How powerful would god need to be?

[Anathema]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

Then the whole idea of Faith would be destroyed. This life is a test of Faith and the ability to do Right, even when Wrong is easier and more pleasant.

 

[BreezeWood]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

Then the whole idea of Faith would be destroyed. This life is a test of Faith and the ability to do Right, even when Wrong is easier and more pleasant.

.

Then the whole idea of Faith would be destroyed. This life is a test of Faith and the ability to do Right, even when Wrong is easier and more pleasant.

nothing could be further from the truth, this life is about finding the truth, faith may be a means at various times during the search but in the end the discoveries are what matter. 10,000 pg books of forgeries has nothing to do with access and admission to the Everlasting.

 

[Anathema]

Nothing could be further from the truth, this life is about finding the truth, faith may be a means at various times during the search but in the end the discoveries are what matter. 10,000 pg books of forgeries has nothing to do with access and admission to the Everlasting.

I have to (respectfully) disagree. In my mind and from my life experiences I have come to the understanding that this life is nothing more than a "Final Exam" for the Soul.

I understand and respect that you have a different view of things. I'm not here to change your mind on thus and mine won't be changed either.

 

[toobfreak]

Considering he made everything that means he can:
-Turn off the sun with a thought
-Have it go super nova
-Rewrite the laws of physics and do away with gravity
-blow up every star in the universe at his command
-Teleport entire planets from one side of his universe to the other.
-Create a unicorn
-Bring back the dinosaurs
-Bring back the dinosaurs in the same form and instance as they were 65 million years ago.
-Take every atom in your body and transform your body into any animal or sex you can imagine.


You'd think with such a powerful god he wouldn't care if we fucked the same gender or wanted to have some fun in our lives. Why does god hate fun and sex so much?

You really haven't a fricking clue about "god" or any original supreme being from whenst all other qualities came from, so its all a big joke to you.

 

[ding]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”

What is YOUR purpose?

 

[BreezeWood]

Nothing could be further from the truth, this life is about finding the truth, faith may be a means at various times during the search but in the end the discoveries are what matter. 10,000 pg books of forgeries has nothing to do with access and admission to the Everlasting.

I have to (respectfully) disagree. In my mind and from my life experiences I have come to the understanding that this life is nothing more than a "Final Exam" for the Soul.

I understand and respect that you have a different view of things. I'm not here to change your mind on thus and mine won't be changed either.

.

In my mind and from my life experiences I have come to the understanding that this life is nothing more than a "Final Exam" for the Soul.

my response was in your comment about faith, not life experiences.

 

[zaangalewa]

"Before time" was no before, so we are not able to ask "What was before?". No possible question - no possible answer.

And yet the creation of space and time followed rules.

Please give us all a ******* break. Nobody knows what was before the Big Bang. You are speculating, at least be honest about it.

Don't be silly.

Unless you believe that the universe was created through a special act of God, you must believe the universe was created through a natural process that was following rules.

Silly? What you say is more nonsense. "Nature" and "universe" are the same. The natural laws we know are our universal laws. If we speak about natural laws which are not part of our nature, of our universe, then we speak about super-natural laws and meta-physical ideas. Sure could exist parallel universes for example - when god made it this way, why not? For spiritual people such ideas are no problem. But we are only connected with our thoughts and ideas and imaginations and also with mathematics with such worlds. On the other side: How to explain scientifically that we are existing in fitness with only this universe here and we are nevertheless able to think about plausible alternatives to our universe here? How are we able to fit in transzendental structures? How are we able to think in a higher degree of freedom than our only possible world here offers to us?

If the universe is expanding ...

¿"If"? Only two letters of your own language and you are able to make out of only two letters such a bullshit?

 

[Spotted Drongo]

Considering he made everything that means he can:
-Turn off the sun with a thought
-Have it go super nova
-Rewrite the laws of physics and do away with gravity
-blow up every star in the universe at his command
-Teleport entire planets from one side of his universe to the other.
-Create a unicorn
-Bring back the dinosaurs
-Bring back the dinosaurs in the same form and instance as they were 65 million years ago.
-Take every atom in your body and transform your body into any animal or sex you can imagine.


