Does God Exist?

Where is the logic in you can't have black without white, or good without bad? Certainly we make distinctions by virtue of contrast but not necessarily by virtue of opposites. That is what is the same is the same and what is different is different and not the same. There must be some commonality that they be necessary for each other. In terms of the relative good and bad they are both evaluations. How you evaluate things or the standards you use for comparison are a choice.

 

You can't negate something unless there is something to negate but we can only dispel illusion.

 

What are you talking about?

 

Quality lecture! Not only does it touch on some interesting topics but Krauss delivered it with some wit.

It's not a very intuitive idea but I think it can be logically consistent. Keeping in mind, the nothing stems from fluctuations at the quantum level.

It is interesting idea , following a day or two after you posted an article which suggests that life emerged from non-living matter. The universe from nothing seems more or less along a similar concept.

 

i have no problem that if something neither physical nor imaginary chose to exist, nothing physical could prevent it from doing so.

it is only the claims of knowledge about it, that are fantasy, and of course those are.

what i do know, is that i can never trust, anything that would ever have the slightest desire to be feared.
(and yes, before you ask, i never entirely felt i could trust my parents either)

does anything exist? physical things appear to. non-physical things very well might.
but knowledge of them, that is only the ego demanding that we claim to know.

 

Well first, thanx, I found the video interesting, informative and quite entertaining.

But I was just wondering if you noticed that even though the video was named "A Universe From Nothing" it really should have been named "A Universe From Something", as they claimed that the universe came from the energy that exists where there is nothing and unless someone changed the meaning of nothing while I wasn't looking, nothing filled with something (energy) is no longer nothing but something.

Starting about minute 40.30

It says this:
"The dominant energy in the universe resides in empty space
We have no idea why it is there
Its existence is probably tied to the very nature of space and time and to the origin of the universe
It will determine our future"

You might find it interesting to note that the Bible, that out dated unscientific book written by men little more than apes, says about the stars in the sky; "“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing." It would seem that thousands of years later, scientific genius has caught up to this ancient Bible observation. (Isaiah 40:26)

 

Either every single interpretation I read from both websites is wrong on that passage or you fudged that bold part. Either way I didn't see that part via a quick search.

 

Is the ego physical or non-physical? What is non-physical?

What is the ego and what is it for?

You say on the one hand that if something neither physical nor imaginary chose to exist, nothing physical could prevent it doing so and then turn around and say it is only claims about it that are fantasy. How is your first claim that nothing physical could prevent it doing so, then not also a fantasy?

Really the claim that the world cannot be known comes from one who seeks to protect his own claim of knowledge that it can't. It doesn't sound magnanimous if that is the intent. It sounds egotistical to say this is the extent of knowledge that you can posses and no more. On what basis do you make the claim on what can be known and what cannot be known?

The dynamic animal homo sapiens sapiens have a function for their nervous system and that is to taste and to know which are the communal elements of learning or coming to know.The bodies function is communication. Do you think you have some other function? Without the capacity to know and communicate then all that is left is stuffing your face. Perhaps you think we are here only to eat. Bon appetit.
Happy cows!

 

I apologize, I tend to use the NWT because I have it in a searchable data base and it is a modern English Translation that, to me, seems easier to understand and that is a direct quote from it.

As you probably found, most other translations translate "אוֹן 'own'" as might or power rather than dynamic energy.

For instance the KJV says; "the greatness of his might"
The RSV says; "the greatness of his might"
The AMP says; "through the greatness of His might and because He is strong in power"
The ERV says; "He is very strong and powerful"
The ESV says; "the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power"

If you're interested I find this; https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/, a good place to research what other versions say.

 

I find your characterizations interesting, those being that the bible is an outdated unscientific book and that the authors were men little more than apes or that scientific genius is catching up after thousands of years, even if it is an attempt at sarcasm. There is nothing unscientific about books or about the existence of books. Science is based on observation and these words come from observation in combination with the subjective experience. The bible didn't create itself out of nothing. The science, that is observation in combination with the subjective experience has always been around and the writers of the bible were identical to modern human beings. No special understanding is evident in the bible because it is the bible. It represents the understanding of living beings just like you and me. Science is not a late comer to true things. And if this dissertation is meant to suggest the existence of god because some information in the bible can be loosely construed as scientifically accurate, it doesn't.

It is one thing to know facts and another to be wise which deals with how you use facts. The wise man takes from his stores some of what is old and some of what is new. The bible presents a basic overview whose depth comes in contemplation and comparison in life. The modern take provides increased detail whose depth comes from physical experiments made possible by technology is all. It is as vain for an aboriginal to call an airplane pilot a god as it is for an airplane pilot to call an aboriginal primitive as each are simply unfamiliar with each others technology. At the same time there is nothing that limits the subjective experience's apprehension of real things except the temptation to qualify, (judge.)

 

Ok, those translations take quite a reach in reasoning to conflate with Virtual Particles popping in and out of the (near) empty space in the Universe. Lol!

Furthermore, empty space being filled with virtual particles would appear to negate the notion of a Male Deity occupying such a space.

