morgsboi

If everything in the universe adds to zero, why do we need a God?

Recommended Posts

No air in the vacuum? Still, it's zero, not negative. Nothing is nothing, not negative. If I'm not making sense, I'm probably thinking of something completely different.

 

The easiest way to think of it is as mass but in layers or a scale like -1 0 +1 Dig a hole and you have a hole and a pile. The pile is positive and the hole is negative. (I know its not but its the example)

So with the hole dug, there is still the same amount of dirt, its just transferred from the neutral (0) to positive (+1) and negative (-1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just in my eyes, the laws of physics cannot support any "god". But it is said "god" is something that exists outside of the laws of physics. God made man in his image? So atoms? Molecules? The thing is with this is that for every answer (for or against) has a counter answer. A discussion on this will be a loop.

 

**quote (not sure how to get them on separate lines)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by asking if I took in the digging a hole part.

**quote

 

Well do you understand what it represents?

 

 

This is an odd statement. But let me try explain religion in a way that a non-believer can understand (because contrary to the more irritable atheists on this forum, faith is more complicated than they believe).

 

Assume that "God" is a semantic device in much the same way "gravity" is a semantic device to describe a phenomenon that, in the universal sense, has no name. It simply is. Planets revolve around the Sun not because we named "gravity", but because the force has existed since at least the birth of the Universe.

 

So now apply that logic to "God", and assume that "God" is a semantic device to describe the entirety of all matter and the forces that determine the behavior of that matter in the universe, known and unknown. These forces are as simple as gravity or as complex as the phenomenon that we know exists that allows a few pounds of elements to interact in such a way that they contemplate the existence of "God", give abstracted names to natural order, and create order where chaos reigns.

 

Once you understand that "God" means everything, or omnipotence then it becomes much easier to understand the rest of what theists believe.

 

In that vein of thought, religious lessons like the Ten Commandments are really just instructions to mankind for our survival, given the curse of "free will". Whether you see these rules as written by a man or not is immaterial as it is all a function of the "everything" that theists call "God" and "free will" is a semantic device to describe mankind's ability to function beyond natural order.

 

It's often mistaken by atheists that theists believe proof is anathema to faith, it isn't. True faith is in the salvation through adherence to a set of rules, and that those rules lead to a better life here, and death. Whether you believe something comes after death is also immaterial as, in the end, you can only judge a persons life by how they lived it and how they died.

 

I would actually describe my personal beliefs somewhat differently than this, but I find this simplified natural explanation of "God" to be more palatable to Atheists than "here's the Bible, read it." No theist I know believes that God is part of the universe, but rather the reverse of that. So trying to pin God's non-existence down by simple observation the world around you is a waste of time. You are looking in the wrong place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume that "God" is a semantic device in much the same way "gravity" is a semantic device to describe a phenomenon that, in the universal sense, has no name. It simply is. Planets revolve around the Sun not because we named "gravity", but because the force has existed since at least the birth of the Universe.

 

I disagree that the theory of gravity "simply is".

 

Gravity is a falsifiable theory. Experiments can and have been devised to provide repeatable observations to either support or disprove the theory. A probability value can be determined to describe the probability of the theory being correct. If proven incorrect in part or whole, it can be modified or rejected in its entirely with no ideological impediment.

 

The god hypothesis on the other hand, is not falsifiable and does not predict observations that allow it to be supported or disproved. The absolute nature of the hypothesis only allows it to be completely accepted or rejected with no room for uncertainty.

 

One is a falsifiable hypothesis supported by repeatable observation, the other is a faith based positive assumption made in the absence of observational evidence. Your comparison of religious belief with acceptance of a scientific theory is rendered inapt by the differences in the assumptive nature two concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that the theory of gravity "simply is".

 

Gravity is a falsifiable theory. Experiments can and have been devised to provide repeatable observations to either support or disprove the theory. A probability value can be determined to describe the probability of the theory being correct. If proven incorrect in part or whole, it can be modified or rejected in its entirely with no ideological impediment.

