Why would God create billions of other galaxies?

So you are saying that no collisions = proof of God, but collisions also = proof of God . . .

 

So we could dream about travelling to them?

 

To formalize the argument sketched above, the following definitions and axioms are needed:

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

Axiom 4 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel comments that "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gödel 1995). Axioms 1, 2 and 3 can be summarized by saying that positive properties form a principal ultrafilter.

From these axioms and definitions and a few other axioms from modal logic, the following theorems can be proved:

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Symbolically:

\begin{array}{rl} \text{Ax. 1.} & \left\{P(\varphi) \wedge \Box \; \forall x[\varphi(x) \to \psi(x)]\right\} \to P(\psi) \\ \text{Ax. 2.} & P(\neg \varphi) \leftrightarrow \neg P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 1.} & P(\varphi) \to \Diamond \; \exists x[\varphi(x)] \\ \text{Df. 1.} & G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)] \\ \text{Ax. 3.} & P(G) \\ \text{Th. 2.} & \Diamond \; \exists x \; G(x) \\ \text{Df. 2.} & \varphi \text{ ess } x \iff \varphi(x) \wedge \forall \psi \left\{\psi(x) \to \Box \; \forall y[\varphi(y) \to \psi(y)]\right\} \\ \text{Ax. 4.} & P(\varphi) \to \Box \; P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 3.} & G(x) \to G \text{ ess } x \\ \text{Df. 3.} & E(x) \iff \forall \varphi[\varphi \text{ ess } x \to \Box \; \exists y \; \varphi(y)] \\ \text{Ax. 5.} & P(E) \\ \text{Th. 4.} & \Box \; \exists x \; G(x) \end{array}

There is an ongoing open-source effort to formalize Gödel's proof to a level that is suitable for automated theorem proving or at least computer verification via proof assistants. The effort made headlines in German newspapers. According to the authors of this effort, they were inspired by Melvin Fitting's book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

 

And that's how easy humans are deceived.

 

Everything that exists proves the existence of God...from particles of atoms, to the anatomy of every living thing, to every galaxy.
Mathematics is the creation of God, not humans. Nothing exists that was not created by creation.

 

Shock Wave: 2nd-Strongest Wave From Merging Galaxy Cluster Identified

I'm curious about how long it will take the shock wave to reach us, and if it will be like a tsunami.

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t58.6885-6/c0.40.502.224/p320x320/13195092_1618903081763761_2087309276_n.jpg

 

explanation.....
http://sostrenews.com/shock-wave-2nd-strongest-wave-merging-galaxy-cluster-identified/

 

this is circular reasoning.

 

I can make you contradict that declaration with one simple question.....wanna try?

 

Do you really think someone with a deep understanding of science and physics could choose to be a theist? At best perhaps agnostic. And do you think they could choose to believe the bible as 100% literal inspired word of God?
Just as one with no knowledge of science, but brought up in a deeply religious family. Could they choose to believe there is any evidence, much less abundant evidence to the scientific writings of the universe?

I think not. I think one's choices are made up of who they are and the environment that surrounded them.

 

Somebody told you there are satellites in space and you believed them? Do you have any proof of these satellites, or do you just mock the word of God and believe whatever man tells you? Let me know if you ever come across any proof of satellites or for that matter, space?

 

The people that instilled this in your head or so full of s()()()! The earth is established, it cannot be moved. You probably think the coriolis effect is real to. It is said that snipers must adjust for the coriolis effect. While at the same time they say that the atmosphere spins with the planet. I guess the coriolis effect can pick and choose which objects it disturbs. For if it truly existed, one should be able to hover straight up in a helicopter for one hour, and upon landing be 1,000 miles from where they started, because the earth supposedly spins at a little over 1,000 mph. It's funny people will believe this instead of the Bible. The earth is stationary and flat. Just like your senses say.

Psalm 104:5
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

1 Chronicles 16:30
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 96:10
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

The lucipehrians say, all the earth does is move. You choose

 

We've known since the 90s that planets exist around other stars. This is old news at this point and not even disputed.

In addition to the other ways they can be detected, here is the first optical light image of an exoplanet courtesy of the wonderful Hubble Telescope.



From:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/11/13_exoplanet.shtml

 

I wasn't able to make any sense out of your post, but I appreciate it all the same.

Take care,
Zorro

 

Are you actually really saying the Earth is flat and does not move? You're actually saying this, in 2016?

