Does God exist or not exist?

[Alan McDougall]

Hi why put this question here, because it is a philosophical question not a religious one. Religions all believe in the existence of God!

 

Can the existence of God be proved or disproved. My idea is that there is more evidence albeit circumstancial, for the existence than for the non-existence of God.

 

I am open to your ideas!

 

Alan

[iNow]

Religions all believe in the existence of God!

No, they don't. Buddhism, for example.

 

Can the existence of God be proved or disproved. My idea is that there is more evidence albeit circumstancial, for the existence than for the non-existence of God.

What clear, agreed upon, consistent and falsifiable definition of god are you choosing to use in this instance?

[doG]

Which god are you referring to?

[robheus]

In general one can not proof a negative. However, God is defined in a certain way, and one might be able to proof that it is inconsistent.

 

For instance if the definition of God is (as it most generally described to be the essence of what a God is) that God created the world, and which is reasons as followed:

1. The world exist (simple fact, we all agree upon).

2. All existing things needs to have a cause (normal inference from causality)

3. Therefore God needs to exist, in order to cause the world, whereby God does not need a cause (ie. God is eternal).

 

However the logic here presented is flawed or only half-baken. Because the world in abstract sense, just is the container for anything that exists, so if God exists, we might conclude the world exists too.

So, in other words, this logic only tells us that whatever is the case, there was always a world, although for some reason, the world in some stage of it's development was equal to or contained God.

 

But we could reach this conclusion just in one step by just stating the the world itself is eternal, and we would have no need there being any entity like God.

God in this whole logic presented here, is just some abstract concept, and no other property can be inferred from it, other then that at some stage of this logic, it is claimed to necessarily exist.

Yet, the whole point is, which we demonstrated that, the essential property attached to God, namely being the creator of the world, can not be hold on to, since God, like any other entity, is subject to the same logic by which we inferred the existence of God in the first place. So if God were to exist, it has to be first demonstrated that God created itself, but since such must be hold impossible, we must conclude God can not exist.

Which however is in no case relevent, because when we finish the logic, we can simply exclude the existence of God, and simply jump to the conclusion that the world exists without begin, ie. eternally.

[Alan McDougall]

No, they don't. Buddhism, for example.

 

 

What clear, agreed upon, consistent and falsifiable definition of god are you choosing to use in this instance?

 

The God I am looking at is not that of religion some great being sitting on a throne for example, to me this is nonsense.The entity I suggest underpins reality is ever existing an original thought that brought forth reality. We know scientifically in quantum machanics that atomic particles somehow need to be observed to exist!

 

To quote Bohr and Heisenberg ,

 

 

As our knowledge becomes wider, we must always be prepared. . .to expect alterations in the point of view best suited for the ordering of our experience.

 

The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has "not yet been understood is infinite". Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word 'understanding'.

 

Qantum mechanics shows that the materialistic common sense notion of reality is an illusion, i.e., that the objective existence of the world is an illusion.

 

I know about Buddhism and they do believe in a type of God. They call it the cosmic consciousness. They have their god but helives right here on earth in the form of the Dala Lama (spelling?)

 

Buddhists believe that there are beings that inhabit the various celestial realms. These are variously called angels, spirits, gods and devas by various cultures. But do Buddhists believe that a God created everything and manipulate human lives? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. Modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the Creator-God idea have their origin in fear. They might have a valid pint here?

Edited July 2, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[robheus]

Quantum mechanics shows that the materialistic common sense notion of reality is an illusion, i.e., that the objective existence of the world is an illusion.

 

That is an interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) not every physicists agrees upon.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Sorry I disagree - this is a post more suited to the Religion Sub-forum.

[Aethelwulf]

That is an interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) not every physicists agrees upon.

 

To be more precise, not everything in the objective world is knowable and that nothing exists unless some kind of observer collapses the wave function of the system. And whilst you might say not every physicist agrees with it, it's actually the most ''agreed-upon'' interpretation known in physics.

 

They call it the cosmic consciousness.