 

 

I think you miss my point. I am not talking about the "theory of gravity" I am talking about the obvious phenomenon that we call gravity. It obviously exists. Drop a pencil and see which direction it goes.

 

HOW gravity exists or WHAT gravity is is a different subject entirely for which a falsifiable theory is warranted.

 

But whatever force that is that caused the material of the universe to congeal, and causes universal attraction between bodies based on mass of the objects, you can't deny it exists. It is the most ever present, consistently dependable laws of the physical world apart from whatever repeatable physical phenomenon it is that makes the mass of material between our ears capable of observing and contemplating the universe.

 

 

The god hypothesis on the other hand, is not falsifiable and does not predict observations that allow it to be supported or disproved. The absolute nature of the hypothesis only allows it to be completely accepted or rejected with no room for uncertainty.

 

 

Well, sure, but no God theory was ever put forward by me, either. My argument was a philosophical one. As I said in another thread, I don't think that science and religion are mutually exclusive, nor should either be used to describe the other. Science deals with HOW and religion deals with WHY, at the most basic level. Theists and atheists at the root level simply disagree on the existence of a WHY in the universe.

 

 

One is a falsifiable hypothesis supported by repeatable observation, the other is a faith based positive assumption made in the absence of observational evidence. Your comparison of religious belief with acceptance of a scientific theory is rendered inapt by the differences in the assumptive nature two concepts.

 

Again, I was making a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. In that same way the quest for extraterrestrial life is not practically falsifiable nor repeatable nor scientific.. or certainly not in any way that wouldn't also apply to God.

 

As an aside to this argument, I'll point you to this intriguing essay, by an atheist, that speaks to my point but from the other side of the divide:

 

Beyond Reductionism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you miss my point.

 

No - I'm saying the comparison of god and gravity is inapt, even if you state you're describing the predicted outcome of the theorized force, rather than the explanatory theory.

 

I can measure gravity. I can weigh my pencil and measure its acceleration towards the ground when I drop it. I am unable to measure god or the forces attributed to god due to the absolute nature to the concept.

 

I'm not trying to disagree with your theistic position, but I am disagreeing that it is equatable with belief in measurable, natural phenomena explained by falsifiable theory. Belief in a deity is not equatable with belief in gravity whether or not you're choosing to define it as the theory or the measurable effects of the force described by the theory, unless we can generate a comparable set of measurements by a force attributable to god and described by a falsifiable theistic theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where as if you dig a hole, the hole will be the same size as the pile.
Looks like someone has never dug a hole.:rolleyes: If they did they would know that there is not the same space in the hole that there is mass in the pile. You can easily come up with your own conclusion when you fill it back in.

 

 

As for the God topic....who said he has to be provable? Alot of religions say that God is all there is and all there will never be. That you look upopn Him everyday, everywhere, as long as you are looking. The Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end. I've always questioned the beginning part though. If God exists then who created God? And so on and so forth...bla, bla, bla..... I'm one of those friendly agnostic believers. This existance around us had to started from something. The big bang theory has to be founded on the assumption that there was something there to cause such a reaction and something before it to provide the action. Since, as some say that it can never be determined therefore is irrelevant, I say it was a diety. Does that mean I'm right? I will either find the answer when I die or not at all. I choose to hope that I will find the answer or that at least that death is not the final chapter of what is me. The consciousness that I have and share with other consciousnesses. Something that has meaning. What is this life for if it ultimately has no meaning? Are we to believe that we are here on a fluke? Are we to pass along to our offspring that only matter to the here and now. Not to anything else throughout the overall picture of existance. That is a depressing outlook. Why care about anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like someone has never dug a hole.:rolleyes: If they did they would know that there is not the same space in the hole that there is mass in the pile. You can easily come up with your own conclusion when you fill it back in.

