Why God Exist!!!?

reply to post by edmc^2

Hey spy, did it ever occurred to you that infinity is also related to the Fibonacci Sequence (FS)

I have been looking into it. The FS can be found in parctically everything from galaxies, architecture to humans and plants.

How it is related to the infinite is still a gray area for me. Since the infintie is a constant the infinite must have some form of awareness and intelligence, and have chosen a design patern for how finite matter and particles should evolve and form what is known to us. The system Our universe work by is very fine tuned all the way doen to the smalest scale. We human are very small on this scale, and plants even smaller, and particles and matter even smaller than that.

thedeadtruth
Sorry. Don't want to read all 23 pages....

Did anyone decide who's God or Gods we are talking about. Because they only seem limited to peoples imagination, with some Gods actually being created or born from other Gods.

If we are really discussing peoples imagination. I do not think it needs discussing. We know imagination exists.

I don't know about the others but the God I'm talking about is the Uncreated One, the ultimate first cause - the Creator as stated in Genesis 1.

He goes by the Tetragrammaton name YHWH who we know as Yehowah/Jehovah/Yahweh (from the Scriptures)

The one who Jesus said my Father and my God.

spy66
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Hey spy, did it ever occurred to you that infinity is also related to the Fibonacci Sequence (FS)

I have been looking into it. The FS can be found in parctically everything from galaxies, architecture to humans and plants.

How it is related to the infinite is still a gray area for me. Since the infintie is a constant the infinite must have some form of awareness and intelligence, and have chosen a design patern for how finite matter and particles should evolve and form what is known to us. The system Our universe work by is very fine tuned all the way doen to the smalest scale. We human are very small on this scale, and plants even smaller, and particles and matter even smaller than that.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

One of the relationship that is absolutely confirmed to exist by both mathematics and science is the PATTERN!

It infinitely exist in both the micro world and in the macro world, and we're just scratching the infinitesimally tiny surface of it!

reply to post by spy66


Why do you assume it's intelligent? Cohesion and coherence are not necessarily the results of intelligence.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

Why do you assume it's intelligent? Cohesion and coherence are not necessarily the results of intelligence.

Well to understand this, you first have to understand what time is.

What time do you think existed before the Big Bang?

Was there time or was there no time at all?

If there were no time before the Big Bang. That means that the Space that existed before the Big Bang was absolute neutral. Wouldnt you agree?

A Space that have no time = absolute neutral "Right"????

What would this Space have had to have if it is absolute neutral???? To forme something that is not neutral and have time?

reply to post by spy66

Well to understand this, you first have to understand what time is.

What time do you think existed before the Big Bang?

Was there time or was there no time at all?

No one knows the answer to that right now. Not even you.

If there were no time before the Big Bang. That means that the Space that existed before the Big Bang was absolute neutral. Wouldnt you agree?

A Space that have no time = absolute neutral "Right"????

What would this Space have to have if it is absolute neutral????

You're speculating right now. And honestly, your skills in speculation could use a little more factual basis. I'm not saying it's wrong to speculate, I'm just saying it's a really good idea to know exactly what you're speculating about. Seems like you're working from a base of absolutely zero scientific context, so...you could literally say anything you wanted and make it work somehow. Not my idea of an honest investigation.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

Well to understand this, you first have to understand what time is.

What time do you think existed before the Big Bang?

Was there time or was there no time at all?

No one knows the answer to that right now. Not even you.

If there were no time before the Big Bang. That means that the Space that existed before the Big Bang was absolute neutral. Wouldnt you agree?

A Space that have no time = absolute neutral "Right"????

What would this Space have to have if it is absolute neutral????

You're speculating right now. And honestly, your skills in speculation could use a little more factual basis. I'm not saying it's wrong to speculate, I'm just saying it's a really good idea to know exactly what you're speculating about. Seems like you're working from a base of absolutely zero scientific context, so...you could literally say anything you wanted and make it work somehow. Not my idea of an honest investigation.

edit on 16-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

True: i am spaculating based on observation. I know that the void that makes up the Space between galaxies, stars and so on are expanding equally in all direction. I know that the void that makes up the Space between the galaxies and stars are very Close to absolute vacuum.

Than you can ask Your self; Why and how does the void that makes up the Space between galaxies and stars and so on expand?

Well the only conclusion is that the Space that surrounds Our universe " The singularity" IS a absolute vacuum. This can never be physically confirmed. But it is the only explanation to how and why Our universe can expand.

What i am saying is not in any contrediction to the Law of expansion.

A void that is Close to a absolute vacuum will only expand towards a Space that is even closer to a absolute vacuum than it self is.

reply to post by spy66


Hey Spy,

Quick questions:

Is the universe expanding or spinning or both?

Or is it spinning and that the spin we're seeing is being interpreted as expanding - due to the axis of spin is changing?

