Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Face it, Sawsall.

You CAN NOT PROVE that God exists. Every single "proof" I have EVER heard for the existance of god could substitute pingpong balls instead of god and would still work for logic--but not for proof of god.

You cannot prove something that you have to take on faith.

---

But they would have to be INTELLIGENT ping-pong balls! :D (I think that describes every one I've ever tried to play with, because they always manage to avoid getting hit by me. But anyway... )

One thing I haven't seen come up on either side of this is the question of time. The universe we know is subject to a linear time frame. But if it had a beginning, then that suggest there's something or somebody or whatever that is outside of time. Saying that God or anything else is "eternal" assumes that time is a universal. I'm not sure that's the case. So if time is something that appeared with the appearance of this universe, then whatever is outside of it could, and probably would, be subject to a whole different set of "rules." Synnen, what are your thoughts on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Face it, Sawsall.

You CAN NOT PROVE that God exists. Every single "proof" I have EVER heard for the existance of god could substitute pingpong balls instead of god and would still work for logic--but not for proof of god.

You cannot prove something that you have to take on faith.

---

And just in case you think we are attacking your beliefs, we aren't. Because just like you can't prove God exists, we can't prove God doesn't exist. Any person's belief in the God of Christians, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, Odin or whatever is based on a matter of faith in the teachings of their religions. You are free to choose what you want to believe in. Just as we are free to choose what we want to believe in. I have no intention of interfering with your right to believe what you want. Its when you insist on trying to impose your beliefs on others that I draw the line. I think my last post may have gotten through to you a little, but not enough.

I think we only assume that time is linear, because that is how we live it.

I think there is a good possibility that time is circular, but on a circle so immense that we cannot comprehend it. That would take care of the "beginning" thing.

I also think there's a good possibility that we don't understand time at all yet. Our thoughts on it are pretty primitive, honestly. I don't think we've reached a scientific or mental place yet where we can comprehend time as more than linear.

So... who knows? Perhaps there are entire civilizations on some distant planet who live time backward from death to birth or who are able to jump around in time to change things--and that understand time well enough to avoid paradox.

I certainly can't wrap my brain around it.

But "There are more things on heaven and earth..."

I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't KNOW anything. I don't KNOW that there's a Goddess, or that I'll be reborn, or that Karma works, or that my next life will take me one step closer to being perfect.

What I do have is faith and belief. I BELIEVE that there is a benevolent and just goddess, and that She will punish as she sees fit. I BELIEVE that what you put out comes back to you sevenfold. I BELIEVE that karma works, and that I will learn in my next life the lessons that escaped me in this life.

I BELIEVE that with my whole heart, and have faith that what I do not understand will come to me when I have lived enough lives to have learned the lessons that will help me better understand the order of the universe and my place in it.

I BELIEVE it, and I have FAITH in it.

I cannot PROVE it, and wouldn't even try.

I think that people who try to prove it to others are desperate to prove their beliefs to themselves, honestly--and I feel sad for them that they do not have enough faith to know that proving it won't help ANYONE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So...who knows? Perhaps there are entire civilizations on some distant planet who live time backward from death to birth or who are able to jump around in time to change things--and that understand time well enough to avoid paradox.

I certainly can't wrap my brain around it.

---

If you want to discover what a famous writer did with this concept and find out how complicated it can be, read Bearing an Hourglass by Piers Anthony.

And with the current discussion, there's the problem of dimensions.

Thank You!

I have heard enough of this hog-wash! I can put proof right in front of you and you can't see it!

Good Bye!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawsall02

I have heard enough of this hog-wash! I can put proof right in front of you and you can't see it!

Good Bye!

---

I'm a lifelong Christian, preacher's kid, former parochial school teacher, adult Bible class leader, Sunday School teacher.

You have not put any proof in front of us. Your reasoning and those sites' reasoning is circular and prove nothing about the existence of God.

No one can prove God exists. It's a matter of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawsall02

I have heard enough of this hog-wash! I can put proof right in front of you and you can't see it!

Good Bye!

---

Don't forget to pick up your toys...

Me, I'm going back to washing my hogs...

Sawsall,

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Hebrews 11:6

It is all a matter of faith. Good GRIEF, God in the flesh was HERE! He healed, and raised the dead, turned water into wine and he himself rose the third day after he was crucified. If people who saw him didn't believe with their own eyes, how do you think you can prove him to exist. It is ALL faith. And you can't come to him otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I think we only assume that time is linear, because that is how we live it.

---

As far as we know, that's how it functions everywhere. I emphasize "as far as we know." But scientifically speaking, we're pretty well stuck with the idea of starting with what we know.

Quote:

---

I think there is a good possibility that time is circular, but on a circle so immense that we cannot comprehend it. That would take care of the "beginning" thing.

---

Could you develop this a little for me? I'm not sure I follow, because even if it's circular in the way I *think* I understand you to mean it, it still pretty well plays out in a linear fashion, at least for us. But it's clear to me that there's something here I'm not grasping.

Quote:

---

I also think there's a good possibility that we don't understand time at all yet. Our thoughts on it are pretty primitive, honestly. I don't think we've reached a scientific or mental place yet where we can comprehend time as more than linear.

---

Good point. But again, scientifically, all we know is all we know, so we more or less have to start there.

When I refer to being "outside of time" the best example I can think of is from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. When Captain Sysko went into the worm hole he encountered the beings that the Bajorans called "the prophets." These beings existed outside of time and had no concept of a linear existence; to them, all events were simultaneous because time as we know it wasn't part of their universe. This sort of how I tentatively see God existing, i.e. on a plane so different from our own that there's no good way we can comprehend it. But he's not subject to time, and therefore needs no "beginning." I hope that makes a modicum of sense.

Quote:

---

So... who knows? Perhaps there are entire civilizations on some distant planet who live time backward from death to birth or who are able to jump around in time to change things--and that understand time well enough to avoid paradox.

---

I don't know about the first part, but the second part sounds a lot like Doctor Who! I like it! :)

Quote:

---

I certainly can't wrap my brain around it.

But "There are more things on heaven and earth..."

---

Agreed. But for me, the fact that I can't wrap my brain around it is a good thing, because IMAO (In My Arrogant Opinion) any "God" worthy of the name would, by definition, have to be way beyond my comprehension. If he/she/it were fully comprehensible by my finite mind, I don't see how he/she/it could be a genuine deity. But that's just me.

Dwashbur---start that thread, and let me know where it is.

I'd be happy to expound as best I can on that--but it's hard for me to explain something I don't really understand myself. I think you understand what I mean by that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawsall02

I have heard enough of this hog-wash! I can put proof right in front of you and you can't see it!

Good Bye!

---

Even people who believe as you do are telling you that what you have offered proves nothing. They are telling you its all based on Faith. Faith is a very powerful thing. Many people have it and find great comfort in it. Others prefer more tangible evidence. Until you accept that the belief in God, in ANY god, is based on faith you will continue to be frustrated by people who don't have that same faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Dwashbur---start that thread, and let me know where it is.

I'd be happy to expound as best I can on that--but it's hard for me to explain something I don't really understand myself. I think you understand what I mean by that.

---

Okay. It may be a little while, some things just turned to crap in my life in the past few minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

As far as we know, that's how it functions everywhere. I emphasize "as far as we know." But scientifically speaking, we're pretty well stuck with the idea of starting with what we know.



Could you develop this a little for me? I'm not sure I follow, because even if it's circular in the way I *think* I understand you to mean it, it still pretty well plays out in a linear fashion, at least for us. But it's clear to me that there's something here I'm not grasping.



Good point. But again, scientifically, all we know is all we know, so we more or less have to start there.

When I refer to being "outside of time" the best example I can think of is from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. When Captain Sysko went into the worm hole he encountered the beings that the Bajorans called "the prophets." These beings existed outside of time and had no concept of a linear existence; to them, all events were simultaneous because time as we know it wasn't part of their universe. This sort of how I tentatively see God existing, i.e. on a plane so different from our own that there's no good way we can comprehend it. But he's not subject to time, and therefore needs no "beginning." I hope that makes a modicum of sense.



I don't know about the first part, but the second part sounds a lot like Doctor Who! I like it! :)



Agreed. But for me, the fact that I can't wrap my brain around it is a good thing, because IMAO (In My Arrogant Opinion) any "God" worthy of the name would, by definition, have to be way beyond my comprehension. If he/she/it were fully comprehensible by my finite mind, I don't see how he/she/it could be a genuine deity. But that's just me.

---

I found this.This may help the debate. It is pretty much what I have been saying all along.


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


As far as I can see not many people believe the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. What is being confused here is the claim made by people such as myself that the universe will continue to exist indefinitely.

In other words, there is a big difference between saying that the universe had 'A' beginning as opposed to the universe having 'the beginning'. One of many beginnings.

As far a science is concerned there are a number of competing theories as to the type of beginnings possible. Herein lies the problem. The second law of thermodynamics requires the universe to be a closed system. If we could trace causation backwards and forwards a number of times ( we can't of course) but if we could, we would end up with a universe existing as a singularity( highly organized state) and eventually becoming heat dead. With some imagination we could see that this process could go back and forwards forever provided nothing can enter or leave the closed system.

