If there is a God...

[Montrovant]

Faith is the belief in something not yet visible ---- not unprovable.

Yep. Scientists believe in subatomic forces that they can't see. There are also the universal physical constants. Not only are they invisible, they are immaterial. Yet they affect the material universe. Where did they come from? Scientists haven't got a clue, and they never will. The universe is the result of non physical forces. Why do they exist?

So because we don't yet know everything, that points to an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has ever seen or been to? Quite cartoonish, I would say.

What we do know is that there is the scientific law of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. That's what science demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now tell me. Who or what caused the universe to exist? I think it was God. Who or what do you think is responsible?

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

What is he incorrect about? Is it that god has always existed, and therefore does not need a cause? If so, could the same be true of the universe?

 

[RWNJ]

Yep. Scientists believe in subatomic forces that they can't see. There are also the universal physical constants. Not only are they invisible, they are immaterial. Yet they affect the material universe. Where did they come from? Scientists haven't got a clue, and they never will. The universe is the result of non physical forces. Why do they exist?

So because we don't yet know everything, that points to an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has ever seen or been to? Quite cartoonish, I would say.

What we do know is that there is the scientific law of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. That's what science demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now tell me. Who or what caused the universe to exist? I think it was God. Who or what do you think is responsible?

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

What is he incorrect about? Is it that god has always existed, and therefore does not need a cause? If so, could the same be true of the universe?

If you had even a basic grasp of science, you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.

 

[Taz]

Faith is the belief in something not yet visible ---- not unprovable.

Yep. Scientists believe in subatomic forces that they can't see. There are also the universal physical constants. Not only are they invisible, they are immaterial. Yet they affect the material universe. Where did they come from? Scientists haven't got a clue, and they never will. The universe is the result of non physical forces. Why do they exist?

So because we don't yet know everything, that points to an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has ever seen or been to? Quite cartoonish, I would say.

What we do know is that there is the scientific law of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. That's what science demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now tell me. Who or what caused the universe to exist? I think it was God. Who or what do you think is responsible?

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

Your lack of a proper response is appalling.

 

[Montrovant]

So because we don't yet know everything, that points to an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has ever seen or been to? Quite cartoonish, I would say.

What we do know is that there is the scientific law of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. That's what science demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now tell me. Who or what caused the universe to exist? I think it was God. Who or what do you think is responsible?

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

What is he incorrect about? Is it that god has always existed, and therefore does not need a cause? If so, could the same be true of the universe?

If you had even a basic grasp of science, you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.

There are some who postulate that the universe may have, in fact, always existed. For example, someone posted this link in another thread not too long ago: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I guess the authors must not have even a basic grasp of science, though.

You also did not answer if the reason Taz is appalling in his ignorance is because you believe god to have always existed, and therefore would not require a cause.

 

[RWNJ]

Yep. Scientists believe in subatomic forces that they can't see. There are also the universal physical constants. Not only are they invisible, they are immaterial. Yet they affect the material universe. Where did they come from? Scientists haven't got a clue, and they never will. The universe is the result of non physical forces. Why do they exist?

So because we don't yet know everything, that points to an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has ever seen or been to? Quite cartoonish, I would say.

What we do know is that there is the scientific law of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. That's what science demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now tell me. Who or what caused the universe to exist? I think it was God. Who or what do you think is responsible?

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

Your lack of a proper response is appalling.

Nope. Simply stating a fact. The law of cause and affect applies here. The universe had to have a cause for it's existence. That's a scientific fact. Since nothing physical can create itself, the universe requires a Creator. A Creator who has no beginning. Just like Scripture states. Simple logic, backed by scientific fact.

 

[RWNJ]

What we do know is that there is the scientific law of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. That's what science demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now tell me. Who or what caused the universe to exist? I think it was God. Who or what do you think is responsible?

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

What is he incorrect about? Is it that god has always existed, and therefore does not need a cause? If so, could the same be true of the universe?

If you had even a basic grasp of science, you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.