This one is baffling me.

reply to post by edmc^2


Why are you asking spy specifically? Confirmation bias? I'm sure spy isn't the only one with an opinion to offer in answer to your questions.

So you're refering to the creator. And you say that something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite. How does that prove the existence of God?

First of all, if something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite it is much more likely to be the universe than to be God.
Because we already know the universe exists, so God does not have to exist.
Second of all, Whatever silly thing you worship as God is either a delusion or a usurper; not the creator.

One theory for God is that everything that was created also created themselves. So everyone is a part of God. And nothing would need to be uncreated. Much more plausible than a lingering uncreated being that demands worship.

edmc^2
reply to post by spy66

 

Hey Spy,

Quick questions:

Is the universe expanding or spinning or both?

Or is it spinning and that the spin we're seeing is being interpreted as expanding - due to the axis of spin is changing?

This one is baffling me.

edit on 19-1-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)

The singularity "Our Universe" is not spining. It is expanding. Only galaxies spin around their black hole.

It is the Space "the void" between galaxies, stars and planets that are expanding and pushing galaxies away from eachother equally in all directions.

What force would make Our universe spin? There is no force present to make that happen. Our universe would not expand equaly in all directions if it was spinning.

twsnhr013
So you're refering to the creator. And you say that something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite. How does that prove the existence of God?

First of all, if something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite it is much more likely to be the universe than to be God.
Because we already know the universe exists, so God does not have to exist.

If Our universe had a beginning, it can not be infinite in any way, because it took a finite amount of time to create "The Singularity". That means it will expand and become what it used to be; in a finite amount of time as well. It will never expand indefinitely. That is only possible on paper.

There is a reason why energy mass can never be destroyed. That is because the infinite takes up all Space possible. That is the reason Our universe never can be destroyed. It takes 5 minutes to figure that out

With a bit of self Critical thinking. You know its true.

spy66

twsnhr013
So you're refering to the creator. And you say that something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite. How does that prove the existence of God?

First of all, if something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite it is much more likely to be the universe than to be God.
Because we already know the universe exists, so God does not have to exist.

If Our universe had a beginning, it can not be infinite in any way, because it took a finite amount of time to create "The Singularity". That means it will expand and become what it used to be; in a finite amount of time as well. It will never expand indefinitely. That is only possible on paper.

There is a reason why energy mass can never be destroyed. That is because the infinite takes up all Space possible. That is the reason Our universe never can be destroyed. It takes 5 minutes to figure that out

With a bit of self Critical thinking. You know its true.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

So...you're saying that because energy cannot be destroyed, the universe itself is eternal?

Let's say that the universe implodes before exploding once again, creating a different universe from the same old materials. Would you say that the old universe died, or did it just get reconstructive surgery?

AfterInfinity

spy66

twsnhr013
So you're refering to the creator. And you say that something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite. How does that prove the existence of God?

First of all, if something has to exist that is both uncreated and infinite it is much more likely to be the universe than to be God.
Because we already know the universe exists, so God does not have to exist.

If Our universe had a beginning, it can not be infinite in any way, because it took a finite amount of time to create "The Singularity". That means it will expand and become what it used to be; in a finite amount of time as well. It will never expand indefinitely. That is only possible on paper.

There is a reason why energy mass can never be destroyed. That is because the infinite takes up all Space possible. That is the reason Our universe never can be destroyed. It takes 5 minutes to figure that out

With a bit of self Critical thinking. You know its true.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

So...you're saying that because energy cannot be destroyed, the universe itself is eternal?

Let's say that the universe implodes before exploding once again, creating a different universe from the same old materials. Would you say that the old universe died, or did it just get reconstructive surgery?

edit on 19-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

No, that is not what i am saying.
I am saying that Our universe can not be destroyed, because a absolute empty infinite Space takes up all Space possible. There is nowhere to get ridd of Our universe. There is no where to deastroy it to. If i can put that way, for it to make sense?

Our universe will never implode. It will never implode beacuse how the expansion is taking Place.
The expansion of Our universe is not expansing in such way that it will create a absolute vacuum somehwere in the center of Our universe. How is that going to happene??

Do you know how expansion takes Place? If you build a fire With Wood outside. Does the fire Place implode after the Wood have burned out?
Does the heat come back to the fire Place after it has expanded away?

If you build a fire inside a Sealed Box. Will the Box implode after the fire is bruned out?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


How can you accuse me of speculating? You can only do that if you that i am wrong. Is having the correct knowledge a Democracy were the majority have to agree?

So...you're saying that because energy cannot be destroyed, the universe itself is eternal?

That is not what i am saying either.

When there is a absolute infinite empty Space, and that Space takes up all Space possible. Than that Space created the singularity.
That means the singularity will expand back to what it used to be.

