[Besoeker]

If you searched those theories and their relations to the origins of the universe you'll get what you ask for.
The evidence is mathematical and logical.

Fine. Provide one specific example. Please be direct and succinct without all the verbose diatribe.

[anasawad]

Since you cant take one part of science on its own, no there is no single example. You must take the whole thing together.
Want a starting point, study the theory of general relativaty. Thats the first corner stone of the conclusion.
Or you can read or listen to Stephen hawking lectures in the past years. He did the math together and will give you the results.

But good to know that you are insisting on proving that you have no idea how science work that you think you can take one thing without the other.
When ever you're interested in actual reading, try looking up the topics i mentioned and the connection between them.
Its all the science community talks about since the 80s. It'll be fun and you catch up.

[Besoeker]

Since you cant take one part of science on its own, no there is no single example. You must take the whole thing together.
Want a starting point, study the theory of general relativaty. Thats the first corner stone of the conclusion.
Or you can read or listen to Stephen hawking lectures in the past years. He did the math together and will give you the results.

But good to know that you are insisting on proving that you have no idea how science work that you think you can take one thing without the other.
When ever you're interested in actual reading, try looking up the topics i mentioned and the connection between them.
Its all the science community talks about since the 80s. It'll be fun and you catch up.

Fine. You have shown, yet again, that you can't provide one single piece of testable evidence that your god exists.

[Atlantis]

@anasawad, your attachment to the outer shell of your religion prevents you from seeing the true religion. Different cultures made the original religious insight develop into different religious traditions, but the original divine inspiration is identical.

For example, the prohibition to make a picture of god in Islam is mirrored in Christianity by the exhortation not to make idols, while the Buddhist disciple is told to kill the Buddha (ie. the mind image of Buddha) if he encounters him. These all come from the same inspiration that there is a difference between god and the concept image of god, just like there is a difference between a tree and the concept of the tree, just like in linguistics there is a difference between the signifier and the signified.

Thus, to worship the concept or image of god is idolatry, while to burn the Quran and to draw caricatures of the prophet are saintly acts.

Your ego builds a logical concept image of god to reinforce the self which prevents you from reuniting with god. It is only by overcoming the imaginations of the ego-self that you can approach god with compassion and wisdom. The Quran is like a driver’s manual. Once you know how to drive you throw it away. If you were to keep it in front of your eyes while driving you would cause an accident.

Religion takes on different shapes for people of different capabilities. Ordinary minds need a father image of the creator god like children need Father Christmas. When children grow into mature human beings they realize that the Christmas presents came from their parents and not from Father Christmas. Likewise, the mature mind realizes that there is no creator god and that creation is as it is, we just see different temporal manifestation of it due to our limited capabilities. Thus, to the ordinary Christian or Muslim believer there is a creator god to help them in their faith, yet the Sufi or Christian mystic knows that there is no such thing. He knows that you have to realize god in yourself and that god cannot be found in the outside or in your thought-constructions.

PS: Your attempt to explain god by science is doomed to failure. The unlimited nature of god cannot be contained in the limited knowledge of science.

[Besoeker]

For example, the prohibition to make a picture of god in Islam is mirrored in Christianity by the exhortation not to make idols.

Can you make a picture of what you haven't seen and don't know if it even exists?

[Besoeker]

IF you don't love or like the God(s) then you can simply curse them

Um, how can you love, like, or curse something that doesn't exist?

and become atheist ... .

You don't become an atheist. That's how we all start out in life.

[anasawad]

@Besoeker
I mentioned many theories that are tested over and over and proved, and scientists all came to a conclusion that the universe came from an external force.
Your ignorance of those theories and studies done in the past decades doesn't mean they doesn't exist.
Even the top scientists like Stephan Hawking and many others came to the conclusion that those forces did create the universe.
Regardless whether you call them laws of nature, or god, or what ever, they still exist.

Can you test on them ? no, just like you cant test inside a black holes. You can see the effects to know its there but you cant know whats it like.
Singularities are the biggest example of this, we see their effects, but since we cant test on them we test their effects and through mathematics and equations to get an idea of their charactaristics.

You ignoring what i write proofs that you have zero understanding of how scientists work and how science and equations are. And proofs you're trolling asking to test on something thats not even in our universe.
But the tests on those forces are there in all theories btw, since they're also the basic forces in our very own universe yet predates it.
So try for once to read.


@Atlantis
For the love of god, what 'm saying, is that scientifically, it is proven that there are forces that are outside our universe, effects our universe, and predates the universe.
Did i draw an image of them in my mind ? no. fucking no. Because if i said something is atemporal or predates the universe, that is not an image of it.
If i said about you that you're temporal, which means time effects you, did that form an image of you ?
If i said you're on earth, did that give an image of you ?
If i said the main ingredients in you are H and C, did that make an image of you ? No, because that describes most of the universe.
Just like saying those things doesn't apply to something, means this thing is outside our universe and our laws and rules doesn't apply to it.
Its not drawing an image of it, its simply saying, its external.That is in fact not an image of it.



