God is Plausible - Mathematical hypothesis leads to origin and a God.
Offline God is plausible.
I am not a religious man in the evangelical sense. I will say however that even though there was a Big Bang there also was probably a Banger. To think the whole universe exploded as a spontaneous event from nothing is less believable then thinking you could spontaneously explode where you sit as you read this.
I have, since my early college days, debated with my thoughts and others the logical path to God. I started with what was broken or could be bent in our universe (ie time) and worked backwards to the concepts of infinity, pi and zero. In the 15 years or so I tried to negotiate the Big Bang, dark matter, time, pi, infinity and the irrationals of our usable math. My conclusion leads to something beyond the singularity event that is in fact conceptually God.
Any rational responder one wish to explore this?
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
It is also plausible that my girlfriend is cheeting on me, but I have no evidence of that.
First the matter we tend to speak of is baryonic matter - the "normal" matter which makes up the stars, planets and people, makes only 4% of the entire universe. The properties of dark matter and dark energy are not known.
Now to the brass tack
To postulate that there may exist a scientific or logical law that allows something to evolve from nothing as a theory and then using those "laws" for that form of matter and try to apply it to newly discovered forms of matter and energy that cannot be tested is unscientific and completely unworkable in explaining evolution. A wishful hypothetical of a supernatural concern that is just as much "out there" as the raving evangelical damning your souls from the street corner.
Understanding fundamental basic laws will make the universe self evident and will not preclude a God (a self-aware creation enity) does not or cannot exist.
Also, if any of you think it is possible your girlfriend is cheating you would be proactive in its discovery unless you are in denial. A common defense mechanism that protects you on some personal level.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
A self aware creation entity would be natural, unless you want to explain how something can be self aware without matter or energy.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Leave the comfort box of what you think you know about all matter...
*********************************************************************
This section is just for fun because the truth of the MATTER is more complex than 5th grade text books let on.
New original joke seen for the first time ever
The Law of Conservation of Mass (or Matter) in a chemical reaction can be stated thus:
In a chemical reaction, matter is neither created nor destroyed.
This begs the logical questions, "If matter and energy cannot be created, how did they originate?" and "Where did the entire observable physical universe come from?"
ANSWER: A rational thinker might say say "From a God". Another rational thinker might also say "Not from a God." It really depends on the sins of the thinker.
********************************************************************
In physics, there is no broad consensus as to an exact definition of matter. God is probably indeed natural but not from the same matter or energy that makes up stars, planets or people. Evidence of God may exist in dark matter or energy both contain particles unknown to present science.
Turning a flat world into a round one is pretty fun.
The universe =
4% Atoms (Ye Old "matter is neither created nor destroyed" rule applies here.)
23% Dark Matter
73% Dark Energy
Thus 96% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory. The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters.
**** For those who don't know, that is not very much. Hardly enough to effect anything on a universal scale. ****
In fact new data suggests Dark Energy seems more like a "cosmological constant".
So is God natural? - probably so.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
No, it does not beg such a question. It is a fallacy of composition to apply the laws of thermodynamnis to the universe itself. They are laws about how things working within our universe.
It's never rational to say 'goddidit' as 'god' is an incoherent term.
There are several possible answers from cosmology.
I invite you to read what actual cosmologists have to say on the matter:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Incoherent:
Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner
Saying God is an incoherent term probably has been a pretty safe tag word because most people can't define what God might be. I have defined God for me and now for you and thus God is no longer an incoherent term for my post.
Everything I posted about dark energy, matter et al. has been current and from the best and brightest thinkers about such subjects. You cannot escape these facts or reorder the univere to make it fit.
BTW...Anyone know what Occam's said?
Occam's Razor:
"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
Most change this to mean:
The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony.
Applying the principle of parsimony to the God question should be fun for both sides.
Please go first.
Given what we know about the universe and accepting what we only have a loose grasp on about of 4% of it.
Please finish this: Baryonic (observable) matter came into being by....
If Not God is your answer it is one I will accept and understand but that is pretty weak coming from a group of people who think people compartmentalize God.
Before you answer, if you answer, consider this carefully and know the matter which we know about is about 4% of what is out there. The rest does not need to comply with the 4%'s laws. Dark matter and energy do exist and are not held to the same laws of thermodynamics as baryonic matter. (Our planets, stars, people, atoms etc.)
To be 100% clear lets define the first and second law thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics states that one form of energy, e.g. kinetic, potential, electrical energy, thermal,... can be converted into another without loss. The second law states that thermal energy, or heat, is special among the types of energies: all the forms of energy can be converted into heat, but in a way that is not reversible; it is not possible to convert the heat back fully in its original form. In other words, heat is a form of energy of lower quality.
I would like to say I do appreciate the civility of most posters thus far. It is very nice to see and allows a more rich dialog. Hat off to todangst. I do respect your convictions if not your conclusions.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
The term 'god' is incoherent because it's a broken concept, a reference without identity.
