Scientific Logic for God's existence

[Entropy]

You will never find hard, concrete evidence for God's existence until God chooses to revile himself to everyone. If God had wanted people (of today) to know without a dought of his existence then he would make it well known and obvious to all. But that's why they call it faith.

My reason for believing in God is simple: someone supernatural had to start it all and give it all purpose. Too me anyways, without a just and loving God, what's the point of it all? Why go on? You're just going to die anyways.

Many people believe in something higher, but in something more commonly accepted by the scientific community, like super advanced aliens. As if they will fix everything. But why? Like humans they're still bound by logic and the laws of the universe.

Anyways this thread is pointless. You're not going to change anyone's basic beliefs over some forums on the internet. You're just running around in circles agruing over the same stuff that's been said thousands of times over.

I will say that there is one truth in the universe and people will either accept it or reject it.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

i am high believe in everything has its opposite

somewhere a guy has a buck somewhere a woman doesn't have a buck

anyway i think long long long long long ago there was nothing BUT there had to be something because everything has its opposite great confusino within the universes subconscience happened and boom a god was created who quickly just made something to lessing the confusions, then this god maed another and another then made another god to help and so on, thus creating the universe and multiple gods

 

[franznietzsche]

Too me anyways, without a just and loving God, what's the point of it all? Why go on? You're just going to die anyways.

The existentialist dilemma. But is that really so depressing?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Lots of atheists and agnostics have meaningful, enjoyable lives. They focus on maximizing this life, the only one they will ever have. Some of them become hedonists, but not many. The largest number try to create for the benefit of humanity. Satisfaction is better than self-indulgence.

 

[Entropy]

The existentialist dilemma. But is that really so depressing?

Compared to a world with God and one without God. An everlasting life of joy and perfection compared to a brief life in a world with rampid suffering, and moderate happiness for some people. Yes that is pretty depressing. I simply said why I believe in God.

Lots of atheists and agnostics have meaningful, enjoyable lives. They focus on maximizing this life, the only one they will ever have. Some of them become hedonists, but not many.

I'm sorry to sound rude here, but I hardly think you have even meet/seen a fraction of the world's atheists or agnostics. And I know I haven't meet a fraction of them either because 90% of all agnostics and atheists I've meet appear depressed and seem to be wasting their lives. The fact is being religious or being atheists doesn't make you nessissarily happy or sad, successful or unsuccessful. Both you and I don't know if someone is truly happy or sad. Can you read their minds? Do you know what goes through their minds at the end of the day? I know this because lots of people thought I was a very happy when I was really sad. Its tured out many times that people I thought were happy were actually sad and even vise versa.

Some of them become hedonists, but not many. The largest number try to create for the benefit of humanity.

Yeah like communist Russia. Look simply because you are trying to better humanity doesn't mean its good. My point here is that athesist motives can be just as naive as religious ones. I can't help but feel like most of you just dismiss religion as archaic superstitions that have no place in what you think is "modern enlightened thinking." Which is simply not true. Lots of people put a bad spin on athesism but I think far more people make religion (especially Christianity) look bad.

Satisfaction is better than self-indulgence.

Satisfaction is a form of self-indulgence.

But who cares. You're not going to prove or disprove the existence of God. As a Christian I try to make peace with all men and this thread is just stirring up hate.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

wheres the hate? i don't see yelling or flaming like I've seen in similar topics on other forums? also the people you meet arent actual aethists theyre just punk kids who think life sucks and the world is out to get them.

secondly have you opened your bible at all my friend? its not joy its servitude, forced servitude practicly terrorism and/or communism same belief as DONT BELIEVE IN ME YOU GOTO HELL! which frieghtens the weak at heart/minded so they scurry to there little temple and pray - secondly i am in no dinomination i by letter of aethism am an aethist because i lack faith or belief in a structured system that's been corrupt since it was created, but i leave a perfectly happy life and enjoy every living second of it, also all of my aethist friends do the same EVERYONE has ups and downs no matter what you believe in

 

[kjacobie]

I think there are questions that WE as human beings can ask, but CANNOT answer accurately- I have FAITH that this is OK... So when it comes to GOD, I see that my MIND cannot "know" GOD, as this would imply the finite(the mind) can understand the INFINITE...


