideas. Just like the religions have done for thousands of years. Gravity is the most fundamental law of physics and gravity says the big bang could not have happened. So, it didn't happen, no big deal, move on to the next idea. But they all lined up and joined along with the bb idea simply because they saw galaxies moving away from each other so they thought if they ran it backwards then everything came from one place. To them, the expansion over ruled gravity.

It's up to me to show my math? Newton and Einsteain already did the math on gravity. That came long before the big bang BS.

I shouldn't forget to invite you to my Nobel prize ceremony? Every Nobel Prize winner has taken credit for an idea given to them by an intuitive or Thought Adjuster. Every. Single. One.

It's the space that is moving, not galaxies? Slow down, take a breath, and think, space is expanding from an ancient location so why did galaxies move in and fill in that location? Why can't we see an empty spot where it all came from?

Here's what really happened. Specific angels can manipulate the matrix (virtual particles). They can go out and bring them into existence. They can do this because they are coded to have that ability, just like the agents in the movie The Matrix. The universe is a simulation. It's almost exactly like the matrix in the movie. The angels bring about matter into nebula's then, if the decision is to swirl the nebula so it can be a swirling galaxy, other angels who are gravity manipulators go in and cause it to begin spinning. They have to leave at a 90 degree angle or they will mess the whole thing up when they leave.

The age of the universe is not based on telescopes? Then what is it based upon? Oh man, hehe... you are getting yourself in trouble becuase you think you are smarter about this stuff than I am and you're not. Lets go little Padawa.

 

[atanu]

The argument I find most persuasive is the lack of options.

The contents of the universe were, ex hypothesi, in the BB at Time Zero. It doesn't have to be strictly an infinitely small point, just as close to that as physics will allow. (I have no reason to think that physical infinities exist, so I don't rush to assume them.)

What alternative fits the evidence?

What data rule out the hypothesis?

That does not convince me since physicists seem to have already overcome the problems they faced with Big Bang by proposing Inflationary models. But no one seems to know the 'mass' of what. Do you know?

 

[Tokita]

Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe | Live Science

So time didn't exist before the Big Bang?
There seems a lot of certainty that prior to the BB time did not exist at least by people certainly smarter than me.

Has science finally provided an answer to the age-old question of God's existence?
Is Hawking wrong about time?
Or, is there some workaround which allows God to exist/create in a timeless state?

In fact, according to Hawking, nothing existed prior to the Big Bang and it is perfectly ok to accept that.

Time is only relevant to finite beings. If God is limited by time, He would not be eternal, for one, and indeed He could not be omnipresent. If one can argue that the Big Bang existed from nothing, then: What is Nothing?" If Nothing is something, no matter how it is defined, then that something has preexisted and must have power. (He) cannot be defined either in form or structure. Hawking was a very smart man, but, as a human, he had his limits.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I know who he was. You guys are too easily impressed.


The big bang DID NOT HAPPEN. All of your science hero's are wrong and they should have known they were wrong from the very beginning because gravity does not allow a big bang to happen.

You cannot accept a scientific theory that VIOLATES your most fundamental physical law, gravity.

That is not science. It's make believe. These guys should be stripped of every medal and have to repay their earnings for every class they taught and for every book they published. Just a bunch of jokers...

I just love this sort of thing: "I don't know anything about science except that all the scientists are wrong!"

Just brilliant.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't follow that. If time and space are created, how does that affect the nature of a God that exists outside or 'before' time? I don't think anyone, outside of Mormons, believes God requires time and space to exist. Time and space exists, like any other created thing, none of which affects the timeless and spaceless nature of the divine reality.


I've never imagined God as a human being that "wants" things. I remember when I was around 11 or so, when my friend was speculating about God and repeated what he said his dad told him, how that God created us because he was lonely and wanted company.

Even at that age, even before I had any sort of belief at all regarding these things (I was not raised in a religious home), I realized that sounded ridiculous, that how if such a transcendent being existed it could have emotions and feelings and desires like we did. I could tell even at that age that was a projection of the human being upon God, as a great big magical version of us.

It's unfortunate for most the consideration of what God is to humans is, stops at the pre-rational level of magic thought and projection. It's unfortunate that those of the stature of great scientific minds, essentially understand God like my friend was told and pride themselves in showing how that can't be real. I wasn't that bright of a kid, and yet I knew that was hardly a good answer to what is a much larger question.

The one problem you leave out is a simple one: you say God exists outside of time, and outside of any created thing -- but to be a God that did not initiate creation (which he must have been if nothing were created) to one which does initiate creation is a CHANGE. And change requires time.

 

[ratiocinator]

Gravity is the most fundamental law of physics and gravity says the big bang could not have happened.

Assertion - where is the evidence, where is the maths?

It's up to me to show my math?

Yes.

Newton and Einsteain already did the math on gravity.