You'd think with such a powerful god he wouldn't care if we fucked the same gender or wanted to have some fun in our lives. Why does god hate fun and sex so much?

How powerful would the BIG BANG have to be create every molecule in the known universe from a pinpoint of stuff smaller than a flea?? Yeah.. About THAT powerful.. Good luck with all that...

Smaller than a flea? Hell, it all originated from a Singularity the size of half of an atom. Now THAT is powerful.

 

[Spotted Drongo]

Considering he made everything that means he can:
-Turn off the sun with a thought
-Have it go super nova
-Rewrite the laws of physics and do away with gravity
-blow up every star in the universe at his command
-Teleport entire planets from one side of his universe to the other.
-Create a unicorn
-Bring back the dinosaurs
-Bring back the dinosaurs in the same form and instance as they were 65 million years ago.
-Take every atom in your body and transform your body into any animal or sex you can imagine.


You'd think with such a powerful god he wouldn't care if we fucked the same gender or wanted to have some fun in our lives. Why does god hate fun and sex so much?

How powerful would the BIG BANG have to be create every molecule in the known universe from a pinpoint of stuff smaller than a flea?? Yeah.. About THAT powerful.. Good luck with all that...

Smaller than a flea? Hell, it all originated from a Singularity the size of half of an atom. Now THAT is powerful.

SMALLER THAN HALF AN ATOM?.
TRY HALF OF AN ELECTRON. THAT WOULD BE POWERFUL

 

[zaangalewa]

... If the universe is expanding

The universe is expanding.

then it must have a beginning.

It has a beginning.

If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time.

We are not able to follow any "object" - whatever this is - backward in time.

You cannot continue that history indefinitely.

If natural history would be endless it should be no problem to see this.

This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction.

This theory is proven to be wrong physically since a very long time meanwhile. The reason why it is wrong has to do with entropy.

It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea

¿Uncomfortable? What's that in natural science?

of a beginning since the work of Friedman

Friedman - who is Friedman?

which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

Ah - the cosmological constant Einsteins chose to nullify the expansion of the universe. That's why you speak about Friedman. Friedman was right that the universe was dynamic - but this "knew" Einstein before too, because he had corrected this result (="Meine größte Eselei"). It was Georges Lemaitres - who was - I'm sure you do not like to hear this - a priest of the holy catholic church, who combined a dynamic universe with the Law of Hubble and the redshift of the starlight and found the "big bang" which he had called "primeval atom" - (German: "Uratom" - a very nice word).

The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease.

Exactly.

Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem.

It is possible for matter to have a beginning.

I would say it is impossible for matter to have a beginning - the only reason why it's not impossible is the existence of matter. But meanwhile learned even the bumblebees to fly with the help of the laws of aerodynamics.

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter.

Or not.

So the energy of a closed universe is always zero.

That's why we are not existing and in every point of the universe could exist an endless number of universes.

So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created.

If it has no energy because if the sum of energy = 0 then it is not existing.

Because the net energy is always zero.

Which net?

The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter.

The geometry of the space-time is flat. Why?

There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe.

The only problem is that you don't have any space, time and energy or matter. You have mathematics. But mathematics is only a special form of rationality. So 'you' say "in the beginning was rationality". I guess I understand a little better now, why Professor Zeilinger said once it looks like "In the beginning was the word". (Word =Logos)

In quantum mechanics

Only to make this clear again. Quantum mechanics is only physics of this universe here since it is existing.

if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability.

That's bullshit. We don't see other universes - nor do you know wherein this universes should exist nor what the uterus of this universes would be. And if our universe bears universes as a result of the own quantum mechanics then we should be able to find out that we are pregnant and/or mothers.

So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I would say you speak bullshit on a high level of bullshit, that's all. "Evolution" is for example a natural law, which needs biological organisms. I doubt about that this word "evolution" has only a little to do with this what happens when fundamental forces freeze out. The biological evolution needs a genetic structure. And we know in this context only the universality of the gene code of all life on planet Earth. And we do not even understand this structures really, but we kill the life of our planet.

