Physics making me believe god might exist

The higher I go in physics the more I come to believe that an invisible all powerful God isn't as stupid as I earlier thought,things like Antimatter, black matter,atoms,radio waves,ultraviolet waves,wind energy (and only until recently black holes) cannot be seen but are very powerful and have all being proven to exist by scientific experiments, these are just a fraction of things that have been discovered in our tiny coverage of the universe therefore I'm starting to believe our knowledge of the universe is extremely inadequate and that life could exist in different forms like waves etc and just not in flesh and blood and that beings as powerful as "god" could exist just not the way we expect them to be

Is It Normal?
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 38 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • I feel that way too. Its much more likely some higher power created the universe. It seems naive to me that people thing its more likely that tje universe designed itself. If you look at a human body or a mammals body, just for an example, its body is built like an engine. The heart pumps the blood, the lungs provide the oxygen, the brain controls it, the veins supply the blood it just seems unlikely to me that just happened on its own from millions of years. Thats a very intelligent design. I dont believe a bunch of mindless atoms and cells just happen to come up with that design on their own.

    I say that as someone that is not religious. I dont believe much of the bible. But I do think it's likely there was some type of intelligent force that created us. Whether its something like us, or something we can not understand.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • "beings as powerful as "god" could exist just not the way we expect them to be"

    Aliens basically.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • There are lots of cool things out there and we don't understand all of it, therefore God exists? That seems like a bit of a leap to me. I don't think that's a very good argument at all.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Well just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean we can’t proof it exists we might proof it’s existence through simple reasoning,experimentation and in some cases just calculations,for example several hundred years ago people were able to figure out if we cut anything into half continuously we might get to a point where we might not see it anymore but then it didn’t mean it was no more in existence it only meant it was too small to be seen by an unaided eye that was how the idea of cells evolved and today we’ve all come to accept it’s a reality this is the same as black holes just by reasoning and the use of a formula the idea of a black hole was formed it sounded stupid even to the person behind this theory and now several hundred years in 2019 we have a visible proof that black holes exist now I beginning to look at other theories and stumbled across one of the most widely held theories of the universe(the creation theory) and I realized it’s not that stupid even from a scientific point of view,it’s very hard for a physicist to believe in time dilation for example and yet totality reject the idea of higher powers, even staunch atheists like Stephen hawking believed in a “higher power” and warned of attracting aliens to earth another high ranking physicist and staunch atheist Neil Bohr had this to say “The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT A GENUINE REALITY”. All I’m just saying is my continuous study of these strange phenomena makes rejecting the believe of God or other higher powers harder and harder

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • It's impossible for god to exist. But it's impossible that the universe exists w/o a god who made it. Stay curious and stay humble as you learn and reevaluate what you learn. (Me? I dunno)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I'll make it easy for you. God doesn't exist.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I've had similar thoughts on magic mushrooms. I dug deep into my mind and came up with the most basic truth I could imagine and it was basically what jesus said about how you should love everyone as yourself as we are all one.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Perfectly normal. If you think about it, we know virtually nothing about the world. I think over 80% of our ocean is unmapped, unobserved, and uncovered. We also don't have cures to many diseases as we often rely on the next best thing: treatments.
    We know nothing about life, death, the universe, why we dream, etc. Science itself backs up this claim as we say there isn't proof, but evidence. Proof can only exist when there is no doubt and there is always doubt.
    We could be in a whole simulation if you think about it. There is no proof that we are not in a simulation such as there is no proof that God did not create the universe. What if evidence of evolution is God's doing and we just haven't figured it out because God gave us free will to figure it out ourselves?
    As you said, everything is so intricate that it wouldn't make sense that rocks, atoms, and cells did all the work. I think it's interesting that we just give them all the credit. Humans design things with a purpose (homes, clothes, roads, etc), I also think we were designed bigger than the purpose to live.
    It's clear that we are using the science of deduction to explain everything, but most of the time there are exceptions to rules, hence why we know nothing.
    All science is my opinion is the study of patterns in (our bodies, nature, matter, etc). I find it hard to believe that we are intelligent beings with no purpose. In science, we often say that everything has or had a purpose and it wouldn't make sense to waste energy. Why not extend that belief to human beings? What's our purpose? Our meaning in life? Don't know? Welcome to one of the gazillion things we don't know. Many, including myself, believe in a higher being because we feel or observe something science itself can't explain. You can't just give all the credit to science itself unless you acknowledge that there is a higher being that is bigger than science and therefore responsible for that science.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I don't know what you're on but it is some good shit for sure.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • If there one day appears to be a foolproof theory which has been tested and stacks up against similar studies that also come to the conclusion that God is real, I will join the "believer" club, and not a second before.

