Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

[ding]

BULLSHIT! Only fools say you can get something from nothing

What do you think paired particles popping into existence is exactly?

 

[ding]

So particles are SOMETHING.

Yes, paired particles are something after popping into existence.

 

[ding]

edthecynic You are making an argument of semantics. Everyone else in the cosmological and physics community understand the distinction and choose to see the very different and unusual event of the birth of the universe as being created from nothing. Convince me otherwise that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Everyone else in the cosmological and physics community understand the distinction and choose to see the very different and unusual event of the birth of the universe as being created from nothing.

Pure BULLSHIT!
Very few are stupid enough to believe you can get something from nothing, especially when there is no such thing as nothing.

 

[ding]

Pure BULLSHIT!
Very few are stupid enough to believe you can get something from nothing, especially when there is no such thing as nothing.

Convince me that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

Convince me that you aren't on the opposite side of cosmologists and physicists who routinely refer to the creation of the universe as being spontaneously created from nothing.

You have already been given Lawrence Krauss statements on this exact question, one of the lead quantum researchers on the topic, and ignored them.

If you are not going to listen to the direct quotes from cosmologists on how 'nothing' really is not the nothing as you see it I do not see how there is anything at all that can possibly convince you.

 

[ding]

You have already been given Lawrence Krauss statements on this exact question, one of the lead quantum researchers on the topic, and ignored them.

If you are not going to listen to the direct quotes from cosmologists on how 'nothing' really is not the nothing as you see it I do not see how there is anything at all that can possibly convince you.

Actually no, I haven't been convinced. Do you have anyone else you can point to? Because the consensus seems to be a universe from nothing. You are big on consensus, right?

Besides the fact that matter literally pops into existence still qualifies as something from nothing.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually no, I haven't been convinced. Do you have anyone else you can point to? Because the consensus seems to be a universe from nothing. You are big on consensus, right?

Besides the fact that matter literally pops into existence still qualifies as something from nothing.

No, matter is literally a fluctuation of quantum fields. So, 'pops into existence from nothing' is ignoring that the 'nothing' you are referring to IS a quantum field.

That is the baseline here. Not only that but nowhere does anyone in science declare energy as being created as a result of the big bang. Spacetime began to exist, insofar as began has any meaning here, but where is energy stipulated as being a function of that?

 

[BreezeWood]

No, matter is literally a fluctuation of quantum fields. So, 'pops into existence from nothing' is ignoring that the 'nothing' you are referring to IS a quantum field.

That is the baseline here. Not only that but nowhere does anyone in science declare energy as being created as a result of the big bang. Spacetime began to exist, insofar as began has any meaning here, but where is energy stipulated as being a function of that?

the transfer is from energy back into matter from equilibrium immediately after the moment of singularity - the cyclical bb.

 

[ding]

No, matter is literally a fluctuation of quantum fields. So, 'pops into existence from nothing' is ignoring that the 'nothing' you are referring to IS a quantum field.

That is the baseline here. Not only that but nowhere does anyone in science declare energy as being created as a result of the big bang. Spacetime began to exist, insofar as began has any meaning here, but where is energy stipulated as being a function of that?

The quantum field only exists as a probability wave. So the universe was indeed created from nothing.

 

[ding]

In 1928 Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time....

Arthur Eddington got it. Lawrence Krauss' atheism keeps him from getting it.

Krauss has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. 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? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. The universe came from mind (probability waves) and that's not nothin'

 

[BreezeWood]

In 1928 Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time....

Arthur Eddington got it. Lawrence Krauss' atheism keeps him from getting it.

Krauss has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. 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? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. The universe came from mind (probability waves) and that's not nothin'

Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

there is not equivalency -

physiology is a metaphysical substance not a material of its own and requires a spiritual content for its existence or dissipates into the atmosphere.

and is not the same as matter that makes up the celestial bodies.

 

[ding]

there is not equivalency -

physiology is a metaphysical substance not a material of its own and requires a spiritual content for its existence or dissipates into the atmosphere.

and is not the same as matter that makes up the celestial bodies.

There is primacy of mind.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is primacy of mind.

not necessarily so - seen any angels traveling through the cosmos ...

there is a distinction between celestial bodies -/- physiology and its spiritual content. most certainly the latter, physiology as dependent on the former.

 

[ding]

not necessarily so - seen any angels traveling through the cosmos ...

there is a distinction between celestial bodies -/- physiology and its spiritual content. most certainly the latter, physiology as dependent on the former.

Don't need to see any angels traveling through the cosmos to know that everything is made manifest by mind.

 

[ding]

Spacetime began to exist, insofar as began has any meaning here, but where is energy stipulated as being a function of that?

The gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. 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.

 

[JoeBlow]

I watched some of it, and he never talked about where the BB came from, it was a theory about the BB and what happened during. If there is a specific time where I should watch, point it out, otherwise you still have nothing.

 

[ding]

I watched some of it, and he never talked about where the BB came from, it was a theory about the BB and what happened during. If there is a specific time where I should watch, point it out, otherwise you still have nothing.

You watched some of it?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Faith is not based on Fact

 

[JoeBlow]

You watched some of it?

it's 17 minutes long, I can't be expected to watch that, so where is the good part? If you don't point out at what time, I'll assume you have nothing again.