 

How ironic. I was actually in the middle of writing up a new thread on such a notion. (Not for it's existence, but actually against it).

 

I was reading one of Fred Alan Wolfs book on consciousness and physics. He makes a mention of a cosmic consciousness and how that created the Big Bang; I have some serious disagreements with that conclusion so I decided to write a thread up on it.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Alan McDougall]

!

Moderator Note

Sorry I disagree - this is a post more suited to the Religion Sub-forum.

 

Move it then please!

[Aethelwulf]

Move it then please!

 

It has been moved back.

[imatfaal]

Move it then please!

I did.

 

It has been moved back.

It hasn't

[Aethelwulf]

I did.

 

 

It hasn't

 

Where was it before?

[seriously disabled]

Religions all believe in the existence of God!Alan

 

This is not quite correct. Buddhism and pantheism don't believe in the existence of any God and so are Chinese religions like Confucianism, Taoism and secular humanism.

 

Also God-believers have no convincing way to explain the existence of a loving deity when there are people dying every day or are in a state of terrible pain, suffering, misery and illness.

[robheus]

To be more precise, not everything in the objective world is knowable and that nothing exists unless some kind of observer collapses the wave function of the system. And whilst you might say not every physicist agrees with it, it's actually the most ''agreed-upon'' interpretation known in physics.

 

For observer state observation, and I agree with it. But in no way it implies that consciousness has anything to do with it.

 

How ironic. I was actually in the middle of writing up a new thread on such a notion. (Not for it's existence, but actually against it).

 

I was reading one of Fred Alan Wolfs book on consciousness and physics. He makes a mention of a cosmic consciousness and how that created the Big Bang; I have some serious disagreements with that conclusion so I decided to write a thread up on it.

 

Well the material world is consious of itself, but still this property only manifests itself in human beings or other sentenient beings.

If everything were to be called consciouss, then also nothing is consciouss, since we can only detect a differentiation. If everything is light (if there is no distinction between light and dark) then there effectively is no light since there is no differentiation.

[iNow]

The entity I suggest underpins reality is ever existing an original thought that brought forth reality.

And, how might we falsify that?

[Alan McDougall]

timestamp='1341241761' post='687856']

And, how might we falsify that?

 

Try to falsify it if you think God does not exist?

 

Below is my own idea of how existence might have come to be!

 

It moved down the road of forever and sat down on the throne of infinity. I am the light being and my everlasting purpose is to create and cause existence, I am both nothing and everything I am light and dark.

 

Aware of infinite potential in vast unploughed fields of nothing, I strode with great beams of Radiant Light toward the infinite horizon of eternity, sowing seeds of existence, before the timeless moment of creation.

 

On the panorama of bleak blackness," I AM" "The Absolute", sowing universal radiant energy. Reality is my aim and the beauty of my achievement I who live, forever and forever, “Illuminated" the darkness with beams of dazzling light so radiant and translucent sparkling with my eternal glory. The act of creation was the first event of reason. I formulated everything in the first thoughts of my Mind and knew the first numbers and called them "Zero" and "One",

 

I am the boundless Mind, Original Self-Awareness the cause of everything, relative to nothing I am "This" I am "That" I "Was" and I "Am" and I always will "Be" I am "Eternal Awareness" I am "Every-Where" I know "Everything" I am "Every-When" I am the "Ever Existing One The great Infinite Ocean that contains all things.

 

There is no cause to my existence I simply "was", "were" and "AM" always forever, no beginning and no end, existing forever in the glory of my light... Having no Cause I therefore am the Effect and Affect and shape of everything.

 

Back before anything was conceived , I was "infinite pure "mind" and "thought" these was no dark only light within my infinite domain , so I moved upon the great void of dark and said "let there be" light'

 

With the simplicities and realities of the fundamental numbers, "I made everything". I am the Prime Mover and there was no other proponent to my "First Cause". I am the "Immovable Rock" and the" Alpha point". I took these first numbers and weave them into the fabric of the reality, creating all the limitless universes on the infinite timeless foam of nothing, which now makes all up existence. Indeed, I am the Almighty One. If you are wise, do just one thing wise respect me for I AM your lord and reason for your existence?