 

 

But there was no space before the big bang as time and space were created within it. I don't mean someone literally took a shovel and started digging but it's the energy that I'm talking about. For me, I think digging a hole is the best way to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there was no space before the big bang as time and space were created within it. I don't mean someone literally took a shovel and started digging but it's the energy that I'm talking about. For me, I think digging a hole is the best way to explain it.

So you're saying that there was no energy before the big bang? And no space to contain energy before the big bang? Why does 0= no God anyway? Couldn't it be just as easy to say that 0=God? If some theists are right and god is in everything, then it would be a true statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there was no space before the big bang as time and space were created within it. I don't mean someone literally took a shovel and started digging but it's the energy that I'm talking about. For me, I think digging a hole is the best way to explain it.

 

 

The act of digging compresses the soil, making it denser and making it take up less space than the whole from which it was removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the God topic....who said he has to be provable? Alot of religions say that God is all there is and all there will never be. That you look upopn Him everyday, everywhere, as long as you are looking. The Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end. I've always questioned the beginning part though. If God exists then who created God? And so on and so forth...bla, bla, bla..... I'm one of those friendly agnostic believers. This existance around us had to started from something. The big bang theory has to be founded on the assumption that there was something there to cause such a reaction and something before it to provide the action. Since, as some say that it can never be determined therefore is irrelevant, I say it was a diety. Does that mean I'm right? I will either find the answer when I die or not at all. I choose to hope that I will find the answer or that at least that death is not the final chapter of what is me. The consciousness that I have and share with other consciousnesses. Something that has meaning. What is this life for if it ultimately has no meaning? Are we to believe that we are here on a fluke? Are we to pass along to our offspring that only matter to the here and now. Not to anything else throughout the overall picture of existance. That is a depressing outlook. Why care about anything?

 

The human race is curious. For the time we have been on planet Earth, we have always been making discoveries and if there is a wall in the way, we find away around the wall. WE WANT TO KNOW. Was there ever a place in your childhood where you couldn't get to but you always wanted to know what was there, or wondered what happens when you touch fire. Curiosity is essential so we can keep on evolving and upgrading our knowledge.

Now the questions, is there a god? Or how did the universe begin? Or what will happen when we die? Curiosity will tell.

 

Couldn't it be just as easy to say that 0=God? If some theists are right and god is in everything, then it would be a true statement.

 

0 = nothing

Think about what you just said. But I do like the multiverse theory and although I think it could be correct (which would change this whole topic as there would be 1+-1 = 0), I go with my own theory.

 

Couldn't it be just as easy to say that 0=God? If some theists are right and god is in everything, then it would be a true statement.

 

0 = nothing

Think about what you just said. But I do like the multiverse theory and although I think it could be correct (which would change this whole topic as there would be 1+-1 = 0), I go with my own theory.

 

The act of digging compresses the soil, making it denser and making it take up less space than the whole from which it was removed.

 

Sorry but your talking about soil and your not taking in the whole meaning of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curiosity will tell.

Maybe. If at all physically or logically achievable.

 

 

 

0 = nothing

Think about what you just said. But I do like the multiverse theory and although I think it could be correct (which would change this whole topic as there would be 1+-1 = 0), I go with my own theory.

I did think about what I said. I was commenting on the fact that some theists believe that god is everything. With my 0=God theory I was trying to intale that if God is everything that he could also be nothing. So therefore 0=God would be a true statement as well as 1 or -1=God.

 

 

But this is beside the point really. The way you are thinking is that negative energy cancels out positive energy bringing the value of the universe to 0. Am I right? Zero-energy universe? That all energy equals zero. Why does this define 0=nothing and therefore no God? All that does is equate a number value to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. If at all physically or logically achievable.

 

 

 

I did think about what I said. I was commenting on the fact that some theists believe that god is everything. With my 0=God theory I was trying to intale that if God is everything that he could also be nothing. So therefore 0=God would be a true statement as well as 1 or -1=God.

