Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

[JoeBlow]

And a sunshower is "the devil is kissing his wife".

Rain is god pissing on us.

 

[JoeBlow]

Yes. That is exactly what I am talking about.

Then you'd be wrong. Again.

 

[ding]

Then you'd be wrong. Again.

 

[FA_Q2]

In other words they pop into existence and annihilate each other.

'pop' into existence from a quantum field.

Which is what 'nothing' really is as we have no actual experience with the 'nothing' that apologetics wants to use.

Meaning the universe came into existence from 'nothing' is just a failure of language and a failure of understand the actual science.

 

[ding]

'pop' into existence from a quantum field.

Which is what 'nothing' really is as we have no actual experience with the 'nothing' that apologetics wants to use.

Meaning the universe came into existence from 'nothing' is just a failure of language and a failure of understand the actual science.

You are correct your argument is about semantics but it is you who is on the wrong side. Everyone else in the cosmological and physics community understand the distinction and choose to see the very different and unusual event of the birth of the universe as being created from nothing. Convince me otherwise.

 

[ding]

JoeBlow

 

[FA_Q2]

You are correct your argument is about semantics but it is you who is on the wrong side. Everyone else in the cosmological and physics community understand the distinction and choose to see the very different and unusual event of the birth of the universe as being created from nothing. Convince me otherwise.

I don't think you can be convinced but directly to the point of the nothing that you are talking about not being the nothing that science is talking about was directly addressed in a debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss

"Now the interesting thing is that—let me go to discuss “nothing.” I was going to say that Dr. Craig’s an expert on it, but I won’t. But in a sense he is, because he’s studied what I’ve said. I’ve talked about the fact that empty space is not empty. Nothing is not nothing. But that’s not—the point is that that’s one version of nothing. One version is—of yet again, defies conventional wisdom, that defies conventional logic—that a century ago if we’d been having this debate, Dr. Craig would say, “Something can never come from nothing. Nothing can ever arise from empty space. Empty space is empty and the only way you can get something out of empty space is if God creates it.” Well, he could have said that, and that would have agreed with what we understood at the time, but it’s not true. Now we know, “Poof!” out of empty space, you all arose! Out of empty space, all of you arose. Quantum fluctuations in the earliest of the universe produce mass density fluctuations which produce galaxies, stars, people. So, it’s amazing. It’s fantastic and we should just—I love talking about it! I’d rather talk about that than what I’m about to talk about.

But that’s not the only kind of nothing. The kind of nothing that I talked about that Steven Hawking mentioned is a more extreme version of nothing—still not, maybe you might argue, complete nothing, but in quantum gravity—and it’s a theory we don’t yet fully understand, but if we apply quantum mechanics to gravity, and gravity is a theory of space and time—, then quantum mechanics tells us that space and time themselves, not the space in which these things are appearing, but space itself spontaneously appears. There was no space, there was no time. And a region of space and time spontaneously appears. It’s very different than the quantum fluctuations that are happening in empty space in which Dr. Craig talked about. I agree: that’s not complete nothing. It’s a version of nothing, in itself. It’s so remarkable we should be amazed by it. But quantum gravity says that space and time can come out of nothing, so that where there’s no space, no time.

Now, Dr. Craig, I could let him wait and rebut this and then rebut it again in the next one, but I’ll give him a break. You might say Dr. Craig would say, I think, and I bet he would be writing this note because I’d be if I were him, but that’s not nothing either. Because nothing—at least there are laws. At least there are laws. So the laws were there that of which empty space arose. So space—indeed, there was nothing in the conventional sense that there was no space, no time, no universe. It’s perfectly plausible that a universe can be created where there was no space before. In fact, again, in quantum gravity, it’s not only plausible; it’s required! It’s required that you cannot have that event not happen somewhere. But the laws are there."
Lawrence Krauss


Essentially, the nothing you are talking about is not established anywhere in science and replacing that nothing with 'mind stuff' is nonsensical. What is persistent now and even beyond the big bang are quantum fields.

 

[ding]

I don't think you can be convinced but directly to the point of the nothing that you are talking about not being the nothing that science is talking about was directly addressed in a debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss

Never saw it and have no intention of watching it. Again... convince me otherwise that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

 

[ding]

"Now the interesting thing is that—let me go to discuss “nothing.” I was going to say that Dr. Craig’s an expert on it....