These laws and forces, have been the talk of the scientific community around the world since the late 80s.
All theories and equations lead to the same results, the laws and forces the governs our universe, predates the universe, and it created it. Can we test on it ? no, we can see its effects but we have no idea what its nature, how it works, how it does anything, or anything at all about it. But does it exist ? yes, because we see it at work every single day, in every single location in the universe.

Thats why when Stephan Hawking famously declared them, many people said science just discovered god. Because this is the first thing we know it created the universe, and it exists external to everything while acting on everything.

[Atlantis]

@anasawad, as I said, your attempt to prove the existence of an external creator god by science is futile. The object of science is not to prove the existence of god and religion has no need for science to justify it.

If there is any relation between the two, then it is that the inspirational process is the same in all humans. Ie. science may use religious inspiration to form new concepts. They just call it creative process.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis
I am not trying to prove god here, 'm trying to prove that there are things that are external to the universe. Which means that the logical and philosophical theory of god is an acceptable one.
And Science did in matter of fact discover that there are forces that predates the universe and thus external to it. And its called the laws or forces of nature.
And its widely accepted that those did cause the universe to come to existence.
(to be exact, they are described to be able to create something out of nothing randomly, which is why many scientists believe that universes could be popping into existence and vanishing from existence all the time)
This is not some wild theory that i came up with, this is an actual scientific theory that has tons of studies and researches behind it and its literally as i said a 100 times so far the main topic of study of countless of scientists all around the world since the 80s and including very famous and credited scientists.
Thus when you argue against it and say no there is nothing external to the universe.
You're not arguing against me here, you're basically saying that the scientists that are leading the scientific progress all around and studying the universe are basically a punch of idiots.
Thats what saying that there is nothing external to the universe means.

When we know that the universe isn't the last frontier then the existence of god becomes a logically accepted theory.
Regardless of religion.

[Besoeker]

I am not trying to prove god here, 'm trying to prove that there are things that are external to the universe.

You have already stated that you can only theorise about that. Or that anything can be external to the universe. Or about your god..........

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
I mentioned many theories that are tested over and over and proved,

Testing a theory isn't proof. I thought you might have known that.

[anasawad]

No, see, when something creates the universe, it by default has an extention into it, and thus it can be studied.
When we talk about these forces, we're not saying well they might exist somewhere. No we're saying that we know they're there because they have observable effects all around us, literally everything around us.
And through mathematics and equations we can know about them that they created the universe.
To create it, they are thus by default external to it.

General relativaty is a theory, but its proven one for example. And this is the final result of dozens of major theories that all combined will give the same result that the laws of nature created the universe and predates it. Which means they're external to it.

Again, this is the base that gave a way to the multiverse theory. i.e that there could be countless other universes.
And applying logical rules to it, and experience, it becomes an acceptable concept that there are mutliverses.


A theory is based on observation and tests.
You don't come up with random theory and say well, this is how it is.
No, you observe a phenomenon and do tests then you do the equations and math behind it, and thats what a theory is.

when its said scientists theorize its like this, that doesn't mean they are guessing its like that. No that means that all tests and observations and equations says its like that.
If you think its otherwise, i hate to break it to you, but things as simple as electricity and nuclear science are also called theories.
Yet we have electricity, and we have nukes and nuclear energy don't we now ?

[Besoeker]

And its widely accepted that those did cause the universe to come to existence.

[/quote]

Specifically, by whom?

[anasawad]

Well, i took it from Stephen Hawking lectures, but you'll find that most physicists of all types accept this theory.


But if you have other explanations to how did the universe come into existence, please tell ?
Because this is the only accepted theory about the origins of the universe.

[Atlantis]

@AtlantisAnd Science did in matter of fact discover that there are forces that predates the universe and thus external to it. And its called the laws or forces of nature.

That doesn't prove anything. Scientific paradigms are subject to change. They are not eternal. You try to use scientific paradigms like a religious fanatic uses dogma. That is futile. And I'm sure that whatever scientists you refer to, they don't see it that way.

If something is eternal it cannot be predated. If the universe is not eternal then it is a temporal manifestation of what is or is not eternal. In fact, human concepts of existence or non-existence don't even come into it.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis
The universe is temporal thus its not eternal by basic meaning of the word.
Saying that something being eternal is impossible is somewhat true in a sense if we are measuring it by time and its effect on it.
But time is an aspect specified without our universe, and not even all of it.
Singularities for example don't experience time, the horizon around them does lowly, but they don't, and thus they're atemporal.
When you say eternal you are basically saying that an object will last till the end of time if so to speak. But that only apply to temporal objects that experience time.
When you're talking about something atemporal, you cant say its eternal, because eternity is something used to described time, and atemporality means there is no time. Time after all is just a force or a factor of our universe. It does not exist outside the universe.
In better words, space and time came along as part of our universe, the universe after the big bang didn't expand into space, space expanded with it and time began working then as well.
The universe is a manifistation of something atemporal, its those forces, thats like what 've been talking about the whole time.

So by default, anything that is not in it, is atemporal, and spaceless, and matterless, and not physical, and etc. Because those are things specific to our universe.

Scientific theories are subject to change, but not all of them. There basic things that are proven and they're expanded not changed.
A theory being expanded is entirely different than being changed or thrown away.

And btw, no scientists do see it this way, you just instead of reading what i write for it, you assume that what ever 'm talking about it must be me describing or forming an image of god by default because 'm a Muslim. Which you have done in all your past posts.
But here, 'm delivering an exact scientific theory that is an accepted one.
And 'm not even rephrasing it or anything, 'm just copying the results.
Really you guys need to start searching these things. I don't know why you don't believe me when i tell you this is what most the scientists in the world are studying since the 80s, i.e mainly physicists of all types. But thats the main topic and you can open youtube for example and search it and there are countless lectures and videos with scientists of all types talking about it.
The study of the origins of the universe is literally the theme of 20th and 21st centuries. Why don't you atleast give half an hour of your time and take a lecture about it on video is just beyond me. It would literally save us all lots of time of going to debate how the universe is the only thing to ever exist and there was nothing before it and nothing after and how we humans are so special. Because thats really human ego that stops people from accepting these things because we're all convinced we're so special when we're nothing more than a infinitly small spec in comparison to everything else.

The universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take 130 million years, thats not eternity and it will end at some point, though we humans wont come even near living that long, like literally no where near it.
The universe came from a singularity, we cant give an age or anything to that singularity in general because singularities don't experience time and time wasn't even a thing before the universe so it just "was" there.(basically you cant put time measurement to something atemporal so no age)
The singularity as far as we have came to know was created by these forces and laws, they also still run everything in the universe all around us (thats why we call them the laws of nature btw, because everything of nature is literally defined by them).


Note: BTW, half of this post is the big bang theory, unless one of you guys think that is wrong as well and the cosmic microwave background radiation is a hoax.

[Besoeker]

No, see, when something creates the universe, it by default has an extention into it, and thus it can be studied.

Did "something" create the universe? How do you know? Do you really know??
To know requires certainty. Do you have certainty?

When we talk about these forces, we're not saying well they might exist somewhere. No we're saying that we know they're there because they have observable effects all around us, literally everything around us.
And through mathematics and equations we can know about them that they created the universe.
To create it, they are thus by default external to it.

My previous comments apply so I won't bother repeating them.

General relativaty is a theory, but its proven one for example.

You don't seem to understand the difference between theory and fact and, by extension, proof.
I had my misunderstanding of that difference firmly corrected in a physics class over fifty years ago.

[anasawad]

They are facts, since they are observable, tested, exists everywhere around us, and studied all over.
Again, this is why they're called the laws of nature because they govern nature and everything around us, which you seem unable to comprehend.

Did something create the universe ? let me see, yes, in all certainty something did create the universe, since it exists and since we know it has a small and limited age, better say its "new", and it came from a singularity then that singularity must come from somewhere. You know, according to first grade logic.
The most accepted theory based on observations and equations tells us that the universe was created by the laws of nature.
Or as expressed by scientists, the laws of nature caused the universe to exist and could cause universes to come into existence all the time.
The overall majority of scientists around the world accepts this. Why ? because its actually everywhere and studied over and over by top minds and its so far not debunked. (but i assume you're smarter than everyone in the world so you must know better)
And by the way, specially athiests of the public accepts it, infact its been a great satisfactory for athiests that the studies got this result.
Wanna know why ? because this results shows that those laws are everywhere and creates everything, thus you don't need god.
But in a logical since, those laws and god has the same charactaristics, thats why those who believe in god say this could be god we've found.


However, if you think nothing created the universe, considering the universe is fairly new, whats before it ? and if we assumed the universe is in an endless cycle of birth and rebirth, how did the cycle start ? there must be some observation or something in the equations of physics to show it right ?
But there isn't, everything shows us that those laws are what created the universe.

But its really fun to see you calling everything top scientists, most of whom are athiests, stupid and all their studies and researches bullshit.
Its really refreshing seeing people like you.


And for the comment about theories and facts. Well, since it was 50 years ago i can understand why you cant coup with the modern day.
The big bang is a theory you know, however its a proven one, so a fact.
Quantom mechanics is all theories, but most are proven and are facts, yet we call them theories.
General relativaty ? yup, also proven and a theory.

You know why they're called theories not just random names all alone ?
Because they're being expanded. We know the big bang for example, and most of what we know is based on concrete observations and studies and fits all the basic laws of physics. Yet its called a theory, why ? because we're still researching and studying it and actually expanding our knowledge on it, but what we know about it is factual and proven.
Thats the case for almost every aspect of science so far.

[Besoeker]

They are facts, since they are observable, tested, exists everywhere around us, and studied all over.

That doesn't make them facts and you seem unable to comprehend that.

[anasawad]

When you observe something countless times, all around you, and you have all your science and technology based on it.
Yea that does make them facts.