 

 

But this is beside the point really. The way you are thinking is that negative energy cancels out positive energy bringing the value of the universe to 0. Am I right? Zero-energy universe? That all energy equals zero. Why does this define 0=nothing and therefore no God? All that does is equate a number value to something.

 

Well we said putting a man on the moon was impossible and the Earth was the centre of all things. Curiosity told.

And I suppose but the universe cannot start with nothing because whatever started it is at the centre of all things and that may not even be correct. And I think I understand where you are coming from. Like a hydrogen atom having 1 electron, 1 proton and 1 neutron. Yes, I've just thought of it that way and all the charges add up to zero, yet we still have hydrogen. But then there is another way to think of it too. The electrons are on the outside where as the protons are in the nucleus. I think of it as the nucleus representing the universe, the protons representing energy and mass, neutrons representing the vacuum and electrons representing the "outer universe". I see the universe and "outer universe" as 1 giant atom, which then links me on to the question, what is outside this "giant atom"? That is the multiverse.

 

^^ I have to say thank you for that comment because what is above has just come clear to me and is added onto my "growing theory" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but your talking about soil and your not taking in the whole meaning of it.

 

 

I get the meaning of it, I am pointing out that even the representative example has an explanation counter to your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the meaning of it, I am pointing out that even the representative example has an explanation counter to your argument.

 

Okay :) But also what I mean is that it doesn't have to be soil as I could use concrete to represent it as it won't get denser. I only simply mean that there is positive and negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay :) But also what I mean is that it doesn't have to be soil as I could use concrete to represent it as it won't get denser. I only simply mean that there is positive and negative.

 

 

I know. I'm just poking. :)

 

Also, on your initial question, I think it is apples and oranges, and your apples are wrong :D (at least as far as I understand the state of the scientific theory).

 

First, currently it is believed that there is an imbalance between matter and anti-matter and it has existed since the big bang. In fact, the theory goes that if the balance was perfect at the moment of the big bang then the universe would have annihilated itself on creation. Visible matter exists for lack of corresponding anti-matter to annihilate it. We wouldn't add to zero, we would be zero.

 

Second, you make an assumption that a religious person would not -- that God is a piece of the universe rather than apart from it -- so your argument can only be self edifying but not compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^ I have to say thank you for that comment because what is above has just come clear to me and is added onto my "growing theory" :)

No problem, " I'm here all week".:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, " I'm here all week".:D

 

Also, did you take in the atom bit? It's a bit far fetched but its part of my theory which I may post on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, did you take in the atom bit? It's a bit far fetched but its part of my theory which I may post on here.

Yes, but I'm still undecided as to whether there is something outside the universe. Whether the universe is a closed system or open to outside influences. I'm still trying to find answers to somme questions I've had that should answer that question one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not formally educated in physics but I understand the idea of 1+-1=0 and the hole digging example.

At a basic level we need to take something to create something else; removing raw materials (-1) from the earth (0) to make a brick (1). Should we decide to dismantle the brick and put it back in the earth (assuming we would be able to retrieve all of the material lost through natural loss, evaporation and transfer of microscopic particles) we would have what we began with: 0. This isn't to say absolute zero, but simply "what we began with" (I think it might be more useful to substitute ‘0’ for another mathematical symbol but that’s not something I would know).

I start with a small example for ease of explanation, when we look at it on a larger scale we will see that there are variables but the concept is the same.

If we broke all of our man made materials; buildings, bridges, computers, kettles and organic material such as plants and animals down into their most basic form, we can see that everything on earth came from the earth - we would return back to 0. But would we? Stuff is always being added to the equation, meteors hitting earth & other space debris. Just the same as stuff leaving the equation as in normal losses and even in the forms of our man made satellites being created from earth materials and then destined to drift through space or crash land on Jupiter. If, however, we could control these variables – bring all lost materials back and expel all foreign materials, then yes we would return back to 0.