It's Einstein's mathematics that describes the BB.

It's the space that is moving, not galaxies? Slow down, take a breath, and think, space is expanding from an ancient location so why did galaxies move in and fill in that location?

It's not expanding from a location (ancient or otherwise), it's that all locations approach each other as we go back in time. There is no need for anything to "move in". It's quite obvious that you haven even bothered to consult pop science sources on this.

Here's what really happened. Specific angels can manipulate the matrix (virtual particles)....

Yeah, right, and your evidence for this is.....?

The age of the universe is not based on telescopes?

Try reading the article.

 

[Windwalker]

The one problem you leave out is a simple one: you say God exists outside of time, and outside of any created thing -- but to be a God that did not initiate creation (which he must have been if nothing were created) to one which does initiate creation is a CHANGE. And change requires time.

That's a pretty good argument I've not heard before. For clarification, I say traditional theism views God as outside of time. I do not. Not in those terms anyway. Traditional theism is dualistic in nature, and your argument you present, is based upon a dualistic perspective of reality itself.

Even with your argument, if you exclude some supernatural First Cause called "God", change occured that made the Big Bang, at which point time began. That's a "change" from non-universe to universe. And if time began at the Big Bang, there was time before time began in your own argument, because that was a change. That's not dealing with any scientific understanding we have about time and space. So it's not really making an argument in favor of anything.

Here's the challenge with trying to think of either God, or a pre-dualistic universe reality. When you start talking about things at that level, you're beyond dualist frameworks of reality. At the Absolute or the Infinite, logical distinctions break apart and paradox reigns supreme. Thinking in terms of linearity is a dualistic perspective on a nondual reality, where it sees things in terms of simple cause and effect relationships. A traditional theistic perspective which says "God exists outside time", is first of all dealing with a view of Absolute Reality from a dualistic perspective of time and sequence.

Is reality the one or the many? From a dualistic perspective, it's many. From a monistic perspective, it's the one. From a nondual perspective, it is both the one and the many, as well as neither. It transcends beyond being understood solely and wholly by any one perspective. It is aperspectival in nature, beyond categories and boundaries, either inside of time or outside of it. Those divisions are moot when it comes to God.

People get hung up on their imaganings of God as reflective of the truth. And arguments such as you present, while a good argument, falls apart at the door of nonduality. A dualistic perspective cannot be extended to infinity without introducing self-contradiction. Talking about anything transcendental to this reality, anything beyond how we see and understand this universe from this perspective, with that same perspective, creates a paradoxical reality that can no longer be looked to as logical.

But that transcendence, does not exclude it's reality to be apprehended by the mind. That transcendence, is also fully immanent to us, because it is Reality.

 

[Super Universe]

Assertion - where is the evidence, where is the maths?



Yes.



It's Einstein's mathematics that describes the BB.



It's not expanding from a location (ancient or otherwise), it's that all locations approach each other as we go back in time. There is no need for anything to "move in". It's quite obvious that you haven even bothered to consult pop science sources on this.



Yeah, right, and your evidence for this is.....?



Try reading the article.

Where is my evidence about gravity? Newton and Einstein. You can look them up.

Einsten math describes the bb? No, heheh... It doesn't. You are way out of your league. You've made some very incorrect assumptions. Einstein didn't come up with the idea of the big bang so how could his earlier math describe the big bang?

All locations approach each other as we go back in time? And gravity allows matter that is very close together to move away from each other? Ever hear of something called a black hole? You can look it up. Hehe...

My evidence is the universe. What is yours?

I read the Wiki Age of the Universe article long ago. It's still wrong. Have you ever heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep field?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Hawking was a theoretical physicist. His "lane" was the fundamental workings of the universe.

Saying that God isn't "in his lane" is a pretty damning statement about God.

He was referring to Dawkins in that post I believe. But one would guess if God exists, then God would be involved in biology too.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hawking was a theoretical physicist. His "lane" was the fundamental workings of the universe.

Saying that God isn't "in his lane" is a pretty damning statement about God.

Once again, physical science and religion are very different fields. God isn't going to be found with a microscope or telescope. Nothing "damning" about that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Once again, physical science and religion are very different fields.

I agree, but only because I don't believe that God has physical effects or has anything to do with the underpinnings of the universe.

God isn't going to be found with a microscope or telescope.

The only way that God can't be measured is if God has no measurable effects.

Nothing "damning" about that.

... unless you believe in a God that has anything at all to do with the physical universe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He was referring to Dawkins in that post I believe.

I know.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree, but only because I don't believe that God has physical effects or has anything to do with the underpinnings of the universe.



The only way that God can't be measured is if God has no measurable effects.


... unless you believe in a God that has anything at all to do with the physical universe.

I guess you don't believe qualia exist, either, because you can't see things like love or sadness under a microscope.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess you don't believe qualia exist, either, because you can't see things like love or sadness under a microscope.

