Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

'
There is an Urbane Legend that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide when he realized that there was a definite possibility (though an exceedingly small one!) that all the air molecules in a room could, by random chance, all rush to a corner of the room -- leaving us to gasp out our lives in a vacuum!!

.

We use the word "spiritual" to define the universe beyond our physical reality or understanding. There is nothing in physical science which states that "spiritual" things can't be discovered. Indeed, many things once considered "spiritually" controlled, were discovered to have physical explanation. Agreed?

It is not impossible to physically prove the spiritual, it's just that, whenever it happens, it becomes physically explained and part of physical nature. As these things happen, they pile up as "evidence" for disbelievers, to claim there is no spiritual nature. But if you stop for a moment and consider, WHY did physical nature produce whatever physically-explained phenomenon, the question of a spiritual nature returns. We discover HOW God did things, and then claim it as proof there is no God. It is absurd to draw such conclusions, in light of all the evidence yet to be discovered.

 

[Boss]

You can point out that the FLoT defines God all you want, but it will still only define energy.

If energy is undestroyable, it is omnipotent. If energy never begins or ends, then it's omnipresent. You have essentially defined God. Maybe you didn't mean to? Maybe you didn't want to? And maybe you now want to dance around what you said? I would say that is a product of your closed mind, which refuses to acknowledge spiritual nature, and not the result of objective scientific evaluations.

Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

IF everything experiences entropy, that says no matter can exist. Does matter exist?

Nope the matter is not destroyed the object is destroyed due to disorder the matter is just transferred to something else.

So when a person dies what happens to the matter ?

When a planet or meteor dies what happens to the matter ?

You said EVERYTHING experiences entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says "in a closed thermodynamic system, entropy never decreases." That allows entropy to equal zero.

If everything experiences entropy, then the atom itself must experience entropy and its entropy cannot equal zero. Therefore the electrons orbiting the nucleus must be slowing down from entropy which would cause them to be drawn into their nucleus and splitting it and therefore no matter could exist.

Hmm good point,it seems I was a little broad with my statement.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If energy is undestroyable, it is omnipotent. If energy never begins or ends, then it's omnipresent. You have essentially defined God. Maybe you didn't mean to? Maybe you didn't want to? And maybe you now want to dance around what you said? I would say that is a product of your closed mind, which refuses to acknowledge spiritual nature, and not the result of objective scientific evaluations.

Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

You make a good point Boss.

 

[Youwerecreated]

IF everything experiences entropy, that says no matter can exist. Does matter exist?

Nope the matter is not destroyed the object is destroyed due to disorder the matter is just transferred to something else.

So when a person dies what happens to the matter ?

When a planet or meteor dies what happens to the matter ?

You said EVERYTHING experiences entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says "in a closed thermodynamic system, entropy never decreases." That allows entropy to equal zero.

If everything experiences entropy, then the atom itself must experience entropy and its entropy cannot equal zero. Therefore the electrons orbiting the nucleus must be slowing down from entropy which would cause them to be drawn into their nucleus and splitting it and therefore no matter could exist.

I remember reading that atoms can be created and destroyed in both cases it ends with a release of energy like say the atom bomb or a nuclear bomb. So why would an atom not suffer from entropy this is what happens to planets. If matter can be created and destroyed that means all we see could have been created and both energy and matter could have existed outside of our universe but I would say the creator of all is both energy and matter so since God has always existed so has energy and matter.

 

[Hollie]

If energy is undestroyable, it is omnipotent. If energy never begins or ends, then it's omnipresent. You have essentially defined God. Maybe you didn't mean to? Maybe you didn't want to? And maybe you now want to dance around what you said? I would say that is a product of your closed mind, which refuses to acknowledge spiritual nature, and not the result of objective scientific evaluations.

Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

"If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!"

Which is by definition... LAUGHABLE!

 

[Hollie]

'
There is an Urbane Legend that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide when he realized that there was a definite possibility (though an exceedingly small one!) that all the air molecules in a room could, by random chance, all rush to a corner of the room -- leaving us to gasp out our lives in a vacuum!!

.

We use the word "spiritual" to define the universe beyond our physical reality or understanding. There is nothing in physical science which states that "spiritual" things can't be discovered. Indeed, many things once considered "spiritually" controlled, were discovered to have physical explanation. Agreed?

