God discovered by Science

[rational experiences]

= ×+.

Science of man used symbolism.

The cross to add + he said was a sacrifice.

= Cross changed into equals two is a minus answer.

Fallen cross x multiplication.

So the add was already known to cause minus by intent. The is.is. theist.
Man owned intentions first.

So he said he knew the sacrifice was alight gases as his use I add to sub tract.

His equals double minus real.

As cold God body was not alight.
Number one....set it alight convert. + Maths addition advice to cause removal.
Number two....burn it up aliight.

Double minus symbol. Two destroyed of the holy form that water had sealed.

Gods body owned water as human life owned used water. So a holy life with god was God sealed in holy water.

A teaching of human life relativity survival.

Man's mental teaching.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You obviously misunderstood what I meant by taking it at face value.
Not sure if it was deliberate or not.


What I actually meant, was that I have no need to try and argue the evidence and / or assume it must be wrong in some way, simply because it conflicts with my a priori beliefs and assumptions.

Similarly to how a YEC can't accept the evidence of evolution. The YEC needs to assume / believe that the evidence MUST be wrong or fabricated, simply because it conflicts with their a priori beliefs.
So they require mental gymnastics to try and dance around the evidence or ignore it or what-have-you...

I have no such limitations. I can simply go where the evidence takes me.

In order to go where the evidence takes you, you first need to interpret it. Or allow others to do it for you, which is what most of us do to be fair. In which case you must trust in the high priests of science, and assume the ones you trust are not preaching a false doctrine. Always worth checking out the heresies as well as the orthodoxies imo.

YEC is very much an American phenomenon btw. And I don’t see anyone on this thread promoting it, so I’m not sure why you brought it up or what point you thought it might illustrate.


But I’m pleased hear you have no limitations and no a priori assumptions.

 

[ChristineM]

Now the next question is what caused the dust to act

What created the sun to ignite

Gravity.

 

[danieldemol]

@Sophiaa and @questfortruth should get a room where they can share their endless word salad with each other.

In my opinion.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It is an adequate analogy

If you tell me that the wind can write a poem then I will believe you that an un intelligent thing can create the universe

The room is inversely proportional to the universe which means there must be an infinite invisible being who the universe is a room to....

Indulge me teach me tell me how the universe formed

I cannot tell you how the Universe was formed, but we have an understanding of how physical laws (such as Conservative of Mass and Energy) play a part in it, and these can function without a creator.

I can also tell you that the analogy, while poetic and inspiring, doea not function as a direct comparison:

1. For the poem, we have the enclosed room, the pen, paper, ink, and the rabbi left alone. We also know that poem are written by humans using these tools.

2. For the Universe, we do not have evidence that there is a god, nor are we certain that the Universe requires one. We do not have universe-making tools.

The only link is our suspicion that artifacts require an artificer. But we only know this for certain for human or animal artifacts. We do not know that the Universe itself is an artifact.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Ah, well. I don’t suppose it’s that.

The problem with constructing arguments for God is, that’s all you’ll ever get - an argument. An argument in which two sides speak different languages, neither understands the other, and both claim victory.

Discussion and debate about god are useful in that it provides a framework in which a new understanding of our existence may take place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sir, read my writing very well there is no place I canceled your definition

You are the one who said no to my own definition I actually know you were correct but you failed when you said that mine was not correct

So think properly you are the one at fault now I have given you prove of my definition and you are running up and down

Trying to manipulate the definition found in Google is trying to hit the wall with your fist it will give you no good results

I have given one Def to power it up to you to accept it or continue to manipulate it


What you could have said is that I should put per unit time

LOL, nice word salad.

The correct thing to do when you make an error and falsely accuse another of lying is to own up to your mistake and apologize to the one that you accused.

Try again.

 

[Sophiaa]

lol

You really just make it up as you go along, aren't you?
So god is the weak and strong nuclear force etc
And satan is gravity.

ow my



And there will be no more universe or anything else.

You are funny where did you see nuclear force in my comments and where is the place I said Satan is gravity

I don't think you understand where the story came from and the main objective of the evidence I pointed out

Try to read from the beginning to this point of the cause of zero energy

Then understand the relationship

 

[RestlessSoul]

Discussion and debate about god are useful in that it provides a framework in which a new understanding of our existence may take place.

You think?

 

[Sophiaa]

Gravity.

....The next question is who created gravity

 

[exchemist]

Sir, read my writing very well there is no place I canceled your definition

You are the one who said no to my own definition I actually know you were correct but you failed when you said that mine was not correct

So think properly you are the one at fault now I have given you prove of my definition and you are running up and down

Trying to manipulate the definition found in Google is trying to hit the wall with your fist it will give you no good results

I have given one Def to power it up to you to accept it or continue to manipulate it


What you could have said is that I should put per unit time

If you want to talk science you need to be far more precise in how you use the terms involved. @Subduction Zone is perfectly right. What he is saying is exactly what the other scientifically literate people in this thread have also been telling you.

