Debate Now Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?

Discussion in 'Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum' started by 320 Years of History, Nov 4, 2015.

  1. RoccoR

    RoccoR Gold Member

    Sep 15, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    RE: Does it make sense to accept God's existence based solely on the arguments presented for it?
    • Posting # 76 | ding's argument for proving the existence of God - Part 2
    ※→ "ding." et al,


    The Theory of General Relativity (GR) (effects gravity and all detectable and tangible material in the universe) and the motion of bodies under the action of forces accounting for the expanding universe as a whole. But then, there is Quantum Mechanics (QM), which describes the three fundamental forces we have discovered – Electromagnetic Force (EM) and two nuclear forces (the Weak Force and the Strong Force); (WF) (SF) respectively. Both GR and QM do not account for or describe either Dark Matter (≈ 25% of the universe) or Dark Energy (≈ 70% of the universe). Infinity describes a theoretical without limits.

    A "theoretical without limits" is a wholly different topic, an entirely different dynamic in the effect it has on the transition point from what we can detect and recognize, and that which we cannot detect and recognize.


    • Who says that?
    • Why must that be true?

    When we talk about an "Expanding Universe," we are only talking about what we can see or otherwise detect. We cannot assume that the "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" follow the rules of GR and/or QM. In fact, we do not actually know if we need to invent a new type of mathematics that can describe the other ≈ 95% of the universe (Dark Mathematics).


    What is a "boundary of space time." And that implies a limit. We do not know the limits of an ever expanding universe, or any subset within the Expanding Universe.

  2. ding

    ding Confront reality

    Oct 25, 2016
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    1. My comment about what the equations yield at the singularity is factual. They yield infinite values. Saying the equations breakdown is a subjective term. The equations are not broken, they have reached their limit. Unless of course you believe as I do that they are pointing to something which is eternal. In that case the equations are working just fine.

    2. Alexander Vilenkin says that if the universe is expanding then the universe must have a beginning.

    Did the Universe Begin? | Closer to Truth

    3. It must be true because inflation must have a beginning and because the universe cannot be infinite acting because of the SLoT which states that every mass to energy and energy to mass exchange there is a corresponding loss of usable energy. Therefore, as time approaches infinity the universe approaches thermal equilibrium which we do not see.

    4. What is a "boundary of space time." The singularity which we call the big bang or the beginning of space and time which in reality is the point in time after inflation.

    Another really good discussion on this subject can be found here.


Share This Page