I've digressed slightly but my point here is that if the original equation remains true, we can expand this to a more universal solution:

If in the original example, a hole is -1, flat undisturbed land is 0 and a pile of soil is 1 then, all of the matter and energy in the universe is 1, the theory of dark matter and negative energy is -1 and x is 0 (can't quite grasp what x is just yet).

Alternatively the big bang theory provides another way of reaching -1; all of the matter in the universe was created by the big bang. This would mean that there would have to have been something before the big bang for all of our universal stuff to have come from. This is, of course, assuming that our equation still holds ground at such a universal level.

I don't understand much about quantum mechanics but from what I have read, it is thought that there could up to 11 dimensions. Without getting too far into a different topic, I think I read somewhere that quarks often pop in and out of existence from different dimensions. Please forgive me if this is entirely incorrect, but if there is any truth in this, it would provide us with a way of accounting for the -1 in our equation.

As for the god argument, you could either debunk his existence by using either one of the previous theories, or prove his existence by saying that he is the -1 that all of our stuff derives from.

Having said all this, I’m curious to think what everyone’s thoughts are on what x might be if universal stuff is 1 and any of the above are.-1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not formally educated in physics but I understand the idea of 1+-1=0 and the hole digging example.

At a basic level we need to take something to create something else; removing raw materials (-1) from the earth (0) to make a brick (1). Should we decide to dismantle the brick and put it back in the earth (assuming we would be able to retrieve all of the material lost through natural loss, evaporation and transfer of microscopic particles) we would have what we began with: 0. This isn't to say absolute zero, but simply "what we began with" (I think it might be more useful to substitute '0' for another mathematical symbol but that's not something I would know).

I start with a small example for ease of explanation, when we look at it on a larger scale we will see that there are variables but the concept is the same.

If we broke all of our man made materials; buildings, bridges, computers, kettles and organic material such as plants and animals down into their most basic form, we can see that everything on earth came from the earth - we would return back to 0. But would we? Stuff is always being added to the equation, meteors hitting earth & other space debris. Just the same as stuff leaving the equation as in normal losses and even in the forms of our man made satellites being created from earth materials and then destined to drift through space or crash land on Jupiter. If, however, we could control these variables – bring all lost materials back and expel all foreign materials, then yes we would return back to 0.

I've digressed slightly but my point here is that if the original equation remains true, we can expand this to a more universal solution:

If in the original example, a hole is -1, flat undisturbed land is 0 and a pile of soil is 1 then, all of the matter and energy in the universe is 1, the theory of dark matter and negative energy is -1 and x is 0 (can't quite grasp what x is just yet).

Alternatively the big bang theory provides another way of reaching -1; all of the matter in the universe was created by the big bang. This would mean that there would have to have been something before the big bang for all of our universal stuff to have come from. This is, of course, assuming that our equation still holds ground at such a universal level.

I don't understand much about quantum mechanics but from what I have read, it is thought that there could up to 11 dimensions. Without getting too far into a different topic, I think I read somewhere that quarks often pop in and out of existence from different dimensions. Please forgive me if this is entirely incorrect, but if there is any truth in this, it would provide us with a way of accounting for the -1 in our equation.

As for the god argument, you could either debunk his existence by using either one of the previous theories, or prove his existence by saying that he is the -1 that all of our stuff derives from.

Having said all this, I'm curious to think what everyone's thoughts are on what x might be if universal stuff is 1 and any of the above are.-1.

