This thread is for proof that God exists

by juandefiero 375 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Coded Logic

  I find it hard to believe too that the transition or change from nothing to something happened without energy

  Happens all the time. It's called the Casimir Effect. It should also be noted that the total sum energy of our universe is zero.

  it randomly decided to choose the drive (set of physical laws) and direction it did forming the universe . It is like playing the lottery with 6.02 x 10 23 different numbers and winning 6.02 x 10 24 times by chance if a person should live so long.

  
  

  We don't know why the universe has structure - and we don't know why it has the structure that it has. But a current lack of an answer doesn't mean we get to automatically invoke God (please see the argument from ignorance fallacy).
  

  It should also be noted that your use of statistics is very misleading. It's not the staggering odds you're suggesting. Rather, it's identical to saying, "If the laws of the universe were different - than the laws of the universe would be different."

  Allow me to explain by way of example; here in the United States the number of license plate configurations that are possible is over 78 billion. So, what are the odds that my license plate number would just happen to be the one I have? Is it a staggering coincidence that I have a license plate number?

  No, not at all. Because most cars have license plates. So that I would have SOME license plate number - despite all the possible combinations - is not remarkable. I don't just get to say, "The only way I can I explain my license plate is by amazing odds of 78 billion to 1." Rather, the odds of me having a license plate is almost 1 to 1. The fact that there are different possible combinations is completely irrelevant. The same is true of the universe. That it would have SOME configuration of laws is not remarkable even if different laws were possible - which we don't know if they are.
• 

  talesin

  Re: Intellectual Honesty

  I've found the earlier-posted bar chart. It's from a Pew Research Center study:.

  The NAS 7% has nothing to do with this chart (ie, the figure is coincidental), and is a somewhat outdated figure from 1998.

  Link: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

  "A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.
  
  Source: Scientists data from Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009; for complete question wording, see survey topline. General public data from Pew Research Center survey conducted in July 2006; for complete question wording, see survey topline. Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding."
  
• 

  cofty

  I've found the earlier-posted bar chart. - Talsin

  It was already in Jacob Meza's post here....

  The NAS 7% has nothing to do with this chart (ie, the figure is coincidental), and is a somewhat outdated figure from 1998.

  Then I look forward to you providing a link to a study showing that belief in god has increased among members of the National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences since 1998.

  Scientists are significantly less likely to believe in god than the general population. 33% as opposed to 83%. Among the most accomplished scientists that is even more significant - just 7%
• 

  Fisherman

  It should also be noted that your use of statistics is very misleading

  It is not misleading .
  
  

  It's not the staggering odds you're suggesting

  
  It is
  

  Allow me to explain by way of example;........

  This is a logical fallacy.
  =============================================================
  In the real world world, "Nothing" is very very faithful and predictable. It enjoys the virtue of being in an inert and sterile state forever without hope of any change possible -like the state of being dead or not existing.
  
  

  Since there is no proof contrary to that how can the formation or change from "nothing" to something occur without any added energy? Who fired things up? Who turned on the switch? : If any energy at all was used to change nothing to something , would result in a universe having energy not = to zero; for example, a car engine wiil not turn on on its own, it requires someone to turn on the ignition switch and the energy it took to turn the car on must be added to the total energy of the system.
  Same applies to the engine of the universe, but when all of the energy of the universe is added up, kinetic energy for example, rotation of everything in one direction for example equals the same amount of energy in the other direction the sum is = to zero.
  In science, change is always invoked by energy and change cannot happen without energy and surely then if energy was required to change nothing into something, the universe would not be zero energy.Thus science fiction and not the real world purports that "nothing "is unfaithful, a Judas, not trustworthy.
  
  

  But we have a problem here: As far as I know and believe it is true, energy did not change nothing into something and if that is a fact, then what did change nothing into something that exists in the form of the universe, its laws and everything in it? The fact is that scientists do not know and cannot prove what did without resorting to and evoking science fiction and neither does the Casmir Effect that you misrepresent show the magical creation of something from nothing.... and these imaginary universess you suggest that do not exist but would exists with other laws is just not the real world. It is a fantasy, science fiction.
  

  I trust nothing, I have faith in nothing, I am convinced that nothing will never turn Judas on me. Nothing is always inert, nothing is always sterile, nothing will never change (on its own). It is logically and scientifically impossible for nothing to change on its own without something causing that change.
  

  Reality is that we have the universe and we also have something that caused it form.
  
  
• 

  prologos

  Coded Logic: "Happens all the time. It's called the Casimir Effect."-- If this force inherent in the vacuum, the void would have been present in the pre-beginning realm, It would negate the idea of a self made Universe out of nothing, since the effect, the inward pressure on the plates, is an expression of energy, it can never be called nothing. perhaps there was never a time when there was nothing, and then the presence of a creator or the equivalent what we would have to call it, becomes a possibility. and: the small casimir effect is thought to be minute, compared to the energy that is really present, churning in the virtual vacuum.

  "--the total sum energy of our universe is zero.--" wrong imho. just because the dynamic energy (movement) nearly balances the energy locked up in the form of matter (hence gravity), and the two balance, like in the Earth's orbit does not mean that there is zero energy in the system, au contraire, there are 2 not zero energies. 2 energies that are balanced, but add up to two, just like the weight and the merchandise on the other side of the balance scale. and:

  then there is the excess energy that causes the accelerated expansion of the the universe. make it 3 not 0. so:

  While the presence of energy. and by extension time is understood to be present in the void is no proof that a creator exist, it at least proves that conditions existed that made creative works possible, god? that is another question.
• 

  Fisherman

  CL,
  The way I see it Quantum mechanics does not exist in a non existent universe I also do not believe that time and empty space always existed before the universe but are part of the framework of the universe. If anyone can show mehow time and space always existed, I would like to see it.

  I have a philosophical reason: Given God exists, time and space or anything else are not co eternal with God.
• 

  prologos

  Fisherman; "--I also do not believe that time and empty space always existed before the universe--" you are right, our 3 space dimensions, empty or filled with matter, are not eternal, they started expanding , that is moving through time in our beginning aka the "big bang" However, if you consider the creator to be eternal, he must have existed in it, Time has to be the property of a creator in every sense of the word. only he is not moving through it as we do. even creation is moving through time at different speeds. Time does not flow , it is stationary, we flow through it, not even stopping for the now, one moment. We have momentum moving through time.
• 

  Fisherman

  Prologos, I think that you have thought provoking views. I did give thought about what you are posting before. I need to consider some more. Thank you for your great posts on this thread. I will keep an eye for your posts in the future. Feel free to post disagree ment with me not offended at all.
• 

  prologos

  Even discounting belief in a creator, just for the alleged effects of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, the theorists tentatively acknowledge that time exists prior to movement through it that carries us into the future.
• 

  Alive!

  Enjoying the discussion between Fish and Prologos...... Thanks guys.

  Love the richness......