Ken

 

[Entropy]

wheres the hate? i don't see yelling or flaming like I've seen in similar topics on other forums? also the people you meet arent actual aethists theyre just punk kids who think life sucks and the world is out to get them.

Well you just displayed a good bit of hate right there. Did you even read what I said? Take a look:

The fact is being religious or being atheists doesn't make you nessissarily happy or sad, successful or unsuccessful.

secondly have you opened your bible at all my friend? its not joy its servitude, forced servitude practicly terrorism and/or communism same belief as DONT BELIEVE IN ME YOU GOTO HELL!

This is the most narrow-minded comment I've heard in quite awhile. And you know that not all sects of Christianity believe in Hell ("Hell" happens to be a pagan name). In fact its stated in the Bible: "You only need faith the size of a mustard seed." Hint: mustard seed is very small. Perhaps you should open your Bible and read a little closer.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

i do, how about you do it yourself, it clearly states if you are without faith you will go to hell

 

[Entropy]

i do, how about you do it yourself, it clearly states if you are without faith you will go to hell

Then get your Bible out and show me the scripture.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This has segued into a straight religious argument. Not Allowed. Cut it out or I delete the thread.

 

[Dr. Raj Baldev]

My dear Associates including Hyper Wave,

With due regards and high respect to all the associates and their scholarly comments, I would like to state as under:

In the last reply it is rightly said that t is a physics forum and not religious. When we talk how the Universe was created, the theory of Big Bang becomes a vial fundamental law. When we talk of Cosmology, the name of Stephen Hawking is a must being one of the living legends today.

Stephen Hawking, who is considered the greatest authority on Cosmology, appealed in his book: “A Brief History of Time’. It is a great book on physics and evergreen. He supported the theory of Big Bang and at the same time made this appeal:

“However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--- for then we would know the mind of God.”

The appeal made by Stephen Hawking in 1988 has been touching my heart, as a Cosmo Theorist, continuously in search of the right answer ‘Why it is that we and Universe exist’ and what is the scientific reason behind it.

I am the head of SAROUL (Scientific Advance Research of Universe and Life) comprising members from USA, UK and India, and now Canada has also joined. I am not a religious philosopher but a Cosmo Theorist. With this scientific background and with the cooperation of Scientific Forum, it took eleven years for me to make the complete research work based on 349 references and findings of different Professors and Research Scholars including NASA team and came to a conclusion that the Universe was created by Big Bang but it happened in two stages and not in a single go and I termed this Big Bang as “Two Big Bang Created the Universe” (Formed in Eternal Space). My next book is Exploring Mars for Life.

In this physics- theory, the name of The Creator cannot be excluded, since the science does not deny the primeval creating force, which resulted in the creation of the Universe. Scientists call it the creating force or the nature, some call this creating force or the nature as The Creator and some call it the job of God. So this forum does not become religious even if some one mentions the name of God. Since the creation of the Universe relates to the act of some mightiest creating force, when some body mentions the name of that force as God, it does not degrade the scientific standard of a discussion. Where there is Universe, name of The Creator, in some form or the other cannot be taken away.

Let us not take it purely religious, or philosophical, in fact, it is part of the scientific theory of the creation of the Universe which is impossible without mentioning the potency of the primeval creating force or energy. The only problem with this is when the question of God comes, even in scientific explanation, some religious minded scientists bring in between the religious books, which is not correct, they should avoid it as far as possible.. They should not discuss about the religious books in this forum in principle, which is just a question of faith and should not be mingled with this scientific logic for God's Existence.

For all associates and other interested members of the physics forum, I shall explain in my next letter how the Universe was created and what is the scientific role of the creating force, to which everyone has liberty to give it any name one likes. My theory is purely scientific and to classify it under a religious head shall be an injustice to it.