Are you saying that God resides only in a person's mind, like an emotion?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Are you saying that God resides only in a person's mind, like an emotion?

I'm just saying that there's aspects of reality that cannot be physically measured. Like I said, religion has more to do with philosophy than hard science as a field of study. There's only so much our instruments can detect at this point in time, anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm just saying that there's aspects of reality that cannot be physically measured.

Sure, but physical reality is not one of them.

Like I said, religion has more to do with philosophy than hard science as a field of study.

Right: for it to be "hard science," it would need to concern something that affects the physical reality, and to be approached with rigor.

Again: a bit of an unintentionally damning statement.

There's only so much our instruments can detect at this point in time, anyway.

Only our current knowledge is of any use in justifying a set of beliefs that someone holds right now.

"I hope that one day, evidence will arise that justifies the claims of my religion" does not equal "the claims of my religion are justified."

 

[2ndpillar]

Einstein's math was better than Newton's math. Newton was right, just not as close.

Newton's math fits the world when velocities are much lower than the speed of light. Einstein was looking for the inclusive theory, which he didn't find nor has science found. What is correct, the dubious string theory, or the modified standard theory, or in the math of black holes, where time stops, and velocity, distance/time, becomes irrelevant. As for matter, as in F=ma, or E=mc2, as "God created heaven and the earth", which matter or energy would that be, dark matter and energy, or the 5% we see.? And does black hole theory say we can go back in time, or does an astronaut come back to earth at a different age than his twin brother who stayed on earth? I think Einstein stated that knowledge is limited, whereas imagination is not. As for truth, I don't think it will be found among academia, whether clerical or non clerical. The pride of academia will result in their downfall. The science of Newton ended in the progress of the engineering world. The science of Einstein and his fellows, will probably end in the engineering marvels of the world being destroyed. The god of the scientist of the CERN collider is represented by the god Shiva, the destroyer, located at the CERN facility, were they study creating a black hole and going back in time through multiple universe theory.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sure, but physical reality is not one of them.


Right: for it to be "hard science," it would need to concern something that affects the physical reality, and to be approached with rigor.

Again: a bit of an unintentionally damning statement.


Only our current knowledge is of any use in justifying a set of beliefs that someone holds right now.

"I hope that one day, evidence will arise that justifies the claims of my religion" does not equal "the claims of my religion are justified."

Not all of reality is physical, obviously. I don't know why that is so hard to grasp. It's just a fact that science doesn't understand all things, nor is it supposed to as it may not be capable of it. Regardless, people have their experiences and it's up to them to make of it what they will. This "I can't see a god under a microscope so they must not exist" is missing the point and a waste of time. I don't have to justify anything because I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about my beliefs.

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness, natural human self has to be thought upon first.

2 human being selves, yet science was invented categorically by ONE SELF...males. As all statements, beliefs and themes science.

Yet science, the male, is a baby consciousness from sperm and an ovary that is not conscious of itself. Grows up from being a baby and then indoctrinated by other male adults historically. Yet his human being Mother body, the ovary, grew his life..and gave it back.

If you first impose conscious teaching, which is what Christ realization was....that science was lying, consciousness itself was that teaching versus unnatural theorising.

Which is a human living inside of a gas mass that owns historically space zero cold mass by bread TH...not depth.

Consciousness, says I live because of light. Consciousness as I am conscious also lives within the same 12 hours of darkness....but is conscious due to clear cold gases.

Which is the concept of how your thinking is affected, is not reviewed, as a life and mind who poses such claims....that other natural humans wonder at what you think you are stating you know, when in realism the stories you discuss are just stories, and themes....and are NOT KNOWN.

You discuss what is claimed to be intelligent theorising, knowing that it is just a discussion and rationally what you do know occurs on your own Planet by scientific conditions actually, as the factual place that human science is owned and realized.

Which is not in actuality discussing relative cosmological laws...you live inside of the Laws of your own Planet...as consciousness.

So if you have cold clear gas conscious life FEED BACK MEMORY use everyday that is 12 hours. And then 12 hours of gas burning light....then you own a recorded conscious minus state, between 2 forms of life feed back memories creating in your life as you live.

Where you claim all of your science awareness came from about cold dark space...in cold gases without light and then day light.

Why Christ consciousness historically proved that Satanism is a fact of human science occult UFO history...as males who tried to send us to HELL...by defined HE male statements of thinking about EL...what he said was the power of God in stone fusion.....actually.

 

[blü 2]

That does not convince me since physicists seem to have already overcome the problems they faced with Big Bang by proposing Inflationary models. But no one seems to know the 'mass' of what. Do you know?

Well, it's called mass-energy, and the universe and everything in it is made from mass-energy, or is a property or effect of mass-energy.

Accept no substitutes.