Proof of the Existence of God

[Brewtus]

The following article made me happy as it describes my POV when it comes to belief in G-d while being scientifically minded. I sincerely hope that this paints a clearer picture for Brewtus on some of the stuff that I've written in the past.

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/04/richard-feynman-how-scientists-can-believe-in-god.html

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I agree with most of it but I think there's some confusion on the difference between atheism and certainty of God's existence (or non-existence as may be the case). Atheism/theism has to do with beliefs - I don't believe that god(s) exist so therefore I'm atheist. However, I don't claim to have knowledge or certainty to that effect so therefore I'm also agnostic (which has to do with knowledge). Most atheists are agnostic (although some would consider themselves gnostic which I don't think is a defensible position since I'm not sure how you prove a negative). In the same manner, many theists are also agnostic which I think would cover the positions made in the article. And many theists also consider themselves gnostic but once again I'm not sure how you can have knowledge or certainty about something outside of the natural universe.

My argument is that atheism is the default position (as is the null position for any proposition) and will remain atheist until I find a good reason to believe otherwise. And I don't think that uncertainty or ignorance is a good reason to believe in something.

Thanks again for posting.

 

[muffler dragon]

Interesting article, thanks for posting. I agree with most of it but I think there's some confusion on the difference between atheism and certainty of God's existence (or non-existence as may be the case). Atheism/theism has to do with beliefs - I don't believe that god(s) exist so therefore I'm atheist. However, I don't claim to have knowledge or certainty to that effect so therefore I'm also agnostic (which has to do with knowledge). Most atheists are agnostic (although some would consider themselves gnostic which I don't think is a defensible position since I'm not sure how you prove a negative). In the same manner, many theists are also agnostic which I think would cover the positions made in the article. And many theists also consider themselves gnostic but once again I'm not sure how you can have knowledge or certainty about something outside of the natural universe.

My argument is that atheism is the default position (as is the null position for any proposition) and will remain atheist until I find a good reason to believe otherwise. And I don't think that uncertainty or ignorance is a good reason to believe in something.

Thanks again for posting.

Completely understand what you mean about the beliefs and knowledge. I emboldened the part that fits me to a T, which is why the article hit to close to home.

 

[Zurp]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1481576/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Movie is called The Genesis Code. I am absolutely NOT promoting it for atheists or theists, or anyone else. I simply link this here because there is a part of the movie where they try to explain that the earth (and the entire universe) COULD have been made in 6 days AND in ~14 billion years. It had something to do with time dilation and the universe growing and other stuff - they don't explain the math, they just make you assume the math is right. I'd try to reenact the theory, but I don't quite get all that relativity stuff.

Bottom line: it will not convince anyone that creation is right, nor will it convince anyone that it is wrong. But it may be worth a couple hours of your time to try to understand it. Or, if you have netflix and can fast-forward, you can easily skip the first hour. Maybe even 90 minutes. But don't skip too much, or you'll miss her:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2336136/

 

[muffler dragon]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1481576/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Movie is called The Genesis Code. I am absolutely NOT promoting it for atheists or theists, or anyone else. I simply link this here because there is a part of the movie where they try to explain that the earth (and the entire universe) COULD have been made in 6 days AND in ~14 billion years. It had something to do with time dilation and the universe growing and other stuff - they don't explain the math, they just make you assume the math is right. I'd try to reenact the theory, but I don't quite get all that relativity stuff.

Bottom line: it will not convince anyone that creation is right, nor will it convince anyone that it is wrong. But it may be worth a couple hours of your time to try to understand it. Or, if you have netflix and can fast-forward, you can easily skip the first hour. Maybe even 90 minutes. But don't skip too much, or you'll miss her:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2336136/

If it's similar to Dr. Schroeder's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132"]book[/ame], then it has to do with the POV of the author of Genesis.

Personally, I enjoyed the book as Dr. Schroeder puts things in very understandable terms.

 

[Zurp]

then it has to do with the POV of the author of Genesis.

Yes - exactly. Except it claims that Genesis was written by God (passed down to Moses who wrote them down.. or maybe Moses told someone else to write them down - I'm no bible scholar). But God was telling the story from the point of view from the earth. And as time dilation occurs near a black hole, so it would occur near the center of the universe at the time of the big bang. So what would have seemed like a day on earth was really millions or billions of years. The second day would have been half as long as the first, the third day would have been half as long as the second, and so on. The sixth day was still many millions of years. The movie had 2 guys - a preacher and a paleontologist - talking about what happened during those time periods. The preacher said what the bible says happened in Day 1, Day 2.. and so on, and it agreed with what the paleontologist said happened the equivalent millions or billions of years ago.

So yes - the movie (which was bad enough that I'm regretting even bringing it up) says it's all about the point of view that we take.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Time dilation.....

I was thinking about this quite a bit recently and it occurred to me that there is actually evidence that it is the nature of time itself to behave chaotically in terms of the "speed at which time passes" (if you will, not really sure how to phrase it)

I'm sure we've all experienced time passing at different rates - at least in terms of how it feels

For example, when you're bored at work, 5 minutes feels like an hour
or, when you're driving along and someone pulls out in front of you, time slows down for a few moments as you avoid the wreck...

Now, it's true that seconds tick away at the same rate, regardless of how we experience the passage of those same seconds... But.. the division of time into seconds is itself an arbitrary thing... humans made it up....