There are some who postulate that the universe may have, in fact, always existed. For example, someone posted this link in another thread not too long ago: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I guess the authors must not have even a basic grasp of science, though.

You also did not answer if the reason Taz is appalling in his ignorance is because you believe god to have always existed, and therefore would not require a cause.

That is nothing more than a hypothesis. The simple fact remains that you cannot get around the law of cause and effect. What if the article you posted is correct? Where did the laws of quantum physics come from? They didn't just pop into existence by themselves. There are many laws that define the universe. Without them it could not even exist. So, where did they come from? The only logical explanation is that they were created by a non physical being who is eternal. No other explanation even comes close to making any sense.

 

[Montrovant]

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

What is he incorrect about? Is it that god has always existed, and therefore does not need a cause? If so, could the same be true of the universe?

If you had even a basic grasp of science, you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.

There are some who postulate that the universe may have, in fact, always existed. For example, someone posted this link in another thread not too long ago: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I guess the authors must not have even a basic grasp of science, though.

You also did not answer if the reason Taz is appalling in his ignorance is because you believe god to have always existed, and therefore would not require a cause.

That is nothing more than a hypothesis. The simple fact remains that you cannot get around the law of cause and effect. What if the article you posted is correct? Where did the laws of quantum physics come from? They didn't just pop into existence by themselves. There are many laws that define the universe. Without them it could not even exist. So, where did they come from? The only logical explanation is that they were created by a non physical being who is eternal. No other explanation even comes close to making any sense.

How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical?

And if the universe has no beginning, as the model using that quantum equation seems to postulate, then the physical laws of the universe did not come from anywhere, they always existed.

There is so much humanity does not know about the workings of the universe, or what might exist beyond/outside the universe, that making declarations about what must or must not be is a bit of a fool's errand. Speculation and hypothesis, absolutely! It can be great fun to wonder about these things. But deciding that we know what must be? That seems like arrogance to me.

 

[Taz]

So because we don't yet know everything, that points to an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has ever seen or been to? Quite cartoonish, I would say.

What we do know is that there is the scientific law of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. That's what science demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever. Now tell me. Who or what caused the universe to exist? I think it was God. Who or what do you think is responsible?

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

Your lack of a proper response is appalling.

Nope. Simply stating a fact. The law of cause and affect applies here. The universe had to have a cause for it's existence. That's a scientific fact. Since nothing physical can create itself, the universe requires a Creator. A Creator who has no beginning. Just like Scripture states. Simple logic, backed by scientific fact.

So you just decide that in your magic world there's an invisible being that never had a beginning? Does it make you feel better or what? like, are you scared not to know?

 

[Taz]

If it was god, according to you "Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen", something had to have made god.

Your ignorance is appalling.

What is he incorrect about? Is it that god has always existed, and therefore does not need a cause? If so, could the same be true of the universe?

If you had even a basic grasp of science, you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.

There are some who postulate that the universe may have, in fact, always existed. For example, someone posted this link in another thread not too long ago: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I guess the authors must not have even a basic grasp of science, though.

You also did not answer if the reason Taz is appalling in his ignorance is because you believe god to have always existed, and therefore would not require a cause.

That is nothing more than a hypothesis. The simple fact remains that you cannot get around the law of cause and effect. What if the article you posted is correct? Where did the laws of quantum physics come from? They didn't just pop into existence by themselves. There are many laws that define the universe. Without them it could not even exist. So, where did they come from? The only logical explanation is that they were created by a non physical being who is eternal. No other explanation even comes close to making any sense.

How do you know that god had no creator? Why can't it?

 

[Taz]

Your ignorance is appalling.

What is he incorrect about? Is it that god has always existed, and therefore does not need a cause? If so, could the same be true of the universe?

If you had even a basic grasp of science, you wouldn't even ask such a stupid question.

There are some who postulate that the universe may have, in fact, always existed. For example, someone posted this link in another thread not too long ago: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I guess the authors must not have even a basic grasp of science, though.

