• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God discovered by Science

Sophiaa

Member
So you are pantheistic, since you are defining God as energy and matter that cannot be created or destroyed, which means all matter and energy?
I Said God is many things of which means one aspect of God is God Is power and power is energy

Mind you Jesus and human beings are matter right so there is a part of God that is matter and since that part can't be created and can't be destroyed

It means science proved God exists
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
This is how science discovered an area of God

Stating that God is many things and that God is power and since power is energy
Can you clarify who, precisely, is stating that "God is many things and that God is power." Your post reads a lot like you are trying to pass this off as a statement of "science." Since "science" itself does not speak, I would imagine that, at the very least, there is perhaps a scientist behind these things being "stated" by "science"? And if there is not even, at the very least, such a scientist, then is this not just you making this statement, seemingly on behalf of "science?"

It's just that I am not aware that a strict statement of any kind has come from the scientific community regarding "God." And if there is such a statement, I would be interested to know the rigors through which such a conclusion was put via additional observation, experimentation and corroboration under peer review. Even better - are these conclusions something that can be tested and verified by the lay-person? As in, anyone at all? And please understand when I state that it will not be acceptable if the test and means of verification comes in the form of "pray about it and you will come to know the truth" or "read this text with a sincere heart and God will reveal Himself to you." Just trying to pre-emptively make sure we're both at least reaching for the same page here as to what might constitute an actual/acceptable test of claims versus reality.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is how science discovered an area of God

Stating that God is many things and that God is power and since power is energy

Therefore since science says
. Energy can not be created or destroyed

There for God exists

Because science shows that there is a force that can not be created and that force can not be destroyed

They called that force energy

While the Bible calls that force God

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists research

If science never found this force then Bible theories maybe said to be lying but here science found it and science explain it exactly the way Bible explains it

God can not be created and God cannot be destroyed same as energy definition

Is this not marvelous in our eyes


Glory to God

Let's see how this logic holds up...

Scientists can observe long spiral horns on antelopes.

Unicorns are many things (magical, immortal, healing powers, hankering for virgins, etc) and one of these properties is having a long spiral horn.

Therefore since science says long spiral horns exist,

Therefore unicorns exists.

Because science shows that there are long spiral horns in reality.

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists' research.

If science never found these horns then all the stories about unicorns may be said to be lying but science found it and explains it exactly the way the unicorn stories explain it.

Unicorns have long spiral horns and antelopes have long spiral horns, same definition.

Is this not marvelous in our eyes?

Can you see the flaw in your argument? Also, welcome to the site!
 

Suave

Simulated character
Well if science ever discovers God expect it to be a great moment.
Perhaps when scientists have figured out how to read the actual results of a consciousness simulation, then the simulation hypothesis will become a widely accepted theory.

Until then, I suppose the simulation hypothesis will mostly have its doubters. Simulated Suave lets out a big sigh!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is how science discovered an area of God

Stating that God is many things and that God is power and since power is energy

Therefore since science says
. Energy can not be created or destroyed

There for God exists

Because science shows that there is a force that can not be created and that force can not be destroyed

They called that force energy

While the Bible calls that force God

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists research

If science never found this force then Bible theories maybe said to be lying but here science found it and science explain it exactly the way Bible explains it

God can not be created and God cannot be destroyed same as energy definition

Is this not marvelous in our eyes


Glory to God
An energy God sounds kinda cool.

Not like that boring ole Testament God with that superiority complex to compensate for um... u know.
 

Sophiaa

Member
Welcome to RF.

Pig brains have been kept alive for over 36 hours after the death of the pig's bodies. What if human brains could also be kept alive after the death of the bodies from where they were embodied? What if disembodied minds could be interfaced with power computers connecting disembodied minds to virtual reality worlds? Then who is to say each of us aren't one of these disembodied minds interfaced with a powerful computer by a controller simulating our realities, this being God.


I concur with Nick Bostrom's reasoning why we are very likely living in a simulated reality.

Bostrom argues that at least ONE of the following propositions must be true:

(1) The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage.

(2) Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).

(3) We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Since there is a significant chance that a future generation of technologically advanced post-humans will run ancestor-simulations by powerful computers, then we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.


Indications we might be living in a simulated reality:

1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.

2. This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding might be indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality. Our genetic code's creator has left this mathematical pattern in our genetic code conveying to me the symbol of an Egyptian triangle as well as the number 37 embedded in our genetic code.
Eight of the canonical amino acids can be sufficiently defined by the composition of their codon's first and second base nucleotides. The nucleon sum of these amino acids' side chains is 333 (=37 * 3 squared), the sun of their block nucleons (basic core structure) is 592 (=37 * 4 squared), and the sum of their total nucleons is 925 (=37 * 5 squared ). With 37 factored out, this results in 3 squared + 4 squared + 5 squared, which is representative of an Egyptian triangle.
I would not expect there to be a mathematical depiction of an Egyptian triangle stored within genetic coding if it were a naturally occurring phenomenon. The mathematical pattern of the number 37 being used as a key factor for conveying an Egyptian triangle might related to the gematria value of 37 appearing in the Hebrew language of Genesis 1:1.

genesis%2B11%2Bvalues.png




3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. claims that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.


