Detecting God

Jbr writes:Yes but don't you think the definition that most people hold to when discussing god, is relevant with what to look for when trying to see if we can detect any entities out there that match that description?

Jbr writes:This is true but the very meaning of the word "unique" implies what is unusual to the human experience. Perhaps there are some 200 trillion year old aliens out there some where that have experienced the birth and death of finite universes many times and to them it is not unique at all. But to us what is unique is that which is unusual to our experience. And so far we are only acquainted with the formation of the one finite universe. We are however acquainted with several supernova's and many rock slides.

Jbr writes:I am basing this statement on the fact that so far this has never been observed occurring. The closest thing to this being possible is in quantum fluctuations at a sub atomic level, particles appear to be coming form nothing, but we are talking about theoretical particles not actually observed ones, and even if these particles are real, this is still occurring in a currently physical finite universe where there are already existing laws of physics in place. So I seriously doubt that this is hope that whole universes could appear from nothing. But that's just me.

Jbr writes:You don't see the destruction of something infinite as an oxymoron?

Jbl writes:Look at it this way. If I define a beast as some hideous 12 foot creature that walks up right like a man but has the head of a huge wolf, and that feeds on unsuspecting joggers in the woods, then my search for such an animal like that will probably not be very successful. However if I define it as any large hairy animal that is a meat eater, and occasionally stands up-right like a man, then I have just described a bear. A search for a "beast" like that would then probably be very successful.Likewise if we don't have a general definition of what god is, before we go looking for him, we may over look what is real because we are looking for the myth. So even though our beliefs do not effect what is real, I personally think our definition of what we are looking for, effects what we accept as its fulfillment. It may very well be that that definition of god does not exist at all, and what ever is out there is yet un-titled, and wouldn't even be classed as "god." That wouldn't change its reality one way or the other. But in this thread we are trying to detect "god." Therefore what most people define as god, does seem to be an important factor in our search.

Jbl writes:Yes, but again, the definition of something unique, is that which is unusual to the human experience. All of those other things you list are easily observed many times and therefore are not considered unusual to the human experience. But the same can not be said for the formation of the universe. We do not observe even one other universe being formed anywhere and therefore this one, is unique (unusual to the human experience). It is not logical to say that because there are many grains of sand on a beach that there must be many universes. We would have to observe at least one other one in order to make such a conclusion.

Jbl writes:No actually its been a couple of years for me since I studied the whole quantum particles thing. Do you have a link that could catch me up on it?

Jbl writes:I'm sorry my friend. You lost me with the "turtles" thing. It's probably just a joke I'm not privy to. I guess I don't communicate this very well. Let me try it again. I'm saying that if it is true that something can not come from nothing (and so far I am unfamiliar with anything that says it can) then since something now exists, this requires that something always has existed. The key word here is "always." Because if there were ever a time when there was nothing, and something can not come from nothing, then there would still only be nothing.Secondly, if the observable universe is finite (most scientists agree that it is) then that means it had a beginning, and will likely have an eventual ending. This requires that something preceded the current universe and that this universe be the product of whatever that something is. Now at this point we can say another universe might have preceded this one to which was preceded by another and another. But since we are discussing finite matter, there must eventually be a beginning point to it all. So rather you espouse a multi-universe theory, or believe this is the first, you still end up with something being required to exist to get it all started. And that something must have always existed.We define something that has always existed as infinite in nature. Therefore the existence of the finite, logically requires...no demands...the existence of the infinite.

Jbr writes:Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.
Does this logically mean that something/s always existed in order for something to now exist? Yes.

Phat writes:This guy actually made sense! I agree with his premise.A singularity, if it once was, had to have always been. God, if God exists always existed. There is no logical way that something came from nothing.

Phat writes:So how did the substance that made up the universe after the Big Bang come into existence?If the answer is spontaneous creation, the solution existed before the explosion, if only in the form of a thought---

Phat writes:Sounds rather Pantheistic to me. The universe created itself out of nothing over time? What was before the singularity?