You also did not answer if the reason Taz is appalling in his ignorance is because you believe god to have always existed, and therefore would not require a cause.

That is nothing more than a hypothesis. The simple fact remains that you cannot get around the law of cause and effect. What if the article you posted is correct? Where did the laws of quantum physics come from? They didn't just pop into existence by themselves. There are many laws that define the universe. Without them it could not even exist. So, where did they come from? The only logical explanation is that they were created by a non physical being who is eternal. No other explanation even comes close to making any sense.

How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical?

And if the universe has no beginning, as the model using that quantum equation seems to postulate, then the physical laws of the universe did not come from anywhere, they always existed.

There is so much humanity does not know about the workings of the universe, or what might exist beyond/outside the universe, that making declarations about what must or must not be is a bit of a fool's errand. Speculation and hypothesis, absolutely! It can be great fun to wonder about these things. But deciding that we know what must be? That seems like arrogance to me.

The physical laws of nature could have exploded along with the Big Bang. Otherwise, you're assuming natural laws outside of this universe. Which would be a no.

 

[task0778]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

So far as we know there was no physical universe in existence prior to the big bang. Ergo, a non-physical being is a logical possibility. I won't say the only possibility, too much of a stretch IMHO.

 

[RWNJ]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

 

[task0778]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

It doesn't. I was trying to explain my thought process about that, apparently not too well. All I'm saying is that a non-physical being/entity/force could be responsible for the creation of our universe, which one might label as "GOD". Since natural laws are believed not to be in existence yet, isn't one left with a supernatural explanation, at least as a possibility.

 

[Montrovant]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

Physical constants are not physical?

The question is why assuming that a non-physical being created the universe is logical, rather than dismissing the possibility.

 

[ding]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

Physical constants are not physical?

The question is why assuming that a non-physical being created the universe is logical, rather than dismissing the possibility.

The universe is logical in and of itself. Why wouldn't it be logical for intelligence to create intelligence?

 

[task0778]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

Physical constants are not physical?

The question is why assuming that a non-physical being created the universe is logical, rather than dismissing the possibility.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Physical constant, any of a set of fundamental invariant quantities observed in nature and appearing in the basic theoretical equations of physics. Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) appears in electromagnetic theory and in relativity theory; in the latter it relates energy to mass through the equation E = mc2. Its value does not depend on any particular experimental conditions such as would affect the speed of a sound wave in air (for which air temperature and the direction and speed of any wind would matter). It is a universal constant of nature.

Physical constant

I don't think that a universal constant of nature can be assumed to exist before nature itself does. One can theorize about all sorts of possibilities, any one of which might be true or none of them either. Reality may be beyond our comprehension or reasoning, or maybe we just don't have enough data yet. But it seems foolish to me to rule anything out.

 

[RWNJ]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

Physical constants are not physical?

The question is why assuming that a non-physical being created the universe is logical, rather than dismissing the possibility.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Physical constant, any of a set of fundamental invariant quantities observed in nature and appearing in the basic theoretical equations of physics. Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) appears in electromagnetic theory and in relativity theory; in the latter it relates energy to mass through the equation E = mc2. Its value does not depend on any particular experimental conditions such as would affect the speed of a sound wave in air (for which air temperature and the direction and speed of any wind would matter). It is a universal constant of nature.

Physical constant

I don't think that a universal constant of nature can be assumed to exist before nature itself does. One can theorize about all sorts of possibilities, any one of which might be true or none of them either. Reality may be beyond our comprehension or reasoning, or maybe we just don't have enough data yet. But it seems foolish to me to rule anything out.

The universe (nature) could not exist unless the physical constants had already existed. It is the physical constants which shape our physical universe. To believe otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Montrovant]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

Physical constants are not physical?

