Evidence of God in physics , MIND BOGGLING

Originally posted by Shadowcast
Phi is all the proof of intelligent design you need. When the same number shows up all over our planet and beyond its difficult to write them all off as coincidence.

edit on 19-9-2012 by Shadowcast because: spelling

This... And also i saw a video linked on ATS a while back, about particles that reacted differently when filmed...
basically they shot particles through a rectangle with a whole in it, got the pattern they expected, then they added one more hole. Without the camera it made a rly weird pattern, one u would not expect at all... then when filmed it then it behaved like the expected pattern, then they stopped filming again and it made the wierd pattern again. and visa versa...

So basically it changes its pattern because its being watched?... Maybe in some retarded level the cameras electronics interferes, but i doubt it...

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by john_bmth

 

You have to take a Theoretical Physics class which is fairly easy, lots of philosophy in that class. Very interesting to say the LEAST, i have never had so much fun in a class before. Physics 1, 2, and 3 where easy as well.

I am doing a double Major in Bio-Technology and Computer Science, so i have to take some physics classes. Which, again, come some what easy to me.

Also, i watch " Through the Wormhole " with Morgan Freeman because it shares both sides of the arguments and not just one sided arguments (most of the time). It is why i love it.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Awesome website.

edit on 19-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

Time did begin. All things made will die until time ends. Stars are a product of time itself, they coelesce, gain mass overtime and if they have sufficient mass, gravity and fuel nuclear fission will occur and the star will ignite. Larger stars burn shorter over time but hotter and will supernova at the end of their lifecycle and usually become a blackhole. Smaller stars burn longer but are cooler. The stars themselves are a by product of time.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Time is only relevant because of entropy, the theory that everything begins to decay as soon as it is born. All things will enter a state of disorder until they become something else entirely. Recycling, reincarnation, however you want to look at it.

reply to post by milkyway12


I'm asking specifically for the sources of scientific literature that support your claim that time is evidence for the existence of a god. Is this something you can provide via links?

the chair you're sitting on didn't create itself, so why would you think the earth and the universe would be any different.

everything in our physical reality relates to cause and effect. nothing happens by itself but is designed to function a certain way.

there is no reason for anything to function the way it does. but it does in harmony and everything has a function.

you have to be blind and ignorant to see that it is not random chance.

it would be like throwing a million lego pieces on the floor and it all randomly connected to form a car.

Originally posted by Shadowcast
Phi is all the proof of intelligent design you need. When the same number shows up all over our planet and beyond its difficult to write them all off as coincidence.

edit on 19-9-2012 by Shadowcast because: spelling

The golden ratio
Out of One Many
Found in all sacred sciences
Even taught secretively in Masonry

Its starts with the E.A. emblem, a point with in a circle


From that point, the creator riplicated itself


After replication miltiple time, the tree of life was form


After that, anything is possible

Originally posted by randomname
the chair you're sitting on didn't create itself, so why would you think the earth and the universe would be any different.

Comparing something that we know is man made and using this as evidence that the universe was also designed is a logical fallacy. The wood the chair was made from wasn't man made. Using your argument, this is evidence that the components of the universe weren't designed. What about the universe itself? That clearly wasn't man made, using your argument this is conclusive evidence against a designer.

Originally posted by milkyway12

Please tell me how time began without an action? If time is proven as fact, you have to have what we would call a god.

REALLY!? Time proves God? Wow.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Nothing could exist outside of time, other than what we would call god

So something exists, or nothing exists? - I don't think you can have both...by the way, since this fragment implies you know, what exactly would we call God?

Originally posted by milkyway12
because time hasn't even appeared yet and there would be a void of absolutely nothing, hell, there wouldn't even be a void. So how can something be created out of nothing? It cant.

Hmmm, so is God something or nothing? - if God is nothing, than how could God create something from nothing - IT CAN'T.

Originally posted by milkyway12
Obviously you don't know, and i don't know. However, we can easily formulate, something had to create time out of absolutely nothing. So how could that remotely occur if not even a single atom existed?

