by Niirvash on December 9th, 2009

Niirvash

Poll

Help answer this question below.

Does God exist?

Embed
  • Like
  • Report

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by sleidman on August 18th, 2010
    voted: No

    sleidman

    While I voted that there is no God, I'd like to address the fact that a god by definition does not have to have a physical entity or even have a rational presence in this world. The question merely asks whether there is or is not a god, not whether he/she/it has an impact on our lives. Clearly, there is a scientific basis for a god when spacetime was still in singularity, but if there ever was a god, he could no longer have a presence in this world. It is highly probable that god started this universe in all of his omnipotence and set the basic laws of physics but purely by the weak anthropic principle, he could not have an effect on this world do to the fact that it must have turned out this way for our existence. The exclusionary principle gives humans and all other things a degree of free will to an extent but we are all governed by the second law of thermodynamics and therefor can not be monitored by a being looking out for us, it would defy entropy. God can not exist in the physics we have in this universe.

    Comments
    • ON GOD AND TIMELESSNESS

      Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it. Here are some examples:
      “G.E. Moore pointed out that if time is unreal then there are no temporal facts: nothing is past, present or future, and nothing is earlier or later than anything else. But, plainly, it is false that there are no temporal facts, for it is a fact that I am presently inscribing this sentence and that my breakfast yesterday preceded my lunch.”
      - Richard M. Gale
      [Book: the philosophy of time, edited by Richard M. Gale, Publisher: Macmillan, 1962, Chapter: Introduction to Section Two, The static versus the dynamic temporal, page 69.]
      “First of all, what can be meant by saying that time is unreal? If we really meant what we say, we must mean that such statements as “this is before that” are mere empty noise, like “twas brillig.” If we suppose anything less than these – as for example, that there is a relation between events which puts them in the same order as the relation of earlier and later, but that it is a different relation – we shall not have made any assertion that makes any real change in our outlook. It will be merely like supposing that Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name. We have to suppose that there are no “events” at all; there must be only the one vast whole of the universe, embracing whatever is real in the misleading appearance of a temporal procession. There must be nothing in reality corresponding to the apparent distinction between earlier and later events. To say that we are born, and then grow, and then die, must be just as false as to say that we die, then grow small, and finally are born. The truth of what seems an individual life is merely the illusory isolation of one element in the timeless and indivisible being of the universe. There is no distinction between improvement and deterioration, no difference between sorrows that end in happiness and happiness that ends in sorrow. If you find a corpse with a dagger in it, it makes no difference whether the man died of the wound or the dagger was plunged in after death. Such a view, if true, puts an end, not only to science, but to prudence, hope, and effort; it is incompatible with worldly wisdom, and – what is more important to religion – with morality.”
      - Bertrand Russell
      [Mysticism, Book: religion and science, Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1961.]
      But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum. Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “We will never accept the mystical proposition that time is unreal. Then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how this time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? Thus spake Einstein when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” And thus spake scientist Paul Davies, “Th

      Himangsu Sekhar_P

      by Himangsu Sekhar_P on November 9th, 2010

    • if you believe there is no god then believe that your loss. no faith means no blessing you will also go to HALL

      Keundre

      by Keundre on November 29th, 2010

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

You're reading Does God exist?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads