I don't believe in religion, but i don't disagree with a God (or agree with it).
In my opinion, we must mention 2 laws of life that we all agree with, and then try to prove 1 wrong.
1.) SOMETHING CAN COME OUT OF NOTHING (e.g. The world can just appear or God (a creator) can just appear out of nothing).
2.) SOMETHING CAN LAST FOREVER

 

Both of these statements are wrong in scientific terms. But 1 of these basic statements must be broken in order for the world exist. We, and everything around us, is proof that 1 of them statements is wrong.

Now let's look at them.
1.) Either the world must come out of nothing, or a creator must come out of nothing and then create the world out of some 'power' that he has. I'm not talking about how the world came in the second instance, just how God came about. This seem highly unlikely to me. Physics has shown that nothing can come out of nothing. Sure our level of physics in the world is pretty minute compared to the actual world laws but still, i agree with this.
Now, number 2. Something can last forever. The world was never created, but has always been around and will always be around. Space wasn't created, it just has always existed. The Big-bang/Big-crunch theory supports this. Although scientists say the world is increasing in speed(when they expected it to be slowing down to support the big-crunch theory) and so it isn't likely to be that. Although maybe we havn't slowed down yet and through more slight resistence the universe has when it's expanding, it will gradually slow down in another hundred years. 
Time is much more of a perplexing unit to talk about. We invented a 'time system' but we must forget that, and think about the natural time. Do we know a lot about time?

Anyway, it's my opinion that the world has lasted forever. However, it could be just as likely that a creator has lasted forever and created a universe by himself.

 

When? Who showed it? How was it proven?

2. Something can last forever -> If forever is then forever is forever. If forever is something then something is forever. If forever is nothing then nothing is forever yet nothing is nothing (or never is never) and forever is forever -> never is forever and forever is never (which I consider being complete, irrational and better than God)

 

 

Can god be recreated in a laboratory? That would be proof.

God cannot be proven scientiffically but neither can it prove how the world was created in much detail (or maybe even accurately).
"God doesn't correspond to scientific reasoning" Many scientists do indeed believe in God. God may have created the world and left it to evolve into the creatures we are today. Whether it intended for us to happen like we did or not cannot be found through science.

 

Absurd statement, how can the creator be re-created in lab, if there is supposed to be one eternal creator. His creation can theoratically be recreated, i.e. adding/subtracting electrons and neutrons can create various different elements, or re-create. The big bang theory is specifically stated, alongside other scientific facts, the thing is you have to put yourself in the mindset of someone from late antiquity who has no knowledge of such facts, to him stating the facts themselves is useless, using allegory that states the facts in easy to understand terms to him, and to us makes it timeless, and therefore useful. Metaphor and allegory are a great teaching tool in themselves, you won't tell a child the speed of light and expect him to understand, you can use metaphors to explain the speed of light, so child would understand in his crude way, adult would understand in his more advanced way = timeless.

 

 

 

Depends on what you mean by nothing. From our point of view, antimatter is nothing since it's opposite of matter. But it can create a lot of energy. And we know energy equals mass, according to Einstein.

 

Oh the irony.

 

What I was asking for was names, dates and details of the experiment(s) that allegedly showed the result.

 

They don't release that in public I think. But CERN most definitely have antimatter stored by magnetic field, and they have collided it with matter using particle accelerator... even if the amount of antimatter used was small. But we don't have the technology to do a proper experiment. I mean, the particle accelerator they used have the radius of about half of Europe's distance!

 

 

Originally posted by JanusRook They don't release that in public I think. But CERN most definitely have antimatter stored by magnetic field, and they have collided it with matter using particle accelerator... even if the amount of antimatter used was small. But we don't have the technology to do a proper experiment. I mean, the particle accelerator they used have the radius of about half of Europe's distance! What?!? No such experiment has ever been accomplished that proved you can create something from nothing.

True AFAIK. However, my question was what experiment has proved that you cannot create something from nothing, since someone asserted that physics had shown it is impossible..

 

Well, I'm surprised Omar, wouldn't it be enough to read the Quran?

 

Where does the Bible specifies that God is outside of time?

The existence of God outside of time means that he is atemporal. If he is outside of time what does he uses to be attuned to Eart's events?

If he's outside of time then what happened/happens/will happen is irrelevant since to God they are all the same. That means it would be useless to speak of the creation of the Universe. Or maybe the Universe exists and God has nothing to do with it.

