Riddle of the beginning solved without god?

[idav]

the more science tries the more it proves the existance of God just by its failure to find another answer.

The more atheist look to disprove God and can't, the more they are proving God exists.

I am sure that at this point more scientists and atheists must be looking for God than those of faith, and consistant prove his existance just in their failures.

We just don't know how far the rabbit hole goes or whether it even ends.

 

[McBell]

the more science tries the more it proves the existance of God just by its failure to find another answer.

The more atheist look to disprove God and can't, the more they are proving God exists.

I am sure that at this point more scientists and atheists must be looking for God than those of faith, and consistant prove his existance just in their failures.

This sounds an awful lot like "since you cannot prove god does not exist, he has to exist"

Which is not logic, but wishful thinking.

 

[garrydons]

An emphatic NO. The riddle of the beginning will remain unsolved if we do not acknowledged that there is God who created everything.

 

[darkendless]

An emphatic NO. The riddle of the beginning will remain unsolved if we do not acknowledged that there is God who created everything.

Yes because God is so evident amoung us..... as long as you count the hits and ignore the misses right

 

[Thief]

So now...all the way back to post #29....

And no one seems to ask...ever....
Which came first?...Spirit?...or substance?

It's not difficult.

If you say substance the all that is spirit is a result of chemistry.
As such, all spirit is finite and mortal.
The grave awaits.

If you say Spirit....
Then God did it.

 

[shawn001]

As I stated numerous times in this thread you left out.

It does not prove or disprove god. Just shows a scientific way the universe could have started without the need for one.

Please provide scientific evidence for any god?

You make the claim god exists so its up to you to provide the evidence.

as Carl Sagan would say

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

You have no evidence.

"The particle you offer as evidence is yet to be discovered?"

I didn't offer any particle, I said they were looking for the higgs boson which would tie in QM and Cosmology.

Virtual particles however do exist.

"
He even failed to support his own long standing view of information lost to the horizon point when speaking of black holes."

This research and the conclusions it brought has nothing to do with the above video.

"Like all the others it reduces to a 'point' that has no scientific explanation"

A singularity?

"Yes you don't know...thank you for your confession"

Nor do you. But I am honest about it.

"When citing evidence...against the existence of God"

Where have I personally done that? Please show me the exact words?

"You might want to sit and meditate on the concept of 'void'"

Void as in "nothing" as in "no matter" as in the vacuum of space?

Which is not "void" but contains virtual particles popping in and out of existence from seemingly nowhere.

So Please explain the physical properties of this "void" of which you speak of?

Thief, still waiting for you to "explain the physical properties of this "void" of which you speak of prior to the singularity?"

 

[bribrius]

So now...all the way back to post #29....

the problem with thinking substance came first is you are still left wondering where the substance came from.

Probably why a couple thousand years ago people believed in a god or gods. Even they had the sense to wonder where the original substance came from. For something to be created whatever created it must be outside of it. So as long as mankind is limited to studying the inside (yes, we have this limitation) and cant study the outside it will never know a creator outside of their bubble. Studying the creation may provide clues to the creator. But discovering the creator from a limited scientific approach, based on the physical in the same realm that was created is a impossibility isn't it? How can mankind discover what is before the beginning, if everything known to them that they can study started with the beginning. There is no magic wand that will tell them what came before, nor evidence for them test. Stuck in their bubble.

 

[Looncall]

the problem with thinking substance came first is you are still left wondering where the substance came from.

Probably why a couple thousand years ago people believed in a god or gods. Even they had the sense to wonder where the original substance came from. For something to be created whatever created it must be outside of it. So as long as mankind is limited to studying the inside (yes, we have this limitation) and cant study the outside it will never know a creator outside of their bubble. Studying the creation may provide clues to the creator. But discovering the creator from a limited scientific approach, based on the physical in the same realm that was created is a impossibility isn't it? How can mankind discover what is before the beginning, if everything known to them that they can study started with the beginning. There is no magic wand that will tell them what came before, nor evidence for them test. Stuck in their bubble.