Time is relative. It doesn't exist without the universe - it is only relevant as a means of relative comparison - it can't truly be measured, observed or defined - it is a by product of our incomplete consciousness. It is NOT evidence of God. For reals.

reply to post by UdonNiedtuno

So something exists, or nothing exists? - I don't think you can have both...by the way, since this fragment implies you know, what exactly would we call God?

Funny you should mention that. Technically, to be nothing would be to be part of everything...because if every single thing in the universe contained a piece of you, then you no longer exist as a separate being, which makes you nonexistence. So it all depends on how you look at it...as always.

Hmmm, so is God something or nothing? - if God is nothing, than how could God create something from nothing - IT CAN'T.

Look at the human mind attempting to grasp the infinite, then discarding it as faulty because of its own incapability. It's hilarious, really, yet pitiful. Hilarious because of the folly, and pitiful because we'll never get anywhere unless we realize what we're doing.

After all, every circle seems infinite if it is both wide and obscure enough. We'll trace the same segment again and again, never realizing we've already passed the starting point a dozen times. All you have to do is block the rest from sight. This is us trying to find "God".

Time is relative. It doesn't exist without the universe - it is only relevant as a means of relative comparison - it can't truly be measured, observed or defined - it is a by product of our incomplete consciousness. It is NOT evidence of God. For reals.

Your view isn't broad enough to see that it is evidence of Source, just like everything else. It's ironic, really.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm saying this as a physicist who had great interest in science since childhood.

Ha! You don't get off that easy, Mr. Science guy. lol

Please allow me to ask if you believe in the Big Bang, and if you believe it on the basis of what Hubble saw through his telescope?

I ask this because I believe that what Hubble saw is a bunch of galaxies moving away from each other. These galaxies are but a few grains of sand in the big scheme of things.



Seems like everything about the creation of the universe has the foundation of what Hubble saw. Okay, the galaxies are flying faster and faster away from us. And if we reverse the process they would come to a singularity. But this point could very well have been a little bang that only created our tiny TINY region of the universe, because those grains of sand that represent what Hubble saw HAVE to be a mere sampling of all that is out there.



Right?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Seems like everything about the creation of the universe has the foundation of what Hubble saw. Okay, the galaxies are flying faster and faster away from us. And if we reverse the process they would come to a singularity. But this point could very well have been a little bang that only created our tiny TINY region of the universe, because those grains of sand that represent what Hubble saw HAVE to be a mere sampling of all that is out there.

Right?

If there were other "tiny" bangs whose galaxies are all receding from each other, shouldn't some of those galaxies be coming towards us? We don't see that. I guess you could say they are so far away we can't see them, but if that's the case then it's just wild speculation and there is nothing you could test to prove the prediction.

reply to post by OMsk3ptic


Or maybe we don't know everything there is to know about the universe, and don't have all the data required to make such assumptions or even to speculate that such assumptions might be credible.

OH! OH NO! OH, THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE!! Well, guess what: that just happened.

I BELIEVE that "God" created "the beginning" in whatever shape or form you choose to realize. I also believe "God" created the laws that govern the universe.

Science and religion can coexist for the vast majority.
If "God" can create "the beginning", surely an occasional "miracle" can also exist.

For those that believe indeed there is nothing outside of their own reality and that the universe was just "formed", I can only say that I can't even accept that as a possibility. It's beyond arrogant and so completely self centered and short sighted in almost every way, it boggles the mind. Almost as much as those that believe that "God" favored them alone in the universe. Both extremes are ridiculous.

I can't prove any of it of course, and I don't have to. But if you're REALLY interested in the "truth", you need to accept the probability that there is a physical scientific world that coexists right along with a spiritual one and probably a great many more our little minds aren't even aware of.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by OMsk3ptic

 

Or maybe we don't know everything there is to know about the universe, and don't have all the data required to make such assumptions or even to speculate that such assumptions might be credible.