Dr. Raj Baldev

 

[selfAdjoint]

Dr. Baldev, I would like to ask, with repect, if your theory is supported by a mathematical model and whether that model agrees with relativity (special and/or general)? Most cosmology accepts these theories, though there are individulas who wish to make modifications. Where do you and your group stand on this?

 

[Dr. Raj Baldev]

My dear Hyper Wave,
Our SAROUL is an organisation which has the collaboration of scholars from three countries i.e. USA, UK and India. I have based my finding on 349 references which SAROUL researched for last 11 years apart from other scientific analyses.
Our theory is somewhat different, just because the findings which have come up from different scholars from all over the world do not fully match with the old theories, which I have analyzed as a whole and supported with their references so as to remove the previous discrepancies in other theories.
All scholars belong to different countries and reputed universities, including references of NASA, who cannot simply be wrong, there is some weight in their findings, which should not be ignored by other scientists. If the scholars and their findings are disrespected this way, it shall be a wild discouragement, rather injustice to the human knowledge, none has any right to ban the progress of the new ideas of researchers. Scientific advancement moves faster every second and this is a solid truth which we must admit. Hence the new researches must be accommodated to find the right ones.
Our theory is written keeping in mind all laws of physics. We respect the laws and we also respect the view of all scholars, for and against, but we simply want where the earlier theories are questioned by the scholars with their own findings should be properly read, debated and then concluded. Simply to dismiss any new theory without reading the theory is neither proper nor a right academic approach.
Some of the scientists have suggested to me to shorten the theory so that it could be read out in lesser time even by those who do not have scientific background. At the same time most of the scientists have appreciated our theory and are eager to know more, which I am in the process to honor them.
Even my theory was discussed in Atlanta in a special conference of astronomers. Most of the findings given in our theory later on proved absolutely matching by their own later findings.

In this connection, I would like that our associates in this forum should first read the book having complete idea of the theory how the universe was created and how life developed scientifically? Even in this connection, I wrote one book in 1957 on the evolution, which was appreciated.

I have many books in the pipeline: Exploring Mars for Life, Mystery of Black Holes, Universe was created in Seven Circuits, Ape or Man, who descended first?, Mystery of Human Soul and Re-birth, so on and so forth. In short, I hope I shall be able to give some more research work on different theories to the physics students for healthy debate and I am sure our research would add to the present knowledge.
I am really happy to read your comments, which are very ably worded and well thought. People like you form the backbone of real knowledge. I am encouraged and inspired by your positive approach. Thanks.


Regards,

Dr. Raj Baldev

 

[Chronos]

Elegant logic without the math to support it is... elegantly unsupported.

 

[Geoffrey F. Miller]

Elegant logic is what creates math Chronos.

Your theory sounds intriguing Dr. Raj Baldev, and I'm honored to meet you. I do, however, agree with the other members of this forum that the theory you've presented to us lacks support. What I understand from your posts is mainly that you have a really good theory and that it's very well supported. Please tell us what exactly this theory is besides just stating that it's about two big bangs and proves that there is a Creator. Also, you've mentioned findings made by astronomers that support your theory. What are these findings and why do they support your theory? Tell us how your theory supports black holes. How are they made? What is their purpose? You've also mentioned that there's more than one universe. How does this explain what we see when we peer into the vastness of space? How does it explain why we are here? I guess our main question is what phenomena can your theory explain and can it make accurate predictions concerning them? If you have any mathematical formulas, we'd like to see them too.

Thank you once again for taking the time to answer our questions.

Before I go though, I have a reccomendation for you. If you like to discuss philosophy and religion just as much as you do physics, you should join www.philosophyforums.com in addition to this site. It has some very interesting topics on it.

 

[Tau_Muon_PlanetEater]

Dr. Baldev

Were you born believing in God, or did and event or external influence turn you towards God?

Also, what is it about Indians like yourself that allow you to rise above the ego to see the truth unsubjectively?

 

[aekanshchumber]

dr. baldev
i think that i can answer your questionmuch more better than anybody else could do, being from the same community and religion i can uderstand under what impressions this question rise. i couldn't find your e-mail otherwise i will mail you directly too. please mail me at aekansh_s@yahoo.com