And therefore, no way of knowing. Old campfire tales don't cut any ice here, either.

By the way, why must the universe have been created? It could have just happened, couldn't it? And according to you, there is no way to tell the difference.

 

[bribrius]

And therefore, no way of knowing. Old campfire tales don't cut any ice here, either.

By the way, why must the universe have been created? It could have just happened, couldn't it? And according to you, there is no way to tell the difference.

happend? so cause and effect? what made it decide to happen?

 

[Looncall]

happend? so cause and effect? what made it decide to happen?

Nobody knows ... yet. It is being worked on. If we are fortunate, science may one day provide an answer.

I do wonder about your use of the word "decide". Why must an intelligence be involved?

 

[shawn001]

the more science tries the more it proves the existance of God just by its failure to find another answer.

The more atheist look to disprove God and can't, the more they are proving God exists.

I am sure that at this point more scientists and atheists must be looking for God than those of faith, and consistant prove his existance just in their failures.

"the more science tries the more it proves the existance of God just by its failure to find another answer."

This is plain wrong.

"The more atheist look to disprove God and can't, the more they are proving God exists."

What? First that is not how it works.

A Roman Catholic discovered the gene that fused and proved we are related to the great apes.

The Vatican has one of the oldest astronomy branches in the world.

There are a lot of religious people in the field of astronomy and cosmology and they haven't found "god" so using your logic, god must not exist then, because they have failed to find evidence?

 

[shawn001]

the problem with thinking substance came first is you are still left wondering where the substance came from.

Probably why a couple thousand years ago people believed in a god or gods. Even they had the sense to wonder where the original substance came from. For something to be created whatever created it must be outside of it. So as long as mankind is limited to studying the inside (yes, we have this limitation) and cant study the outside it will never know a creator outside of their bubble. Studying the creation may provide clues to the creator. But discovering the creator from a limited scientific approach, based on the physical in the same realm that was created is a impossibility isn't it? How can mankind discover what is before the beginning, if everything known to them that they can study started with the beginning. There is no magic wand that will tell them what came before, nor evidence for them test. Stuck in their bubble.

Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background


Our poor universe shows bruises from collisions with other universes

Researchers Find Evidence of Other Universes Lurking in the Cosmic Background | Popular Science

 

[Thief]

the problem with thinking substance came first is you are still left wondering where the substance came from.

Probably why a couple thousand years ago people believed in a god or gods. Even they had the sense to wonder where the original substance came from. For something to be created whatever created it must be outside of it. So as long as mankind is limited to studying the inside (yes, we have this limitation) and cant study the outside it will never know a creator outside of their bubble. Studying the creation may provide clues to the creator. But discovering the creator from a limited scientific approach, based on the physical in the same realm that was created is a impossibility isn't it? How can mankind discover what is before the beginning, if everything known to them that they can study started with the beginning. There is no magic wand that will tell them what came before, nor evidence for them test. Stuck in their bubble.

We seem to agree for the most part....however...
I would say... a creation is a reflection of it's Creator.

So then as you look about in the natural world.....you might ask yourself....
"If God created this....what kind of God am I chasing after?"

I 'stick it', to both the scientist and the believer.
It seems everyone is willing to take a stance.
But few people turn about to see what is standing 'behind' them.

 

[shawn001]

happend? so cause and effect? what made it decide to happen?

You need to read the entire thread here from page one.

Quantum Fluctuation

1. "The physicist Heinz Pagels speculates, "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility."

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Necessity"


It could also have been born from another universe.

 

[Thief]

You need to read the entire thread here from page one.

Quantum Fluctuation

1. "The physicist Heinz Pagels speculates, "Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility."

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Necessity"


It could also have been born from another universe.

Insufficient regression.

'It'.....all began....'somewhere'.

Back to the singularity.....chose....
God First....or substance?

