Do YOU believe in God?

[pianofrieak2]

The flaw in this theory is that it assumes that this is the first and only big bang, which it likely isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t. We can make a reasonable estimate from universal red shifts that the age of this particular incarnation of the universe is indeed measurable although the amount of time involved is staggering to most people.

 

 

 

Insane's point stillstands. Whether or not our universe was/is the first big-bang is irrelevant mainly because it still requires a "big bang" to occur resulting in the need for a universe of "inanimate protons, neutrons, and electrons" or an uncaused being called "God."

 

 

 

Even if you delve into the whole numerous universes and super-string theory, you have to have a cause. Besides, the entire super-string theory is based on the notion that the entire world we see is a result of matter and anti-matter being unbalanced...of which case there has never before been seen. They're ALWAYS balanced which just seems to me to be a little strange. :-k

[danielhong]

 

 

 

 

 

change anything?

[Make7upu101]

 

 

 

 

 

change anything?

 

 

 

Are you joking?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing!

 

 

 

Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this:

 

 

 

1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

 

 

 

Godzira's answer wasn't correct (if you want to help, at least know what your trying to explain), so IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll try to explain it as simply as possible.

 

 

 

The second law of thermodynamics basically means that heat will distribute itself evenly. A fridge has less heat then your body, so when you open the fridge door the heat from your body will move toward the fridge, heating the fridge up. Outer space is really cold, and stars really hot, so stars will eventually heat up space evenly. The laws don't state where the energy comes from; it assumes that the energy is already there.

 

 

 

The state of being open or closed isn't some sort of deep question. If a system is open then more energy is being put into the system, so the system needs to redistribute the extra energy (it will not reach equilibrium). If a system is closed then it will eventually reach equilibrium and will cease to change any further.

 

 

 

If the universe was open that means more and more energy is being put into the universe, if that energy entering the universe was constant then the average temperature of the universe will continually get hotter and eventually it will be too hot to exist in. Our universe is closed as far as we can tell, which means that eventually the universe will cool down to a nice even temperature of a couple of Kelvin.

 

 

 

Thermodynamics doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care that God made it or was just there. All it says that heat in a closed system will eventually redistribute itself evenly throughout the system.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Can someone (preferably an atheist) please tell me:

 

 

 

What do you gain from arguing against religion? I mean, a religious person would gain another brother in heaven, but all you're doing is telling someone that they are wrong about something that they truly believe in. It's not like you get ten dollars every time you convince a Christian that there is no God. And seriously, you're never going to convince a true Christian otherwise, so you might as well just give up.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Insane's point stillstands. Whether or not our universe was/is the first big-bang is irrelevant mainly because it still requires a "big bang" to occur resulting in the need for a universe of "inanimate protons, neutrons, and electrons" or an uncaused being called "God."

 

 

 

Even if you delve into the whole numerous universes and super-string theory, you have to have a cause. Besides, the entire super-string theory is based on the notion that the entire world we see is a result of matter and anti-matter being unbalanced...of which case there has never before been seen. They're ALWAYS balanced which just seems to me to be a little strange. :-k

 

 

 

Yeah, the big bang implies a beginning and lets call the uncaused being (which created the universe) god. The question still remains what makes you so sure the uncaused god is the Christian God. It is just as likely to be any other God or for that matter "inanimate protons neutrons and electrons."

 

 

 

The universe doesn't have a balanced number of particles and anti-particles, otherwise we wouldn't be here. We should have been cancelled out with an even number or anti-particles, however as you know this isn't the case. Now were left looking for a reason why more matter was made then anti-matter.

[the_blob23]

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

God is 'feeding' the universe energy? But energy can't be created or destroyed. How would this work? It seems to violate the conservation law. Please explain it to me, because I fail to understand where you're coming from.

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

 

 

 

Nothing exists outside of the universe, so if God were to actually exist, he would have to exist within the universe. If God existed within the universe, I don't see how it would be possible for him to be omnipresent, as space and time exist entirely within the universe. Could you explain this as well?

[the_blob23]

Besides, the entire super-string theory is based on the notion that the entire world we see is a result of matter and anti-matter being unbalanced...of which case there has never before been seen. They're ALWAYS balanced which just seems to me to be a little strange. :-k

 

 

 

Uh, no. When matter and antimatter come into contact, they annihilate each other. They are unbalanced, or I wouldn't be typing this message right now.

[Godzira]

 

 

 

Godzira's answer wasn't correct (if you want to help, at least know what your trying to explain), so IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll try to explain it as simply as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Godzira's answer was correct when accounting for the newest findings on dark matter and universal expansion.

 

 

 

edit to clarify: An open universe has no barriers to expansion where a closed universe would eventually collapse upon itself. Dark matter is the current ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åculprit of massÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Godzira]

The flaw in this theory is that it assumes that this is the first and only big bang, which it likely isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t. We can make a reasonable estimate from universal red shifts that the age of this particular incarnation of the universe is indeed measurable although the amount of time involved is staggering to most people.

 

 

 

Insane's point stillstands. Whether or not our universe was/is the first big-bang is irrelevant mainly because it still requires a "big bang" to occur resulting in the need for a universe of "inanimate protons, neutrons, and electrons" or an uncaused being called "God."

