No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

When the heat death of the Universe occurs there will be no black holes as they will all have evaporated

Did you miss the word “vacuum”??

Black Holes absorb far more energy than they emit (hence “black”). Once they have absorbed everything close by, they eventually collide with each other, explode, form new galaxies, and do it all over again. Galaxies merely get recreated in different positions. No “heat death”, else it would have happened infinitely long ago.

Given enough time a black hole will have emitted all of its energy before it can collide with another. Collision is a relatively rare
event given the distances between stars and even moreso given how the space between galaxies is expanding due to dark energy

“Dark Energy” contracts space, not expands. It is formed of the mass field that has not yet compressed into solid matter. The Black Holes absorb that as well. And that portion of the universe is much, much greater than the mass of the visible objects. Space could not keep energy dispersed even if it wanted to.

It was an incoherent theory from the word “go”.

The Big Bang is still happening since the Universe is expanding due to inflation but dark energy is
also causing galaxies to move further away from each other and their red shift is evidence of this

Red-shift is NOT evidence of it. Red-shift is due to light having to travel through billions of light years worth of affectance. The blue in the light gets more dispersed the further it travels, especially through “dark matter”. And if it was expanding, there would have to be a center from which it expands. They have never found a center point.

The universe is not expanding, never was, never will.

I am very sceptical of that given that what you call affectance is really a vacuum and also that it is your personal theory
Light can be bent when passing close to massive objects but in empty space there is nothing there for it to interact with

You can call it “ultra-minuscule electromagnetic radiation”, if you prefer. Even you can know that all space is filled with EMR. Even the Quantum Magi don’t argue with that. And space is only a vacuum of particles. There is no absolute vacuum of everything.

And just as you pointed out, light visibly bends when passing large mass objects. The blue bends more than the red. And in fact, it bends any time it is in a gravitational field. And it is actually never outside a gravitational field. Look at the path of the Solar system. No matter how far away it is from that small black hole in the milky way, it is still swayed into an orbit. Now if the field is so effective as that on huge stars and massive planets at such a distance, imagine the effect it can have on light.

And still further, and more importantly, what you are calling “dark matter/energy” also has gravitational effect (that is why they proclaimed its existence). Billions of light years worth of gravitation, and you don’t think it has any effect upon light? Get real.

The idea of Red-shift is old and far outdated. It is no more accurate than Newton’s laws of motion. The idea of the Big Bang is similar, inspired for religious reasons, far outdated.

Electromagnetic radiation cannot exist everywhere because otherwise there would no darkness

The Big Bang does not represent the beginning of the Universe just the beginning of local cosmic expansion

What is outdated is the notion of a singularity which is physically impossible and also forbidden by quantum mechanics

Empty space is not an absolute vacuum but is nonetheless treated as a vacuum even though at the quantum level it is not empty at all

Oh come now. You know better than that. Visible light is a very small part of the EMR spectrum. And even with that, Science has never been able to establish absolute blackness. Every mass body emits radiation.

I see. So now we are at the stage of redefining it into existence, much like the Second Law. I am still not convinced of local expansion either.

Quantum Physics is fantasy fairyland. But yes, the original “singularity” is impossible, but it too is being redefined into something more real. I don’t think they have settled on what yet.

Even if you do not accept that the Big Bang actually happened that is the furthest point back in time that physics can go
That does not mean nothing happened before it just that what ever did happen [ if anything did ] is not currently known

Then why not just say that you had an eye operation? I would have given you some leeway. :mrgreen:

I do not intuit that we can come to know that God exists.
Can we do know more than just have that feeling and to speculate?
Of course, one’s human experience isS different than knowing. That sense of qualia which leads us down the path to belief is not actual knowledge ~ is it?

Of course, we can know what God is like to believers…the good and the bad.

A friend of ours dragged us to Christmas Eve Mass. The church was decorated beautifully. I so loved the trees on the alter (I love trees) and all of the decorations. I so enjoyed singing all of the spiritual Christmas songs especially Oh Holy Night since I grew up with them. That has always been my favorite. I cannot believe but I can sense the spirit within Christmas and that song grabs me at my core. I sang my heart out even though I cannot believe now. But I suppose that it is the residue that is left behind within me which caused me to enjoy it and to feel so good about it. At the same time, I realize that that there was a sense of loss trying to push through because of what I had at one time believed. Believers are the lucky ones to me BUT what I would compare the feeling to ~~ it would be similar to the loss of a great friend who I came to realize was not really there at all…not real at all. So you choke back the tear and move on.

But ask me if I prayed? But then again, they do say that singing is praying twice.

Happy New Year, Ierrellus.

Eyes repaired, I can now see the posts. I think the problem here amounts to discovering how words can convey meaning and communicate that meaning to another being. A word is a vehicle, it is not the essence of meaning, which has to do with qualia. As I stated earlier, an experience can be put into understandable words, hence communicated, only if the qualia of sender and receiver is synonymous. Denial is a personal admission; it does not relate to anyone but you. But I don’t really see a dearth of spiritual consciousness here, just college kids playing word games and boasting about what they will not to know. .

taoism.net/ttc/chapters/chap01.htm

But can’t words be guides toward having the enlightenment experience? I realize they are not the experience in and of itself.

Yes. That’s why even the Zen Buddhists, who reject dogma and scripture, use words as tools. There are Zen stories and the famous koans. It’s why Jesus spoke in parables. Words take you to the edge. The fewer words the better. Adding more words can take you away from the edge.

What is problematic is when people [driven psychologically] reify what is beyond the normal and invent more complicated word to it, e.g. an reified God which is illusory.

In Zen, the Buddhist ‘progress’ towards an extreme state of emptiness, i.e. “Reality-is …” but simultaneously submerges, engages and entangles with reality-is via various Framework and System.

For those who have never experienced the presence of God all talk of God is about illusion. Nothing of a real presence is reified, just thoughts after the fact when one tries in vain to convince others that the experience can be had by anyone.

You have to excuse Prismatic. He’s a very persistent and irrational gadfly.

And Irrellus, You’d have to excuse them for the like reason of claiming the above.

For faith is prior to its negation, and its basically a logical fallacy to see it otherwise. At the very least, a disproof is as difficult as a proof, thereby.