Does Anybody Think They Actually Have Evidence for the Existence of God?

No, boy.

Copenhagen Interpretation don't say nothin about an observer necessary for the universe to exist.

 

Remember, stars start out as hydrogen balls. As time passes theycreate the heavy elements. It's possible that over more time new heavier elements may be created.

 

Paul created Christianity so he should get 90 points for that.

 

Achievement unlocked.

 

I can't agree. Do you have a source for your comment? Remember we are using the BB model. Why? According to a UCLA web site (the BB is) "the current best fit model is a flat ΛCDM Big Bang model where the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years". I will source it if requested. Lets look at my orginial quote;

REVA SAID; "All forms of energy and everything else including spacetime etc were created fractions of nanoseconds > t-0..."

The notation >t-0 means nanoseconds after the big bang or after planck time. Energy along with everything else was created according to the current accepted BB model after the big bang began. Here is a link that describes my claim in a far easier to read format. I included the Google excerpt to show what is contained in the article. I also used NASA source instead of something like Wiki aswers or Wikipedia;

** Big Bang The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in ... - NASA
www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf - Cached - Similar matter and energy in the. Universe. Most of the hydrogen and helium in the. Universe were created in the moments after the Big. Bang.

More details

We know that all physicality was created AFTER the big bang. We can not know what came before Planck time to t-0. According to the BB model before t=10-43 seconds, the four forces of nature* were combined to form a single Super force (The Four Forces arrived later about; t=10-12 sec. to summrize energy was not created until after the big bang. Our phyicas and theories only allow us to trace the evolution of the universe back to Planck time. Any farther back in time and our physics become useless. So until we discover a theory for quantum gravity we will not know the processes all the way back to t-0.

Again I will be happy to source anything not covered in the the source posted. Just ask me to source any claims I made if you have concerns.

I hope this clears up everything.

reva

 

I agree after the Big Bang Hydrogen was the only element in the universe. The theory is that perturbations in spacetime 'wrinkled' gravity which attracted the H, the rest is history. Early metal poor* stars were created by this the 'gravity wrinkles'**, and these early stars created by H, later containing He created heavier elements in their cores. Then second generation stars created all the elements the first stars couldn't. We and everything else are made from elements formed in stars and their deaths, ie we are made from stardust. So the Genesis story is not as silly as it seems to secular eyes, in a way Genesis is correct, God did create us from dust.

* astronomers consider anything heavier than H and He to be metals.

** I am taking artistic license with some words such as wrinkles of gravity for brevity, the 'concept' however is valid.

reva

 

Asking me to clarify or provide links aren’t pestering me. We are all lay people in some subjects. The reason I sometimes make a distinction between lay and professional people is to give a heads up. In other words if a MD began replying to my post using doctor speak I wouldn’t be able to understand most of it or I may misread it. If the Dr tells me in advance that he is using technical terms it helps. I hopes that helps you lol.

Anyway, to address your reply. You again misrepresent what I actually said. I said that a premise can also be an conclusion or a proposition. It depends on the argument and the type of syllogism as to if its incorrect to call a premise a proposition or vice versa. In any case here is a link that shows that its proper to call the KCAs syllogism the first three premises. The reason I say the FIRST three is that three are more. However I rarely get past the first three in debate. Not only are there more premises the argument gets more complicated. Just saying. Link;

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...IQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNGXjfbSouItfxN56EZmcXiO8kuO1g

rev






We do not know what happened all the way back to t-0 time zero or when the big bang began to create the universe because as of now we have no quantum theory of gravity....yet.

Most of the physical universe, ie space time or spacetime, energy, the constituent parts of the 'atom' etc were created in about one hundred and eighty standard seconds after t-0. However it took roughly four hundred thousand years for to cool to 3000k and become transparent. I included the additional information in the hopes of briefly* clarifying Big Bang cosmology. A short version is what I said in the original reply, energy did not exist until after the big bang. Energy is too vague, because of the many forms, to say when after the BB it was created.

*(of course I left out 95% of the information for brevity)

Read more: http://scienceray.com/astronomy/big-bang-how-long-it-lasted/#ixzz23nCpnPQn
(sorry for not using the precise notation, my keypad doesnt have the symbols) just after the Big Bang (t=0):

reva.

 

Asking me to clarify or provide links aren’t pestering me. We are all lay people in some subjects. The reason I sometimes make a distinction between lay and professional people is to give a heads up. In other words if a MD began replying to my post using doctor speak I wouldn’t be able to understand most of it or I may misread it. If the Dr tells me in advance that he is using technical terms it helps. I hopes that helps you lol.

Anyway, to address your reply. You again misrepresent what I actually said. I do not think its intentional, careless maybe but not intentional. Or maybe you and I just have a problem communicating.

Or &#8220;What we have here is a failure to communicate&#8220;. < Movie quote < LOl?

I said that a premise can also be an conclusion or a proposition. It depends on the argument and the type of syllogism as to if its incorrect to call a premise a proposition or vice versa. In any case here is a link that shows that its proper to call the KCAs syllogism the first three premises. The reason I say the FIRST three is that three are more. However I rarely get past the first three in debate. Not only are there more premises the argument gets more complicated. Just saying. Link;

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...IQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNGXjfbSouItfxN56EZmcXiO8kuO1g

reva.

 

An interesting link, thanks, the part about actual infinites being impossible is certainly food for thought at least. But it doesn't really help me understand how a premise can be at the end of a logical statement. In fact it only even uses the word 'premise' a single time in that page.

Just to be clear, it's this line: "3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence." that I'm concerned with, just in case we're talking past each other. It sounds like you're saying it is both a premise and a conclusion?

 

o

Of course it doesn't.

The APPLICATION of the Copenhagen Interpretation to the Big Bang is what tells us there had to have been an Observer for the initial Wave Function of the elemental particles to have collapsed intothis Cosmos.

 

I basically agree with what you posted above and can not understand what you are objecting to exactly?

It seems clear from the Law of Conservation of Energy/Matter that before the material universe appeared, all that could exist would have be pure Energy which needs no Space/time to accommodate it.

 

There is a common problem dealing with atheists and unbelievers. They have too much DOUBT and no FAITH in anything. They're spiritual weaklings. They don't want to believe in anything, because they don't want to take a risk. Believing in things is risky, but, everybody believes in something, everyday. Atheists want to "believe in science", because they think it's a safer bet than TRUE CHRISTIANITY. They're wrong.

I've shown numerous times that atheism is intellectually inferior to CHRISTIANITY, and that atheists and lieberals have no morals or ethical standards. What atheists need to understand, is that religion, specifically the religion of TRUE CHRISTIANITY, is about life, and how to live life with higher values, principles, and codes than other people. TRUE CHRISTIANITY IS A SUPERIOR WAY OF LIFE. As a TRUE CHRISTIAN, you must put all your faith into GOD, and accept JESUS CHRIST AS LORD. This is the fundamental requirement. Atheists don't want to do this, because they think that they can avoid GOD. But, they can't. Atheists cannot avoid GOD, unless they want to be animals, act like animals, and remain animals.

Atheists must remain inferior, and animal-like, to avoid GOD. But, this isn't actually true. Because GOD is objective, and does not require your belief, or unbelief, to exist. That's like claiming that faraway planets require you to believe they exist, before they exist. This isn't true. The entire universe exists, and it doesn't need your (atheist) written permission to exist without you. This is how atheists think, they think GOD requires THEIR PERMISSION. It's actually the opposite way around.

YOU, ATHEIST, REQUIRE GOD'S PERMISSION TO EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A man cannot own himself, without KNOWING GOD.

 

CI aint APPLICABLE to the big bang.

Whatever "intitial wave function" you are talking about aint got nothing to to with the universe as a whole.

It's a probability model only relevant to single particles.

The universe aint a particle.

 

You are way out of your element, bub.

 

Yes indeedie'. In the spirit of PF and contributing to friendly good and productive debate I will give up a little ground. I agree that it’s not wrong to say the KCAs syllogism has two premises and a proposition (conclusion) or that the KCA overall has three main premises. So we can both be right. How is that?

reva

 

You should remember that current (accepted) theory tells us that energy in all its forms was created just after the Big Bang caused the universe to begin to exist. That is the science. Also science tells us it can not answer what happened before the BB, at least not by experiment or testing. However the KCA uses deductive logic etc to form an argument that concludes everything that begins to exist has a cause to exist and that cause is God. Why God? Because nothing physical existed before the BB according to science, God is not a physical agent, he or it by necessity must be atemporal/eternal and a nonphysical entity. Its not just you Dave. Many, MANY a heck of a lot of people secular and theist alike, scientist and lay have a difficult time visualizing NOTHINGNESS. So if you can get your head around the concept of nothingness you are past half way to understanding the KCA.

reva

ps

I will mercifully shut up and abscond from this thread for now~

 

god of the gaps fallacy, leading to infinite regression.

 

I'm not looking for validation though, I genuinely want to learn whether that's correct or not. I googled it for a while and couldn't see anyone else talking about 3 premises, but then we both know the internet is rather less than 100% accurate. If you really want to drop it that's OK I guess though.

 

How about this proof:

 

It depends on what your definition of God is. If your definition is that GOd is some white haired old dude in a robe who is looking down from us in the clouds and judging our every move, then no. Not a lot of evidence or even logic in that. However if your definition is that God is a force that created the universe then there is evidence all around you.

I'm an agnostic btw.

 

SK intrepretation of Mikes Sistine Chapel god:



1. Neither man, nor god, are exactly trying very much at establishing contact with each other.



2. The father god is not as keen on being naked as is his desire for his entourage and man to be.
3. The figure, that father god has his arm around, appears to be a rather young female, also nude.
4. If I were really cynical, I might say that god appears to have been momentarily distracted from his orgy, by Adam being depressed that God is getting all the action.

5. Proof positive that God is not quick to anger, because I was not struck dead while typing my commentary.

 

Number 5 may be in question, because God may be so focused on rightwing religious extremists blowing themselves up, that the average blaspheming liberal seems trivial by comparison.

 

WRONG...

That scientists admit they have no Quantum description of the first split second when the Big Bang appeared doesn't mean they ignore application of the Law of Conservation of Energy.
All the matter in our Universe came from pre-existing Energy into which that matter was transformed in accord with Einstein's nfamous experiement.

If we imagined a reversal, and all Matter retracing its path backward, and disappearing thru the point in Space we call the Singularity or point (0,0,0) on our mental graph of the Universe, it would convert back to the exact same original energy that it had come from:

 

All I know about this topic is there is absolutely the same amount of evidence for the existence of god and the existence of leprechauns.

 

?

Really?

The Copenhagen Interpretation is pretty clear that the Elemental Particles are wave Functions that must be collapsed by an Observer in order to materialize in a State of existence.
This would be especially true at the Big Bang, when nothing material has yet been transformed from the pre-existing Energy responsible for the appearance of the Cosmos.


Accept the CI or not, it is the most recognized idea among a consensus of all Scientists and it does infer a First Cause was some unidentified but necessary Observer.