I can prove God exists

[numinus]

All our gods come from pre-science. (ie a time before we understood what was REALLY going on around us.) at that time we needed an explanation of the sun the stars. the weather, diseases and so on.

So, you think the history of human knowledge started at the time the scientific method was formalized? Prior to that, humanity was carrying a useless organ between his ears, eh?

What unprecedented arrogance to claim in behalf of science!

Now we live in the 21st century. we have nearly discovered the building blocks of life.

And yet, we haven't actually created life from this building blocks.

we have nearly unified the forces that hold this universe together.

Duh uh.

I have already explained the limits beyond which the methodologies of science simply cannot breach. I have already discussed the various cosmological riddles that has eluded any rational scientific explanation.

Even the need to find a singular unifying principle to explain everything comes from an intuitive assertion of the process of creation.

Oh, and btw, the universe is expanding indefinitely - not being held statically together. Allowed to continue in this vein, it will eventually escape itself.

we have seen beyond the simple points of light we called stars.

Child's play. The enduring mystery comes from what we cannot see.

What exactly happens beyond the event horizon of singularities?

What exactly gives the tensile tendency of vacuum which, from observation, overpowers the effects of gravity everywhere in the universe?

Why are all phenomena explainable (with an uncanny accuracy) by a contrived mental construct we call mathematics?

we have conquered many of the viruses and bacteria that could kill us.

Why does the statistical occurence of life contradict the laws of entropy?

in short, we have, through the years had to rely on a higher being to explain all of this (i don't deny there is one though.) now, with science we are answering our own questions. So there is now less need for a god than ever before. this trend is shown across the world. religion is decreasing!!

In short, humanity is asserting the primacy of reason - in all aspects of human life - including religion. And it is the same reasoning faculty that has inevitably led human thought to the conclusion that CREATION is happening everywhere.

 

[r0beph]

What makes me laugh about all this is the fact we are debating whether we have a god or not. Does it matter? Really?
We will live as we see fit.
if we believe in any certain god or gods (and I guess most of the religious world is now monotheistic). does it actually matter. This debate can go on forever and neither side will win. In the real world though, the god sceptic side looks like it will.
All our gods come from pre-science. (ie a time before we understood what was REALLY going on around us.) at that time we needed an explanation of the sun the stars. the weather, diseases and so on.
Now we live in the 21st century. we have nearly discovered the building blocks of life. we have nearly unified the forces that hold this universe together. we have seen beyond the simple points of light we called stars. we have conquered many of the viruses and bacteria that could kill us.

in short, we have, through the years had to rely on a higher being to explain all of this (i don't deny there is one though.) now, with science we are answering our own questions. So there is now less need for a god than ever before. this trend is shown across the world. religion is decreasing!!

But that means nothing really. In my opinion ALL of the religions have piggy-backed earlier religions. Would we have evidence of god in this century (with our digital photography etc) NO. All of the religions stem from a time when we can't prove anything about them (how fitting that is.) There are hundreds of different religions. New ones are beginning to take hold aswell (scientology etc)
But none have proof. They have faith instead.

The whole topic here seems to sway on proof. Well there is none. ID can state reasons why it can't be disproved but it cannot state reasons why it can be proved!

So here is my opinion :

all religions thus far have been formulated by human beings requiring an answer to WHY life is here, WHY the universe is here! (pure speculation that has gained strength in numbers and ended up as a belief system)
take christianity. formulated by constantine and spread through the roman empire by its leader across europe. then with britains monarchy changed and modified and again spread this time to its colonies including america etc)

but the question still remains WHY.
does science have the answer?
No Science never asks why? it asks HOW?
so eventually we may know how life is formed. how the universe is formed? how many universes there are etc

but science will never answer why we are here
why is the universe here

what is the purpose of the quark, the atom, the being, the planet, the star, the galaxy, the universe, the universes!

that is left to our god, (or our absent god) and I don't believe we will ever know the answer because i believe it is unknowable to us.

A god solves all this. (but all too easily)
there may be some omiscient, omnipotent being(s) out there but the knowledge of that is beyond our 3 dimentional minds. we are not equipped to understand such a concept.


AND SO I GO BACK TO THE TOP OF MY THREAD (B4 MY RANT)
I guess I am not as knowledgable as a good many on this topic, but my view is, forget worrying about god (whether your a believer or not). worry more about your
1 ) own life,
2) your immediate family,
3) your fellow human beings,
4) your enviroment,
5) and most importantly your planet.

We only have one planet and we are abusing it (regarldess of whether you belive in global warming or not) and its fellow species. If we all made a declaration to help these five causes then the world would start to heal and we would start to heal regardless of creed, colour, race, religious orientation.

