# The "Existence of God" debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664 "2013-09-25T18:50:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/61 "2013-09-29T00:03:36Z")
A common example given of the Bible being false is the whole story of the Jews as a slaves in Egypt; it never happened. They weren’t enslaved in Egypt, and there was never any exodus from there. And of course all the various physics-violating miracles in the Bible are _certainly_ “at least partially outdated by scientific discovery accepted unanimously by global standards”. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/62 "2013-10-02T12:36:43Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > The way you compare and present your evidence is at the least unfair. (to the ignorant or lazy visitor) You make it seem as the creation all happened in one moment or in one go according to the Bible. > > Again, it is not stated exactly **how long** that took. It does not state minutes, hours or so. It uses the word day. However the bible also clearly says time measurements (like the word day) for God are much longer than when used for human time marking. (such as the same word day) > > \*\*Genesis 1:9 \*\* > _And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so._ > > All casual readers assume that Genesis does not just talk about creation of Earth and our galaxy but the entire universe. But that is nowhere indicated! Genesis 1:9 shows that the word heavens does **not** mean the entire universe. > > Since it talks about _the waters under the heavens_ it more likely points to our skies or atmosphere or the space surrounding our planet. Maybe it means our solar system. > > I assume this because **Genesis 1:14-16** says > > _And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night;+ and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.+ 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.”+ And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make_ the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars\* > > So moon and sun stars _in the expanse of the heavens_. So again heavens clearly does **not** mean the entire universe. A 12 year old could look up the verses i just did and counter your claims. > I just looked this up 15 minutes ago. No research, didn’t ask anyone. The difference between me and most critics, is that i don’t look at the Bible as rubbish **before** i start looking at the arguments and evidence. > > If you disrespect or hate a source, you won’t read it thoroughly or even try to catch the context. You will want to spend as little time possible to pick what you need to attack it. > The remotest notion that it could be correct is laughable, so your _research_ is clouded. Your not working scientifically at all. And i feel a certain arrogance and perceived superiority over people that lived thousands of years ago. (they must be stupid, we know more!) > Yes i believe in the Bible and you might claim i’m just biased the other way. But the same way i look at the Bible, is how i look at the arguments critics put forward. Let the evidence speak, we don’t need to _pimp_ the facts. > > What i often see here on this forum is a shuffling of the facts, assuming things not even written in the Bible or altering the meaning of words to lend more force to an opinion. > Why would one need such tricks to push their views if you are scientifically sure the Bible is not correct? > Unfortunately scientists are also human and not immune to these habits. Winning (or earning) is the highest (and only) goal for some. > If you follow the news you must have noticed that fraud and plagiarism in the highest regions of science is not rare. (rampant these days) > > How often have macro-evolutionists not been caught faking or altering fossils or data? Sometimes for fun, more often for funds. But it seems on this forum nobody knows or cares to talk about that side. (or did i miss it?) > > I see a lot of people quoting _science_ or _scientists_ as if they’re talking about a friend next door that always speaks the truth. What’s worse there’s relatively few links or sources with their statements. > > Is there anyone here that can show me some solid scientific evidence the Bible is false, a fable, incorrect or at least partially outdated by scientific discovery accepted unanimously by global standards? > > I would love to look at your evidence and sources and take it to the university or ask a professor. I know a few academics. If i am wrong, deluded or wasting my time on the Bible, you can help me. Just give me some solid facts. > PS I hate religion and all the pain it caused. I separate religion and Bible. That’s why i \*study \*the book. > From research and reasoning i distinguish between faiths and know that most religion is indeed scientifically outdated or outright false. > I’m just not convinced the Bible is false. You can burn the rest for all i care. You do know that THE BOOK was written by other humans and even they do not agree. Your belief is not in God but other humans! ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/63 "2013-10-02T13:46:38Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > The way you compare and present your evidence is at the least unfair. (to the ignorant or lazy visitor) You make it seem as the creation all happened in one moment or in one go according to the Bible. > > Again, it is not stated exactly **how long** that took. It does not state minutes, hours or so. It uses the word day. However the bible also clearly says time measurements (like the word day) for God are much longer than when used for human time marking. (such as the same word day) > > \*\*Genesis 1:9 \*\* > _And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so._ > > All casual readers assume that Genesis does not just talk about creation of Earth and our galaxy but the entire universe. But that is nowhere indicated! Genesis 1:9 shows that the word heavens does **not** mean the entire universe. > > Since it talks about _the waters under the heavens_ it more likely points to our skies or atmosphere or the space surrounding our planet. Maybe it means our solar system. > > I assume this because **Genesis 1:14-16** says > > _And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night;+ and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.