 

Actually this implies only that He created ...something. Time may have existed before the known universe. Maybe even before God...

The existence of God outside of time means that he is atemporal. If he is outside of time what does he uses to be attuned to Eart's events? He is not atemporal (without type) he is supertemporal, he exists in all times equally and unchanging. He does not need to attune himself to the events of Earth because he is all ready accounted for at all times.

That would make time as being a part of God, not outside him. So, the universe is only a piece of God? (isn't that some kind of pantheism)

If he's outside of time then what happened/happens/will happen is irrelevant since to God they are all the same. That means it would be useless to speak of the creation of the Universe. Perhaps it is useless to speak of the creation of the Universe... Or maybe the Universe exists and God has nothing to do with it. Then that would make him less than God, so then he would not be considered God. -------------------------------------------- Also the Christian God is considered timeless, he was never created, he has always existed in his current form and will continue to exist eternally. All things flow from him, he does not enter into anything since everything is connected to him.

I don't mind about God, but did He created the Universe? Or is the birth of our Universe just a natural event that has nothing to do with god.

Is a child born or is a child created?

A child is conceived, not created. The parents of a child do not create something, they just perpetuate something. Since it's about religion (spirit), my question should have been: "Is a human being created or born".

"Time may even have existed before the known universe. Maybe even before God" This contradicts the definition of a God. If a God were to exist, nothing would be above, before or after him.

Oh, how delightful! Can you give me the definition of a God?

If a God were to exist, would he create the Universe? Especially one where His existance seems to be quite contested?

And if time existed before the Universe, and God is outside time (Janus said this) then "God is" should be rephrased in a way to properly define God. "God was/is/will be" won't do either since time is not enough to define God.

Anyway, I don't think the topic here is God's existance.

 

Originally posted by Knights "Time may even have existed before the known universe. Maybe even before God" This contradicts the definition of a God. If a God were to exist, nothing would be above, before or after him.

 

It may contradict your definition of a God, but it doesn't contradict mine, under which a God does not have to be eternal. And I'm pretty sure my definition has been more widely accepted by humanity over the millenia than yours has. As indeed it is in most religions.

 

 

Interesting, Janus. Are you thinking of birth-growth-death cycle or of a static Universe (dynamically balanced)?

I actually think of the known Universe as something that began, was, is, will be and then will be not. Also I don't think it was created (as in designed, or having a reason for it's start).

If nothing natural doesn't come from God (how about the spiritual realm, is it natural or not?) then also the destruction/end of the Universe is his work. And since time is irrelevant for God (what was/is/will be is the same for Him) then God creates/created/will create and destroyes/destroyed/will destroy the Universe. The creation and destruction of the Universe are the same for God. Now, wouldn't that be useless?

 

Originally posted by JanusRook It may contradict your definition of a God, but it doesn't contradict mine, under which a God does not have to be eternal. So if your God isn't eternal gcle2003, what created him? Just curious to know, since a lack of eternity means that time is linear and there has to a beginning for something to start the whole chain-reaction.

 

Not my God, my definition of a God.

 

In most religions gods are created. In many they die or are doomed to die, as among the Norse. In lots of religions such gods are created - or conceived - by other gods, and that, to modern Western ears, rather means that logically one god at least must have been uncreated.

 

However religions are not necessarily logical or consistent, and they sometimes include for instance the coming into existence of the 'first god' and creator of all else, by accident. Or they see the force or whatever that leads to the emergence of the first god or gods as being not itself a god - indeed as being an 'it' and not any kind of person.

 

It's certainly very frequent to see the most powerful God as having been created/conceived by a less powerful figure.

 

And so on. Mankind's ability to think up different kinds of gods appeary to be unlimited.

 

 

First of all, time is a relative concept; I will try to give an example, but before that we need to find a natural way to measure the time, that means we are leaving our swiss made clocks behind.

 

Lets assume that we have two perfect plain mirrors, and lets assume that we fired a powerfull enough laser beam between these mirrors, and call every reflection of this beam between the mirrors a second.

 

What I did by changing the way I measure time is that I made the time a vector, that has a direction and velocity.

 

Now the thing is what may effect this time vector is going to effect my understanding of time in my reality/ frame.

 

Time is relative, it differes for different frames or lets say points of observation.

 

And back to the topic, the time frame of God is of course different as it should be. A second defined in God's frame maybe thousands of years in our reality, or lets say frame.