We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Gods existance
| 164 | 20611 |
I have a question and it would be nice If somebody could answer it.
How is it possible that somebody believes in God although there doesn't exist any proof or at least an evidence for Gods existance besides some old books?
In my opinion God's an explanation for everything unknown.
- 164 Replies
I can't find any place that states "Newtonian Causality", so I assumed that you where talking about the most famous of Newton's works.
Sorry about that. If you don't mind Wikipedia, it did a decent job explaining:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
Because another rule of physics, mass can not be created or destroyed, goes against mass being created... Or destroyed, so it would not have an end either.
My Creator existed before, and created physics, so it would not need to apply to Him.
You seem to be acknowledging what I said but still insisting on a cause and effect relationship outside of spacetime.
I fail to see how I've aggreed with your point. Under the Big Bang Theory, there would be space time, it was just be in a teensy-weensy point.
What if there was no before?
Then there would be no after, and the event would never have occured.
A stochastic event could have been enough to trigger the big bang and thus create spacetime and physics out of the pre-bigbang state.
Principal of Causality: Everything which has a beginning has a cause. So if this 'stochastic' event caused the big bang, than what caused the stochastic event?
Sorry about that. If you don't mind Wikipedia, it did a decent job explaining:
In physics in general only those conditions are explicitly taken into account that are both necessary and sufficient.
Since a "cause" as you think it is is not necessary, and especially not necessary for it to be a creator, Causality doesn't apply. By the way, why did you add Newtonian to the title of it?
See one of mages answers on this for more information.
My Creator existed before, and created physics, so it would not need to apply to Him.
How so? If I "created" a hole in the ground, that hole still applies to me, so why not your god? And, if your god could just always be there, why couldn't the big bang?
Then there would be no after, and the event would never have occured.
So lets say your god one day made himself non existent. Your god doesn't have a beginning, according to you. So, assuming this thing is omnipotent, it would be capable of ending itself so your theory is not sound with your other theories.
And who says there must be an end to the universe? Matter can not be created or destroyed, so an expansion and contraction is more likely.
I fail to see how I've aggreed with your point. Under the Big Bang Theory, there would be space time, it was just be in a teensy-weensy point.
Time at the point of the singularity is equal to zero. Since space and time are one we must also treat space as equaling zero. This means we don't have spacetime, thus no before or cause and effect relationship.
fixed.
Oh, right, I forgot the majority of people on this site are incapable of copy/pasting.
Thanks.
Time at the point of the singularity is equal to zero. Since space and time are one we must also treat space as equaling zero. This means we don't have spacetime, thus no before or cause and effect relationship.
Well no, since it's a human construct we can set zero to any point in the continuum of events. It's just widely accepted as zero being the big bang, but that's mostly for scientific research since there is no point setting it back if we don't know what happened at 0. Thing can't travel instantaneously from point A and point B thus the motion can be broken down and into segments, thus time.
Oh, right, I forgot the majority of people on this site are incapable of copy/pasting.
The programming forum is good at that, but not in the good way.
How do you think the entire cosmos (Not just our solar system, or beyond) would have lasted a billion years if a powerful entity wasn't there to maintain it?
It's like a car. When it's in action, fuel is used up, parts are worn out, and fluids deteriorate. When we leave it inactive for a long time, it gradually rusts and deteriorates until it breaks down and becomes dead and useless.
The cosmos exists, and has lasted for billions of years. Would it really last that long if it didn't have a creator that maintained it?
And besides. The universe's existence was planned. Do you really think more then trillions of stars and thousands of celestial bodies along with all quantum theories and time was all the product of a lucky accident?
No. This was all the product of a creator who took his time planning every little detail of every little thing.
The cosmos exists, and has lasted for billions of years. Would it really last that long if it didn't have a creator that maintained it?
Why shouldn't it exist that long? If you want that anybody listen to you you should tell some arguements.
