PROOF of Nature's God

[Stann]

Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and LifeView attachment 610407

I believe in a natural God, one of unlimited energy in the parallel universe who has access to this physical universe. As long as you're not planning this is proof of a religious god that's fine with me. Religious gods only exist in the minds of those who believe in them.

 

[Stann]

So the OP is here to peddle a book.

I think it's much more than that, many people require backup support for ideas they are unsure of.

 

[Stann]

Actually, the opposite appears to be the case. Ancient man had no real understanding of the world and just accepted gods, demons, spirits, etc. as explanations. As we have come to better understand the world, people have generally become more skeptical about the supernatural. The "God of the Gaps" has grown increasingly smaller and less important. I think things like church attendance numbers support this.

gods have fallen to the wayside since the begining of time. I'm amazed the judgmental tribal religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam still exist at all, nevermind spreading throughout the world. Many of their primitive beliefs are inconsistent with modern society.

 

[Colin norris]

gods have fallen to the wayside since the begining of time. I'm amazed the judgmental tribal religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam still exist at all, nevermind spreading throughout the world. Many of their primitive beliefs are inconsistent with modern society.

Science is the graveyard of religion and science doesn't know it.

 

[Uranus]

This is THE very same "God" whose name appears on every dollar bill you have ever spent,

Maybe I'm confused on what this name is, but God is not God's name.

 

[Uranus]

Science is the graveyard of religion and science doesn't know it.

Neither does religion, so who made that stuff up?

 

[Uranus]

gods have fallen to the wayside since the begining of time. I'm amazed the judgmental tribal religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam still exist at all, nevermind spreading throughout the world. Many of their primitive beliefs are inconsistent with modern society.

Which might make you wonder if you're the type to.

 

[Uranus]

Actually, the opposite appears to be the case. Ancient man had no real understanding of the world and just accepted gods, demons, spirits, etc. as explanations. As we have come to better understand the world, people have generally become more skeptical about the supernatural. The "God of the Gaps" has grown increasingly smaller and less important. I think things like church attendance numbers support this.

Lack of church attendance is why churches are made into mosques now.

 

[ding]

Actually, the opposite appears to be the case. Ancient man had no real understanding of the world and just accepted gods, demons, spirits, etc. as explanations.

You mean like the universe was created from nothing

 

[Stann]

Maybe I'm confused on what this name is, but God is not God's name.

All I can say, is thank God ( the real, natural God ) our dollars don't have the name Jesus Christ on it. Not only would it be blasphemy, it would be a civil crime as well.

 

[Colin norris]

All I can say, is thank God ( the real, natural God ) our dollars don't have the name Jesus Christ on it. Not only would it be blasphemy, it would be a civil crime as well.

Thats where you are wrong. There is no god. Its not on it because its irrelevant, its not appropriate.
Why do people thank God for all the things they achieve in life when they dismiss their own efforts to achieve it? It makes no sense.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Maybe I'm confused on what this name is, but God is not God's name.

Clearly you are confused.

Look on any American currency to see "IN GOD WE TRUST."
You know exactly what I mean. Playing dumb is childish.

 

[Colin norris]

Clearly you are confused.

Look on any American currency to see "IN GOD WE TRUST."
You know exactly what I mean. Playing dumb is childish.

Take that further.
What is it you trust about god?
Do you have any examples that he did something to earn that trust?

 

[BreezeWood]

Clearly you are confused.

Look on any American currency to see "IN GOD WE TRUST."
You know exactly what I mean. Playing dumb is childish.

that and your post only proves how deceitful a person can be.

 

[alang1216]

You mean like the universe was created from nothing

Or colliding membranes, vibrating mega strings, the rollup of an extra dimension or two, or an inflation particle. All have been proposed and none are 'nothing'. You keep to your "God of the Gaps", eventually it may actually prove true. So far this has never been the case but, who knows?

 

[ding]

Or colliding membranes, vibrating mega strings, the rollup of an extra dimension or two, or an inflation particle. All have been proposed and none are 'nothing'. You keep to your "God of the Gaps", eventually it may actually prove true. So far this has never been the case but, who knows?

The very structure of matter is tuned for life.

When you can explain how the CMB came to be without matter being created from nothing, let me know. Because that's the proof which exists.

 

[ding]

Why do people thank God

It's successful behavior that you and Stann wouldn't understand.

 

[alang1216]

The very structure of matter is tuned for life.

Is there life everywhere in the universe or only on earth? Are there other universes where it is not tuned for life? Sounds like you make lots of assumptions based on very limited knowledge.

When you can explain how the CMB came to be without matter being created from nothing, let me know. Because that's the proof which exists.

The CMB is evidence of a cataclysmic event. What caused that event and what preceded it are not revealed by the CMB.

 

[ding]

Is there life everywhere in the universe or only on earth? Are there other universes where it is not tuned for life?

George Wald responds:
"...There is good reason to believe that we are in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. How many such places are there? Arthur Eddington, the great British physicist, gave us a formula: one hundred billion stars make a galaxy, and one hundred billion galaxies make a universe. The lowest estimate I have ever seen of the fraction of them that might possess a planet that could support life is one percent. That means one billion such places in our home galaxy, the Milky Way; and with about one billion such galaxies within reach of our telescopes, the already observed universe should contain at least one billion billion -- 10^18 -- places that can support life

So we can take this to be a universe that breeds life; and yet, were any one of a considerable number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere..."

Sounds like you make lots of assumptions based on very limited knowledge.

Which assumptions do you think I am making?

The CMB is evidence of a cataclysmic event. What caused that event and what preceded it are not revealed by the CMB.

Paired particle production. Your ignorance of science coupled with your dismissal of science is astounding.

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now contitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..." George Wald

 

[alang1216]

Which assumptions do you think I am making?

1. This is the only universe that exists or has ever existed.
2. There was nothing before the BB
3. The universe was created for life, not that life was merely an accidental by product.

Paired particle production. Your ignorance of science coupled with your dismissal of science is astounding.

I'm certainly not an astrophysicist so I don't understand how paired particle production tells us what preceded the BB