 

 

 

Even if you delve into the whole numerous universes and super-string theory, you have to have a cause. Besides, the entire super-string theory is based on the notion that the entire world we see is a result of matter and anti-matter being unbalanced...of which case there has never before been seen. They're ALWAYS balanced which just seems to me to be a little strange. :-k

 

 

 

Insane's point doesn't stand. The universe is infinite, no beginning and no end. The big bang is described to explain how the universe that we know came to be. That doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that nothing existed before that, perhaps on another dimensional plains ect.

 

 

 

Even assuming that we have that wrong, the truth is that saying an infinite universe is unrealistic and then evoking an infinite god is somewhat counter productive.

[GoingUnder]

Agnostic here (Not sure whether God exist's or not) but I am close to becoming Atheist (Doesn't believe in God..I think)

 

 

 

God should stop all the evil and suffering in the world

 

Don't make me get out me Religious Studies Book (Yes it's a subject at school -.-)

[Godzira]

Can someone (preferably an atheist) please tell me:

 

 

 

What do you gain from arguing against religion? I mean, a religious person would gain another brother in heaven, but all you're doing is telling someone that they are wrong about something that they truly believe in. It's not like you get ten dollars every time you convince a Christian that there is no God. And seriously, you're never going to convince a true Christian otherwise, so you might as well just give up.

 

 

 

I fully believe ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwith the history to back me upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I fully believe ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwith the history to back me upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Godzira]

I fully believe ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwith the history to back me upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[MyPurpleCrayon]

I find it more close minded to base your life on something designed to control people.

 

 

 

Oh, I missed the whole part about my religion being 'designed'.

 

Alas... We are never going to agree, and I just wanted to ask a question. Thanks for the answer, homie.

[the_blob23]

Can someone (preferably an atheist) please tell me:

 

 

 

What do you gain from arguing against religion? I mean, a religious person would gain another brother in heaven, but all you're doing is telling someone that they are wrong about something that they truly believe in. It's not like you get ten dollars every time you convince a Christian that there is no God. And seriously, you're never going to convince a true Christian otherwise, so you might as well just give up.

 

 

 

I could reverse the very same question: Why do Christians attempt to convince atheists that God exists? Do they gain some divine reward everytime they attempt to? Seriously, without logic or evidence, you'll never convince any true atheist.

 

 

 

I think debate between the religious and the nonreligious is a good thing. It causes both factions to open up and think deeply about existence.

[MyPurpleCrayon]

Why do Christians attempt to convince atheists that God exists?

 

 

 

I mean, a religious person would gain another brother in heaven

 

 

 

I think I already answered that question.

[Godzira]

I find it more close minded to base your life on something designed to control people.

 

 

 

Oh, I missed the whole part about my religion being 'designed'.

 

Alas... We are never going to agree, and I just wanted to ask a question. Thanks for the answer, homie.

 

 

 

I fully admitt that it is my opinion and not provable fact.

 

 

 

I did notice that you didn't question the first part of my response so I'm hoping that you at least see that point to be understandable.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Godzira's answer was correct when accounting for the newest findings on dark matter and universal expansion.

 

 

 

edit to clarify: An open universe has no barriers to expansion where a closed universe would eventually collapse upon itself. Dark matter is the current ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åculprit of massÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[insane]

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

God is 'feeding' the universe energy? But energy can't be created or destroyed. How would this work? It seems to violate the conservation law. Please explain it to me, because I fail to understand where you're coming from.

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

 

 

 

Nothing exists outside of the universe, so if God were to actually exist, he would have to exist within the universe. If God existed within the universe, I don't see how it would be possible for him to be omnipresent, as space and time exist entirely within the universe. Could you explain this as well?

 

 

 

As far God feeding the universe energy, I was talking pre-Big Bang - as in, where did the energy from the Big Bang come from?

 

 

 

You mean nothing physical exists outside of the universe. Except Godzira talked about some sort of multidimensional reactions, but I won't go there. The point is, God isn't a physical being, so there's no way you can possibly say where and where not God can reside.

 

 

 

DBP: You made a number of points, I'm not sure which you're talking about. If it was the 2nd law point, that's fine. In my 1st year chemistry course it was about entropy, not heat (well, not entirely. Gibb's free energy equation included both heat and entropy) - and in the definition it refers to entropy. Where does this come into it?

[coolgirl15]

One words: yes

 

Yes i beleive in god and if u dont like it ill be seeing you burn in hell from heaven :roll: :roll:

[havesometea1]

I fully believe ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwith the history to back me upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[havesometea1]

One words: yes

 

Yes i beleive in god and if u dont like it ill be seeing you burn in hell from heaven :roll: :roll:

 

 

 

Well.

 

 

 

There you go.

 

 

 

Nothing like fear to bring out the hatred in someone.

[havesometea1]

I find it more close minded to base your life on something designed to control people.

 

 

 

Oh, I missed the whole part about my religion being 'designed'.

 

Alas... We are never going to agree, and I just wanted to ask a question. Thanks for the answer, homie.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe that your religion wasn't designed?

[bull912000]

I fully believe ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwith the history to back me upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