It is not impossible to physically prove the spiritual, it's just that, whenever it happens, it becomes physically explained and part of physical nature. As these things happen, they pile up as "evidence" for disbelievers, to claim there is no spiritual nature. But if you stop for a moment and consider, WHY did physical nature produce whatever physically-explained phenomenon, the question of a spiritual nature returns. We discover HOW God did things, and then claim it as proof there is no God. It is absurd to draw such conclusions, in light of all the evidence yet to be discovered.

That was one steaming pantload.

 

[BreezeWood]

what in statutory law is scientifically proven to exist ?

 

[oldfart]

Sorry, but I'm too lazy to read 3500+ posts to get this answer. Has the definition of "God" for the purposes of the proving been settled on? A proof of X logically presupposed a common understanding of what is X.

For example, if by "God" is meant the "Clockmaker God" of the Enlightenment, what does a proof of that god tell us about the God of the Old Testament, or Odin for that matter?

I posit Oldfart's Conjecture: That the more the detailed the characteristics of a deity the more vulnerable it will be to refutation. Corollary: The more provable the existence of a deity, the more likely the characteristics of such a deity are such to make it trivial.

Any thoughts?

 

[edthecynic]

If energy is undestroyable, it is omnipotent. If energy never begins or ends, then it's omnipresent. You have essentially defined God. Maybe you didn't mean to? Maybe you didn't want to? And maybe you now want to dance around what you said? I would say that is a product of your closed mind, which refuses to acknowledge spiritual nature, and not the result of objective scientific evaluations.

Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.

 

[edthecynic]

Nope the matter is not destroyed the object is destroyed due to disorder the matter is just transferred to something else.

So when a person dies what happens to the matter ?

When a planet or meteor dies what happens to the matter ?

You said EVERYTHING experiences entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says "in a closed thermodynamic system, entropy never decreases." That allows entropy to equal zero.

If everything experiences entropy, then the atom itself must experience entropy and its entropy cannot equal zero. Therefore the electrons orbiting the nucleus must be slowing down from entropy which would cause them to be drawn into their nucleus and splitting it and therefore no matter could exist.

I remember reading that atoms can be created and destroyed in both cases it ends with a release of energy like say the atom bomb or a nuclear bomb. So why would an atom not suffer from entropy this is what happens to planets. If matter can be created and destroyed that means all we see could have been created and both energy and matter could have existed outside of our universe but I would say the creator of all is both energy and matter so since God has always existed so has energy and matter.

The release of energy in destroying an atom is the energy that was contained in the atom before it was destroyed. No NEW energy was created. The same energy just changed form.

 

[RoccoR]

edthecynic, et al,

What we know of the laws of the universe and science is never complete; never the whole truth.

All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I understand. But it sure sounds interesting!

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.

(COMMENT)

Actually, science doesn't know if this is an inviolable truth. It seems to fit the science we know today; and, it has not been proven wrong. But, there are some interesting questions that would seem to suggest that it might not be totally valid.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Boss]

Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.

Ed, when you say that something is "undestroyable and uncreatable" you are saying it is omnipotent. When you say it has "always existed and never ends", you are saying it is omnipresent. No one is changing the meaning of words, you are attempting to avoid the words we commonly use to describe the parameters you argued. It just so happens, these same attributes are also commonly applied to God. Nothing in science mandates that science has exclusives on certain words and their meanings, just like nothing in science says science can't discover spiritually understood things.

Like I said, if you think you've proven that energy can't be destroyed and doesn't have a beginning or end, you have defined the same parameters of God. Now, it doesn't matter if you proved God or not, you have at least proven God can exist. I applaud you, I think that is a monumental step for a non-believer, and perhaps it has broadened your mind.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but I'm too lazy to read 3500+ posts to get this answer. Has the definition of "God" for the purposes of the proving been settled on? A proof of X logically presupposed a common understanding of what is X.

For example, if by "God" is meant the "Clockmaker God" of the Enlightenment, what does a proof of that god tell us about the God of the Old Testament, or Odin for that matter?

I posit Oldfart's Conjecture: That the more the detailed the characteristics of a deity the more vulnerable it will be to refutation. Corollary: The more provable the existence of a deity, the more likely the characteristics of such a deity are such to make it trivial.

Any thoughts?