+ 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.”+ And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make_ the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars\* > > So moon and sun stars _in the expanse of the heavens_. So again heavens clearly does **not** mean the entire universe. A 12 year old could look up the verses i just did and counter your claims. > I just looked this up 15 minutes ago. No research, didn’t ask anyone. The difference between me and most critics, is that i don’t look at the Bible as rubbish **before** i start looking at the arguments and evidence. > Yes i believe in the Bible and you might claim i’m just biased the other way. But the same way i look at the Bible, is how i look at the arguments critics put forward. Let the evidence speak, we don’t need to _pimp_ the facts. Man, it’s a good thing you’re made out of rubber, the way you must twist and bend to escape the obvious. The people who wrote that book knew shit about the world they lived in. They thought the sky was a dome with lights fixed to it. They didn’t know a universe existed. And YES they meant a day when they wrote a day, because that’s what they believed happened. They knew shit about geology or evolution. They didn’t know the earth was that old or how it came to be. You are pouring over texts that are 2000 years out of date, trying to find excuses why it isn’t correct. That is the obvious, not “hmmm this is incorrect, so they must have meant something else”. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/64 "2013-10-02T13:59:26Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > _And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night;+ and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.+ 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.”+ And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make_ the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars\* > > So moon and sun stars _in the expanse of the heavens_. So again heavens clearly does **not** mean the entire universe. A 12 year old could look up the verses i just did and counter your claims. Why doesn’t it mean that? The Moon, Sun and stars are certainly in the universe. But if we look at your alternate options; > [@](#): > > Genesis 1:9 > And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so. > > All casual readers assume that Genesis does not just talk about creation of Earth and our galaxy but the entire universe. But that is nowhere indicated! Genesis 1:9 shows that the word heavens does not mean the entire universe. > > Also, which Bible translation are you using? I’m having trouble finding the exact one. > > Since it talks about the waters under the heavens it more likely points to our skies or atmosphere or the space surrounding our planet. Maybe it means our solar system. There are no stars in the sky; they’re visible in the sky, but that’s not where they are. Likewise the Sun. You could maybe make a case for the Moon. None of them are in the atmosphere, again, merely visible through it. And, while the Sun and Moon are in our solar system, no other stars are, again, just visible from there. The problem with the waters argument is this; [QUOTE=Genesis 9-10] And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,’ and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;’ and God seeth that [it is] good. [/QUOTE] It’s talking about seas. Of course, we have oceans and lakes and ponds and glaciers, etc., so “seas” isn’t an exact term. Basically we have to say it means that water, generally, was gathered together in larger bodies in some format. But that\* is\* true of the universe, so much as we know of it, not just the Earth. So we can certainly make a case that “water under the heavens” refers to all water in the universe - and a stronger one, too, since we have reality to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/65 "2013-10-02T20:36:50Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > The way you compare and present your evidence is at the least unfair. (to the ignorant or lazy visitor) You make it seem as the creation all happened in one moment or in one go according to the Bible. > > Again, it is not stated exactly **how long** that took. It does not state minutes, hours or so. It uses the word day. However the bible also clearly says time measurements (like the word day) for God are much longer than when used for human time marking. (such as the same word day) I never read much Hebrew, but I have read this part in Hebrew. (Even more beautiful than the best translation, btw.) It does say day, and it says evening and morning. Not to mention the importance of the Sabbath as the seventh day, which comes from Genesis and is not the seventh thousand year or whatever period. In addition, the “days” in Genesis do not correspond to periods of equal time in the history of the universe. So you are claiming that day means something different in every verse. And also this jive about what day means only began after science demonstrated how old the universe really was. > [@](#): > > \*\*Genesis 1:9 \*\* > _And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so._ > > All casual readers assume that Genesis does not just talk about creation of Earth and our galaxy but the entire universe. But that is nowhere indicated! Genesis 1:9 shows that the word heavens does **not** mean the entire universe. > > Since it talks about _the waters under the heavens_ it more likely points to our skies or atmosphere or the space surrounding our planet. Maybe it means our solar system. You know about medieval cosmology, right? is there any indication at all that they knew how far away the stars really are? Why would heaven end at the solar system? God is infinite, right? Again, you are trying to reinterpret what is clearly there in light of scientific knowledge. > [@](#): > > I assume this because **Genesis 1:14-16** says > > _And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night;+ and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.