No one can. You can't make a referncen beyond existence.
No, you have not. I have shown you precisely why your definitions fail. You cannot refer to something beyond nature.
That's nice.
unfortunately, none of it has any bearing on the matter of ontology and your 'god' term.
I already have gone first.
When I asked you to provide an ontology for your 'god'
As per occam's razor, you must concede that your 'god theory' multiplies complexity into infinity.
I've been using the razor all along.
Already done, ad nauseum:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions
3) Common misconception: Ex Nihilo arguments (something out of nothing) are arguments for a magical creation of the universe that violate all the laws of physics.
Theistic ex nihilo arguments are in fact irrational, magical explanations that violate physics.
However, interestingly, there are ex nihilo cosmological arguments that do NOT violate physics.
But where would the matter come from?
"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631
Ok then, where does the energy come from?
As for the source of the original energy? There are several theories:
a) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event. As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Note: this version is akin to ex nihlio creation, except that it does NOT violate any laws of physics and does not require a 'miracle'.
b) Alex Vilenkin proposed, in contrast to the Hartle-Hawkings boundless model, an initial state of no dimensional nothingness that is overcome by vacuum tunneling to a dimensional state. As per his model, 'eternal nothingness' is an absolute impossibility.
See my audio file on this: http://www.candleinthedark.com/exnihilo.mp3
Thank you.
You have no rational grounds to disrespect my conclusions.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Uhm, actually the law states "Matter(No matter the form, dark or not, or anti-matter, it is still matter) AND energy(no matter the form, dark or not, it is still energy) can not be created nor destroyed. It can only be changed. Matter can convert into energy, and vise versa.
Atoms can be destroyed. They break into there three couter parts protons neutrons, and electrons. Then they can break down or be destroyed again, into qwarks, and qworks that make up protons and neutrons. Oh and yes, stuff make up those. The base line of matter/energy is called mass-energy level where nothing can break down further, and ALL matter and energy is the same, no matter the form.You show no understanding of physics you just like to pick to try and prove a point.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
Here you go.
What God possibly is can be defined and was. A God would be part of nature but our understanding of that nature is 96% incomplete.
Pretty easy.
No one can write a book about creation from a scientific standpoint without acknowledging it is their best guess.
I may be classified as a theist who does not desire to break the rules of physics. Equally, I won't let others toss around coin phrase and concepts that are incomplete and pass them off as absolute truth.
In the end, most of the actual universe picture is very incomplete. Anyone who tries to write on the subject of creation is really only making suggestion for direction of the answers we seek. Most of the things people try to apply the laws of physics to is only about 4% of the pi. Science does acknowledge dark energy and matter and it also acknowledges little is know about it other than the universe is made up mostly by it. We will be rewriting the cosmological text and cosmic theory books soon I assure you.
Ultimately I may not convince you a God, as I have defined can exist.
I agree something came from something and that something we do not have an understanding but the "universe" in the past 10 years has grown in concept. Leaps and bounds in fact. Leading to some very strange things that fly in the face ow what we once thought.
Why is it impossible to consider both dark matter and dark energies might contain a self-aware entity that can act and interact with the physical and observable universe.
It is no more magical than saying abracadabra the Universal Soup has always been ready. Which is saying science ignores what it cannot measure thus leaving gaps of understanding about creation and living with it.
"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine..."
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
It is a shame we tagged the word matter & energy on to dark matter and dark energy. The fact is no one knows its properties but we do know it does not behave like "normal matter".
If you do know, please step up and claim your newtownian prize.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
We know something can not come from nothing. We know something can not be completely destroyed, no matter what it is. IT changes, but you still have the same ammount just in another form. This goes for dark matter, dark energy, energy, matter, anti-matter, vacuum energy etc. That is why the law states nothing can be created nor destroyed, it's been tested over and over. Mass-energy level is where everything is the same. Dark matter is simply a form of matter that does not reflect enough energy from any method of detection to be observed or tested. Same with dark energy. We know it is real since some force is pushing our universe outwords faster and faster, which means some form of matter, or energy is moving faster and is on the inside and is pushing it outwords.
However, like I said, you like to assert stuff.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
We know something can not come from nothing. We know something can not be completely destroyed, no matter what it is. IT changes, but you still have the same ammount just in another form. This goes for dark matter, dark energy, energy, matter, anti-matter, vacuum energy etc. That is why the law states nothing can be created nor destroyed, it's been tested over and over. Mass-energy level is where everything is the same. Dark matter is simply a form of matter that does not reflect enough energy from any method of detection to be observed or tested. Same with dark energy. We know it is real since some force is pushing our universe outwords faster and faster, which means some form of matter, or energy is moving faster and is on the inside and is pushing it outwords.
However, like I said, you like to assert stuff.
Hi there.
There is no proof or reason to think that dark matter and dark energy are held to the laws you have stated.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis