Ace Wrote:lol "Nothingness" is a relative term used by physicists, it doesn't actually mean nothing. Do you know how many particles of matter and antimatter are in movement throughout the universe on a nonstop basis? Even if the chances are small, it can happen. How do you think people win lotteries, other than conning?
This is where you are wrong. Physicists and I both agree that there was nothing before the big bang. I have never heard the claim that there was something before the universe came to being from the big bang. If that is so then how did the something that existed before the Big bang come to be? What caused the something before the big bang?
And furthermore, by making this claim you are discrediting general relativity because Einstein said that
all matter,
all space, and
all time had a definite beginning in the finite past i.e. the big bang. I will allow the
possibility that there is a infinitesimal chance. But please don't compare it to the lottery. Your odds are considerably greater of winning the lottery than the universe erratically erupting into being with no cause. On top of this why would you want to believe something that has such a small probability rather than an explanation that has observable evidence?
Ace Wrote:I can guarantee that 10^22 planets in the Universe is highly incorrect as we haven't even sent radiowaves out to it's farthest reaches of the universe yet. Meaning that 10^138 probablility is also an inaccurate number, as well as 10^70 atoms. I wouldn't know how you'd go off to believe all of that. The amount of knowledge we have on the universe is smaller than a grain of sand in the ocean. We have barely even got a grasp on Quantum physics yet and the double slit experiment.
I agree with you, I think you are right too. I believe the number is much higher. This is where I determine that there are 10^22 planets in the universe. Astronomers say that there are approximately 300 Billion stars in the milky way (our home galaxy).
AT LEAST 25% of
ONLY the sun like stars have
AT LEAST one planet. (Our sun has nine planets and I believe it is very probably that other stars have more than one planet.) This means that there are
AT LEAST 100 billion stars in the milky way that have
AT LEAST one planet. If you multiply that by the estimated number of galaxies in the universe which is about 150 billion you get 1.5*10^22. I said that there was only 1*10^22 planets in the universe so I was being generous. When you consider all the stars that may not be sun like but still have planets nonetheless and all the stars that are probably harbouring more than one planet then that number can quickly jump up even higher. That makes 10^138 even higher of a number and thus even
MORE unlikely.
My source for the above information comes from various astronomical studies concerning the estimates of stars and galaxies but if you would like to review the report about the estimation of how many planets there are, the report written by Charles H. Lineweaver and Daniel Grether from the school of physics from the University of South Wales can be found
here.
As for the number of atoms in the universe, 10^70 is an estimate but even so 10^138 is still
CONSIDERABLY higher than 10^70. And it doesn't matter how many atoms there are in the universe any way because I only gave that number for comparison.
I think you underestimate how much we know about the universe though, maybe it is just a matter of wanting to believe the data that we accumulate. Einstein didn't want to believe his general theory of relativity because it meant that there was a definite beginning of the universe. Einstein believed the theory that the universe was eternal and non reliant on any outside force, but he came to know that this was false.
Ace Wrote:Give me any kind of proof that has actually proved that a God does exist. If so, what would be the point of science? What this explains isn't bulletproof evidence that it does exist. That's like believing there's a God because you've read the bible that tells you he exists...
You are misunderstanding what the purpose of science is. Science does not exist to disprove something else. Science is a search for causes. What causes plants to grow? What causes the tides to rise and fall? What caused the universe?
The law of causality is that everything that had a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning therefore the universe had a cause. The argument that I am making is nothing like reading the bible and believing whatever it says. I am directly observing the universe around me for answers and when I use my own sense of logic and reasoning and observation I can see that the signs point to a God. The cosmological argument for a God is astounding. From what I have proved so far, the odds of a God are astronomical. I don't have enough faith to believe in the odds of me getting here by chance. If you can't believe the evidence here you would have to be either willfully blind or delusional. I understand the feeling of skepticism so maybe it takes more evidence. Lets break it down even more.
Proof that the universe had a beginning: Second law of thermodynamics
The second law says that the universe is running out of
usable energy. This means that one day the universe will run out of usable energy and die. If the universe existed an infinitely long time ago then I would not be here to tell about it. Instead here I am still using the energy in the universe that tells me that there was a definite and finite beginning.
More proof the universe had a beginning: The universe is expanding
The hubble space telescope confirmed that the universe is expanding with astronomer Vesto Silpher and Edwin Hubble; this is not even up for debate. The way that this proves a beginning is that if you were to watch the universe expanding in reverse, you would see that the universe reverts to a single point from where it erupted in the big bang. The universe itself is not expanding into empty space but the space itself is expanding because there was no space before the big bang. In fact, there wasn't even a "before" because time, space, and matter came into existence together.