And besides. The universe's existence was planned. Do you really think more then trillions of stars and thousands of celestial bodies along with all quantum theories and time was all the product of a lucky accident?
At first: Why should it be an (lucky) accident? I mean when the Universe began to expand Different forms of Energie began to link. Hydrogenium arised, Helium arised, etc. This was not coincidence, Stars arised because that was the only possible result according to the laws of physics: Rotating Matter developes gravity.
Another reason why the Universe doesn't destroy itself is that all celestial bodies are independent from each other. If a star in this corner "dies", nobody cares.
No. This was all the product of a creator who took his time planning every little detail of every little thing.
Nobody planned this. Everything is just Matter/ Energie. I guess you are a deist?
How do you think the entire cosmos (Not just our solar system, or beyond) would have lasted a billion years if a powerful entity wasn't there to maintain it?
It's like a car. When it's in action, fuel is used up, parts are worn out, and fluids deteriorate. When we leave it inactive for a long time, it gradually rusts and deteriorates until it breaks down and becomes dead and useless.
The cosmos exists, and has lasted for billions of years. Would it really last that long if it didn't have a creator that maintained it?
And besides. The universe's existence was planned. Do you really think more then trillions of stars and thousands of celestial bodies along with all quantum theories and time was all the product of a lucky accident?
No. This was all the product of a creator who took his time planning every little detail of every little thing.
Ha ha ha. Wait... you are joking aren't you.
If you look closely you will see a minor difference between the cosmos and a car. I mean the cosmos is infinite and a car is a piece of metal with an engine in it. Anyway the cosmos does deteriorate and this causes things like black holes which will implode and form new stars and repeat the whole process all over again. And how do you know that all this isn't the only way a universe works. A universe has to work one way and if all the possible ways are really unlikely there will still have to be one of them. Like if you shuffle a pack of cards getting any particular combination is really unlikely but you have to get a combination.
How do you think the entire cosmos (Not just our solar system, or beyond) would have lasted a billion years if a powerful entity wasn't there to maintain it?
Why would you need to maintain it, it developed and later it will die.
It's like a car. When it's in action, fuel is used up, parts are worn out, and fluids deteriorate. When we leave it inactive for a long time, it gradually rusts and deteriorates until it breaks down and becomes dead and useless.
Poor example a car is a human construct that is also maintained to some degree, eventually it's break up. Thus it goes into lower energy levels.
The cosmos exists, and has lasted for billions of years. Would it really last that long if it didn't have a creator that maintained it?
Sure why not? X is because it has to by X, is not a good argument.
And besides. The universe's existence was planned. Do you really think more then trillions of stars and thousands of celestial bodies along with all quantum theories and time was all the product of a lucky accident?
Why does it need to be planned. Not an lucky accident but an inevitable probability. With a multiverse model sentient life has to develop somewhere along the line.
Well no, since it's a human construct we can set zero to any point in the continuum of events. It's just widely accepted as zero being the big bang, but that's mostly for scientific research since there is no point setting it back if we don't know what happened at 0. Thing can't travel instantaneously from point A and point B thus the motion can be broken down and into segments, thus time.
What's it's stating is the singularity is point A and there is no traveling back from that point. You can only go to point B.
What's it's stating is the singularity is point A and there is no traveling back from that point.
So the singularity just was there from the beginning? Also even at the lowest microscopic scale string vibrate.
If the Universe must have a beginning, and if Newtonian Causality is held to be true, than something must have acted to create the universe. IE, an Intelligent Creator.
And that is your logical flaw!
So the singularity just was there from the beginning? Also even at the lowest microscopic scale string vibrate.
It's possible. Though far as my understanding goes quantum physics isn't bound by spacetime. So the laws of cause and effect break down at such a level. Even if we had a budding universe that other universe we budded from could be at point C while ours is at point A.
I know it can be hard to think of no spacetime given it's such a fundamental part of our existence. I'm not even sure if I'm describing this properly.
Thread is locked!