I Know That God Does Not Exist

I remember a story about a scientist who said, about another scientist, "that was a good scientist, succeeded at solving about 20% of the problems attempted. A great scientist, on the other hand, would have solved about 2% of the problems attempted."

Hi Dr, If there is some empirical evidence that proves the scientific view of creation is a fact please share it.How do you overturn something that is a fact? You don't.How do you overturn something that is based on assumptions? Present facts that show the assumptions to be impossible.Now as far as my math, it is getting a little rusty at 80 years old.So let me restate my cause of confusion of what I was trying to say.According to the Standard theory the universe existed at T=0 + a very small amount of time. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a billionth of a second.I think I should have written T=10-43.

​

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

if you only "think" that's what you should have written then it's obvious that you don't know enough to intelligently talk about the physics of the early universe.

Hi ringo, T=0 is not a position on the time line as time does not exist at T=0, therefore there would be no timeline.If as has been presented that time is a dimension of the universe, time could not exist prior to the universe existing.God Bless,

Hi Phat, I don't have any imaginary (T=0) space.Hawking did invent imaginary time that he said ran vertical to the horizontal time line scientists like to talk about.I will try to find Hawking's lecture where he made that statement. It is hard to find any of his writings as his website has been deleted. Maybe I have been quoting him too much. lolGod Bless,

Hi Tangle, So the reason for the universe existing would be that it created itself.But it is still created requiring a creator.I think that would be an impossibility. But maybe you could explain it to me.For the universe to create itself would require that it exist prior to creating itself. That would make it existing eternally in the past. Which the laws of thermodynamics says would be impossible.If the universe was eternal in existence, why did it wait so long to create the universe we see today? Better yet, what caused it to begin to expand? I thought the BBT explained how it worked. Leaving the how it started and why to be pursued. Creation is creation. I just started 'the creation' of this post a few minutes go.I created multiple hundreds of sets of kitchen and bath room cabinets. I created many miles of roadway and many large interchanges. I created several houses.
What is the difference of any of those events? My dad did the same as well as many of my friends.Now is there another kind of creation? I thought creation was the bringing into existence something that not exist before the creation. But we all had to have material to create out of. What am I twisting?Creator: An entity that creates an entity that did not exist.
If God created the universe then he is the creator.
If Hawking's instanton created the universe then the instanton is the creator.
If 2 branes created the universe, then the branes are the creator.
It makes no difference what creates the universe would have a creator.The only way around that is for the universe to have existed eternally. Which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. Sure he believed in a creator as he created one, his instanton.God Bless,

No. Don't be ridiculous, if I could I wouldn't be here and you couldn't possibly understand it.

As I said, we can not "see" as far back in time as T=0, so you have no bssis for claiming that time "didn't exist". There is no way of knowing anything about T=0.

Hi Tangle,You said the universe created itself.Now you are telling me: Make up your mind and get back to me. Oh I think if you could explain how the universe could create itself I could understand it. I probably would not believe it. But that would not stop me from understanding your explanation.The first thing you would have to do is get rid of the laws of thermodynamics.
Then you would have to figure out how to get the universe to exist when there was non existence. The universe would have to exist in order to create itself.You better get yourself a big glass of that special kool aid before you start on that one.God Bless,

Hi ringo, What part of time does not exist do you not understand?
That is what T=0 represents.God Bless,

I said that Hawking and others believes that the universe creates itself. Like you, I haven't a clue.The only way either of us can understand this high level cosmology is by having the same level of mathematical understanding as they have - or something close to it. I don't have it and neither do you. Hawking published his work you know - and I don't mean his popular science books, I mean his hard research, if you really want to know about it, go read it and show where he's wrong. Good luck with that.All I'm doing here is pointing out that you are a liar when you continue to say that Hawking believed in a creator.Also Krauss

quote:

---

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothinginvolving the absence of space itself andwhich may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."[1][2]

---

A Universe from Nothing - WikipediaKrauss is as rabid an atheist as I am, does he belive in a creator too?Attempting to recruit celebrity cosmologists into your belief system that don't share your beliefs at all is dishonest and you know it.If you're at all interested my position on all this is best summed up by Sorensen"To explain why something exists, we standardly appeal to the existence of something else... For instance, if we answer 'There is something because the Universal Designer wanted there to be something', then our explanation takes for granted the existence of the Universal Designer. Someone who poses the question in a comprehensive way will not grant the existence of the Universal Designer as a starting point. If the explanation cannot begin with some entity, then it is hard to see how any explanation is feasible. Some philosophers conclude 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is unanswerable. They think the question stumps us by imposing an impossible explanatory demand, namely, 'Deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises'. Logicians should feel no more ashamed of their inability to perform this deduction than geometers should feel ashamed at being unable to square the circle." Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

We can not know ANYTHING about T=0. There is no math that can tell us about T=0. T=0 can not "represent" ANYTHING."Time does not exist" is a nonsense statement.

It might make more sense after we die.

Yellow is a shade of banana might make more sense after we die.

Oh hush with your jabberwocky! I firmly believe that there is a reality after death and hope that I dont end up finding myself a goat.