 

I am the creator of the totality of all existence known by many names and titles but you should just all refer to me by the title that can never be confused by anyone. Call me “God”

 

By Alan McDougall

 

Continued my reply1

 

 

I think there is a better case for the existence of god than its nonexistence.But I insist I am not talking about any religious god, maybe the god of the Dutch Philosopher Spinoza, a god who creates and then lets its creation run on its own. Most definitely not a god of love because reality seems to indicate otherwise.

 

Here is a view that I like!

This suggests a more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, and no fermions-nothing.

 

Sophisticated arguments of chance creation have been formulated which dazzle our mathematical comprehension… What are the real chances of the existence created by chance? Not a chance. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire existence. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, and no force. It can affect nothing because it has no causal power within it. …It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, indeed, supreme power, the power of creativity.” (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)

 

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/03/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-the-only-six-options/

 

The existence is created by nothing

 

Someone has once rightly said that this is the most basic philosophical question that there is: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

 

As far as I can tell, there are only six options:

 

1. The existence is eternal and everything has always existed.

Everything has existed for eternity. As far back as one can go into the past, there is still an infinite amount of time which preceded it. The sum total of the existence is inclusive of an infinite succession of events and moments going backward.

 

Why this is wrong?

 

An infinite number of temporal events going into the past are a formal absurdity. Going backward, no matter how far you travel in time, you would always have infinity to go. Going forward, we would never get to the present moment because we would have an infinite amount of time and causes and effects to traverse to get here. It would be like asking of a man who is jumping out of an infinitely deep hole, when would he get out? The answer is never. There is no starting point from which to jump. Or, better, it would be like someone walking down the street and you heard him counting down… “negative 5, negative 4, negative 3, negative 2, negative 1, zero!” And you said, “What are you doing?” And he responds, “I just got done counting to zero from negative infinity!” That would be a logical absurdity.

 

Even most atheists, since the early 20th century, now believe that there was a singular moment when all things came into existence called the big bang. Some have even proposed a multi-verse theory where our existence came out of another existence. But this only pushes it back one level. Where did that existence come from unless it is transcendent?

 

2. Nothing exists and all is an illusion

Everything you hear, see, do, or think does not really exist. There is no reality. There is not something. There is only nothing.

 

Why this is wrong?

 

This proposition, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? If another illusion produced the illusion, then where did that illusion come from? In other words, there is something, namely the illusion.

Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.

 

3. The existence created itself

 

This is the idea that the existence and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within. The existence did come into being, but it came from itself. It is self-created. Here, we may suppose that while we don’t understand how this could happen, advancements in scientific theory will eventually produce an answer.

 

Why this is wrong?

 

Like with the previous two, we have created a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It’s impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself to create. The pre-dated form would then need a sufficient explanatory cause, ad infinitum.

 

4. Chance created the existence

 

“That existence was created by chance.” Have you ever heard that? While the odds of winning the lottery are not very good, given enough time, everyone will win. While the odds of the existence coming into existence are not very good, given enough time, it had to happen.

 

Why this is wrong?

 

This option is a slight of hand option that amounts to nothing. The fact is that chance has no being. This option implies that “chance” itself has quantitative causal power. The word “chance” is used to describe possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being the agent of creation of anything since chance is not an agent.

“Sophisticated arguments of chance creation have been formulated which dazzle our mathematical comprehension… What are the real chances of the existence created by chance? Not a chance. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire existence. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, and no force. It can affect nothing because it has no causal power within it. …It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, indeed, supreme power, the power of creativity.” (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)

 

5. The existence is created by nothing

 

Simply put, nothing created the existence.

 

Why this is wrong?