If this is the case, please.....please....don't vote.

 

Of course.

That's a lot of qualifiers. I love the bible, it is a window into the minds of the ancients in a way that I don't have a lot of other ways to access. Watching them struggle with many of the same things we struggle with today gives me a sense of kinship with these ancient humans. Take the books of Kings, Chronicles and Samuel, I get to watch hear and through the psalms very directly experience the anguish of a warrior culture trying to take on enemies who had entered the iron age ahead of them. They tried and fought so hard, they tried to fortify their courage, their faith but they were using stone tipped weapons against steel tipped and edged weapons. To be able to ride along with them battle by battle, I just don't know how else to do this, and yes I enjoy it immensely.

I also understand that this was an ancient culture, the writings are given to exaggerated rhetoric, which was understood by those of the day, they were written for oral exhortation as many who heard the writings delivered orally did not have access to them. So these are written oral presentation documents.

Then we with our greco-roman impacted, post enlightenment minds tear them up as if they were written legal documents, which is fine as well, but that causes some to tear them up as useless. Are they really? Or are some using a useless approach to them?

Are you saying you are without choice? I think the ability to make real choices is central to a moral life. And I believe that our choices are just that, very real free-will choices, and as such, they are incredibly important. We and our lives are the sum of them.

 

Try this one for size:

i) If God does not exist, there is no real free will.

Do you think that statement is true or false?

 

Here shortly it will be proven. For some, it already has. You think that it's rotating and it's a sphere, that's funny. You also think the only way in which water can curve, is on the surface of the earth. Did you know the first scientific process is observation. Can you observe the curvature of the earth, honestly. Because if you can, that means you would be able to take a picture or video of it. That would be weird to actually see a real picture of the earth. Something not even nasa can do. So the first scientific process cannot be done, what about the second? A demonstration, and for most scientists one that is repeatable. Can you demonstrate how water forms in a curve, and stays that way all the time? Nop, there goes that process. I think with just these two processes, it is safe to say that the sphere earth is not scientific facts, it's not even scientific. But hey, believe what you will.

Let me guess you won't believe the Bible because it was written by man? How then can you believe the science books, or for that matter any book?

- - - Updated - - -

That's not surprising at all.

 

How can one be so gullible? That little spec they circled, how many more are in that same pic? They just circle one, tell you it's a planet, and you eat it up like a burger and fries. Tell me, can you, not what you have been told, but you, tell me how that is a planet?

God's firmament separates the waters above, from the waters below. I would have to say whatever we are observing here is in water. God gave us two great lights, one for the day, and one for the night. He also made the stars. He placed them within the firmament, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither, if God does not exist, nothing does.

 

There is no such thing as the "firmament". And no, you are not looking at water in that image. There may be water molecules among the gas and dust around that star, and perhaps even on the planet(though doubtful that it would exist in liquid form). But what you are seeing is the light from the star reflecting off of the gas and dust in orbit around it as well as the light reflecting off of the planet itself.

From this one image alone, no I cannot tell you that it is a planet. With the combined science that was done to establish it as a planet, then yes, I could.

But what's even more interesting than the planet here, is that you think it's logical to believe a book written thousands of years ago by comparatively stupid people and take what it says as the truth, but you question what modern science, which can show it's work, tells you. Your standards for believing in impossible deities and impossible physics seem to be extremely low, if they exist at all, but your standards for believing what modern science(that helped create the computer you're typing on) can prove to you are asininely high.

Also, going back to your "Earth is not moving" theory. If Earth did not move, we would have no magnetic field. It is the rotation of the liquid part of the Earth's core around the solid part that creates that magnetic field that protects you from radiation that comes from both the sun and from outside of our solar system. No magnetic field and our planet would be Mars. The solar wind from the sun would blow away our atmosphere and we would freeze, assuming we weren't killed by the hazardous ultraviolet light that would be washing over everything unimpeded during daytime.

You sir, are wrong. In everything you've said in this thread, except for maybe the wording of the Bible quotes you posted. Pure flat out wrong. There is no other way of putting the truth to you. You are wrong.

 

Meanwhile,back in the real word,...

 

Flat earthers are the best. A reminder of how terrifyingly ignorant people can be sure but tremendously entertaining.

 

I don't..

 

Or have children.

 

Because he knew we would build a supper-colliding super conductor and destroy half those galaxies with our black hole.