Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lordo]

...they believe in science and solving the puzzle in a scientific way.

So in the eventuality that God *does* exist, how is Man’s science going to prove it?

dont be stupid god does not exist and there is no need to prove it never mind how.

Ah well… it looks like he’ll just bitch-slap you when the time comes.

assuming that he does exist which i dont believe for one moment if by chance at any point we meet, he will regret metting me. i will have a few words to say to him.

[Tim Drayton]

If however you can consider a God (completely separate from the universe) and within the boundaries of science...the possibility becomes more likely than such a significant "output" (i.e universe, existence) arising from the randomness of a random event.

Well, yes, the notion that the natural and material extends beyond this universe, such as there being a multiverse within which possibly infinite numbers of universes constantly come into being and ends, also takes care of this. Then you dispense with the need for a supernatural force to explain the origin of the universe. Another possibility is that the physical universe is eternal and the basic forces governing it have always existed ("The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity." http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... e.html#jCp ) in which case you can once more dispense with the need for a supernatural force.

[Lordo]

energy and mass in the universe cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted so the idea that we were created from nothing is just laughable. even big bang theory assumes that the energy is converted not created. in nature death of someting contributes to the life of another hence it must be the same in the universe where death of one galaxy must contribute to the birth of another at some point in the same way death of one star contributes to the birth of another.

[repulsewarrior]

...nothing "exists", the space between what we call matter is far greater; more so if what is left, if you will, is energy, it reflects off of what is the specks of dust in such a sphere.

...for whose pleasure?

[GreekIslandGirl]

energy and mass in the universe cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted so the idea that we were created from nothing is just laughable. even big bang theory assumes that the energy is converted not created. in nature death of someting contributes to the life of another hence it must be the same in the universe where death of one galaxy must contribute to the birth of another at some point in the same way death of one star contributes to the birth of another.

I wouldn't bank on physicists getting any of that 'energy and mass' stuff right.

They twist and turn on the meanings or power of Higgs Bosons/Potentials and when the universe is going to be destroyed as much as GR! does on what "God" (particle) means.

[Lordo]

thats how it works dear. they work out the best they can till somebody comes along and corrects it. it is moving forward even though it is two steps forward one step back. at

[Atheist]

I suppose there's no way of really arguing a creator exist, however I still don't find the atheist perspective credible. Not in the slightest.

When we're talking of God we're not thinking of the possibility of a REAL God, only within the boundaries of ones depicted in religion. Atheist imagination isn't going past that and there are too many possibilities that are overlooked.

If however you can consider a God (completely separate from the universe) and within the boundaries of science...the possibility becomes more likely than such a significant "output" (i.e universe, existence) arising from the randomness of a random event.

Something functioning came out of an event not unlike a reaction! It works! What more proof do you need?!?

First of all you can not consider a God "within the boundaries of science".

What you can do is to use "God" to explain things that you can't otherwise explain (either because humanity in general doesn't yet have answers, or because you personally don't know the answer)

This is true not only for "God", but for all magical, metaphysical things that humans can believe in.

If you don't know how the universe came to be, a good explanation for a God believer is that God made it.

If you hear noises in the middle of the night which you can not explain in any other way, then a good explanation for a ghost believer is that ghosts are responsible for the noise.

You have to believe in those "magical" things in order to seem as a good explanation to you, otherwise they are horrible explanations.

T_C, is "God" functioning and significant? If he is, then from your argument it follows that God must have been designed by somebody else, since everything functioning and significant needs a creator according to you, right? Therefore the conclusion of your logic is that there is no ultimate God, but instead an infinite chain of creators and creations! So there you have it, a more imaginative theory that actually conforms to your logic. If you would rather use imagination than stick to the facts then at the very least you should be consistent

[T_C]

If however you can consider a God (completely separate from the universe) and within the boundaries of science...the possibility becomes more likely than such a significant "output" (i.e universe, existence) arising from the randomness of a random event.

Well, yes, the notion that the natural and material extends beyond this universe, such as there being a multiverse within which possibly infinite numbers of universes constantly come into being and ends, also takes care of this. Then you dispense with the need for a supernatural force to explain the origin of the universe. Another possibility is that the physical universe is eternal and the basic forces governing it have always existed ("The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity." http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... e.html#jCp ) in which case you can once more dispense with the need for a supernatural force.

You don't really dispense the need for a supernatural force because again if there is a multiverse then God would be above and beyond that too.

I imagine a creator in concept as a true alien in every sense of the word, not as something physical that lives within the universe but something completely alien and incomprehensible in most attributes, which a real creator of the universe would have to be if thinking about it logically.

If humanity were to create some form of artificial life in a computer, it's not like we'd be able to smash through the computer screen and join the AI consciousness in the program - as human beings. Our existences would be incompatible. I believe the same principles would almost certainly apply to a God, should it exist. It's unlikely we would find anything that we could positively attribute to a creator as you would have to think of the universe as a system of some sort, and the creator of such system would not exist in or be bound by the rules (physical matter, growth, beginning and end) which occur within it.

Anyway, whats quite odd is that only to earth has that first moment in time proven to be so significant! Elsewhere in the universe under different conditions we may not even be able to comprehend the concept of time because the environment wouldn’t appear in such a way that time is noticeable, let alone be able to peer in to the past all the way to the big bang! We only know it because we’re seeing a good example of science working together under almost logical circumstances. Earth seems to have experienced the best possibilities - in one big bang!

I don't believe that's just a coincidence...

[GreekIslandGirl]

... a real creator of the universe would have to be if thinking about it logically.

Thinking like a Greek:

ἀεὶ ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας γεωμετρεῖ τὸ σύμπαν = 3.1415926 = π

(Always, the great god applies geometry to the universe.)

[Paphitis]

"Principles which almost certainly apply...."



Or wishful thinking?

In the end, if there is a heaven, it will be inhabited mostly by Atheists!

That's because a supreme creator can only respect Atheists and their mentality because they just don't pull things from their arse or judge people.

One thing is for certain. This supreme creator can never be the arsehole depicted by the so called devout and it is inevitable that it will be more in line with those who try and live clean lives as Atheists or Agnostics. Pretty sure it would like inquisitive and questioning minds from people always trying to better themselves. It would be perfect after all, superior, all powerful and all knowing and it would like people who strive for perfection surely and not live life as hypocrites.

So, scientists are most certainly in. Atheists and Agnostics in. Wishful thinkers and robots as well as hypocrites might be in a spot of bother but I will leave that judgement to the supreme being which I don't believe exists.

Atheists always leave the door slightly open. Believers think it's an open and shut case so if that is the case then, they should dedicate their lives to it like Mother Teresa or something like that because this life matters not but the afterlife everlasting is what really counts. I don't see this happening. So none of you are really believers at all! That is probably the most dangerous territory to be on.

At least an Atheist can always say I never believed you existed in their judgement day and the supreme being would have nowhere to go with it.