+ 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.”+ And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make_ the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars\* Luminary = shine by its own light. True of the sun, not of the moon. The Bible gets it wrong again. > [@](#): > > So moon and sun stars _in the expanse of the heavens_. So again heavens clearly does **not** mean the entire universe. A 12 year old could look up the verses i just did and counter your claims. Groucho: A 12 year old child could understand this. Run out and get me a 12 year old child; I can’t make head nor tail out of it. Stars does not mean entire universe? Sorry, they knew about stars but not about galaxies - though they would show up as stars. What part of heaven is beyond the stars? Any indication that they thought there was anything beyond the stars, besides God’s home itself, which is more a Christian concept. (See Paradiso, which is pretty clear about this kind of cosmology.) > [@](#): > > I just looked this up 15 minutes ago. No research, didn’t ask anyone. The difference between me and most critics, is that i don’t look at the Bible as rubbish **before** i start looking at the arguments and evidence. > > If you disrespect or hate a source, you won’t read > it thoroughly or even try to catch the context. You will want to spend as little time possible to pick what you need to attack it. > The remotest notion that it could be correct is laughable, so your _research_ is clouded. Your not working scientifically at all. And i feel a certain arrogance and perceived superiority over people that lived thousands of years ago. (they must be stupid, we know more!) The Bible isn’t rubbish. It reflects the cosmology of people who lived a long time ago, and which was utterly incorrect. We are no doubt incorrect about lots of stuff also. I can see a kid say “you are telling me that 1 + 2 is not = 4? How arrogant!” > [@](#): > > Yes i believe in the Bible and you might claim i’m just biased the other way. But the same way i look at the Bible, is how i look at the arguments critics put forward. Let the evidence speak, we don’t need to _pimp_ the facts. > > What i often see here on this forum is a shuffling of the facts, assuming things not even written in the Bible or altering the meaning of words to lend more force to an opinion. > Why would one need such tricks to push their views if you are scientifically sure the Bible is not correct? So, logical thinking is a trick? Figures. When my kids were 12 I taught them about religion by reading these very passages with them. I started by pointing out the obvious errors and contradictions, but they soon were able to do it by themselves, since they are smart kids. They are both now adults, and both atheists. You are ignoring or laughing off thousands of years of Bible interpretation. How come nobody got your interpretation until Science showed them the way? > [@](#): > > Unfortunately scientists are also human and not immune to these habits. Winning (or earning) is the highest (and only) goal for some. > If you follow the news you must have noticed that fraud and plagiarism in the highest regions of science is not rare. (rampant these days) Do you realize how many thousands of scientific papers get published? It is not rampant. It is very rare. Mistakes and illogical conclusions are much, much more common, but screening them out is what peer review is for. > [@](#): > > How often have macro-evolutionists not been caught faking or altering fossils or data? Sometimes for fun, more often for funds. But it seems on this forum nobody knows or cares to talk about that side. (or did i miss it?) Piltdown man and …? Want to talk about all those predictions of the end of the world which never happened? All the fake relics? All the faked bleeding Jesuses? > [@](#): > > Is there anyone here that can show me some solid scientific evidence the Bible is false, a fable, incorrect or at least partially outdated by scientific discovery accepted unanimously by global standards? > > I would love to look at your evidence and sources and take it to the university or ask a professor. I know a few academics. If i am wrong, deluded or wasting my time on the Bible, you can help me. Just give me some solid facts. Why don’t you tell us first what the Bible actually says. The date of Adam is really quite clear. Was that correct? did Adam and Eve and the Garden actually exist? Or does a year of the life of the patriarchs actually mean a thousand years? And if it says that A begat B, are you going to say that it really means A begat C begat D begat … begat B, because that makes the numbers work out. Did a global flood happen? You may believe in the Bible, but you don’t appear to put much credence into the words written in the Bible. BTW, which academic are you planning to talk to. They are hardly all the same. A theology professor at a Bible college is going to give a different answer than Richard Dawkins. It is no accident that except for a very few cases, most creationist academics are not biologists and most biologists (and all good ones) are not creationists. Even Behe is not a creationist. > [@](#): > > PS I hate religion and all the pain it caused. I separate religion and Bible. That’s why i \*study \*the book. > From research and reasoning i distinguish between faiths and know that most religion is indeed scientifically outdated or outright false. > I’m just not convinced the Bible is false. You can burn the rest for all i care. So, you understand the Bible better than thousands of well trained theologians. Now that sounds kind of arrogant. ---
