Does God exist?

[Katiebee]

Oh ye of little faith...

The entire argument is moot.

If you believe in God, then what I or anyone else beliees is of little importance. If you believe in God yet seek to prove He exists they you have already, and will continue to fail in the prime facet of your religion,... Faith.

If you have faith in your God then nothing else is needed. If you need proof, then you do not have faith and fail in your belief.

If you are trying to prove God using scientific method you will fail, and miserably so.

The two, faith and science can co-exist, ask the Catholic Church. They are not mutually exclusive, except in one way. A strict fundamentalist interpretation of scripture "proves" that man cannot fly.

Science is the purview of the how, faith is the purview of the soul. Different spheres of influence.

[Lostforkate]

I fully agree I can only support opinion or philosophy of my belief in a creator. I look at the the dark spot the Hubble focused on, which revealed countless new galaxies, and I think what an awesome Creator we have! Others see it who with a different mindset, and see at as proof God does not exist. To me, studies of the stars, and studies of the atom only point to God's hand. Faith is experientally viable.

[MissBarbara]

Oh ye of little faith...

The entire argument is moot.

If you believe in God, then what I or anyone else beliees is of little importance. If you believe in God yet seek to prove He exists they you have already, and will continue to fail in the prime facet of your religion,... Faith.

If you have faith in your God then nothing else is needed. If you need proof, then you do not have faith and fail in your belief.

If you are trying to prove God using scientific method you will fail, and miserably so.

The two, faith and science can co-exist, ask the Catholic Church. They are not mutually exclusive, except in one way. A strict fundamentalist interpretation of scripture "proves" that man cannot fly.

Science is the purview of the how, faith is the purview of the soul. Different spheres of influence.

Well, then it's not moot.

And it works the other way around as well:

If you do not believe in God, then what I or anyone else believes is of little importance. If you not believe in God yet seek to disprove He exists then you have already, and will continue to fail in the prime facet of your belief system... Science.

If you are trying to disprove God using scientific method you will fail, and miserably so.

You're right: Faith and science can co-exist, and they do. And they are not mutually exclusive. That is until one attempts to explain science via religion, or attempt to explain religion via science. And doing either is like trying to "prove" that man cannot fly.

[DanteDC]

I fully agree I can only support opinion or philosophy of my belief in a creator. I look at the the dark spot the Hubble focused on, which revealed countless new galaxies, and I think what an awesome Creator we have! Others see it who with a different mindset, and see at as proof God does not exist. To me, studies of the stars, and studies of the atom only point to God's hand. Faith is experientally viable.

When i see those galaxys i think i takes millions of years for light to hit our earth. I wonder if the view we see is the true thing we see.

[Bexy]

Toe, mock the elder Gods at your peril.

 

 

And at least the elder Gods are cool!

[Lois]

A woo for that one Bexy!

[DrWoody]

Oh ye of little faith...

The entire argument is moot.

If you believe in God, then what I or anyone else beliees is of little importance. If you believe in God yet seek to prove He exists they you have already, and will continue to fail in the prime facet of your religion,... Faith.

If you have faith in your God then nothing else is needed. If you need proof, then you do not have faith and fail in your belief.

If you are trying to prove God using scientific method you will fail, and miserably so.

The two, faith and science can co-exist, ask the Catholic Church. They are not mutually exclusive, except in one way. A strict fundamentalist interpretation of scripture "proves" that man cannot fly.

Science is the purview of the how, faith is the purview of the soul. Different spheres of influence.

Katie, you are truly an intellect.

[Lostforkate]

There are a lot of things we can't see? Do remember the speed of light is a variable. It of sort of like when man saw fire. As we mastered fire, we will someday master the galaxies. As far as understanding the galaxies, we are still caveman.

I fully agree I can only support opinion or philosophy of my belief in a creator. I look at the the dark spot the Hubble focused on, which revealed countless new galaxies, and I think what an awesome Creator we have! Others see it who with a different mindset, and see at as proof God does not exist. To me, studies of the stars, and studies of the atom only point to God's hand. Faith is experientally viable.

When i see those galaxys i think i takes millions of years for light to hit our earth. I wonder if the view we see is the true thing we see.

[Katiebee]

It is constant under the rules we know about.

[Lostforkate]

We know light cannot escape a black hole, so we know it is impacted by intense gravitational forces of a collapsing star.

[Lois]

[DanteDC]

There are a lot of things we can't see? Do remember the speed of light is a variable. It of sort of like when man saw fire. As we mastered fire, we will someday master the galaxies. As far as understanding the galaxies, we are still caveman.

I fully agree I can only support opinion or philosophy of my belief in a creator. I look at the the dark spot the Hubble focused on, which revealed countless new galaxies, and I think what an awesome Creator we have! Others see it who with a different mindset, and see at as proof God does not exist. To me, studies of the stars, and studies of the atom only point to God's hand. Faith is experientally viable.

When i see those galaxys i think i takes millions of years for light to hit our earth. I wonder if the view we see is the true thing we see.

