Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

originally posted by: spy66

If our universe is expanding without friction at present time.. How will it crunch..? How does that theory hold merits…?

The only way that would happened is if something is pulling at Our universe from its core…. What would that be..? We dont even know where the center of Our universe is.....
What force would be able to create that compression and force all that expanded to retract back to its core..? First it lets it self expand and then it is capable of compression… That is something isent it...?

It is not expanding without friction... That friction is called gravity and the universe will slow down from the original big bang force and then gravity will start it to go backwards. Right now It is still expanding from the force of the big bang.

What force is ackting as a restriction when it comes to Our universes expansion…? Can you answer that..? What is holding the expansion back... What Gravity can you mention…?

What Gravity that we know of would have this function…?

It would mean that this core would have more Power then Space time it self….. How do you argue that..?

Basically With Your theory time should be slowing Down,,,,, right..? SInce there is a Gravity force pulling against the expantion…..

At what point will time stop and retrackt…? That is basically what you are saying will happened….

All the matter, including maybe dark matter, is inside of that expansion bubble and is constantly pulling on the expansion.

We should already see some of that retraction already dont you think…?

It might keep expanding for 100 billion more years. care to wait and see?

IDK, I didn't make this stuff up so talk to Hawking. wait he is dead... He spent a good deal of brain power to determine whether or not time would reverse if the universe reversed and started to contract. He determined that time would still move forward even if the universe started to go from a disorder state back to an ordered state, reversed chaos theory...

Imagine if your death was your birth and your birth was your death like the movie The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

a reply to: Pachomius

You're mixing apples and oranges. The existence of a god or gods is a BELIEF system. Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Beliefs require no evidence. It's the right of the individual to believe anything they want. You can discuss it all you want over a martini but science requires evidence - data that you can examine and interpret.

To date, there is no hard evidence for a god or gods. And that's fine. People can believe whatever makes them happy.
But what they can't do is misconstrue the evidence (or lack of evidence) from science and turn it into something it is not. It would be a falsehood no matter how many martinis you had.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Pachomius

You're mixing apples and oranges. The existence of a god or gods is a BELIEF system. Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Beliefs require no evidence. It's the right of the individual to believe anything they want. You can discuss it all you want over a martini but science requires evidence - data that you can examine and interpret.

To date, there is no hard evidence for a god or gods. And that's fine. People can believe whatever makes them happy.
But what they can't do is misconstrue the evidence (or lack of evidence) from science and turn it into something it is not. It would be a falsehood no matter how many martinis you had.

When it comes to religion, the more proof you need the less faith you have... kind of reverse to science.

""He doth protest too much, methinks"

a reply to: Xtrozero

In a way, yes. Francis Collins, a devout Catholic and Nobel Prize winner, said that he sees his god in the natural world. But when he walks into his lab, he's seeking the truth - not fitting his beliefs into the data he's acquiring. In other words, religion is not incompatible with science. As long as you seek the truth, you can have both.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TzarChasm

If god can just piece together things, that’s like calling a home builder god.

A true god to me creates the reality. Makes the natural laws.

Or does god start where the physical ends/bleeds into the soul/spiritual.

If the aspect of this reality is only physical, I assume anyone can be a god. If there is a being that created the reality of this universe b” vs a natural process, that is a “true” god.

If the universe came first, anyone can be god.

If the universe came from the being of god, then there is a “true” god.

That depends on whether you can provide a sample of the substance you call "god's being" so it can be studied and used to identify other examples of such substance.

If god was real, why would god allow to be caught in such a fashion? Can you catch a soul if it’s real?

But why would he hide?

God doesn’t hide from the faithful. Or in the simplest acts like dirt And light producing something eatable and sustaining. That to me is just a miracle.

Shrugs

Does anyone find it odd if you remove god from the equation that a species developed from natural selection would give a hoot about written laws? Much less take the time to write up and craft written laws?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TzarChasm

If god can just piece together things, that’s like calling a home builder god.

A true god to me creates the reality. Makes the natural laws.

Or does god start where the physical ends/bleeds into the soul/spiritual.

If the aspect of this reality is only physical, I assume anyone can be a god. If there is a being that created the reality of this universe b” vs a natural process, that is a “true” god.

If the universe came first, anyone can be god.

If the universe came from the being of god, then there is a “true” god.

That depends on whether you can provide a sample of the substance you call "god's being" so it can be studied and used to identify other examples of such substance.

If god was real, why would god allow to be caught in such a fashion? Can you catch a soul if it’s real?

But why would he hide?

God doesn’t hide from the faithful. Or in the simplest acts like dirt And light producing something eatable and sustaining. That to me is just a miracle.