 

[Windparadox]

`
I accept my own belief that a supreme divinity exists that supersedes human comprehension. I have faith in my own belief. Beyond that, I have better things to do than spend time, pondering its existence. The very attempt of gauging the power of such a totally alien construct, is illogical.
`

 

[Taz]

God should be powerful enough that it wouldn't need a book to be accepted.

We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. Does it fulfill its purpose?

“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”

What is YOUR purpose?

Geez, your god can't even convince people of its existence without a douche book. ULTRA lame.

My purpose is to enjoy life. What's yours?

 

[zaangalewa]

As a "deformed child" myself when I was born 40+ years ago... What if thst deformity is part of the test of their Soul?

Then said god is an asshole.

No - you are not god.

But he's just like me!

Just in the moment I saw in TV a child of god with a deformation in the brain base - she was lucky: she survived. A result are her deformed feet and hands and she has only a very small bandwidth of facial expressions. But she lives a wonderful life full of love with people who love her too. She is able to express with her voice the emotions she is not able to show with her face. Within some minutes everyone understands that her soul is not deformed only because her body has some problems. In my eyes she is a very beautiful woman. And a very intelligent woman.

And you? You try to hurt others with a maximum of negative destructive energy. You say god is an asshole and god is like you. Better you are not able to describe your Caesarian megalomania. In a roman triumphal march a slave had to tell you "Respice post te, culinem te esse memento" (="Take a look around and remember that you are an asshole").

This guy must be having a great life because of god.
View attachment 177701

Let me say it this way: I understand why Stephen Hawking is an atheist and I never would try to change anything in his form not to believe in god. But you are only an idiot on a high level of intentional ignorance and arrogance. You are over stretching the paradigm of natural science not to use god for any explanation of natural processes.

Who is this man you show here and who gives you the right to say this man is an enemy of god or god is his enemy, only because you believe in atheism?

 

[Taz]

​

Then said god is an asshole.

No - you are not god.

But he's just like me!

Just in the moment I saw in TV a child of god with a deformation in the brain base - she was lucky: she survived. A result are her deformed feet and hands and she has only a very small bandwidth of facial expressions. But she lives a wonderful life full of love with people who love her too. She is able to express with her voice the emotions she is not able to show with her face. Within some minutes everyone understands that her soul is not deformed only because her body has some problems. In my eyes she is a very beautiful woman. And a very intelligent woman.

And you? You try to hurt others with a maximum of negative destructive energy. You say god is an asshole and god is like you. Better you are not able to describe your Caesarian megalomania. In a roman triumphal march a slave had to tell you "Respice post te, culinem te esse memento" (="Take a look around and remember that you are an asshole").

This guy must be having a great life because of god.
View attachment 177701

Let me say it this way: I understand why Stephen Hawking is an atheist and I never would try to change anything in his form not to believe in god. But you are only an idiot on a high level of intentional ignorance and arrogance. You are over stretching the paradigm of natural science not to use god for any explanation of natural processes.

Who is this man you show here and who gives you the right to say this man is an enemy of god or god is his enemy, only because you believe in atheism?

I'm agnostic, I see no proof yet of god, but don't throw out the possibility. So no, not a god "hater".

Stephen Hawking also has found no proof of god, no other reason.

 

[zaangalewa]

​

No - you are not god.

But he's just like me!

Just in the moment I saw in TV a child of god with a deformation in the brain base - she was lucky: she survived. A result are her deformed feet and hands and she has only a very small bandwidth of facial expressions. But she lives a wonderful life full of love with people who love her too. She is able to express with her voice the emotions she is not able to show with her face. Within some minutes everyone understands that her soul is not deformed only because her body has some problems. In my eyes she is a very beautiful woman. And a very intelligent woman.

And you? You try to hurt others with a maximum of negative destructive energy. You say god is an asshole and god is like you. Better you are not able to describe your Caesarian megalomania. In a roman triumphal march a slave had to tell you "Respice post te, culinem te esse memento" (="Take a look around and remember that you are an asshole").