OH! OH NO! OH, THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE!! Well, guess what: that just happened.

Who said we know everything possible? I said we don't see that. And there is no way to test the prediction. I have no clue what your exaggerated post was all about.

I hate it when people say "evidence" ... When really it is just somebody's opinion.

To the OP, evidence is when there is something that you can experiment on more than once, and get results that back up your hypothesis. This is just a man with a ridiculously unscientific opinion, and like a previous poster said, if there is someone that will be able to prove/disprove God, it would be a scientist.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Fortunately, the choices I've made in my life up to this point give me limited time to respond - or else I could be here for awhile. But I'll keep it as concise as I can.

It seems as though you assume I am trying to deny the existence of God. This couldn't be further from the truth. I am however denying milkyway12's arguments are in any way evidence of God.

With that out of the way - in your rebut to my statement that something exists or nothing exists - you say to be nothing, would be to be part of everything. The logic here is baffling to me because nothing is nothing and everything is something. If there was a "part" of nothing than it couldn't logically be nothing - if it could exist as a "part" of anything, by definition, by logic, it is something. Then you also try to tie into this the idea of nonexistence, which you define, roughly, as "no longer existing as a seperate being" drastically different than nothing, so I will just leave that alone. I also posit that your definition is NOT nonexistence. But, moving on...

I would say: Look at the human mind trying to grasp a concept as simple as nothing OR something and watch it fail (you). I am not trying to grasp the infinite, I am not trying to grasp God, I am trying to tell milkyway12 that the logical path they are taking to God is faulty and to rethink it. It is really S-I-M-P-L-E

To me, I need no proof of God. I need no religion to tell me what God is. God is all and all is God. Everything. I need only open my self to true feeling to know that. In fact, as soon as I felt that there was more to the human condition than coalescing of matter and firing of neurons it took exactly one millisecond to feel God. It is at once bigger and smaller than the biggest and smallest of cosmos because God is.

So please, don't condescend to me. I refuse to use logic to explain God and I suggest the rest of you quit trying!

It won't be done, ever. Logic is inherently bound by what we perceive and we cannot and will not ever perceive all, so our logic will always fall short.

Cheers!

reply to post by dwarfflex


“You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created. Revelation 4:11

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world. Psalm 19

reply to post by dwarfflex


This guy talks a lot about "odds" but fails to realize that in the presence of "infinity" ALL thing are CONSEQUENTLY possible...even life and all its precise "needs" are by CHANCE possible...and in the presence of infinity probability is completely irrelevant...infinity implies a 100% probability of everything...

Having said that, his whole "amazement" with the possibility and probability numbers of life implies he doesn't believe in infinity...at which point I would love absolutely LOVE to hear where he thinks all this "ends" and "begins" without defaulting to "god"...since he is using science to try and prove GOD...he has to use science to prove a "quantified" universe which science has not and cannot do...

If science said the whole universe is just one giant "ball" science would then have to ask the question..."what does that ball exist inside of?"

And then you are back at square one...

reply to post by ResearchEverything777


I saw Gibborim's post, and was inspired. I came to your post, and was repulsed. Why? Because your post lacks substance.

I do not eat grass, I do not grow wool. I am not a sheep. We do not cultivate sheep at ATS. So stop treating us like sheep.

reply to post by Sly1one


Not if the nature that exists within that infinity has an affinity that leans one way or another. Because if that's the case, unless it is a completely neutral nature, then there is bound to be something that goes against the grain. And since nature that is neutral remains stagnant, it's safe to assume that there IS something that goes against the grain.

Can you guess what it is? No? Let me give you a hint: NEUTRALITY. The universe, and everything within it, is always in motion. Otherwise, EVERYTHING would be cold and dead. And yet nothing is sitting still in space, is it? Even the sun continues to burn and throw off conflagrations. Its atoms are in furious motion.

Welcome to the nature of the universe, my friend. Energy. MOTION.