 

 

I believe there that the universe is just like an atom. Protons are mass and energy. Neutrons are the vacuum and electrons are negative (not dark) energy. I find the cosmic microwave background to be like the nucleus. So I think negative energy is outside of the cosmic microwave background orbiting around the rest of the universe. Does it make sense? The only thing I couldn't explain with this theory is expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the negative energy is outside of the universe and the matter and positive energy is within the universe, it would suggest that there was at some point a transfer of this energy (big bang). For the universe to keep expanding it would need matter and energy from elsewhere to keep the 1+-1=0 equation balanced. Our universe expands whilst the outside of it shrinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the negative energy is outside of the universe and the matter and positive energy is within the universe, it would suggest that there was at some point a transfer of this energy (big bang). For the universe to keep expanding it would need matter and energy from elsewhere to keep the 1+-1=0 equation balanced. Our universe expands whilst the outside of it shrinks.

 

 

If you suppose that the outside of our universe is finite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God is the Father, the Spirit and the Power that drives the cosmos. Without God there would not be any cosmos.

The energy within the cosmos powers and moves every atom of every mass body. That same power that is God give us light and the very life force itself.

 

God is in me, I am in the Father, The Father and I am one. Before I was born I was Spirit, I was part of God the power of the cosmos. When I leave this earth I will go back to where I came from.

 

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind".

 

This means ALL there is no love for anything else. What you love you will seek and what you seek you will find.

 

When you find God, you will find that he is in your neighbour, hence the second commandment exists as stated by Jesus, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself". If you hate your neighbour you hate God, If you cheat or lie to your neighbour you cheat and lie to God.

 

God being the driving power of the cosmos forms and shapes your spiral DNA using cosmic forces, the potter and creator of all life.

 

Do what you may but remember when you open your mouth you represent the Father, make sure its the right one your representing.

 

The cosmic power drives the neutral atom, without this ability the cosmos cannot be controlled, God designed it this way so that you have peace within a powerful cosmic body.

 

Scientific belief does not see it this way yet, even though you where taken out of bondage through the words of the bible

in Exodus chapter 12 verse 17 which says "Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children".

 

The book of God reveals the activity of the heavens that occurs within and powers our atomic structure. Our local galactic velocity group travels at 600,000 meters per second.

 

It is time to wake up and learn that God is within you and always has been. He knows your thoughts, and everything you do is within him.

 

See John chapter 10 verses 32-36

32. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?''

33. The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.''

34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, "You are gods'' '?

35. "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

36. "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God is the Father, the Spirit and the Power that drives the cosmos. Without God there would not be any cosmos.

The energy within the cosmos powers and moves every atom of every mass body. That same power that is God give us light and the very life force itself.

 

God is in me, I am in the Father, The Father and I am one. Before I was born I was Spirit, I was part of God the power of the cosmos. When I leave this earth I will go back to where I came from.

 

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind".

 

This means ALL there is no love for anything else. What you love you will seek and what you seek you will find.

 

When you find God, you will find that he is in your neighbour, hence the second commandment exists as stated by Jesus, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself". If you hate your neighbour you hate God, If you cheat or lie to your neighbour you cheat and lie to God.

 

God being the driving power of the cosmos forms and shapes your spiral DNA using cosmic forces, the potter and creator of all life.

 

Do what you may but remember when you open your mouth you represent the Father, make sure its the right one your representing.

 

The cosmic power drives the neutral atom, without this ability the cosmos cannot be controlled, God designed it this way so that you have peace within a powerful cosmic body.

 

Scientific belief does not see it this way yet, even though you where taken out of bondage through the words of the bible

in Exodus chapter 12 verse 17 which says "Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children".

 

The book of God reveals the activity of the heavens that occurs within and powers our atomic structure. Our local galactic velocity group travels at 600,000 meters per second.

 

It is time to wake up and learn that God is within you and always has been. He knows your thoughts, and everything you do is within him.

 

See John chapter 10 verses 32-36

32. Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?''

33. The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.''

34. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, "You are gods'' '?

35. "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

36. "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?

 

In a non-disrespectful way, what evidence do you actually have to back all that up? Lots of Christians also say that the Earth has been around for 6000 years which we know is just not possible.

 

The cosmic power drives the neutral atom, without this ability the cosmos cannot be controlled, God designed it this way so that you have peace within a powerful cosmic body.