You can skip most of the 3500 posts, and find all you need in the OP. The first point in the OP argument, is to establish parameters and understandings of the terminology. I intentionally removed "God" from the constraints of having to conform to any particular religious incarnation for a reason. We do not need to define every detail to determine if something exists. The next point is, whether or not an individual can accept existence or presence of spiritual nature. If you don't believe spiritual nature exists, you can't evaluate spiritual evidence, which means you can never find "definitive proof" of god. If you can overcome this closed-minded prejudice, and open your mind to the possibility of spiritual nature, the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable.

This thread is full of reactionary responses from people who don't believe in spiritual nature. As I predicted in the OP argument, they are incapable of evaluating the spiritual evidence because they disbelieve in spiritual nature. The thread can literally grow to 10,000 responses, they are never going to believe in spiritual nature or be able to evaluate spiritual evidence. For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.

Ed, when you say that something is "undestroyable and uncreatable" you are saying it is omnipotent. When you say it has "always existed and never ends", you are saying it is omnipresent. No one is changing the meaning of words, you are attempting to avoid the words we commonly use to describe the parameters you argued. It just so happens, these same attributes are also commonly applied to God. Nothing in science mandates that science has exclusives on certain words and their meanings, just like nothing in science says science can't discover spiritually understood things.

Like I said, if you think you've proven that energy can't be destroyed and doesn't have a beginning or end, you have defined the same parameters of God. Now, it doesn't matter if you proved God or not, you have at least proven God can exist. I applaud you, I think that is a monumental step for a non-believer, and perhaps it has broadened your mind.

When SCIENCE says energy can neither be created nor destroyed, SCIENCE says energy has existed and will exist in the same total quantity, in other words, energy is a constant, PERIOD. Scientific language does not use the multiple dictionary definitions for a word, in scientific language words have one meaning and one meaning only.

If YOU want to claim that God is the physical entity "energy" and not a spirit, be my guest, but don't attribute it to me.

What is the difference between scientific language and literary language

Answer:
first, they focus on different aspects of meaning. Scientific language depends on denotation while literary language depends on connotation.
second, the purposes for using these two kinds of language are different. The purpose for using scientific language is practical, that is to say, this language are used for describing the physical world. But the purpose for using literary language is to share the author's emotion, attitude and feeling.
third,they are different in form. when we use scientific language, we need not to create an asthetic experience. But when we use literary language, we have to pay attention to the choice of words and the sentence order. Poem is a typical example.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.

Ed, when you say that something is "undestroyable and uncreatable" you are saying it is omnipotent. When you say it has "always existed and never ends", you are saying it is omnipresent. No one is changing the meaning of words, you are attempting to avoid the words we commonly use to describe the parameters you argued. It just so happens, these same attributes are also commonly applied to God. Nothing in science mandates that science has exclusives on certain words and their meanings, just like nothing in science says science can't discover spiritually understood things.

Like I said, if you think you've proven that energy can't be destroyed and doesn't have a beginning or end, you have defined the same parameters of God. Now, it doesn't matter if you proved God or not, you have at least proven God can exist. I applaud you, I think that is a monumental step for a non-believer, and perhaps it has broadened your mind.

Excellent post Boss.

 

[RoccoR]

Boss, et al,

This is the case of the "round-tuit."

For these people, there can NEVER be definitive proof that god exists. Unfortunately for them, this simply doesn't mean that god doesn't exist.

(COMMENT)

In my old age, my better half (the same 19 year old I married 35 years ago) surprised me recently. She would give me a chore to perform, and in a very confidant manner I would tell her: "When I get a round-tuit." Knowing full well that a "round-tuit" doesn't exist. But then, just after Christmas, we had this conversation, and I stated my prerequisite "round-tuit;" and she tossed me one.

Now, the question is: Is it real? OR Is it a creation of mans imagination?

How do I disprove it is a real "round tuit?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[hobelim]

Omnipotent means all-powerful and omnipresent means everywhere at the same time. You might be able to argue that energy is everywhere at the same time, but you are full of shit arguing energy is all powerful. You don't get to redefine what words mean. You try to, I would say, as a result of your pompous superiority complex.

Here is what the FLoT means: Energy being undestroyable means it cannot decrease and energy being uncreatable means it can't increase, together they mean that energy has always existed and will always exist in the exact same total quantity.

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

"If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!"

Which is by definition... LAUGHABLE!