Shrugs

Do you know what miracle means?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TzarChasm

If god can just piece together things, that’s like calling a home builder god.

A true god to me creates the reality. Makes the natural laws.

Or does god start where the physical ends/bleeds into the soul/spiritual.

If the aspect of this reality is only physical, I assume anyone can be a god. If there is a being that created the reality of this universe b” vs a natural process, that is a “true” god.

If the universe came first, anyone can be god.

If the universe came from the being of god, then there is a “true” god.

That depends on whether you can provide a sample of the substance you call "god's being" so it can be studied and used to identify other examples of such substance.

If god was real, why would god allow to be caught in such a fashion? Can you catch a soul if it’s real?

But why would he hide?

God doesn’t hide from the faithful. Or in the simplest acts like dirt And light producing something eatable and sustaining. That to me is just a miracle.

Shrugs

Do you know what miracle means?

I would think food being the sustainer of life would qualify for a miracle? Trying living without food?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Itisnowagain

The reality is: how can we observe nothingness…? We just cant.

The assumption is that there is something (a you or a we) observing nothing.
No thing is observing.........there is simply observingnesss.
Observingness (witnessing) is happening.

The 2 minute vid explains witnessing with no witness.

The seer and seen are not two.......what actually is is One without a second.
When the assumed two become one...the kingdom shall be revealed
😍

a reply to: Pachomius

By just "asking"? You are admitting "God exists".
You are not "asking", to "know". You're "asking" for "validation", to believe otherwise...

If you you have to "ask" other people? You got bigger problems than, other people's opinions....

You guys here are all intellectual cowards, you are so scared to just take on the first line of my list below.

In less than 50 words, tell me what is wrong with it.

Tell me, do you have any critique on the first line of my exposition?


Dear posters here, try this procedure to save time and labor, in proving God exists, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.


1. We know that there is existence - do you concur with me? If not, you are an ignorant dummy.

2. We know that there are entities in existence with a beginning - do you concur with me? If not, you an ignorant dummy.

3. We know that entities with a beginning need an entity without beginning to bring them into existence - do you concur with me? If not, you are an ignorant dummy.

4. We know that we are entities with a beginning - do you concur with me? If not, you are an ignorant dummy.

5. Wherefore we are the evidence to the existence of an entity without beginning which brought us into existence - do you concur with me? If not, you an ignorant dummy.

6. Therefore: God exists in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning - do you concur with me? If not, you are a stubbornly insane ignorant dummy.


Okay, tell me which item, No. 1 to No. 6, you don't concur with me on.

a reply to: Pachomius

Why would anyone talk with you? So you can call everybody "ignorant dummy"?
You're really funny.

Like your 3 I'm pretty sure my mother brought me into this life and she "had a beginning" too.
I don't know what you think you're doing, but you are doing it wrong.

"1. We know that there is existence - do you concur with me? If not, you are an ignorant dummy."



Here is my less than 50 words expatiation of line No. 1 above.


In the realm of existence we observe plenty plenty plenty of things with a beginning. These things have got to have come from ultimately an entity without beginning: that is God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning. [47 words]

a reply to: Pachomius
There is no creator!

a reply to: Pachomius

That's just not true. Everything that exists came from something that had a beginning and an end that came from something with a beginning and an end...
There's literally nothing that came from something that didn't start and end.
In the center of your red blood cell is an iron core that was once a sun that began and ended so you could be here.

There's absolutely no reason that there is anything that was created from something that exists outside of this eternal cycle of birth bloom wither death.
In fact it's absurd to believe any such thing exists. There's no outside the universe, the universe is the all.

a reply to: Pachomius
Nothing is observing... observing is happening all by itself.
Everything is happening all by itself.

The assumption is that 'some thing' is doing observing.....

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Pachomius

That's just not true. Everything that exists came from something that had a beginning and an end that came from something with a beginning and an end...
There's literally nothing that came from something that didn't start and end.

In the material world, yes. But in the higher dimensional aspects of existence, there is an Always-Existent Being. It was never born because It never didn't exist. This hurts our temporal brains because we are so familiar with categorizing everything into the confines of spacetime, but this Being by definition transcends those limitations.

a reply to: cooperton

I don't know I've never been there.
I'm not fundamentally against the idea, to me the existence of such a consciousness would require the universe itself to go through a constant cycle of expanding from and collapsing into a state of singularity.
So it might as well be born and dying an infinite number of times itself. And not be static. But forever changing.


Because it's "the sum and root of all consciousness", if you somehow locate it outside the universe it wouldn't make sense how there's consciousness inside the universe.

a reply to: Peeple
There's a book called 'The Self Aware Universe: How Consciousness creates the Material World' that you might like.
www.amazon.co.uk...