Zone1 How would you feel about God if he

[BreezeWood]

Facts can be produced through Science. Prove the laws of themodynamics do not apply to the physical Univserse......or not. If its a fact that the Universe is infinite without end......science can prove it in an objective and testable fashion. Thus far All I have seen posted is Ad Hominem BS.

Actually these 40 men recorded the Holy Scriptures over a 3500 time line. Why believe them? As stated previously, no one can objectively prove them to be wrong through the use of Applied Science or History actual.

it's been brought to your attention already clyde - the claim tablets were etched in the heavens w/ 10 commandments - is a lie.

the real ad hominem is the liar and murder moses and the desert religions that continue to this day the unconscionable use of fabricated justification they claim from the heavens to persecute and victimize the innocent - clyde.

 

[frigidweirdo]

God is quoted as once saying, "I am who I am." I would like to see God as He is...not who/what He can change Himself into.

I feel the same about all people. We are who we are. Let's celebrate that.

If he can change into something, it's a part of who he is. (Did I get the pronoun right?)

 

[sealybobo]

I'd love for you post a link supporting that nonsense.

The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything about outside our observable universe.

This is important. No evidence exists to suggest that the boundary of the observable universe constitutes a boundary on the universe as a whole, nor do any of the mainstream cosmological models propose that the universe has any physical boundary in the first place.

It is plausible that the galaxies within the observable universe represent only a minuscule fraction of the galaxies in the Universe.

Observable universe - Wikipedia

 

[Ralph Norton]

If he can change into something, it's a part of who he is. (Did I get the pronoun right?)

Probably not.

 

[sealybobo]

God is incorporeal. Laws of physics only apply to the corporeal. The presence of matter is what creates space and time.

WRONG!

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.


“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” – Christopher Hitchens

 

[sealybobo]

Facts can be produced through Science. Prove the laws of themodynamics do not apply to the physical Univserse......or not. If its a fact that the Universe is infinite without end......science can prove it in an objective and testable fashion. Thus far All I have seen posted is Ad Hominem BS.

It's unprovable and unknowable. For both of us. We only claim the universe could be infinite. And it would make sense that it is. What evidence do you have that it's not infinite?

Remember, we aren't talking about our universe that started with the big bang. That's just our observable universe. Now we're talking about beyond our view. How do you know what's beyond?

Here's why it bothers theists. If the universe is infinite then there is no need for god. The universe is eternal. Always has been and always will be. No god necessary.

 

[ding]

The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.

How would it be possible for the universe to be infinite in extent if the universe had a beginning?

 

[ding]

WRONG!

What's wrong? God isn't incorporeal? Or the presence of matter doesn't create space and time?

 

[ding]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

It makes perfect sense as everything can only be made manifest by mind.

"If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. Mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.


“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” – Christopher Hitchens

Proof of the Creator is creation itself. You just have to study it to discover what it is telling you.

 

[sealybobo]

How would it be possible for the universe to be infinite in extent if the universe had a beginning?

That's just your observable universe.

 

[sealybobo]

Proof of the Creator is creation itself. You just have to study it to discover what it is telling you.

Proof of creation is creation itself.

 

[sealybobo]

Proof of the Creator is creation itself. You just have to study it to discover what it is telling you.

Your god lives outside of reality and so do your theories.

 

[ding]

That's just your observable universe.

Incorrect. The CMB is evidence of the beginning of THE universe. The CMB is not evidence of the beginning of the observable universe. So... how can a universe that began 14 billion years ago be infinite in size? It's can't. For the universe to be infinite in size would require the universe to have always existed in an infinite size state. Which is why you can't provide any evidence to support such a silly assertion.

 

[ding]

Proof of creation is creation itself.

Incorrect. The universe popped into existence. It was not created from existing matter. CMB, red shift, FLoT, quantum mechanics and Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations prove these two statements.

So there was a matrix or source for the creation of matter and energy that formed our space time. Since matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time the source or matrix of creation must be incorporeal. God is incorporeal.

 

[ding]

Your god lives outside of reality and so do your theories.

Incorrect. God is the source or matrix of all reality. The material world can only be made manifest by mind. The stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. It's all just information.

 

[ding]

Your god lives outside of reality and so do your theories.

They aren't my theories.

It is physicists who have expressed most clearly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality."

 

[sealybobo]

Incorrect. The CMB is evidence of the beginning of THE universe. The CMB is not evidence of the beginning of the observable universe. So... how can a universe that began 14 billion years ago be infinite in size? It's can't. For the universe to be infinite in size would require the universe to have always existed in an infinite size state. Which is why you can't provide any evidence to support such a silly assertion.

You're wrong. So you can't ask me a question if your initial comment is wrong.

The Universe has always existed. Our universe hasn't. That's all. See? You're confusing the two. I knew this would stump you.

 

[sealybobo]

How would it be possible for the universe to be infinite in extent if the universe had a beginning?

Big U little u. Learn the diff simp.

 

[sealybobo]

Incorrect. The universe popped into existence. It was not created from existing matter. CMB, red shift, FLoT, quantum mechanics and Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations prove these two statements.

So there was a matrix or source for the creation of matter and energy that formed our space time. Since matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time the source or matrix of creation must be incorporeal. God is incorporeal.

You're forgetting all the stuff we don't know. That's convenient for you.