In conclusion, with the wave-function collapsing in order to conserve computational power of a simulator device, a semantic message in genetic coding, and the computer coding found buried deep within the mathematical equations of super symmetry., seems to me like we are living in a simulation.
Not a computer simulation rather it should be probably God's simulation
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Let's see how this logic holds up...

Scientists can observe long spiral horns on antelopes.

Unicorns are many things (magical, immortal, healing powers, hankering for virgins, etc) and one of these properties is having a long spiral horn.

Therefore since science says long spiral horns exist,

Therefore unicorns exists.

Because science shows that there are long spiral horns in reality.

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists' research.

If science never found these horns then all the stories about unicorns may be said to be lying but science found it and explains it exactly the way the unicorn stories explain it.

Unicorns have long spiral horns and antelopes have long spiral horns, same definition.

Is this not marvelous in our eyes?

Can you see the flaw in your argument? Also, welcome to the site!

"Unicorns are many things (magical, immortal, healing powers, hankering for virgins, etc) and one of these properties is having a long spiral horn."

You know a lot about unicorns :p

By the way, antelopes have two horns so they aren't "uni". However here are some unicorns :)

IMG_20211025_163148.jpg
 

Sophiaa

Member
The problem with the OP's argument is that she does not understand energy. In physics energy is mostly bookkeeping. And it turns out that there is both positive energy, usually seen in the form of light or kinetic energy,, or mass itself since technically mass is energy, for positive energy, and usually seen in the form of gravitational potential energy for negative energy. Physicists have measured the total energy of the universe. And as closely as they can determine the total energy of the universe is zero. So a universe from nothing does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.


I can provide links and sources if people wish.
Define energy wrt conservation
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is how science discovered an area of unicorns

Stating that unicorns are many things and that unicorns are power and since power is energy

Therefore since science says
. Energy can not be created or destroyed

There for unicorns exists

Because science shows that there is a force that can not be created and that force can not be destroyed

They called that force energy

While the I call that force unicorns

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists research

If science never found this force then unicorn theories maybe said to be lying but here science found it and science explain it exactly the way unicorns explain it

unicorns can not be created and unicorns cannot be destroyed same as energy definition

Is this not marvelous in our eyes


Glory to unicorns

I replaced the imaginary concept of a deity with unicorns, can you cite an objective difference to me please, or has science just proved unicorns?

Is this not marvellous in your eyes? Oh that is a question, you omitted the question mark, half a point off, and since word salad gets only half a point you score zero, sorry, thanks for playing, next.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The problem with the OP's argument is that she does not understand energy. In physics energy is mostly bookkeeping. And it turns out that there is both positive energy, usually seen in the form of light or kinetic energy,, or mass itself since technically mass is energy, for positive energy, and usually seen in the form of gravitational potential energy for negative energy. Physicists have measured the total energy of the universe. And as closely as they can determine the total energy of the universe is zero. So a universe from nothing does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The distinction between "positive energy" versus "negative energy" is handled in the book-keeping through the concept of entropy. "Positive energy" has low entropy, while "negative energy" has high entropy.

All three laws of thermodynamics must be combined in order to realize a theological undergirding to the laws of thermodynamics.

Whereas the first law states that in a close system, energy can't be created or destroyed, the second law states that good energy, perhaps like good girls, always goes bad. Low states of entropy, i.e., positive energy, always, in an absolute sense, goes bad, becomes negative energy.

But then the third law throws us some curve balls. It states that the temperature of the closed system can never reach absolute zero in a finite number of steps? In other words, the second and the third law seem like a good man, and a bad girl, who refuse to bed one another.

If the temperature of the closed system is always, inevitably, absolutely, on its way to absolute zero, lack of negative entropy, no heat energy left to perform work (heat death), then how come it can never get there in a finite number of steps. It's almost as though negative entropy (positive energy) wears some kind of prophylactic every time it comes to know negative energy (positive entropy . . .the bad girl in all of this) in the biblical way?



John
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I Said God is many things of which means one aspect of God is God Is power and power is energy

Mind you Jesus and human beings are matter right so there is a part of God that is matter and since that part can't be created and can't be destroyed

It means science proved God exists

Well, good for science. I guess we don't have to wonder any more.

Did you come up with this concept yourself or is it someone else's? Because, if this concept is yours, then you are definitely going to get a Nobel prize for producing the greatest scientific proof of all time.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is how science discovered an area of God

Stating that God is many things and that God is power and since power is energy

Therefore since science says
. Energy can not be created or destroyed

There for God exists

Because science shows that there is a force that can not be created and that force can not be destroyed

They called that force energy

While the Bible calls that force God

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists research

If science never found this force then Bible theories maybe said to be lying but here science found it and science explain it exactly the way Bible explains it

God can not be created and God cannot be destroyed same as energy definition

Is this not marvelous in our eyes


Glory to God
Not really, no.