 

[shawn001]

Energy came first, before it formed matter. In the early universe it took a while to cool down from trillions of degree to form matter. We also know now were not made from what most of the universe is made from matter. There is more dark matter then matter.

So this defintion of "substance" and spirit is what?

protons and neutrons?

Please expain how "matter" evolved after the bang?

 

[shawn001]

I am agnostic and can honest say I don't know.

Science has shown you can create a universe without a "god" and without breaking the fundemental laws of physics. If there is a "god" he created those laws.

Not one Religion or religious scientist has shown ANY evidence a "god" created the universe, let alone the one THEY believe in.

So the ball is in their court to provide evidence.

If the scientific community came out and said the universe was created by a pink unicorn with no evidence, religions would be all over that claim. They would say prove it.

But the same people need no proof for their opinion and the claims they make for their particular "god' being the cause. There are millions of gods in many religions and all of them think their right based on their opinions. Not science in any way shape or form. If there is an "Enitity" that "Enitity" would be responcible for the laws of nature. But those laws and the science are ignored by a lot of people's opinions and quite often ignorance about the intial state of the universe, the laws of nature and if there is an "Enitity" how that "Enitity" makes things work through nature. Which is why a lot of people don't have a clue about evolution of the universe or biological evolution on earth. Its also why archaic terms such as "spirit" as a physical trait of humans or the universe is used.

When was the last time you say a doctor and the doctor said, your "spirit" has a disease?

I am not talking here either about spirituality. That is something else.

They also seem to use cause and effect until it comes to what caused god, then they are fine with 'God" needed no cause.

Scientists are working on what caused the bang, religious ones and non religious ones. They have now found preliminary ways to go back before the singularity or even if there was a singularity, although that is where it takes us at the moment pretty solidly. Its very early still, but they have a lot of clues, they didn't have before with new technologies.

This doesn't mean a god or no god or even multiple gods or entities, the answer there right now is simple, we don't know. No matter how much special pleading is done about anyone's opinion or faith or religious brand.

 

[Meow Mix]

Energy came first, before it formed matter. In the early universe it took a while to cool down from trillions of degree to form matter. We also know now were not made from what most of the universe is made from matter. There is more dark matter then matter.

Energy, as a property, must be carried by something -- either fields or matter (if fields aren't considered matter, it depends on who you ask). Thus if there was energy, there had to have been something to carry it; so it couldn't have pre-dated fields/matter.

 

[shawn001]

Energy, as a property, must be carried by something -- either fields or matter (if fields aren't considered matter, it depends on who you ask). Thus if there was energy, there had to have been something to carry it; so it couldn't have pre-dated fields/matter.

meox mix, I am using the term "matter" with some "artistic license" here for some of the posters who I think view it more like the carbon were made from for example.

yes, protons and neutrons

It was so hot the neutrons start to decay into more protons. If that was it you would just have the simplest element hydrogen.

But , neutrons collided with protons and stuck together and formed the next simplest element helium.

But there was no carbon or oxygen or any heavy elements and it was still to hot for atoms to combine into molecules, until it continued to cool.

 

[Thief]

Energy came first, before it formed matter. In the early universe it took a while to cool down from trillions of degree to form matter. We also know now were not made from what most of the universe is made from matter. There is more dark matter then matter.

So this defintion of "substance" and spirit is what?

protons and neutrons?

Please expain how "matter" evolved after the bang?

Please choose....I say Spirit first.

Apparently you have not considered the difference between chemistry and what you really are.

As for God...He was not born as we are.
His beginning would different than ours.

So...if substance first, then God would have to be born......?
Really?
And how would that happen?
So then....no God.
And nothing waiting for you when you die....except a box in the ground.

Do you expect...apparently so...a spiritually minded person will let go of faith?....just because you wave your finger in the air and pronounce the word of.....'science!'....

Science cannot regress to the singularity and answer the question... 'which came first?'.

There will no experiment, no equation, no photo, no fingerprint....
There will be no scientific proclamation of God.

You have to do that for yourself.