 

The problem here is that it is either a restating of option #1 (the existence is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of #4. In our current existence, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied with any sanity. While we often don’t know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that it is causeless. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don’t accept the answer “There is no cause. It came from nothing.” When there is a fire, the fire investigator does not come to a point where he says, “Well, we searched and we searched for a cause to this fire. Our conclusion is definite: the fire came from nothing.” In both cases, we would assume that the person who gave such answer is better fit for a straight-jacket than a respected professional of his field.

 

There is an old saying; ex nihilo nihil fit which means “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” Even Maria in the Sound of Music got this one right, “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.” To say that the existence was created by or came from nothing is an absurdity. Like with the idea of chance, “nothing” is a non being with no causal power. If there is something, there must be a sufficient explanation for it.

 

6. A transcendent being (God) created all that there is out of nothing.

This is the last option that I know of. Here we recognize the impossibility of the first five. Realizing that the existence must have come into existence a finite time ago, we know that there must be a sufficient cause. Here is how it might look:

• Whatever comes into existence has a cause.

• The existence came into existence.

• Therefore the existence has a cause.

 

The question now is what is that cause? It can’t be “chance” or “nothing” as we have shown that they don’t have causal power. As well, it cannot have relation to time, space, or matter in its actual being as that would make it subject to the laws of cause and effect (i.e. then we would be infinitely stuck in the trap of “If God created everything, who or what created God?). Therefore, this being is transcendent (above, beyond, without ontological relation to…) to the existence. This causal agency must be “all”-powerful or else the grandeur of the effect would eclipse the grandeur of the cause (then we are back to absurdities). This causal agent must have a will (i.e. be personal) or else there would not have ever been a time when the existence was not created (i.e. it would always be being created—again, an absurdity) since it would not be a willful decision to create, but simply a natural aspect of the transcendent cause.

 

This creator had to have created all things ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). In other words, all of matter could not be eternal since material itself is, by definition, not transcendent and subject to the law of cause and effect. This creator, being transcendent to the laws of our existence in which the saying “out of nothing, nothing comes” applies, must create time, space, and matter out of either himself or preexisting material. He creates it all out of nothing. He brings all of existence into being by his power. While it is beyond our understanding how transcendence can create immanence, it does not form a logical absurdity. In fact, existence itself demands that it is a logical necessity.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[immortal]

Try to falsify it if you think God does not exist?

 

I don't think you answered his question.

[robheus]

An infinite number of temporal events going into the past are a formal absurdity. Going backward, no matter how far you travel in time, you would always have infinity to go. Going forward, we would never get to the present moment because we would have an infinite amount of time and causes and effects to traverse to get here. It would be like asking of a man who is jumping out of an infinitely deep hole, when would he get out? The answer is never. There is no starting point from which to jump. Or, better, it would be like someone walking down the street and you heard him counting down… "negative 5, negative 4, negative 3, negative 2, negative 1, zero!" And you said, "What are you doing?" And he responds, "I just got done counting to zero from negative infinity!" That would be a logical absurdity.

Even most atheists, since the early 20th century, now believe that there was a singular moment when all things came into existence called the big bang. Some have even proposed a multi-verse theory where our existence came out of another existence. But this only pushes it back one level. Where did that existence come from unless it is transcendent?

 

Why should nature care about what to your mind is a "formal absurdity" ?? Quantum theory for instance already proofs to us that our ordinary logic and intuition is incapable of knowing what goes on on the quantum level.

 

What is absurd though is that you assume that the infinite can be counted, because clearly a counted infinity is an absurdity because it contains a contradiction in terminis (the infiinite is by definition uncountable).

 

Let us suppose for a moment you have a line extending to infinity at both ends.

 

You can now place two points anywhere on the line and measure it. No matter where you place the points the distance measured between them always yield a finit answer. Does that in anyway "proof" that the line is finite?

No, of course not. Because there is no limit to where we can place the two points on the line, so we can always create a longer distance between the two points by placing them further apart, so there is no upper limit to the distance between the points.

 

Which in other words shows that the line itself is infinite.

 

Now you might say, but I don't believe that in nature there can be the infinite, but then, that is just your assumption.

