It can only exist, if said existance is verifiable....
I thought you only believed in subjective reality
Gotta disagree. History has taught us that things exist that we weren't aware of. Existence can exist without another existence being aware of that existence.
Without definition, there are no borders to identify.
With the existence of physics and gravity, something can be created from nothing - no need for a creater (God).
I'd like to know the mechanics of how that would work.
Please supply ONE single bit of evidence that something can be created out of nothing.Even a plausible theory will do.
Yeh. I'm waiting to hear the answer to this one.
Read Stephen Hawken's Story of Everything. Plus the Big Bang was recreated in a lab. If you're not familiar with quantam physics, dark matter and nuclear fusion, I'm not going to waste my time explaining to any of you.
I am very familiar with quantum mechanics.
Now lets hear your plausible theory.
You are??? Odd, very few are "very familiar" with quantum field theory. Do you have a phd in physics or something?
No. But i understand it enough to see that it doesnt provide any plausible theories on how the universe was created out of nothing.
Then, it would appear you have no understanding of it at all.
I am glad you are comfortable with scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe.i am not.understanding has nothing to do with acceptance of a theory.
I havent accepted ANY theory, religious or scientific.
You're acceptance of scientific theory is based on belief that verges on religion.
So, you know quantum field theory, yet your posts show evidently a complete lack of any scientific thought whatsoever when you make such a ridiculous claim.
You are still evading my actual question.
How do you think the universe started from nothing?
You may use small words to answer, due to my lack of intelligence.
I wonder if the universe was created from nothing..How do we know it was created from nothing...Maybe all of the materials were here and it just formed to its current state...Even in the bible, God is described as forming from material already in existance.
It's something. I always felt that quantam physics supported the existence of God and the spirit realm. Hmm...I still do. It's so amazing.
Why do believers constantly fabricate their alleged knowledge of complex scientific theories that they clearly know nothing about and then tell us those theories support their ridiculous claims of gods and spirits?
Dishonesty at it's fullest. It's so amazing.
I'm not being dishonest. Nor am I being rude, sir. I am educated. I didn't join Hubpages for this, & I'm not going to entertain you anymore.
Interesting comment! According to your comment you don't think something can be created out of nothing, yet here we are. But if you are correct and things don't just appear we (and by we I mean you) have a problem because faith expects you to believe that God has always been there or here. He has no parents, was not made and always will be here. He can create things from nothing and all he wants is our worship. Well, let me ask, how can someone not have a start or a finish when everything else does? That I find much more perplexing that trying to figure out how the big bang happened. You should as well. Some critical things would be a good start.
To me the idea of something omnipotent having existed perpetually makes more sense than the idea that the universe itself is its own causeless effect. If the universe has always existed, perpetual big bangs and whatnot, it's a wonder that there's anything cohesive left. Matter and energy are preserved, but no reaction is 100% efficient. If the universe is an eternity old, then logically it seems that it should have reached complete and total entropy, well, an eternity ago.
Despite the fact there is hard evidence for the latter and none for the former?
Curious thing you call "sense".
Yes, I accept the hard evidence that the universe somehow exists, and that there is strong scientific evidence that somehow a Big Bang started a chain of events leading to where we are today.
It's all about the "somehow." Speaking of science, everything we know says that everything in the universe is governed by cause and effect. And yet the universe itself has no cause? To me this creates a logical gap that seems to demand something that isn't governed by cause and effect to be the initial impetus.
Enter the world of quantum mechanics, where little has a cause. Particles pop into and out of existence for no discernable reason. Electrons move about a atom's nucleus with nothing causing that change of location.
The macro world we live in and (somewhat) understand is cause and effect; the fundamentals of the universe that we are just now touching on are not.
Just because there is no discernable cause doesnt mean there isnt one.
To those who don't understand those theories, it would appear to be all about the "somehow" but to those who do understand, the "somehow" disappears.
Interestingly enough, many of our scientific theories are 'counter-intuitive' in that what we deem to be logical is not logical at all when it comes to understanding those theories, and yet, when we do understand them, they are perfectly logical.
Years ago, I struggled with one of the postulates of relativity trying to understand why the speed of light was a constant and why a space ship that traveled near the speed of light still measured the light at that speed, it was entirely illogical considering how we view our world and how we measure velocities and speeds with moving vehicles.
After much thought and lots of reading, I finally understood it and it all made perfect sense.
Eric wrote "If the universe has always existed, perpetual big bangs and whatnot, it's a wonder that there's anything cohesive left. Matter and energy are preserved, but no reaction is 100% efficient. If the universe is an eternity old, then logically it seems that it should have reached complete and total entropy, well, an eternity ago."
Why would you think the universe would burn out? Everything here gets reused over and over. Our energy goes into the ground and creates compost and in turn creates pants which animals eat and something else eats the animals and so on and so on. This is just how the universe behaves, a star dies, it's energy moves on to create another star.
Nothing lives forever, ever. Why would you assign that to a god? It's like everything in the universe has a lifecycle except God that we only think exists. Man has created this God to explain the universe that doesn't follow any of the rules that the universe follows.
I can't be alone in this thinking. It's common sense.
Of course God doesn't follow the laws of our universe; He is not of this universe and there is no reason to think that He is subject to our laws.
Mankind made up God, yes, but did not make Him subject to our rules. He can do anything and nothing in our universe can do that. Everything BUT God is subject to the same rules, whether we know and understand them or not; God is not.
If God created our universe He had to exist prior to that and thus cannot be a part of our universe. Common sense.
Wow you have a lot of knowledge as to why God does not fit in this universe and how we created him or her. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you that God is the only thing that doesn't behave within the laws of the universe, created everything as we know it, has always been here and always will be. But, I believe in Santa, he knows if you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake. Santa never ages and once a year he gives presents to every good boy and girl. And he does this on Gods birthday. Wait, how can God have a birthday? He was never born. I'll take Santa's word for it and keep getting my presents.
We live in a world where everything has a beginning and and ending, our lives, the earth, the sun, the stars, galaxies the universe. Everything without exception. Why would you except that the one thing (God) that we have no proof of it's existence breaks all the known universes rules? Humans invented God in order to explain our existence and to keep people in line (just like Santa), but in doing so we gave him powers that are beyond our universe.
Is this easier for you to swallow than trying to understand why we are here?
I grew up in a pretty fundamentalist church so understand what many of the claims are for God.
The rest is merely common sense: if God made the universe He cannot have originated in it and thus would not necessarily have to follow the rules here. Sure, God may have made the universe with rules that He has to follow (although the fundies tell us He has no rules to follow and can do anything He wants to) but there is no reason to think that He did so, either.
No, everything does not have a beginning and end if you exclude the big bang. Energy never ends (dies out) for instance - light will travel forever if it hits nothing to stop it. There is no indication that an atom of Hydrogen will suddenly disintegrate unto nothing without a sun to act on it. Gravity won't suddenly disappear one day. All these things may change somehow, but none disappear into nothingness.
Okay, lets for one second assume a God made the universe, but he didn't originate from it. Where did he originate? Of course this is all speculation. I'm not sure what you meant by growing up in a fundamentalist church gave you understanding what many of the claims are for God?
It's not an assumption - just common sense. God cannot have both originated in, and constructed, our universe. First, He is immortal while our universe had a definite beginning whether via the big bang or God (or both). Our universe could not, therefore, have produced God - he had to exist somewhere before that time. It would be like claiming that you made a beautiful painting before you were born - the time frame doesn't fit.
We can call Gods location before creation another universe for discussion sake, but it need not have been. Who knows what is outside our universe (besides God, of course). The location or characteristics of that "place" are immaterial as long as we recognize that neither needs to have any correlation to our own universe.
For years as a child I was pounded with "facts" about God - His omnipotence, His omniscience, His love for the animals He created, His greatness and His demand for worship among other things. Just nothing about what He really is or where He came from. Other churches will of course have other "facts", but some overlap.
That's all entertaining, but none of which are facts. God is not Fact. The big bang may not have been the beginning, just a cycle, perhaps explosion and then implosion. We don't know anything about our universe. You have no knowledge of God, just words in a book written by humans.
The God you described perplexes me. If God is great why does he demand worship. That would seem to me to be a character flaw. Seems needy. Oh, and then there's his love for animals that you mentioned. Is his love for them why he invented pain or carnivores. Would his love let them get eaten alive. Sounds much more like something evolution would allow. More of a survival of the fittest thing.
You are mistaken by calling your beliefs facts. You have no facts.
Your questions are irrelevant and should be ignored by any right-thinking Theist.
As any believer will tell you, God does exist and questions such as these are best left to unbelievers as they could shake the faith of the weaker believers.
As far as the big bang, it apparently created the entire continuum, including space-time. Without time, even a cyclical universe such as you propose can be considered to start with the "current" big bang.
You have been indoctrinated against asking questions? Why would anyone tell you not to ask questions? Questions are the only way to the truth. I am not trying to tempt you into thinking, I'm just asking question because you seem to have it all figured out.
This thread has to do with the existence of God. It does not have to do with what kind of God or what He may have been or not been up to.
Where did physics and gravity come from? Why do they exist?
I submit internet pornography as proof of your statement.
Well, I mean, I don't literally submit actual internet pornography. The mods might frown on that.
I really do want to see my op refuted. If it can't be refuted, then Hubpages might see it's first real, live online conversion.
Greater and lessor may be a subjective evaluation. But by golly it sure is fun.
That's the ticket... everything you see is filtered through the brain, then conditioning takes over and attaches the proper meanings. Therefor, it is an illusion of interpretation.