RELIGION MEANS NOTHING. IF ITS TRUE THEN HUMANS WILL CHOOSE THEIR OWN WAY. IF ITS UNTRUE THEN HUMANS WILL CHOOSE THEIR OWN WAY. THINK OF OUR PLANET AND OUR SPECIES AND ALL THE OTHER SPECIES AND LIVE BY THAT. thats all we have and once its gone its gone regardless of whether you believe in god or not

Lol see this in fact, although perhaps unapparent, my intent. Numunis can say all he wants, fine, my point is to disqualify is evidence as proof of anything, not prove that he is inherently wrong, as I can't say that and remain scientific in my methods. I don't have any decision whether a god/God(ess) or a plethora thereof exist, it's simply beyond my capabilities to deterimine any such thing with any semblance of truth.

 

[numinus]

Lol see this in fact, although perhaps unapparent, my intent. Numunis can say all he wants, fine, my point is to disqualify is evidence as proof of anything, not prove that he is inherently wrong, as I can't say that and remain scientific in my methods. I don't have any decision whether a god/God(ess) or a plethora thereof exist, it's simply beyond my capabilities to deterimine any such thing with any semblance of truth.

LOL

This is an infinitely better response than pretending you are competent in any discussion of science.

And since, by your own admission, you are not competent on the subject at hand, you had better disqualify yourself from the discussion promptly.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Poor, Num, nothing in your post #340 bears on what I've been talking about. You obviously HAVE NOT read the site, there's tons of additonal information about the new approach to physics and none of it is addressed in your petty diatribe.

It's sad to see someone so angry that they cannot coherently address another person's post even when that person supplies them with a wealth of explanatory information.

 

[numinus]

Poor, Num, nothing in your post #340 bears on what I've been talking about. You obviously HAVE NOT read the site, there's tons of additonal information about the new approach to physics and none of it is addressed in your petty diatribe.

It's sad to see someone so angry that they cannot coherently address another person's post even when that person supplies them with a wealth of explanatory information.

That's because you do not understand your own references. Rather than explain exactly how you 'plug in the 4th dimension', you send me on a fool's errand. No thank you.

 

[Miltiades]

To the best of my knowledge, I have never proposed dna as proof in this thread.

So, you might as well quit responding to my post if you can't be bothered to read it in the first place.

I was using Invest07's theory as an example there, sorry for not stating that

also I was trying to talk to everyone in that last paragraph to, again, sorry for my unclearness. I just get to worked up that I forget you all cant read my mind!

 

[Miltiades]

The theory that God created EVERYTHING in the universe is a POSSIBILITY not a fact. The fact that all these formula's and complex things happen arn't proof that God made them. They are simply proof that they exist.

Theory that EVERYTHING is created naturally is a POSSIBILITY not a fact. The fact that there is no proof God exists doesn't mean God doesn't.

Both can't be 100% proven, if they could why would there be so many religions or religion at all?
God didn't make his detection possible because what would the point of "faith" be if he could be proven? We have faith and believe not because we have proof, but rather that we have hope, love, and trust in Jesus Crist and the Lord. If we asked for loyalty only when we knew that it could be 100% proven that we would be loyal back it wouldn't mean anything at all.

 

[ArmChair General]

The theory that God created EVERYTHING in the universe is a POSSIBILITY not a fact. The fact that all these formula's and complex things happen arn't proof that God made them. They are simply proof that they exist.

Theory that EVERYTHING is created naturally is a POSSIBILITY not a fact. The fact that there is no proof God exists doesn't mean God doesn't.

Both can't be 100% proven, if they could why would there be so many religions or religion at all?
God didn't make his detection possible because what would the point of "faith" be if he could be proven? We have faith and believe not because we have proof, but rather that we have hope, love, and trust in Jesus Crist and the Lord. If we asked for loyalty only when we knew that it could be 100% proven that we would be loyal back it wouldn't mean anything at all.

and that makes sense to you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That's because you do not understand your own references. Rather than explain exactly how you 'plug in the 4th dimension', you send me on a fool's errand. No thank you.

You live in a fool's paradise--why shouldn't you go on a fool's errand? Actually, there is a huge amount of excellent info on the site, including the math you requested. Save the url and maybe after you calm down you can take a look.

 

[numinus]

You live in a fool's paradise--why shouldn't you go on a fool's errand? Actually, there is a huge amount of excellent info on the site, including the math you requested. Save the url and maybe after you calm down you can take a look.

Then why not just post the equations, hmmm? Afraid that after all your nonsense, it would be clear to anyone how it has nothing to do with thermodynamics or the conservation of mass and energy?

You try to save your reputation so much you do not even stop to wonder if it is worth saving in the first place.

 

[numinus]

The theory that God created EVERYTHING in the universe is a POSSIBILITY not a fact. The fact that all these formula's and complex things happen arn't proof that God made them. They are simply proof that they exist.

Theory that EVERYTHING is created naturally is a POSSIBILITY not a fact. The fact that there is no proof God exists doesn't mean God doesn't.

Both can't be 100% proven, if they could why would there be so many religions or religion at all?
God didn't make his detection possible because what would the point of "faith" be if he could be proven? We have faith and believe not because we have proof, but rather that we have hope, love, and trust in Jesus Crist and the Lord. If we asked for loyalty only when we knew that it could be 100% proven that we would be loyal back it wouldn't mean anything at all.