This guy must be having a great life because of god.
View attachment 177701

Let me say it this way: I understand why Stephen Hawking is an atheist and I never would try to change anything in his form not to believe in god. But you are only an idiot on a high level of intentional ignorance and arrogance. You are over stretching the paradigm of natural science not to use god for any explanation of natural processes.

Who is this man you show here and who gives you the right to say this man is an enemy of god or god is his enemy, only because you believe in atheism?

I'm agnostic, I see no proof yet of god,

Agnosticism is a philosophy. You are an atheist who is not able to see that his atheism is "only" a special form of belief. Atheism is by the way also not a reason for anything in natural science.

Stephen Hawking also has found no proof of god, no other reason.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist and if I would be in his position then I guess I would share his atheism. And the word "prove" in this context here is only a method of natural science. God is not an element of a theory of natural science. He's the creator. He created all worlds. You would need a science of "singularity" of "individuality" or "originality" ... and so on ... if you like to "prove" god.

 

[Taz]

​

But he's just like me!

Just in the moment I saw in TV a child of god with a deformation in the brain base - she was lucky: she survived. A result are her deformed feet and hands and she has only a very small bandwidth of facial expressions. But she lives a wonderful life full of love with people who love her too. She is able to express with her voice the emotions she is not able to show with her face. Within some minutes everyone understands that her soul is not deformed only because her body has some problems. In my eyes she is a very beautiful woman. And a very intelligent woman.

And you? You try to hurt others with a maximum of negative destructive energy. You say god is an asshole and god is like you. Better you are not able to describe your Caesarian megalomania. In a roman triumphal march a slave had to tell you "Respice post te, culinem te esse memento" (="Take a look around and remember that you are an asshole").

This guy must be having a great life because of god.
View attachment 177701

Let me say it this way: I understand why Stephen Hawking is an atheist and I never would try to change anything in his form not to believe in god. But you are only an idiot on a high level of intentional ignorance and arrogance. You are over stretching the paradigm of natural science not to use god for any explanation of natural processes.

Who is this man you show here and who gives you the right to say this man is an enemy of god or god is his enemy, only because you believe in atheism?

I'm agnostic, I see no proof yet of god,

Agnosticism is a philosophy. You are an atheist who is not able to see that his atheism is "only" a special form of belief. Atheism is by the way also not a reason for anything in natural science.

Stephen Hawking also has found no proof of god, no other reason.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist and if I would be in his position then I guess I would share his atheism. And the word "prove" in this context here is only a method of natural science. God is not an element of a theory of natural science. He created all worlds. You would need a science of "singularity" of "individuality" or "originality" ... and so on ... if you like to "prove" god.

I'll take probably any proof that Stephen Hawkind would accept.

Atheist, imo, is a rejection of the concept of god. I see no proof to reject the possibility of a god. I'm more in the middle, I see no proof of god, but I also see no proof of god not being possible, and am willing to change my mind given real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

 

[zaangalewa]

​

Just in the moment I saw in TV a child of god with a deformation in the brain base - she was lucky: she survived. A result are her deformed feet and hands and she has only a very small bandwidth of facial expressions. But she lives a wonderful life full of love with people who love her too. She is able to express with her voice the emotions she is not able to show with her face. Within some minutes everyone understands that her soul is not deformed only because her body has some problems. In my eyes she is a very beautiful woman. And a very intelligent woman.

And you? You try to hurt others with a maximum of negative destructive energy. You say god is an asshole and god is like you. Better you are not able to describe your Caesarian megalomania. In a roman triumphal march a slave had to tell you "Respice post te, culinem te esse memento" (="Take a look around and remember that you are an asshole").

This guy must be having a great life because of god.
View attachment 177701

Let me say it this way: I understand why Stephen Hawking is an atheist and I never would try to change anything in his form not to believe in god. But you are only an idiot on a high level of intentional ignorance and arrogance. You are over stretching the paradigm of natural science not to use god for any explanation of natural processes.

Who is this man you show here and who gives you the right to say this man is an enemy of god or god is his enemy, only because you believe in atheism?

I'm agnostic, I see no proof yet of god,

Agnosticism is a philosophy. You are an atheist who is not able to see that his atheism is "only" a special form of belief. Atheism is by the way also not a reason for anything in natural science.