Energy is just a book-keeping quantity that is a property of physical systems. It is a conserved quantity, but then so are linear and angular momentum.

Power is not energy. It is the rate of flow of energy with time. For instance a power of one watt is one joule of energy per second.

A force is not energy either. One form of energy (mechanical work) is Force x distance.

If you want to talk about energy in one of its non-scientific senses that's fine, but then don't try to link it to science, or you will end up talking nonsense - as in fact you seem to have done here.
 
Last edited:

Sophiaa

Member
Were the king a philosopher he would have stated that he knows the mechanisms of writing and has the empirical evidence to show that it could not have written itself, thus, it must have been the rabbi.

But, absent of the same evidence that the Universe requires a "creator" and understanding some of the mechanisms involved that need no creator, the analogy is thus flawed.
The analogy is exactly the same thing

God created the universe you are the king

You found the earth which is the kings poem
You have two choices ask who wrote the poem which mean who created the earth

And understand some one must have created it rather than thinking it just appeared from nowhere
 

Suave

Simulated character
Not a computer simulation rather it should be probably God's simulation
I suppose if its lights out and game over when ionic currents stop flowing across our brain neurons , then we'll never know. If any of us sim characters do ever get reanimated whereby we can know God's computational powers, then me might realize ourselves to be simulated beings by God.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The analogy is exactly the same thing

God created the universe you are the king

You found the earth which is the kings poem
You have two choices ask who wrote the poem which mean who created the earth

And understand some one must have created it rather than thinking it just appeared from nowhere

It didn't appear out of nowhere, it accteted from dust very soon after the sun ignited
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Were the king a philosopher he would have stated that he knows the mechanisms of writing and has the empirical evidence to show that it could not have written itself, thus, it must have been the rabbi.

But, absent of the same evidence that the Universe requires a "creator" and understanding some of the mechanisms involved that need no creator, the analogy is thus flawed.


The point is, the poem had an author.

As does every narrative, including those which feature Rabbi's with a flair for poetry.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Energy
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. ... In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

You have to be *very* careful about this, though. For example, in a curved spacetime, it may be impossible to even discuss the total energy of a region. LOCALLY, energy will not be created nor destroyed, but globally, things get trickier.

This is how science discovered an area of God

Stating that God is many things and that God is power and since power is energy

No. Power is the rate of energy change. Since energy is conserved, the total power is zero.

Therefore since science says
. Energy can not be created or destroyed

There for God exists

How do you define the concept of 'God'? Equating God to energy may not have the consequences you desire.

Because science shows that there is a force that can not be created and that force can not be destroyed

Nope. Energy is produced by a force acting over a distance. Energy, force, and power are all *very* different things. if you want to use the technical fact that energy is not created nor destroyed, you also need to use the technical definitions for the other terms here.

They called that force energy

Force and energy are very different things.

While the Bible calls that force God

The linkage is very clear for all to see the evidence from scientists research

It isn't so clear to those of us who actually know physics.

If science never found this force then Bible theories maybe said to be lying but here science found it and science explain it exactly the way Bible explains it

Really? Where does the Bible discuss the different types of energy and how they can be interconverted? Where does the Bible talk about potential energy, kinetic energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, heat, etc and how all of those are equivalent? I haven't seen it in my reading of the Bible.

God can not be created and God cannot be destroyed same as energy definition

Well, angular momentum also cannot be created or destroyed in the absence of an overall torque. That doesn't make angular momentum the same as God. There are other conservation laws out there as well. So, the total electron number cannot be created or destroyed.

Is this not marvelous in our eyes
Glory to God

Welcome.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Or it could be that you dont understand energy?
The study of energy in physics is mostly bookkeeping,
but energy itself is way, way outside of the realm of understanding of you, or any physicist.


Energy is the conserved quantity corresponding to the fact that the laws of physics are time invariant.

It seems that Sub knows more about energy than most people here.
 

Suave

Simulated character
Well, good for science. I guess we don't have to wonder any more.

Did you come up with this concept yourself or is it someone else's? Because, if this concept is yours, then you are definitely going to get a Nobel prize for producing the greatest scientific proof of all time.

Whoa! Not so fast! I doubt anyone is going to ever earn a Nobel prize for just formulating a God-did-it type hypothesis. There are some important steps to the scientific method beyond formulating a hypothesis; for starters, there needs to be a testable hypothesis being verifiable or falsifiable.
 

Sophiaa

Member
Well, good for science. I guess we don't have to wonder any more.

Did you come up with this concept yourself or is it someone else's?
I knew this principle from when I read energy laws in school I kept it to myself when I heard a pastor say science people can't see God

So I thought to myself back then that maybe my thoughts were not accurate

Then I began to talk with atheists online and they kept bombarding me with scientific proof of God and that idea pop up back to my head to use it to beat them in their own game

Many of them became calm since I used this principle on them
 
Top