    None of this "maybe he exists in this form or that form" shit. If you want to support creationist theory with your own evidence, then fine, but it must be concrete enough to hold water.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I mean I'm an atheist but this is still normal I feel like.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • "Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness." - Blaise Pascal

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Blaise Pascal was a terribly confused and deluded old man. Using decision theory and logic, his flawed conjectures have been straightened out. To read more, go to this link

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist's_Wager

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Your wikipedia article makes me sad. That is not how most religions work. In Judaism, the only people who go to Heaven are those who believe in God and have followed their many religious laws. In Christianity, the only people who go to Heaven are those who believe in God and have lived morally acceptable lives. In Islam, the only people who go to Heaven believe in allah and follow his teachings. In Hindu, those who are the closest to achieving enlightenment are those who are priests of the Hindu religion. The "Aetheist's Wager" is a nonsensical argument.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • The ancient scriptures of these religions are folklore that became written down. As it turns out, certain ideas control the masses much better than others. Over the centuries, the less effective ideas die out. The best time tested ideas to control the masses have been Resurrection (Christianity) and 72 Virgins in paradise (Islam). Even today, emotional people fall for this shit.

          Use your brain and lead a good life. If a vengeful God waits after you die, tell him his anger is unjustified and you reject his malevolence.

          That is all.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • I don't understand what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. If you're saying religion is a sham, then I have to disagree.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • I'm saying religion is an institution created to control the masses. To do this, you must incentivize people to participate. This creates a positive social benefit. But, the individual bears the internal detriments of fears and other maladaptive psychological conflicts that are planted to ensure conformity.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • So when you can't explain or understand things anymore, it has to be god?
    Your naivety is interesting.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I get what youre saying,but the reason is day in and day out we are discovering weird forces,phenomena etc that exist in the universe,some of these cannot even be seen hence the believe in God or other energies is all of a sudden not seeming that stupid to me

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Yeah lots of stuff we can't technically see, but they are observable or quantifiable through other means. It almost seems like you're thinking with the same mindset as ancient humans, that anything that can't be physically seen must be the work of some deity. You got to understand that we, as humans, have been making discoveries despite the belief of a god. Sure human understanding is probably limited, but don't start thinking a god exists just because there are some unanswered questions.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
      • Yes, but who will you follow: a false doctrine of rules rules rules, following your own rules, or any doctrine that gives you no boss? Something you can learn from Christopher Hitchens: theism of God's commands for anyone who wants a boss, if not, then you can make up your own morals for yourself.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • one can believe there is more to this life than the immediate physical world without resortin to religion or morality discussions or usin em to make up different rules than what already exists in society

          why does one need to connect rules for life to theism?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
        • "Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness." - Blaise Pascal

          Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I don't know where you got that from. Reading his comment it says that the more he learns and understands things the more he believes in a higher power.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Perfectly normal, many atheists and antitheists are encouraged to believe in anything to do with God and end up believing in it if they had any counter-evidence that their irreligion is the only truth, e.g. it proves that religion in all its obscurities can suck you into believing a truth of the ultimate reality as long as it doesn't make you a slave and makes you without a boss ruling your life, then yes this is normal, and yes it's normal for such confirmation bias to be the reason for an atheist's conversion from non-belief to belief.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Man just the fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio prove a higher power/ intelligent creator exists. Nothing that perfect happens by accident

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 1. Hitchen's Razor:

    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    You don't need to & can't prove that God exists, so before you find any actual evidence that proves the existence of God, you can assume that he doesn't exist.

    2. Alder's razor/Newton's Flaming Laser Sword

    If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate.

    Apparently, you can't use an experiment to prove God's existence, so this problem IS NOT WORTH DEBATING.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -

    • I'm also confused by you logic. There are many things that we don't know --> so God exists? That's a weird logic.

      You're thinking in the mindset of ancient humans.

      Thousands of years ago, people had no idea why there are earthquakes & volcano eruptions.

      Just like you, they realized that they know very little about the world. Therefore they imagined a God who is causing all the earthquakes & volcanos eruptions because he's angry at humans. Ha, this is very convenient -- it explains everything.

      But now we know that earthquakes & volcano eruptions are only due to the movement of the tectonic plates. I believe that it's likely that similar explanations will come for things like dark matter & antimatter after thousands of years.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • I get you but I’m looking at this with a slightly different mentality,well it’s not the explanation for this phenomena but rather the phenomena themselves,volcanoes etc can be seen and even though they’re strange they’re not too wired like what we’re discovering recently;some of these things cant even be seen and they defy all our physical understanding of this world hence the idea of a God or some “special” beings existing is getting less stupid,believe me some of these stuff are really weird indeed

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • He dose my boy

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • In science circles physicists are open to the existence of God. It is socials scientists that are atheists.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment