If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 104

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Free ...😊

I think that was statement / confession 😆 nuff to assume that the believer's have clinched the win ...Now that you have asserted that the energy unknown has always existed ...Now my argument is No one including Sir Edwin Hubble or Sir Arthur Eddington have named that energy. No one holds any patent or right over that ...So allow us believers to call it the GOD .....☺️ ...The disclaimer you have put in is a mere escape way ..and it won't hold true unless you have another possibility in your mind of the occult phenomena that took place 15 billion years ago. The two lines prior to the disclaimer is your real belief ...And I bet you ain't distraught or sloshed nuff to have made such argument for the sake of fun .. 😆

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

That's a blessing and a curse, if you ask me.

Blessing because the curiosity will keep you alive. The hunger to know will never subside.

Curse because the answers won't be easily forthcoming.

Originally posted by: Prometeus

For me some situations,its very difficult to understand science, then I try religion...!!

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

@ Bold: .Exactly my point 😛 ....Now see the Big Bang timeline that K has posted and look at what happened at T + 10 ^-43 s ..and then T + 10 ^ -12 s and see for yourself why I said what I had said..😆 ...Leptons were the early particles ...The only question now is how they came into being ...The asymmetry between matter
and Anti matter ?

Originally posted by: bhinder.thind

No, Its not something I just made up to make you burst laugh lmao. Actually, humorous books are out there.. Just need to be a theist and read them. I hope you get what I mean. Einsten's God? hmm Interesting.

"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man

The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

To explain Einstein's God in his own words









Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

No, at 10^-12 there are protons and neutrons which are hadrons. Electrons come in at 10^-4 which are leptons. So, as I said and K said this too, hadrons came BEFORE leptons.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Hmm, it's actually a very interesting idea. There was noting, which broke into something and -something, which takes up many form but sill results in nothing. Total energy is 0 which is conserved but still many things were derived from it. But do we still need a God then? If it is 0 becoming something? And what exactly does it tell about the nature of physical? A positive and negative cancelling in 0 is a mathematical concept, in reality we never get "nothing" from opposites. Annihilation of particles and antiparticles still results in energy, exactly the amount that was in the form of matter before. But if the whole Universe sums up to 0, does that mean our "physical reality" follows maths?

P.S. : I don't know if it is just me but it seems confusing and exciting at the same time. 😆