And what would you say to a situation where the rules of physics simply cannot and does not apply, hmmm? All physical equations are reducible to the fundamental units of mass, lenght and time, are they not? And physics merely measures these quantities and apply their mathematical relationships, does it not?

How, then, can a law of physics apply to a situation where these fundamental units do not exist, or are themselves unquantifiable? Does it not also follow that the rules of acceptable physical evidence - those that result from measurement - cannot exist as well?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Then why not just post the equations, hmmm? Afraid that after all your nonsense, it would be clear to anyone how it has nothing to do with thermodynamics or the conservation of mass and energy?

You try to save your reputation so much you do not even stop to wonder if it is worth saving in the first place.

The equations are long and complex, my computer doesn't even have keys for many of the symbols. I also suspect that posting the equations won't help much without the explanations to go along with them. The people dealing with this stuff have written whole books about it, the Soviets just posted 22,000 papers on this subject detailing the work that went on during the Cold War.

Here's an article from Bearden's website, it was published in the Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14., No. 1, 2001. (I don't recall the Foundations of Physics publications to be all that fringe, Num, especially when you consider that they double referee all their articles.)

http://www.cheniere.org/references/found phys letters/no 1 2001/index.html

Please call me a liar some more, Num, it makes you look so intelligent and sophisticated.

 

[numinus]

The equations are long and complex, my computer doesn't even have keys for many of the symbols. I also suspect that posting the equations won't help much without the explanations to go along with them. The people dealing with this stuff have written whole books about it, the Soviets just posted 22,000 papers on this subject detailing the work that went on during the Cold War.

Here's an article from Bearden's website, it was published in the Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14., No. 1, 2001. (I don't recall the Foundations of Physics publications to be all that fringe, Num, especially when you consider that they double referee all their articles.)

http://www.cheniere.org/references/found phys letters/no 1 2001/index.html

Please call me a liar some more, Num, it makes you look so intelligent and sophisticated.

Have you even read your own source??? Here it is, for everyone to see:

"There is no vacuum current Jv in the Maxwell-Heaviside theory, and therefore there is no equivalent energy (24a) in that theory. The current Jv is conserved, and so Noether's theorem is not violated by the explanation offered in this communication... In higher symmetry electrodynamics such as O(3) electrodynamics or electrodynamics developed by Lehnert [6], there is energy inherent in vacuum itself, so no source or transmitter is needed in order for MEG to output current indefinitely..."

Now, what ninny would interpret such a thing as violative of the conservation of mass and energy, hmmm?

The fact is, I have been talking about the energy density of vacuum as an integral part of einsteins field equation. It figures more prominently in guth's inflation. How else did you think cosmologists explain an expanding universe, eh?

As for your meg, notice how the expression for energy is proportional to dV, a differential of radiation volume? How big do you suppose this volume need be for any useful application, hmmm? Do you have the balls to venture a guess and demonstrate how utterly irrelevant that is to the discussion on hand?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Have you even read your own source??? Here it is, for everyone to see:

"There is no vacuum current Jv in the Maxwell-Heaviside theory, and therefore there is no equivalent energy (24a) in that theory. The current Jv is conserved, and so Noether's theorem is not violated by the explanation offered in this communication... In higher symmetry electrodynamics such as O(3) electrodynamics or electrodynamics developed by Lehnert [6], there is energy inherent in vacuum itself, so no source or transmitter is needed in order for MEG to output current indefinitely..."

Now, what ninny would interpret such a thing as violative of the conservation of mass and energy, hmmm?

The fact is, I have been talking about the energy density of vacuum as an integral part of einsteins field equation. It figures more prominently in guth's inflation. How else did you think cosmologists explain an expanding universe, eh?

As for your meg, notice how the expression for energy is proportional to dV, a differential of radiation volume? How big do you suppose this volume need be for any useful application, hmmm? Do you have the balls to venture a guess and demonstrate how utterly irrelevant that is to the discussion on hand?

So, a couple of paragraphs out of the article gives you all the information contained in all the research. Okay, you have invincible ignorance and I cannot help you. Too bad though, it's a pretty interesting site.

Did you go to the "...end times" thread and read my post? We aren't making any progress so I thought that a summation (with you calling me names some more) would be a good ending.

 

[numinus]

So, a couple of paragraphs out of the article gives you all the information contained in all the research. Okay, you have invincible ignorance and I cannot help you. Too bad though, it's a pretty interesting site.

Did you go to the "...end times" thread and read my post? We aren't making any progress so I thought that a summation (with you calling me names some more) would be a good ending.

Just answer the question.

Does the equation for energy in this version of electrodynamics violate conservation or not?

Are you even aware of the meaning of the integral of the radiation volume (dV) of vacuum? You have to look at far away stars to observe the hubble constant, an effect of expansion of the universe, hence attributed to the energy density of vacuum.

Or are you prepared to discuss tensor fields with me to demonstrate my ignorance?