Some of the beginnings of the universe postulated require the universe to be an open system. Therefore, heat death will be avoided by input from an 'outside agency' so to speak. It is because science deals with physical things this 'agency' is always a physical process. Some people want to say that this 'agency' is a non physical entity. I have no problem with this but they need to be aware they are drawing a metaphysical conclusion from scientific facts. At this stage of human development we have no theory to bridge the gap between metaphysics and science. As I have said many time the conclusions reached are metaphysical speculation.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

I found this.This may help the debate. It is pretty much what I have been saying all along.


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

---

Actually it is not helpful at all because it is a typo. It should be:

YouTube - The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Finite Universe

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

When I refer to being "outside of time" the best example I can think of is from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. When Captain Sysko went into the worm hole he encountered the beings that the Bajorans called "the prophets." These beings existed outside of time and had no concept of a linear existence; to them, all events were simultaneous because time as we know it wasn't part of their universe. This sort of how I tentatively see God existing, i.e. on a plane so different from our own that there's no good way we can comprehend it. But he's not subject to time, and therefore needs no "beginning." I hope that makes a modicum of sense.

---

Hi dwashbur,

I hope you don't mind me using your quote again. I was unhappy with my earlier response to the problem of thermodynamics If you read the stuff I have written it is pretty bad. I will have another go borrowing a bit of science fiction.

Firstly, if (and it is a big if) The Big Bang was the beginning then to talk about what occurred before the Big Bang is meaningless. This is because the Big Bang marks the beginning of time as well. There was no before. Borrowing from the physics forum and Hawking. "To asks what came before the Big Bang is a bit like asking what is north of the North Pole?"

As far as the Big Bang is concerned, talk is usually centred on the universe we are in. This is because it is generally assumed there is only one universe.

What about things existing outside our universe? For example parallel universes. Anyone living in a parallel universe would probably have to experience a very similar linear time experience as ourselves. I think the Bajorans would live their lives like we live ours and not be aware of any other universe existing. As far as we know it is not possible to cross over to another universe even if this other universe was only a few inches away from our universe. There is one possible exception to this rule. The possible exception is what could roughly be termed gravity.

The reason why these two universes ended up being so close together is because gravity has been 'leaking' out of their universe and 'leaking' into ours and vice verse. This has resulted in the two universes slowly being drawn together. In a billion years from now humans and Bajorans are in for a rude shock. When the two universe touch there will be a cataclysm that is beyond imagination. It would be something like the Big Bang all over again.

This fanciful scenario is very roughly like an alternative put forward by string theorists. It is taken as a serious alternative to the Big Bang. On this basis there is no beginning to the universe. We live on a membrane along with countless other membranes. Over trillions of years there will be many occasions when branes touch and 'the' Big Bang is really 'a' Big Bang.

If all this were all true then I guess we could say that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't operate in a closed universe. This is especially true if another 'universe' enters our 'universe' through extra dimensions.

Is there a physicist out there that can help??


Tut

Tut,
I didn't even feel a light breeze as that whole thing sailed over my head...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Tut,
I didn't even feel a light breeze as that whole thing sailed over my head...

---

Hi Dave,

Then I have provided another poor explanation.

We have all probably gotten ahead of ourselves in this debate. Let's address the central issue in this debate as it has unfolded.

Do the scientific concepts put forward in this debate exclude the possibility that God exists? More specifically, do they exclude the possibility that God exists outside of time and space?

The answer is NO. How can they?

Does the concept of thermodynamics prove the existence of God?

Again. No, How can it.

The majority of people in this forum are correct when they say a belief in God is a matter of faith. These sort of things cannot be demonstrated or refuted by way of science. If Kant were alive today I am sure he would say that those scientists( and others) who try and build a bridge from what we know about thermodynamics to what must be true about the non- physical world will always fall into error. There is no basis for any inference concerning thermodynamics to any metaphysical conclusion about the existence of God.

They are trying to draw conclusions about the existence of God from scientific facts. I would argue this is fallacious reasoning.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Dave,

Then I have provided another poor explanation.

---

No, you just have a much broader vocabulary than I do! I think that what you're saying may be boiled down into one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes. He said

Quote:

---

No study of probabilities within a given framework will ever be able to tell us whether the framework itself may be violated.

---

He neglected to add "from the outside" but in context that's what he meant. Basically it's the same thing I hear you saying: science can't prove the existence of God, but it can't rule it out, either.