Agreed.

[Lostforkate]

not sure where to put this line of questions...

I am curious, if a gay person can reconcile their faith and their lifestyle, would the general consensus care if the feel comfortable on this board?

Are there any on this site that would be part of the group, or another group below?

http://www.awab.org/

[Elizabeth]

It is constant under the rules we know about.

Actually, it isn't constant, even under the "rules we know about" because time is relative.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314656/Scientists-prove-time-really-does-pass-quicker-higher-altitude.html

As far as the "speed of light in a vacuum":

First, what we call "the speed of light in a vacuum" and label by c is technically not the speed of light at all but some limiting speed hat an object initially traveling at less than c cannot be accelerated beyond. In principle, if the photon has some mass, no matter how tiny, then it is in fact not going at the speed c but something less. However, the mass, or rest energy, of the photon has a measured upper limit of 2x10-16 electron-volt, 22 orders of magnitude less than the mass of anelectron. This implies that the speed of the lowest energy photon we know about, one in the 3K cosmic microwave background, with energy 1/4000 electron-volt, is moving at (1-23.2x10-25)c. Furthermore, gauge invariance, a fundamental axiom of quantum electrodynamics, requires that the photon have exactly zero mass.

Second, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in the universe and so any observed light beam must travel through a medium and will have an effective speed c/n, where n is the index of refraction of the medium. While this usually yields speeds less than c, some media, such as highly ionized plasma, can have an index of refraction less than 1 over a limited light frequency range. In that case, the effective light speed can exceed c.

Third, when we have a localized pulse of light that contains photons of different
energies or frequencies, the pulse will not move at c but at some "group velocity." This, too, is usually less than c.

Any one of these situations involves a conclusion that the "speed of light is not constant."

Since when does an object (any object) have a zero mass?
Anything that exists has to have a mass to it.
Just asking?

[Katiebee]

Umm, theoretically, divine beings do not necessarily have to have any mass.

[UmmOkay]

It is constant under the rules we know about.

Actually, it isn't constant, even under the "rules we know about" because time is relative.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314656/Scientists-prove-time-really-does-pass-quicker-higher-altitude.html

As far as the "speed of light in a vacuum":

First, what we call "the speed of light in a vacuum" and label by c is technically not the speed of light at all but some limiting speed hat an object initially traveling at less than c cannot be accelerated beyond. In principle, if the photon has some mass, no matter how tiny, then it is in fact not going at the speed c but something less. However, the mass, or rest energy, of the photon has a measured upper limit of 2x10-16 electron-volt, 22 orders of magnitude less than the mass of anelectron. This implies that the speed of the lowest energy photon we know about, one in the 3K cosmic microwave background, with energy 1/4000 electron-volt, is moving at (1-23.2x10-25)c. Furthermore, gauge invariance, a fundamental axiom of quantum electrodynamics, requires that the photon have exactly zero mass.

Second, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in the universe and so any observed light beam must travel through a medium and will have an effective speed c/n, where n is the index of refraction of the medium. While this usually yields speeds less than c, some media, such as highly ionized plasma, can have an index of refraction less than 1 over a limited light frequency range. In that case, the effective light speed can exceed c.

Third, when we have a localized pulse of light that contains photons of different
energies or frequencies, the pulse will not move at c but at some "group velocity." This, too, is usually less than c.

Any one of these situations involves a conclusion that the "speed of light is not constant."

Since when does an object (any object) have a zero mass?
Anything that exists has to have a mass to it.
Just asking?

I think it depends on what kind of existence you are trying to define. Physical existence in true perceivable forme would almost certainty require some amount of mass, however, for existence in which it is a divine power that controls, but does not manifest itself physically then it wouldn't necessarily have any mass.

Drawing from the laws science has tested over and over, I prefer to think that if something exists it must have some amount of mass.

[Fish]

Since when does an object (any object) have a zero mass?
Anything that exists has to have a mass to it.
Just asking?

*Note: I'm an interested layman, not an expert*

Particle physics is just rife with particles which seem to defy all logic these days.

Some subatomic particles perhaps have radiated energy from a parallel universe, thus having the entirety of their mass separate from their force, or at least it would appear that way from our universe.

Gravity works much like that- gravity, under anything like predictable models, should be almost five times stronger. All other forces dwarf gravity, so one of the leading theories is that the particle known as a graviton is actually delocated, and what seeps through to our universe is just the leftover energy.

The recently discovered Higgs-Bozon particle may have a field which almost all matter interacts with. This interaction could possibly be responsible for the behavior of mass.

As to the OP? Does god exist? I know Einstein believed in god- not a god we knew, but a god we could hope to learn more about. That sounds about right to me.

[Gina Marie]

You Won’t Believe what Pat Robertson is Blaming the OK Tornado on

http://thebigslice.org/you-wont-believe-what-pat-robertson-is-blaming-the-ok-tornado-on/

[Fish]

Just a guess before I read the article... homosexuality? 

[Fish]

Not exactly, but I wasn't far off.