So, getting back to it - what if our personal experiences of time passing at seemingly different rates wasn't simply related to our own individual selves at any given moment, but was instead us perceiving that time itself does not "move" (again, if you will) at a constant rate at all in the first instance.

If I'm right, then "hyper inflation" is easily understood... it didn't defy physics... it didn't happen too fast... it is a consequence of the nature of time itself...

Just an idea...

 

[Brewtus]

Yes - exactly. Except it claims that Genesis was written by God (passed down to Moses who wrote them down.. or maybe Moses told someone else to write them down - I'm no bible scholar). But God was telling the story from the point of view from the earth. And as time dilation occurs near a black hole, so it would occur near the center of the universe at the time of the big bang. So what would have seemed like a day on earth was really millions or billions of years. The second day would have been half as long as the first, the third day would have been half as long as the second, and so on. The sixth day was still many millions of years. The movie had 2 guys - a preacher and a paleontologist - talking about what happened during those time periods. The preacher said what the bible says happened in Day 1, Day 2.. and so on, and it agreed with what the paleontologist said happened the equivalent millions or billions of years ago.

So yes - the movie (which was bad enough that I'm regretting even bringing it up) says it's all about the point of view that we take.

I didn't watch the movie but if the point was to argue that somehow the earth's age and/or the universe is thousands of years old and not billions by using natural explanations, how does this in any way support that God created the universe?

Plus they would have to explain radioactive decay rates which is primarily how we determine the age of the earth. If time essentially slowed down on earth wouldn't decay rates also have slowed down indicating that the earth is thousands of years old and not billions?

 

[muffler dragon]

I didn't watch the movie but if the point was to argue that somehow the earth's age and/or the universe is thousands of years old and not billions by using natural explanations, how does this in any way support that God created the universe?

Plus they would have to explain radioactive decay rates which is primarily how we determine the age of the earth. If time essentially slowed down on earth wouldn't decay rates also have slowed down indicating that the earth is thousands of years old and not billions?

I don't believe it's saying that Brew. It's still a matter of billions.

 

[Zurp]

I didn't watch the movie but if the point was to argue that somehow the earth's age and/or the universe is thousands of years old and not billions by using natural explanations, how does this in any way support that God created the universe?

It argued that the universe (and the earth) was created in 6 days AND over billions of years, depending on your point of view.

Plus they would have to explain radioactive decay rates which is primarily how we determine the age of the earth. If time essentially slowed down on earth wouldn't decay rates also have slowed down indicating that the earth is thousands of years old and not billions?

I thought about radioactive decay, too, and it did not explain that. I don't know how radioactive decay works very well so I don't know how they MIGHT explain it.

 

[jwinslow]

 

[jwinslow]

I've never understood why an all-powerful being can will planets/life into existence, but is somehow limited by the natural progression of time.

1) Can God not spawn a mature planet? Do they all have to grow up from little baby planets?

2) How stable is a day old planet versus one with umpteen years of settling into its surroundings? If evolution does in fact spawn such diverse and immense control, wouldn't it be better to create a planet that already has a few billion years of that under its belt?

 

[osustamm]

I've never understood why an all-powerful being can will planets/life into existence, but is somehow limited by the natural progression of time.

1) Can God not spawn a mature planet? Do they all have to grow up from little baby planets?

2) How stable is a day old planet versus one with umpteen years of settling into its surroundings? If evolution does in fact spawn such diverse and immense control, wouldn't it be better to create a planet that already has a few billion years of that under its belt?

Good questions. I think it's assuming that God is also contained inside of time in the same way we are. I imagine it kind of like a movie that God can step in and out of whenever he wishes.

 

[BIATCHabutuka]

enjoying the discussion of time

my oddball theory is that time is a binary function, it both exists and does not exist. better said it exists for large scale physics (t=1) but doesn't in the quantum world (t=0). you can rationalize the laws of the physics for the big and the small with this idea i believe.


another oddball observation of mine is based on basic math with zero.

if any number divided by itself is equal to 1 (x/x=1),

and 0 divided by any number is 0 (0/x=0),

and any number divided by 0 is undefined (which sound like quantumly undefined to me) (x/0=?)


what is 0/0? (0/0 sounds like the pre big bang state of matter to me; all of nothing)

is it 1 or is it 0 or is it undefined, or is it all of the above?

back to whack job politics and economics for me though. appreciate any thoughts or theories on my oddball stuff. thanks in advance.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I've never understood why an all-powerful being can will planets/life into existence, but is somehow limited by the natural progression of time.

1) Can God not spawn a mature planet? Do they all have to grow up from little baby planets?

2) How stable is a day old planet versus one with umpteen years of settling into its surroundings? If evolution does in fact spawn such diverse and immense control, wouldn't it be better to create a planet that already has a few billion years of that under its belt?

This very much falls in line with my way of thinking.

To those who do not accept a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, my question is suppose for the sake of an intellectual exercise that it is true. Thus, on the sixth day God creates Adam. On the seventh day, how would we determine that Adam was only 1 day old? Certainly we couldn't look at biological development because he was created as a fully grown and developed man. Thus, we wouldn't see a 1 day old human embryo or a 1 day old baby; rather we would see what appears to be an adolescent or adult human being. This being the case, what if we apply the same reasoning to the entire universe. On the seventh day, could we actually determine if it was less than a week old or would it appear as a fully functioning and developed/developing universe that would be billions of years old?

 

[muffler dragon]

bgrad:

My only response would be a question: to what end?

IF we're going to craft a situation where G-d creates mature objects/entities, THEN what's to be gained?