 

 

There are no "neutral" atoms. Are you talking about neutrons?

 

 

The book of God reveals the activity of the heavens that occurs within and powers our atomic structure. Our local galactic velocity group travels at 600,000 meters per second.

 

 

What are you talking about? Atom comes from the word atomos which means indivisible. Nothing else was known about the atom as it was just a sugestion made by a Greek philosopher named Democritus. Research was only carried on when a group of scientists, probably with Newton in the late 1600s. Its was then they proposed a corpuscular or atomic model. So please tell me how on earth it would be possible for god to talk about ATOMS!

 

 

Our local galactic velocity group travels at 600,000 meters per second.

 

 

Which is a piece of evidence supporting the big bang. A universe doesn't magically appear.

 

 

It is time to wake up and learn that God is within you and always has been. He knows your thoughts, and everything you do is within him.

 

 

If god is in me, then a real god would let me know he's in me and be there when I've gone through some extremely tough times. People have to go through things on there own, not with god.

Its like, when you are very young you might talk to your teddy bears or your pet cat. You know your doing it to get it off your chest but do they understand? Is there something inside them that

will make them listen and give you guidance. A soul is not a magical spirit inside us, its our conciousness.

 

http://www.west.net/~simon/brain-soul-consciousness.html

 

If the negative energy is outside of the universe and the matter and positive energy is within the universe, it would suggest that there was at some point a transfer of this energy (big bang). For the universe to keep expanding it would need matter and energy from elsewhere to keep the 1+-1=0 equation balanced. Our universe expands whilst the outside of it shrinks.

 

So at some point matter is going to collide with anti-matter. Doesn't sound to good, lol. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a non-disrespectful way, what evidence do you actually have to back all that up? Lots of Christians also say that the Earth has been around for 6000 years which we know is just not possible.

I myself exist: I don,t recall Jesus ever saying that about 6000 years, but he did say:

Mathew chapter 23 verse 10. "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

 

There are no "neutral" atoms. Are you talking about neutrons?
Virtually all atomic structure contains equal quantities of positive and negative charge. The net effect is electrical neutrality with respect to an external energy source. God designed it this way so that you have peace within a powerful cosmic body. Because the charges are equal and opposite they are carried together in Him. Would you like me to explain magnetic and electrical theory to you or you could look here for a start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field.

 

This may be a bit heavy for a 10 year old.

 

What are you talking about? Atom comes from the word atomos which means indivisible. Nothing else was known about the atom as it was just a sugestion made by a Greek philosopher named Democritus. Research was only carried on when a group of scientists, probably with Newton in the late 1600s. Its was then they proposed a corpuscular or atomic model. So please tell me how on earth it would be possible for god to talk about ATOMS!
Do you think God the creator did not design the atom as we call it today?

 

In response to: Our local galactic velocity group travels at 600,000 meters per second. You said

Which is a piece of evidence supporting the big bang. A universe doesn't magically appear.

You presume to know how it all started. Once again I list the following:

 

2Timothy chapter 4 verse 3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;

 

If god is in me, then a real god would let me know he's in me and be there when I've gone through some extremely tough times. People have to go through things on there own, not with god.

Its like, when you are very young you might talk to your teddy bears or your pet cat. You know your doing it to get it off your chest but do they understand? Is there something inside them that

will make them listen and give you guidance. A soul is not a magical spirit inside us, its our conciousness.

Your consciousness is in God. God never leaves you, but cannot force you to understand. Knowledge is given to you daily like food. Just like food you cannot eat and digest all your meals in one day. Sufficient information is fed to you daily as so described in the bread from heaven.

Exodus chapter 16 verses 4-6:

4. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not.

5. "And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare what they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.''

6. Then Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel, "At evening you shall know that the Lord has brought you out of the land of Egypt.

And again in John chapter 6 verse 31. "Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' ''

 

morgsboi you do well for a 10 year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now