One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18996
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1320670 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 6:13:10 UTC - in response to Message 1320498.  

Show me where nature created and uses a wheel.

A galaxy.

The universe.

The singularity.


Non of those use a wheel, at best we describe them as looking like a wheel because that is a shape people know.

But I did mean as used in animal movement.
ID: 1320670 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321115 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 4:11:02 UTC - in response to Message 1321105.  

Since our beginnings we have answered a lot of questions about events that were originally attributed to God. Lightning and thunder, earthquakes, volcanos,the plague and many other events have been identified as natural events with no connection to God.
But the one thing we cannot do ourselves is create life. As far as I know, no scientist or doctor has been able to turn a bowl of the components of living matter into even a one celled living creature So maybe that is the one thing we still need a God to explain.
I'm surprised that none of the posts I have read in the numerous threads on the subject of God have mentioned this.


Invoking the possible existence of a "God" has never explained anything.

It would explain the Creation event, cause and effect.
ID: 1321115 · Report as offensive
Reed Young

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321168 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 6:41:31 UTC - in response to Message 1321118.  

+1 guido.man
ID: 1321168 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1321309 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 15:39:08 UTC

Cause and effect are thought of as a linear process, apparently because this is how they appear to our perceptions. What if if could all be cyclical instead? Cause leading to effect, and effect becoming the new cause with a new effect, and so on until an effect arises, great enough to become the original cause.
ID: 1321309 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321577 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 19:32:02 UTC

Time is liner, that would be the answer.
ID: 1321577 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1321646 - Posted: 29 Dec 2012, 21:27:21 UTC

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.
ID: 1321646 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321838 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:03:09 UTC - in response to Message 1321646.  

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.

Even when you come close to a black hole, it's still linear.

If you don't have proof you don't have anything.
ID: 1321838 · Report as offensive
Profile Dimly Lit Lightbulb 😀
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 08
Posts: 15399
Credit: 7,423,413
RAC: 1
United Kingdom
Message 1321853 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:22:36 UTC - in response to Message 1321646.  

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.

Exactly, from our current point of of view time is linear. But just look at what we've learned about the universe as a species over the last one hundred years... Could we even imagine what we'll learn over the next hundred years? Could a being we would call God just simply be a being who exists outside spacetime itself?

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

ID: 1321853 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1321863 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:37:27 UTC
Last modified: 30 Dec 2012, 0:49:26 UTC

I.D.; I was suggesting a possibility, not claiming to prove anything. As Dr. Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. There seems to be a paradox at the very point of the beginning of the universe. Cause and effect appear to have occurred at the very same instant. The two seem to become one, and normal causality to lose its meaning. Yet without a cause, why should the universe even exist? If we assume a creator of the universe, we then have the problem of a causeless cause -- in effect: what created the creator? A paradox indicates that our knowledge is incomplete. I was trying to suggest a solution which incorporates both problems into their solution.
ID: 1321863 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1321868 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 0:45:21 UTC - in response to Message 1321853.  

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.

Exactly, from our current point of of view time is linear. But just look at what we've learned about the universe as a species over the last one hundred years... Could we even imagine what we'll learn over the next hundred years? Could a being we would call God just simply be a being who exists outside spacetime itself?
Could be! Answering the question about how a 'being' could find itself outside of spacetime should prove interesting.
ID: 1321868 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321895 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 1:55:26 UTC - in response to Message 1321863.  

I.D.; I was suggesting a possibility, not claiming to prove anything. As Dr. Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. There seems to be a paradox at the very point of the beginning of the universe. Cause and effect appear to have occurred at the very same instant. The two seem to become one, and normal causality to lose its meaning. Yet without a cause, why should the universe even exist? If we assume a creator of the universe, we then have the problem of a causeless cause -- in effect: what created the creator? A paradox indicates that our knowledge is incomplete. I was trying to suggest a solution which incorporates both problems into their solution.

POV Point of view is the only paradox. From our point of view you seem to think there is a paradox. I don't see it that way. Cause, is God. Effect is evident.
ID: 1321895 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321896 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 1:56:01 UTC

I have already stated that God is outside of our time line.
ID: 1321896 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11354
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1321900 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 2:09:01 UTC - in response to Message 1321895.  