Stephen Hawking also has found no proof of god, no other reason.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist and if I would be in his position then I guess I would share his atheism. And the word "prove" in this context here is only a method of natural science. God is not an element of a theory of natural science. He created all worlds. You would need a science of "singularity" of "individuality" or "originality" ... and so on ... if you like to "prove" god.

I'll take probably any proof that Stephen Hawkind would accept.

No idea why.

Atheist, imo, is a rejection of the concept of god. I see no proof to reject the possibility of a god. I'm more in the middle, I see no proof of god, but I also see no proof of god not being possible, and am willing to change my mind given real proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.

Good grief. Why is everyone in the English speaking world an idiot? What's the middle between god and not-god? What's the result of x*y when x is nearly endless and y is nearly nothing? Stupidity? Stupidity^2? sqrd(Stupidity)? (sqrt=squareroot, sqrd=squaredance)

 

[Taz]

​

This guy must be having a great life because of god.
View attachment 177701

Let me say it this way: I understand why Stephen Hawking is an atheist and I never would try to change anything in his form not to believe in god. But you are only an idiot on a high level of intentional ignorance and arrogance. You are over stretching the paradigm of natural science not to use god for any explanation of natural processes.

Who is this man you show here and who gives you the right to say this man is an enemy of god or god is his enemy, only because you believe in atheism?

I'm agnostic, I see no proof yet of god,

Agnosticism is a philosophy. You are an atheist who is not able to see that his atheism is "only" a special form of belief. Atheism is by the way also not a reason for anything in natural science.

Stephen Hawking also has found no proof of god, no other reason.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist and if I would be in his position then I guess I would share his atheism. And the word "prove" in this context here is only a method of natural science. God is not an element of a theory of natural science. He created all worlds. You would need a science of "singularity" of "individuality" or "originality" ... and so on ... if you like to "prove" god.

I'll take probably any proof that Stephen Hawkind would accept.

No idea why.

Atheist, imo, is a rejection of the concept of god. I see no proof to reject the possibility of a god. I'm more in the middle,

Good grief. Why is everyone in the English speaking world an idiot? What's the middle between god and not-god?

Because Stephen Hawkind is a smart scientist and I respect what he says and agree with his science, even if down the road something gets proven to be different, he's at least looking seriously, and in the right direction.

I'm not between god... your god has yet to be proven, so I'm really in the same place you are, because you can't prove god either.

 

[Anathema]

my response was in your comment about faith, not life experiences.

I find life experiences have a very high value in either strengthening or weakening Faithfulness in people. I know hey mist definitely have for me.

 

[ding]

​

Let me say it this way: I understand why Stephen Hawking is an atheist and I never would try to change anything in his form not to believe in god. But you are only an idiot on a high level of intentional ignorance and arrogance. You are over stretching the paradigm of natural science not to use god for any explanation of natural processes.

Who is this man you show here and who gives you the right to say this man is an enemy of god or god is his enemy, only because you believe in atheism?

I'm agnostic, I see no proof yet of god,

Agnosticism is a philosophy. You are an atheist who is not able to see that his atheism is "only" a special form of belief. Atheism is by the way also not a reason for anything in natural science.

Stephen Hawking also has found no proof of god, no other reason.

Stephen Hawking is an atheist and if I would be in his position then I guess I would share his atheism. And the word "prove" in this context here is only a method of natural science. God is not an element of a theory of natural science. He created all worlds. You would need a science of "singularity" of "individuality" or "originality" ... and so on ... if you like to "prove" god.

I'll take probably any proof that Stephen Hawkind would accept.

No idea why.

Atheist, imo, is a rejection of the concept of god. I see no proof to reject the possibility of a god. I'm more in the middle,

Good grief. Why is everyone in the English speaking world an idiot? What's the middle between god and not-god?

Because Stephen Hawkind is a smart scientist and I respect what he says and agree with his science, even if down the road something gets proven to be different, he's at least looking seriously, and in the right direction.

I'm not between god... your god has yet to be proven, so I'm really in the same place you are, because you can't prove god either.

That's horse shit. Your behavior here is devoid of virtue.