Don't care. Again... convince me otherwise that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

 

[ding]

But that’s not the only kind of nothing. The kind of nothing that I talked about that Steven Hawking mentioned is a more extreme version of nothing—still not, maybe you might argue, complete nothing, but in quantum gravity—and it’s a theory we don’t yet fully understand, but if we apply quantum mechanics to gravity, and gravity is a theory of space and time—, then quantum mechanics tells us that space and time themselves, not the space in which these things are appearing, but space itself spontaneously appears. There was no space, there was no time. And a region of space and time spontaneously appears. It’s very different than the quantum fluctuations that are happening in empty space in which Dr. Craig talked about. I agree: that’s not complete nothing. It’s a version of nothing, in itself. It’s so remarkable we should be amazed by it. But quantum gravity says that space and time can come out of nothing, so that where there’s no space, no time.

Still don't care. Again... convince me otherwise that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

 

[ding]

Now, Dr. Craig...

Still don't care. Again... convince me otherwise that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

Are you getting the point? This is an argument of semantics. You are on the wrong side of it.

 

[ding]

At least do something original like JoeBlow and argue the CMB is just a blob.

 

[FA_Q2]

Still don't care. Again... convince me otherwise that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

Are you getting the point? This is an argument of semantics. You are on the wrong side of it.

No, Krauss clearly outlines what the difference is. He tells you quite clearly that nothing is NOT nothing, at least in the way you want it to be nothing. It is the same nothing when you claim that an empty room has nothing in it. The room is still filled with things like air. The nothing before the big bang was quantum fields.

You don't 'care' because it does not agree with what you already determined. You are not interested in the truth of the matter.

 

[ding]

No, Krauss clearly outlines what the difference is. He tells you quite clearly that nothing is NOT nothing, at least in the way you want it to be nothing. It is the same nothing when you claim that an empty room has nothing in it. The room is still filled with things like air. The nothing before the big bang was quantum fields.

You don't 'care' because it does not agree with what you already determined. You are not interested in the truth of the matter.

I understand how the universe was created through a quantum tunneling event. I also understand why main stream science routinely refers to this as a universe being created from nothing. It is you who doesn't like how science has characterized the Big Bang. I'm perfectly happy with it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I understand how the universe was created through a quantum tunneling event. I also understand why main stream science routinely refers to this as a universe being created from nothing. It is you who doesn't like how science has characterized the Big Bang. I'm perfectly happy with it.

I have no issues with how it is characterized at all.

The only issue I have had is the asinine assertion that because the big bang had a beginning, there must be a god that fills a casual gap that simply is not there. That is a gross misunderstanding of the science itself.

 

[ding]

I have no issues with how it is characterized at all.

The only issue I have had is the asinine assertion that because the big bang had a beginning, there must be a god that fills a casual gap that simply is not there. That is a gross misunderstanding of the science itself.

That's probably because you have an improper perception of said God and your biases won't allow you to make an objective assessment.

Science starts at the Big Bang everything before it is philosophy. But that doesn't mean we can't include the Big Bang and everything after it in our assessment. In fact, it's a requirement.

 

[Crick]

An improper perception of god? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAhahahahaaaaa.

 

[ding]

An improper perception of god? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAhahahahaaaaa.

Sure. If you perceive God as a fairy tale then everything you look at will be skewed to fairy tale. However if you are seriously trying to answer the question was the universe created intentionally or was an accidental coincidence of happenstance then a more realistic perception of God will be used.

I've asked pretty much every atheist - who for the most part are at least borderline militant towards religion - to tell me what their perception of God would be if they were earnestly looking for evidence of a creator. Not one has offered up an answer. Would you like to be the first?

My point here is that if you don't have realistic perception of God then it is unlikely that you will ever accept any evidence for God of which there is a lot.

 

[BreezeWood]

That's probably because you have an improper perception of said God and your biases won't allow you to make an objective assessment.

Science starts at the Big Bang everything before it is philosophy. But that doesn't mean we can't include the Big Bang and everything after it in our assessment. In fact, it's a requirement.

not so, science hinges at the moment of singularity that is the passage of the cyclical bb. that moment, transfer from one or the other matter and energy would be indefinable force - what bing refers to as undetectable. is their nothing.



.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have no issues with how it is characterized at all.

The only issue I have had is the asinine assertion that because the big bang had a beginning, there must be a god that fills a casual gap that simply is not there. That is a gross misunderstanding of the science itself.

bb is a cyclical event, eternal for their occurrence -

conducted by the metaphysical forces (and the spiritual content that arises through those events).