The question is why assuming that a non-physical being created the universe is logical, rather than dismissing the possibility.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Physical constant, any of a set of fundamental invariant quantities observed in nature and appearing in the basic theoretical equations of physics. Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) appears in electromagnetic theory and in relativity theory; in the latter it relates energy to mass through the equation E = mc2. Its value does not depend on any particular experimental conditions such as would affect the speed of a sound wave in air (for which air temperature and the direction and speed of any wind would matter). It is a universal constant of nature.

Physical constant

I don't think that a universal constant of nature can be assumed to exist before nature itself does. One can theorize about all sorts of possibilities, any one of which might be true or none of them either. Reality may be beyond our comprehension or reasoning, or maybe we just don't have enough data yet. But it seems foolish to me to rule anything out.

The universe (nature) could not exist unless the physical constants had already existed. It is the physical constants which shape our physical universe. To believe otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

Why could both not have come into being simultaneously? (assuming they are not eternal)

 

[RWNJ]

" How does a non-physical being create a physical universe? Why is that logical? "

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

Physical constants are not physical?

The question is why assuming that a non-physical being created the universe is logical, rather than dismissing the possibility.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Physical constant, any of a set of fundamental invariant quantities observed in nature and appearing in the basic theoretical equations of physics. Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) appears in electromagnetic theory and in relativity theory; in the latter it relates energy to mass through the equation E = mc2. Its value does not depend on any particular experimental conditions such as would affect the speed of a sound wave in air (for which air temperature and the direction and speed of any wind would matter). It is a universal constant of nature.

Physical constant

I don't think that a universal constant of nature can be assumed to exist before nature itself does. One can theorize about all sorts of possibilities, any one of which might be true or none of them either. Reality may be beyond our comprehension or reasoning, or maybe we just don't have enough data yet. But it seems foolish to me to rule anything out.

The universe (nature) could not exist unless the physical constants had already existed. It is the physical constants which shape our physical universe. To believe otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

Why could both not have come into being simultaneously? (assuming they are not eternal)

They did come into being at the same time. Or at least on the same day. The day that God created them. From an evolutionary perspective, however, you cannot have a universe unless you first have rules for it. It's similar to not having a painting until you have someone to paint it. There is also the fact that physical constants are not part of the physical universe. They are not composed of matter or energy. They exist independent of our physical reality.

 

[Montrovant]

Non physical forces are responsible for the existence of the physical universe. They are called universal physical constants. They are non material laws that govern everything from gravity, to subatomic forces. So why does the thought of a non physical God creating a physical universe seem illogical to you?

Physical constants are not physical?

The question is why assuming that a non-physical being created the universe is logical, rather than dismissing the possibility.

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Physical constant, any of a set of fundamental invariant quantities observed in nature and appearing in the basic theoretical equations of physics. Accurate evaluation of these constants is essential in order to check the correctness of the theories and to allow useful applications to be made on the basis of those theories.

The speed of light in a vacuum (c) appears in electromagnetic theory and in relativity theory; in the latter it relates energy to mass through the equation E = mc2. Its value does not depend on any particular experimental conditions such as would affect the speed of a sound wave in air (for which air temperature and the direction and speed of any wind would matter). It is a universal constant of nature.

Physical constant

I don't think that a universal constant of nature can be assumed to exist before nature itself does. One can theorize about all sorts of possibilities, any one of which might be true or none of them either. Reality may be beyond our comprehension or reasoning, or maybe we just don't have enough data yet. But it seems foolish to me to rule anything out.

The universe (nature) could not exist unless the physical constants had already existed. It is the physical constants which shape our physical universe. To believe otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

Why could both not have come into being simultaneously? (assuming they are not eternal)

They did come into being at the same time. Or at least on the same day. The day that God created them. From an evolutionary perspective, however, you cannot have a universe unless you first have rules for it. It's similar to not having a painting until you have someone to paint it. There is also the fact that physical constants are not part of the physical universe. They are not composed of matter or energy. They exist independent of our physical reality.

How do you know that physical constants exist independently of our physical reality? Wouldn't you need to observe another physical reality to know that?

From an evolutionary perspective? What does that even mean? Are you saying the universe evolved now, rather than having been created?