 

If you are claiming you used the,

NWT, National Walleye Tour,


You still didn't quote the passage accurately.

"Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,"

Compared with,

Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power,

 

I don't believe I said or even implied such to be the case. The video, did you watch it, said that the universe needed a tremendous amount of energy to exist and I was merely pointing that the Bible seemed to point that out thousands of years ago.

I do not remember the video speaking of Virtual Particles popping in and out of the (near) empty space in the Universe but if you want to fine.

By definition something that is Virtual is not real, such as in the term "Virtual Reality" and so the "reality" of Virtual Particles, although fascinating, is still somewhat theoretical at best.

Then your "(near) empty space" is it empty or not, little like saying a woman is a little pregnant.

And according to the video most of the universe's mass and energy resides in that empty space, so it seems not so empty after all.

And last, I apologize if you thought I was somehow implying that God occupied "such a space", because I was not.

 

He mentions virtual particles within seconds after the part Imjustfishin mentions to watch.

"Empty space" turns out to be a misnomer of sorts if there are virtual particles with mass popping in and out of existence between the quarks. The term empty space refers to the space on an atomic scale.

Empty space being filled which Krauss is referring resides at the sub-atomic quantum level of reality.

A baby is developing out of the same material as a mother, so I don't see that as an apt analogy. Virtual particles are essentially different than quarks and atoms.

I only have a passing understanding of virtual particles, probably another name which is not best suited for the phenomena but I think the name has to do with the fact that they do not exhibit behavior like standard particles and can pop in and out of existence at rates which cannot really be measured with current technologies beyond simulation. So as far as I am aware, the evidence for virtual particles is scant and mainly hypothetical at this point. I think evidence for virtual particles is only inferred from quantum fluctuations in vaccuum states and behavior of subatomic particles such as quarks in such states.

 

Yep, he does. He says the phrase "virtual particles" twice. Thanx for correcting me. Being imperfect, it probably won't come as a surprise for you to find out this isn't the first mistake I've made and probably won't be the last.

When talking about virtual particles, he mentions that he is talking about the "empty space" within a proton. He then steps outside the proton and in fact goes to where there is "nothing", to the "empty space" between galaxies and seems to assume that this area away from everything else is also filled with "virtual particles".

You don't see it as an apt analogy because you are trying read too much into it. I was merely pointing that there is no such thing as a woman that is a "little" pregnant. Likewise there is no such thing as nothing filled with a little something, it is either nothing or it becomes something.

Yep, sounds like you have a pretty good handle on virtual particles.

 

The discrepancy is with scale, not conception. Your analogy is relying on a dichotomy from the same perspective of reality.

I don't like making analogies from our perspective of the world to quantum reality because quantum reality seems to act in ways vastly different from our macroscopic view of the world.

With that said, if I was trying to relate the analogy on your terms, I'd say the discrepancy is more like an unfertilized egg. There is no pregnancy (baby) from the cellular or macroscopic view of the world, which equates to the atomic notion of "empty space," however there is potential with the egg to become fertilized and hence the woman pregnant, which would equate to the quantum fluctuations (virtual particles) in "empty space." I'd assume quantum physicists still retain the term empty space as perhaps it gives a cohesive understanding on the scale they are talking about or something.

Now I think it's theorized virtual particles can behave in certain ways in which my addendum of the analogy probably breaks down as well.

 

that which has no need to fear, has no need to be feared.
therefor
that which expresses a desire to be feared

is expressing its own weakness and vulnerability.

therefor

nothing demanding to be worshiped, can be god.

this does not prevent things which are neither physical nor imaginary from existing. nothing can do that.
neither does any physical thing, need to fear that they do.

(none of which of course, prevents morally weak, small minded humans from wishing to be feared, but those who do can never be gods, and the 'gremlins' of diversity being the nature of reality, will sooner or later catch up with them, one way or another)

 

Don't you think 'good' needs to be qualified? Isn't it dependant on perspective? If one sees too many things in life that suck, THAT seems to be what forms a person's perspective that God can't be good/(omni)benevolent. If one sees that the bad does not make the good less good (on the contrary) they are more inclined to see God as good. So when people are countering another person that God can't possibly be good because of this or that example of bad in the world it seems clear they based it just as much on a subjective perception as the one who sees it the other way around.

 

Uhhh.. again....

 

Same with all other stuff humans do to each other. I don't really understand what you expect me to say about silver linings in situations about rape and torture? Should it affect our perception of God? Maybe rephrase the question?

What is good or not is obviously subjective. To me at least. I think to you too. You didn't answer though. But even when I think God is omnibenevolent other people can hate (the concept of) God. It's all how they value life on earth I suppose.

edit: so when a person's life get ruined by torture or rape that can affect their perception on life of course. God didn't do it to them though, and this seems to be the issue when people conclude God can't be good. God didn't intervene, their outlook on life has changed for the worse, God can't be good. Yet the outlook is just as subjective as that of a happy blissful person perceiving it and proclaiming the opposite. So yes, how clear can it be that good is dependant on one's perspective.