I.D.; I was suggesting a possibility, not claiming to prove anything. As Dr. Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. There seems to be a paradox at the very point of the beginning of the universe. Cause and effect appear to have occurred at the very same instant. The two seem to become one, and normal causality to lose its meaning. Yet without a cause, why should the universe even exist? If we assume a creator of the universe, we then have the problem of a causeless cause -- in effect: what created the creator? A paradox indicates that our knowledge is incomplete. I was trying to suggest a solution which incorporates both problems into their solution.

POV Point of view is the only paradox. From our point of view you seem to think there is a paradox. I don't see it that way. Cause, is God. Effect is evident.

Circular arguments make me dizzy.
ID: 1321900 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1321939 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 4:02:20 UTC
Last modified: 30 Dec 2012, 4:12:21 UTC

In our Universe, gravity is the ultimate winner. Even time gives in to gravity.

Einstein's equation E=mc2 does not explain time. Despite this fact, most of his time was used to try understanding the concept of time.

Gravity is warping the Universe and also warping time - meaning that time is related to gravity itself. Gravity is readily explained most of the time by means of Isaac Newton's three gravitational laws. Before sitting down and trying to understand Einstein's theory of relativity (his special and general theories of relativity) from your armchair, you will need to know what Newton's laws are all about.

It is not always that simple. The third law of Newton is a quite complex one and difficult for everyone not being skilled when it comes to mathematics.

Even though time comes to a halt inside the event horizon of a black hole, or at least at the point of the singularity, even the speed of light does not let me travel through the Universe within a one day time frame. I guess the speed of light is not relevant in such a place.
ID: 1321939 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321951 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 5:15:27 UTC

Time is still linear till you get to that point of the singularity. Much slower, yes. But still linear.
ID: 1321951 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1322204 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 15:37:00 UTC - in response to Message 1322152.  
Last modified: 30 Dec 2012, 15:39:23 UTC

euh... personally i really dont believe gravity can affect time, nor the speed of light.

does anyone here travelled one time in his life at light speed and can effectively prove that the time was different ? or someone sent an object or a clock at light speed for x hours or x days and can effectively prove the difference of time ?
Very accurate clocks have been sent into orbit and their running compared to similar clocks on Earth. They appear to slow down very slightly, from our point of view, even when traveling at the speed of ~ 5 miles per second. The degree of slowing is in agreement with Relativity theory. If the relative speed could be increased to nearer that of light, the degree of slowing would be expected to be greater.
ID: 1322204 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30593
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1322244 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 16:48:06 UTC - in response to Message 1322204.  

euh... personally i really dont believe gravity can affect time, nor the speed of light.

does anyone here travelled one time in his life at light speed and can effectively prove that the time was different ? or someone sent an object or a clock at light speed for x hours or x days and can effectively prove the difference of time ?
Very accurate clocks have been sent into orbit and their running compared to similar clocks on Earth. They appear to slow down very slightly, from our point of view, even when traveling at the speed of ~ 5 miles per second. The degree of slowing is in agreement with Relativity theory. If the relative speed could be increased to nearer that of light, the degree of slowing would be expected to be greater.

Yes, those clocks are on GPS satellites and your GPS has to know about relativity to get your position.

ID: 1322244 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1322271 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 17:44:42 UTC - in response to Message 1322244.  

euh... personally i really dont believe gravity can affect time, nor the speed of light.

does anyone here travelled one time in his life at light speed and can effectively prove that the time was different ? or someone sent an object or a clock at light speed for x hours or x days and can effectively prove the difference of time ?
Very accurate clocks have been sent into orbit and their running compared to similar clocks on Earth. They appear to slow down very slightly, from our point of view, even when traveling at the speed of ~ 5 miles per second. The degree of slowing is in agreement with Relativity theory. If the relative speed could be increased to nearer that of light, the degree of slowing would be expected to be greater.

Yes, those clocks are on GPS satellites and your GPS has to know about relativity to get your position.


+1
ID: 1322271 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1322679 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 15:32:25 UTC - in response to Message 1322641.  

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.
They did an experiment where one very accurate clock was flown in a jet one way around the world, and another was flown around in the other direction. Both clocks were obviously subject to the same weight-conferring property of gravity. Because of their motion relative to one another, the clocks then differed very slightly in their elapsed time. The amount of this deviation was consistent with that predicted by relativity theory.
ID: 1322679 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 1383
Credit: 2,098,506
RAC: 5
Message 1322714 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 17:03:24 UTC - in response to Message 1322709.  

And consistently right!
ID: 1322714 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : One unanswered question that still allows for the existence of God


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.