Nature can be different then we think it is.

 

6. A transcendent being (God) created all that there is out of nothing.

 

This is the last option that I know of. Here we recognize the impossibility of the first five. Realizing that the existence must have come into existence a finite time ago, we know that there must be a sufficient cause. Here is how it might look:

• Whatever comes into existence has a cause.

• The existence came into existence.

• Therefore the existence has a cause.

 

The question now is what is that cause? It can't be "chance" or "nothing" as we have shown that they don't have causal power. As well, it cannot have relation to time, space, or matter in its actual being as that would make it subject to the laws of cause and effect (i.e. then we would be infinitely stuck in the trap of "If God created everything, who or what created God?). Therefore, this being is transcendent (above, beyond, without ontological relation to…) to the existence. This causal agency must be "all"-powerful or else the grandeur of the effect would eclipse the grandeur of the cause (then we are back to absurdities). This causal agent must have a will (i.e. be personal) or else there would not have ever been a time when the existence was not created (i.e. it would always be being created—again, an absurdity) since it would not be a willful decision to create, but simply a natural aspect of the transcendent cause.

 

This creator had to have created all things ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). In other words, all of matter could not be eternal since material itself is, by definition, not transcendent and subject to the law of cause and effect. This creator, being transcendent to the laws of our existence in which the saying "out of nothing, nothing comes" applies, must create time, space, and matter out of either himself or preexisting material. He creates it all out of nothing. He brings all of existence into being by his power. While it is beyond our understanding how transcendence can create immanence, it does not form a logical absurdity. In fact, existence itself demands that it is a logical necessity.

 

This ain't very helpfull because the slightest insight into the nature of the problem already would show you that the same problem just gets re-raised, but which then asks the question where did that God came from?

 

Eigher you have to say that God created itself (which is absurd, because in order for there to be effective effects of a cause, the cause has to exist), or you need an infinite hierarchy of Gods or that God existed eternally.

 

But if you admit to the last vision, we could simply turn again to the question we started with, and admit that therefore the world itself is eternal. It does not have or need an external cause.

The existence of God (just some made up entity) in this whole debate can then be left out, since it can not really exist, and this of course becomes recognizable as soon you realise that the moment you assume that God exists, you have to admit also that a world (which at the minimum contains God) must exist which was not created by God. So it's impossible that God exists, for in order for God to create the world, God would have to create first itself, which is clearly impossible. An infinite, eternal, world, without begin or end, however is not, even if it looks contradicationary or absurd. Our intuition just might be wrong.

Edited July 2, 2012 by robheus

[iNow]

I don't think you answered his question.

Me, either.

[robheus]

 

 

It moved down the road of forever and sat down on the throne of infinity. I am the light being and my everlasting purpose is to create and cause existence, I am both nothing and everything I am light and dark.

 

Aware of infinite potential in vast unploughed fields of nothing, I strode with great beams of Radiant Light toward the infinite horizon of eternity, sowing seeds of existence, before the timeless moment of creation.

 

On the panorama of bleak blackness," I AM" "The Absolute", sowing universal radiant energy. Reality is my aim and the beauty of my achievement I who live, forever and forever, "Illuminated" the darkness with beams of dazzling light so radiant and translucent sparkling with my eternal glory. The act of creation was the first event of reason. I formulated everything in the first thoughts of my Mind and knew the first numbers and called them "Zero" and "One",

 

I am the boundless Mind, Original Self-Awareness the cause of everything, relative to nothing I am "This" I am "That" I "Was" and I "Am" and I always will "Be" I am "Eternal Awareness" I am "Every-Where" I know "Everything" I am "Every-When" I am the "Ever Existing One The great Infinite Ocean that contains all things.

 

There is no cause to my existence I simply "was", "were" and "AM" always forever, no beginning and no end, existing forever in the glory of my light... Having no Cause I therefore am the Effect and Affect and shape of everything.