Power, energy and force are all different quantities. Confusing them makes what you say meaningless.

It is true that all three words have other, non-scientific, meanings and usage. But you are telling us you are using them in their scientific sense. You need to get them right when you do that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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

A very refreshing attitude. Love your reasoning.

 

[ChristineM]

....The next question is who created gravity

Mass

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You think?

Sometimes!

The problem I see with trying to prove God with scientific ideas is that it feels like using two tools together that aren't made for each other, like trying to shoot a bullet from an archery bow.

"God" is a human artifact itself; a mythology to provide meaning behind what can be a very dark, cold, and horrifying existence. There's a quote from William Blatty's The Exorcist that illustrates this well:

"I think the demon's target is not the possessed; it is us … the observers … every person in this house. And I think—I think the point is to make us despair; to reject our own humanity, Damien: to see ourselves as ultimately bestial, vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy."

God, of course, is the antidote to that demon: the meaningful side to the Universe that makes us feel accepted and loved.

Thus, perhaps the rabbi and king story would better have ended with the poem being a love poem. Enamored, the king and rabbi find lifelong companionship to comfort themselves in the harsh realities of existence.

 

[viole]

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

Wonder why, since the energy of the Universe totals to zero. Do you need a creator of zero?

And force is not energy. Force multiplied by space is. So, my suggestion is to first open (and understand) a book of basic physics before making outrageous claims like science having found God. Because everyone knows it did not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

Mass

How? Since general relativity remains incompatible with QM, we still don’t know how mass distorts spacetime. Einstein couldn’t figure it out, and nor has anyone since, though some great minds have been working on the problem.

 

[ratiocinator]

Define energy wrt conservation

Most of this has already been pointed out, but...

The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. The theorem states every continuous symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". The energy conservation law is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that the laws of physics do not change with time itself. Philosophically this can be stated as "nothing depends on time per se". In other words, if the physical system is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy (which is the canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, systems that are not invariant under shifts in time (an example, systems with time-dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, an external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time-invariant again. Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in physical theories such as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time.
...
With the discovery of special relativity by Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein, the energy was proposed to be a component of an energy-momentum 4-vector.
...
Thus, the rule of conservation of energy over time in special relativity continues to hold, so long as the reference frame of the observer is unchanged. This applies to the total energy of systems, although different observers disagree as to the energy value.
...
In general relativity, energy–momentum conservation is not well-defined except in certain special cases. Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics such as the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined. The theory of general relativity leaves open the question of whether there is a conservation of energy for the entire universe.​

-- Conservation of energy (my emphasis)​

Energy is not some sort of eternal 'stuff'. To the extent it is conserved (see above), it's a quantity we can calculate that keeps track of the fact that the laws of physics don't vary with time. It certainly can't exist without time, the laws of physics, and some 'stuff' for it to be a property of.

Quite unlike any notion of the Christian god that I'm aware of.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sometimes!

The problem I see with trying to prove God with scientific ideas is that it feels like using two tools together that aren't made for each other, like trying to shoot a bullet from an archery bow.

"God" is a human artifact itself; a mythology to provide meaning behind what can be a very dark, cold, and horrifying existence. There's a quote from William Blatty's The Exorcist that illustrates this well:

"I think the demon's target is not the possessed; it is us … the observers … every person in this house. And I think—I think the point is to make us despair; to reject our own humanity, Damien: to see ourselves as ultimately bestial, vile and putrescent; without dignity; ugly; unworthy."

God, of course, is the antidote to that demon: the meaningful side to the Universe that makes us feel accepted and loved.

Thus, perhaps the rabbi and king story would better have ended with the poem being a love poem. Enamored, the king and rabbi find lifelong companionship to comfort themselves in the harsh realities of existence.

Yeah, I doubt there is any scientific methodology or rational argument that could be used to test a God hypothesis, no matter how well thought out and constructed such a hypothesis might be. What is required for the thoughtful, committed atheist to see the breath of God in the laws of physics is a paradigm shift of the sort the Rabbi was trying to induce in the King.

The King and the Rabbi could spend two lifetimes in study and debate, and never agree on anything other than to respect each other's positions. Which would constitute perhaps the happiest of all endings.

 

[ChristineM]

How? Since general relativity remains incompatible with QM, we still don’t know how mass distorts spacetime. Einstein couldn’t figure it out, and nor has anyone since, though some great minds have been working on the problem.

The question was what causes gr avity, my answer was mass. The question if space time is not tealy relevant.

So how...
Mass
The early universe
Gravity
What Causes Gravity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How? Since general relativity remains incompatible with QM, we still don’t know how mass distorts spacetime. Einstein couldn’t figure it out, and nor has anyone since, though some great minds have been working on the problem.

We don't know yet. But that was not the question. Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

It is much wiser to say "we don't know yet" than it is to demand that a mythical magical being did it.