Maybe someone should tell him that alpha and omega means beginning and end?

 

[Boss]

All Laws of science are written in scientific language where the words have only one meaning so assholes like you can't play games of semantics with mathematical principles. In scientific language there is no such thing as "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." Is always means the equal sign. Scientific language means the exact description of the subject according to to its scientific meaning, not its spiritual meaning, not its religious meaning, not its urban slang meaning, not its philosophical meaning, its scientific meaning only.
Get it?????

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed means the total quantity of energy is a constant. PERIOD.

Ed, when you say that something is "undestroyable and uncreatable" you are saying it is omnipotent. When you say it has "always existed and never ends", you are saying it is omnipresent. No one is changing the meaning of words, you are attempting to avoid the words we commonly use to describe the parameters you argued. It just so happens, these same attributes are also commonly applied to God. Nothing in science mandates that science has exclusives on certain words and their meanings, just like nothing in science says science can't discover spiritually understood things.

Like I said, if you think you've proven that energy can't be destroyed and doesn't have a beginning or end, you have defined the same parameters of God. Now, it doesn't matter if you proved God or not, you have at least proven God can exist. I applaud you, I think that is a monumental step for a non-believer, and perhaps it has broadened your mind.

When SCIENCE says energy can neither be created nor destroyed, SCIENCE says energy has existed and will exist in the same total quantity, in other words, energy is a constant, PERIOD. Scientific language does not use the multiple dictionary definitions for a word, in scientific language words have one meaning and one meaning only.

If YOU want to claim that God is the physical entity "energy" and not a spirit, be my guest, but don't attribute it to me.

What is the difference between scientific language and literary language

Answer:
first, they focus on different aspects of meaning. Scientific language depends on denotation while literary language depends on connotation.
second, the purposes for using these two kinds of language are different. The purpose for using scientific language is practical, that is to say, this language are used for describing the physical world. But the purpose for using literary language is to share the author's emotion, attitude and feeling.
third,they are different in form. when we use scientific language, we need not to create an asthetic experience. But when we use literary language, we have to pay attention to the choice of words and the sentence order. Poem is a typical example.

I give your tapdance an 8.4, Eddy! Nice original form, but the song is so overused and outdated. Still, your spin moves were world class.

I didn't argue that God is energy. I believe energy is a creation of God. I simply pointed out, your definition of an uncreatable, undestroyable, everlasting entity, is the same definition for God. I don't think you have proven that energy is God, but you certainly proved God is not only spiritually possible, but physically explainable. If energy can have these properties, then so can God.

We've not discovered physical evidence to prove God exists, but if we ever do, I can predict the reaction from the disbelievers will be, that God never was spiritual, since God would be proven physically. The problem here, again, is not that God doesn't exist, it is your inability to recognize things of spiritual nature. With your definition of "energy" we can see that you have the capacity to comprehend omnipotence, omnipresence, and everlasting life. You believe it and have faith in it, because it is written in a Science book.

As I stated earlier, humans are intrinsically inclined to spiritual belief, and your spiritual belief resides in Science. You even go so far as to make a case for "Holy Words" of Science, which can't be used in any other context. You are confused in thinking your "religion" is empirical and untouchable, because it seems to have the support of physical evidence. The fact remains, your theories, no matter how supportable, are reliant upon faith. Even the mathematics of physics, rely on faith that physics will remain constant. So, you are really not any different than 96% of the human species, you have spiritual faith, it just resides in the religion of Science.

 

[Boss]

I'm not going to get into 3rd grade arguments with you, Eddy.

If something is undestroyable, then it is all-powerful.

If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!

IF you haven't actually proven the existence of God, you have proven it's entirely possible.

"If something is the Alpha and Omega, with no beginning or end, it is by definition... GOD!"

Which is by definition... LAUGHABLE!

Maybe someone should tell him that alpha and omega means beginning and end?

Maybe someone should smack you in the head with a 2x4 so perhaps you'll learn CONTEXT?

When god is described as "the alpha and omega" it means the same as what Ed described of energy, that it is everlasting, omnipotent, omnipresent... never ends or begins, it is BOTH, alpha (the beginning) and omega (the ending). I merely used the phrase because I know how much Hollie enjoys Biblical references.

But yeah, the 2x4 upside your goofy noggin, would probably straighten you right out!