 

Back before anything was conceived , I was "infinite pure "mind" and "thought" these was no dark only light within my infinite domain , so I moved upon the great void of dark and said "let there be" light'

 

With the simplicities and realities of the fundamental numbers, "I made everything". I am the Prime Mover and there was no other proponent to my "First Cause". I am the "Immovable Rock" and the" Alpha point". I took these first numbers and weave them into the fabric of the reality, creating all the limitless universes on the infinite timeless foam of nothing, which now makes all up existence. Indeed, I am the Almighty One. If you are wise, do just one thing wise respect me for I AM your lord and reason for your existence?

 

I am the creator of the totality of all existence known by many names and titles but you should just all refer to me by the title that can never be confused by anyone. Call me "God"

 

By Alan McDougall

 

 

This is actually quite painfull to read. Do you actually equate yourself with God or something?

 

Sorry, but all this what you write is utterly nonsensical to me. You have to tell me, if you assume that some "I-ness" or "consciousness" is behind all this, how can you even contemplate that without also making the logical inference that for any "I" to exist, also the "not-I" must exist, in other words for something to have "I-ness" you need to be able to distinguish between "I" and "not-I", otherwise none of that applies.

You sort of fail to demonstrate that.

[Alan McDougall]

This is actually quite painfull to read. Do you actually equate yourself with God or something?

 

Sorry, but all this what you write is utterly nonsensical to me. You have to tell me, if you assume that some "I-ness" or "consciousness" is behind all this, how can you even contemplate that without also making the logical inference that for any "I" to exist, also the "not-I" must exist, in other words for something to have "I-ness" you need to be able to distinguish between "I" and "not-I", otherwise none of that applies.

You sort of fail to demonstrate that.

 

Of course not it is just a poetic attempt by me to understand the cause of existence. Why should you worry about me equating myself to a nonexisting entity?

 

Dont take everything so seriously , take an asprin for your pain and smile I am quite an interesting old goat once you get to know me!

[Alan McDougall]

Does God exist? This controversy has been raked up yet again, this time by legendary theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their new book, The Grand Design. "God did not create the Universe and the 'Big Bang' was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. The fact that there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." The concept they talk about, which they have named as 'M-theory', makes 'Creator of the Universe' redundant.

 

I dont agree they are talking about quantum fluctuation in a void, a void is something and so are quanta.

 

Here is a little poetic idea I have of god and the origin of the universe.

 

God rested and dreamed

 

God said I experienced time only in my dreams. The cup of dreams ran over like rivers that overflow their banks. God dreamed an Infinity of dreams in an instant, and set out time flow within a linear Eternity, thus he created all possibilities in one awesome now thought.

 

Then God grew tired of the confusion of chaos caused by linear time and started controlling his dreams again until they became new patterns of joy that grew with beauty, in the everlasting cycles of creation and distruction.

 

The universe is less like a well oiled machine and more like a great thought!

Edited July 7, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[Joatmon]

I don't know if this is banal or profound but as far as I can see God exists for those that need Him to exist and doesn't exist for those who don't feel that need.

Since whether God exists or not is an unanswered and at the present time an unanswerable question perhaps the kindest thing is for each camp to just feel sorry for the other camp and each leave the other peacefully "in their ignorance" until the matter can be proved.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Joatmon

[Alan McDougall]

I don't know if this is banal or profound but as far as I can see God exists for those that need Him to exist and doesn't exist for those who don't feel that need.

Since whether God exists or not is an unanswered and at the present time an unanswerable question perhaps the kindest thing is for each camp to just feel sorry for the other camp and each leave the other peacefully "in their ignorance" until the matter can be proved.

 

Your signature says it all!

[hypervalent_iodine]

Does God exist? This controversy has been raked up yet again, this time by legendary theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their new book, The Grand Design. "God did not create the Universe and the 'Big Bang' was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. The fact that there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." The concept they talk about, which they have named as 'M-theory', makes 'Creator of the Universe' redundant.

 

!

Moderator Note

For the benefit of those who replied to the above post, the poster in question has been removed from the site as a spam bot.