Ace Wrote:Writing is persuasive, but science is real evidence.
The science is there, just don't ignore it or dismiss it as faulty or inaccurate.
Ace Wrote:Have you taken the time to think of how many other Gods people have tried to create for their own cultures? Lots of their traditions later on were proved false through science, like the Indians, when they thought that the steam rising from someones dead body was their soul when in reality it was caused by a heat difference in the dead of winter. How much of this other nonsense could you imagine is just made up to give a more realistic faith to believers? Without faith or something to believe in, psychologically our society would be more corrupt. People like the sense of having something to live by. If every religion has their own God? Who's telling the truth then? Or do we have multiple Gods that created the world in 10 different ways all at the same time?
This argument is hurting yourself, of course the others can be proven wrong because they are wrong! There are many religions on this earth and they can't all be correct because they contradict each other. That means that out of all the religions that contradict each other only one can be right and the others must be wrong. When you disprove another religion you are adding credibility to all the others because they have not yet been proven wrong either because of evidence that they are true or a lack of evidence that they are not true. I agree that the claim that steam rising out of a person's body is their soul is absurd. I agree that a peaceful society is a byproduct of some religions. The problem is that you don't make stuff up that people can't observe to make them believe more, it will only heighten their sense of skepticism. I cannot see a person's soul rise from their chest and believe that there is a God, but I can see the remnants of the origin of the universe and tell that there is an intelligent designer.
Ace Wrote:There's already contradictions in the bible that people have found. Sounds like something only a good lie would be able to create.
Most of the contradictions that I have seen are discrepancies between the old and new testament or they are mistranslations or they are taken out of context. Find one that doesn't fall in one of those catgories, I don't believe it would be easy.
Ace Wrote:lol you must have been religious from the start. Not that i'm against it, but now you're a God philosopher? lol tell us more about how you've gotten to know him so well. I'm not closed minded, but this just sounds ridiculous... No one created time, if he existed in a world without time, he wouldn't have been able to "create" it. It's virtually impossible based on the theory of relativity, and any other physics, logistics or principles of time itself.
I am not religious, religion is poison. The etymology of the word religion points to ritual and ritual is a stupid part of religion that I don't follow because it was done away with, with the new testament.
Time was created. You say based on the theory of relativity but I don't think you fully understand the theory of relativity. Einstein's relativity says that time and space came into existence TOGETHER. This means that time had a beginning, and as we have learned from the law of causality, anything that has a beginning has a cause, thus time had a cause. In order for someone to create something it must first not exist. Therefore God can create time because it did not exist before he brought it into being.
0xE9 Wrote:Well going on the fact that god is some sort of object, He would be space thus time would exist therefore he created nothing.
It is not a fact that God is an object. God is not space, God is not time.
0xE9 Wrote:But really I will only ever believe in something I cannot hear/see/touch/feel/smell when my mind starts degrading from excessive drug use and I begin to develope some sort of mental condition.
We cannot sense God himself with our senses, that is why we look to other forms of observation to seek answers about his existence. We cannot see the coins beneath the surface of a beach but we know they are there because of the beeps on our metal detector. I cannot see any water in the grand canyon but I know there was water there once because I can observe the erosion. Scientists cannot directly observe some things in our universe like atoms or distant planets but we know that they are there because we observe them in indirect ways.
Ace Wrote:Quote:If God is the creator of space then time comes with the package
And where's the proof in that? (In which he even created space to begin with. None)
The proof is general relativity.
Ace Wrote:People don't even know who God is. And if his son was Jesus, lol then I think that's quite a few years after the universe was created even if he had him while he was 90 years old... Not saying that that's the god you think this is, but your referencing to 'that' god with "God" in your post.
God is not 90 years old. God has no age.
Jehove DOB=none.
Bяian ♪ Wrote:One that stands out for me would be Pope John Paul II curing someones cancer, when she was apparently terminal. It's definitely something to take into consideration, that's why I ain't fully made up my mind to be religious or atheist, not sure if I ever will.
Sorry to tell you, but the Pope did not cure cancer. The pope has no divine power. The pope is just a man. He has no divine right and no reverence with God. And you already made up your mind. Sounds to me like you are agnostic. If you've read the above evidence maybe you will reconsider.