This was a good first run. However, the statement:
"If something can exist, then it does exist.",
has still not yet been refuted.
Keeping in mind everything posted so far, let's try again.
When I posted the op I considered the possibility of refutation to be around 1%. After this first run, I now think the possibility of refutation is greater than 1%. So we are on the right track.
That statement does not follow logically. It is not true. By the logic in your statement, I can be a fighter pilot, therefore I am one.
I'm not one though am I?
Who said you can be a fighter pilot?
Also, we are talking about existence, not type of existence.
Your logic still does not follow. A planet made of marshmallow can exist but that doesn't mean it does.
And why do you believe that a planet made of marshmallow can exist?
Here is a clarification: Just because one can conceive of something does not mean that particular something can exist.
I dont. I said it CAN exist.
And you have just debunked your opening statement.
Here's the op: "If something can exist, then it does exist."
Who says your god can exist? Isnt that a human conception?
Let go back a bit with a reworded statement.
IF a planet made of marshmallow can exist, then it does exist.
We know that a planet made of marshmallow can exist, therefore, according to your logic, it does.
So where is it?
Chances of refuting your argument now stand at 100%.
You keep trying to substitute a specific item ("planet made of marshmallow") into a concept ("something"). It turns the discussion from the concept to the nuances of the specific object.
However, I understand what you are saying. So much so, that you have given me some new insights. In fact, it may be breakthrough time again. Maybe if we tried substituting other items...
HP really should pay us for this. All of us are exceptionally good today.
"If something can exist, then it does exist."
I can have seven toes on each foot, but I don't, so my seven toed foot does not exist.
I can have 3 eyes, but I don't, so my 3 eyed face does not exist.
I could be richer than Bill Gates right now, but I'm not, so having more money than Bill Gates at this particular moment in time does not exist.
Sorry your wrong. All these things could exist, but don't.
You are on track. Personally I prefer 'off the reservation'. However have tracks near by here and can hear the trains which I like.
Seems like things would make more sense if nothing existed.
But things do seem to exist.weird
I agree. Our current reality makes very little sense to me at all. That's why I keep coming back to the theory that we are all a bunch of lab rats. And that the superior entity that we call "God" may not exactly have our best interests at heart. Thus, if my op is true, and there is indeed a "God".... Then what does one do? It may not be entirely hopeless, but it could be kind of bleak...
But neither question refutes nor supports the op. But can either provide a path to do so?
My head hurts.
Consider the irrational number. An infinite sequence of digits with no pattern. That means that every possible combination of numbers must exist within it at some point.
Thus everything that exists, or has existed, or will exist, or could exist, exists somewhere in the digits of pi in decimal form.
Play the part. It can be quite fun if you are only somewhat serious.
The OP does sound a bit like a rewording of Des Cartes' arguments in Meditations on First Philosophy.
I think a reasonable paraphrase is, "Because I can conceive of the possibility of absolute perfection it must exist."
No. It is my own original, brilliant thought. However, if I did reinvent the wheel here, then so be it.
Alas, I disagree. I am of the firm belief that just because I can conceive of something, does not mean that that something must exist.
Also, if I do conclude that there is a God. It most definitely does not mean that I think he is a perfect God.
@para if something can exist...it applies to varied things....aliens can exist , god can exist , ghost can exist, life not based on carbon model can exist etc etc....but if it can exist , doesnot mean it exist....your point is valid...just because we are not aware about existence of x,y,z it doesnot mean that x,y,z doesnot exist...but at same time since we are not aware of x,y,z ,it also doesnot mean that x,y,z does actually exist...
Statement: If something can go wrong, it will. Murphy's law. If something can go right, it also probably will. Murphy's law in reverse. To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, to every possibility that there is no God, there is an equal and opposite possibility that God does exist. Consider the possibility that the universe is a living organism of a very high order, and that life and consciousness are integral characteristics of the internal physiology of this super organism, which, in and of itself is consciousness beyond anything imaginable. Well, I'm imagining it. Are you?
sensation versus reality, the duality of the subject to the object
by amine sehibi 5 years ago
What are the most common and logically acceptable arguments atheists use against God's existence?I'm doing a research and require some tough-atheists's arguments that they use against God's existence, all arguments need to be objective, logically acceptable and valid. thanks
by Retrohawaii 9 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by Jake Brannen 5 years ago
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved? You also can not disprove the existence of...
by Andrew 9 years ago
All I have to say is the US Government confirmed mermaids don't exist.http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/04/u-s … -mermaids/Thoughts, Opinions? ~thranax~
by Kiss andTales 5 years ago
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existenceIncluding them ?I ask this question because atheist are persistent with this line prove that God existBut as they are given proof they persist to say the same words, example a husband and wife claims to love one...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 11 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|