Do you know what state a absolute infinite empty Space would have?

Would it be absolute neutral? If so; Than that is what Our universe will expand back to.

reply to post by spy66


Why do you assume that the universe is "it" so to speak. If you start at sub atomics and work your way up to the next larger piece of matter and do it again, again and so on what exactly do we actually have any definitive proof of that the universe is the largest piece. Your idea that the universe is infinite and contains all matter/energy is based on data from within that same space. Since we are unable to actually see or experience anything outside of it due to our limited observation abilities I can't see coming to a definitive answer. I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that our universe may be all there is in existence but I do have to leave the door open since it cannot be proven to be true without question. All I can do is speculate about the possibilities with what we have available.

reply to post by spy66

I am saying that Our universe can not be destroyed, because a absolute empty infinite Space takes up all Space possible. There is nowhere to get ridd of Our universe. There is no where to deastroy it to. If i can put that way, for it to make sense?

Let's say I have identified a particular book and isolated all copies in such a manner that it is unlikely they will ever be found again, then removed all traces of their existence from the memories of every person who has ever been even slightly aware of that book's existence. All of the copies still exist and are unharmed, but as far as we are aware, that book has never existed. Ever. Would all of this mean I have destroyed the book? Please think carefully about your answer.

Let's say that I did destroy every copy of that book. Not a single page from a single copy, either manuscript or published version, remains as anything other than dust drifting in an ocean or on a breeze somewhere. All digital copies have been erased as fully as code can be. Absolutely nothing remains of it except the memories possessed by those who read, wrote, or heard of the book. Could it then be said that I have destroyed that book? Again, think carefully.

The point here is, of course, that the definition of "destroy" is a rather vague one. Simply put, destruction is the ending of something. Something has been terminated in a very thorough manner. But what does it mean to terminate something? What does it mean to end? Does that mean you no longer possess a physical identity? What comprises a physical identity? At what point is a physical identity lost? Should a physical identity be lost, is that truly destruction or merely a transmutation? Has it been destroyed, or compressed like a file? If all knowledge of it has been removed, does that qualify as destruction or merely redaction? If I erase your memories until you're a blank slate, are you still you? Why or why not? If I destroy your body but store your mind in a computer, is that computer you? If I remove your mind and put it in a computer, while putting someone else's mind in your body, which one is you? Are you the body or the mind? If I did that with your mind and body and made everyone forget you ever existed, removed all traces of your existence except your reprogrammed mind and recycled body, does that count as destruction?

Do you see what I'm saying here? You should be more specific with what you're attempting to convey. Someone like me is bound to become confused by language you seem to be taking for granted.

If you build a fire inside a Sealed Box. Will the Box implode after the fire is bruned out?

What happens to an inflated balloon exposed to liquid nitrogen, the polar opposite of hot air?

drivers1492
reply to post by spy66

 

Why do you assume that the universe is "it" so to speak. If you start at sub atomics and work your way up to the next larger piece of matter and do it again, again and so on what exactly do we actually have any definitive proof of that the universe is the largest piece. Your idea that the universe is infinite and contains all matter/energy is based on data from within that same space. Since we are unable to actually see or experience anything outside of it due to our limited observation abilities I can't see coming to a definitive answer. I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that our universe may be all there is in existence but I do have to leave the door open since it cannot be proven to be true without question. All I can do is speculate about the possibilities with what we have available.

To day we have no way of knowing how large the singularity has become " expanded". But we know that if we og back in time, the singularity would be a lot smaller. Until it become a single point if we had the ability to og that far back in time.

NB. I Call Our universe the singularity. It is not infinite. It is a finite, and it took a finite amount of time to create it. That means it will take a finite amount of time to expand back to what it used to be. That means the energy mass of the sigularity will expand; bit by bit over a long period of finite time, until it is absolute neutral. It will take a finite amount of time because the singularity is not infinite.

reply to post by spy66

NB. I Call Our universe the singularity. It is not infinite. It is a finite, and it took a finite amount of time to create it. That means it will take a finite amount of time to expand back to what it used to be. That means the energy mass of the sigularity will expand; bit by bit over a long period of finite time, until it is absolute neutral. It will take a finite amount of time because the singularity is not infinite.

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying the cause of expansion exerted exactly enough energy to inflate the universe to its natural capacity? And if the universe is naturally an inflated blob of whatever, then what compressed it to begin with?

NB. I Call Our universe the singularity. It is not infinite. It is a finite, and it took a finite amount of time to create it. That means it will take a finite amount of time to expand back to what it used to be. That means the energy mass of the sigularity will expand; bit by bit over a long period of finite time, until it is absolute neutral. It will take a finite amount of time because the singularity is not infinite.

reply to post by spy66


Could you possibly restate this for me? It is making no sense.