**Author:** ![Sillypandaaa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7bcc69/32.png) [@Sillypandaaa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sillypandaaa)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/66 "2013-10-03T04:54:14Z")
People are dropping the word religion a lot, but asking the question does God exist, holds much greater weight then just observing what humans have done with their beliefs the past thousands of years… No human being can explain how nothing became something; which is our universe and the incredibly complex world. What makes you so sure this is all even real? How do you know if what you see is really as it appears? Call him/her/it whatever you want but we have to accept there is a power out there out side of our understanding. War has come of religion because human beings can’t practice the one rule many of our religions share, and that is love. ---
**Author:** ![nosceteipsum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8797f3/32.png) [@nosceteipsum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nosceteipsum)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/67 "2013-10-03T05:01:46Z")
If anything, the closest theory to who/what god is, that i find amusing and as close as it gets to the truth: Aliens from elsewhere came to earth They were extremely smart, and used monkeys and apes to boost them into super monkeys and apes, called humans. They believed that their creation, the humans will do great things. They left the planet to let humans grow and develop on their own. mutations happen, environment shapes different races in different places, etc etc, but we are the same species. Our god is our ancient ancient ancestor, which are aliens. not a bad theory? I wouldnt mind having alien great great grandparents. Interestingly, the asian culture is heavily influenced by the belief that they are descended from the dragons o.o maybe we had dragon ancestors!. I wanna be a dragon… ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/68 "2013-10-03T06:12:00Z")
> [@Sillypandaaa](#): > > No human being can explain how nothing became something; which is our universe and the incredibly complex world. You are correct, Unfortunately the rest of your post is you, a human, attempting to explain the universe and our incredibly complex world by attributing it to some mystical higher power that you have no possible way of demonstrating exists. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/69 "2013-10-03T06:29:07Z")
> [@Sillypandaaa](#): > > No human being can explain how nothing became something… In the beginning there was nothing…including rules that would preclude something coming from nothing. That was easy. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/70 "2013-10-03T07:55:32Z")
> [@Sillypandaaa](#): > > What makes you so sure this is all even real? Because it is self consistent and beyond my ability to dream up on my own. And because there’s no point in thinking otherwise, unless and until evidence comes up that it _isn’t_ real. > [@Sillypandaaa](#): > > Call him/her/it whatever you want but we have to accept there is a power out there out side of our understanding. No, we don’t “have to”. I believe no such thing. > [@Sillypandaaa](#): > > War has come of religion because human beings can’t practice the one rule many of our religions share, and that is love. Garbage. War comes from religion because slaughtering and oppressing people is an effective means of spreading and protecting religious dogma, and that’s the only real purpose any religion has. And there’s nothing particularly profound or peaceful about “love”. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/71 "2013-10-03T09:06:53Z")
> [@Sillypandaaa](#): > > the one rule many of our religions share, and that is love. Hahaha! wait, you’re not serious are you? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/72 "2013-10-03T19:29:25Z")
> [@Sillypandaaa](#): > > People are dropping the word religion a lot, but asking the question does God exist, holds much greater weight then just observing what humans have done with their beliefs the past thousands of years… No human being can explain how nothing became something; which is our universe and the incredibly complex world. What makes you so sure this is all even real? How do you know if what you see is really as it appears? Call him/her/it whatever you want but we have to accept there is a power out there out side of our understanding. War has come of religion because human beings can’t practice the one rule many of our religions share, and that is love. A voice of wisdom in the midst of confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/73 "2013-10-03T19:30:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In the beginning there was nothing…including rules that would preclude something coming from nothing. > > That was easy. In the beginning…the laws of physics did not apply. So something could indeed come from nothing. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/74 "2013-10-03T19:40:13Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > A voice of wisdom in the midst of confusion. that is a scary thought. > [@Farin](#): > > In the beginning…the laws of physics did not apply. So something could indeed come from nothing. 😃 ‘nothing’ does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/75 "2013-10-03T19:48:05Z")
> [@simster](#): > > that is a scary thought. > > ‘nothing’ does not exist. You should have seen my bank account two days ago. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/76 "2013-10-04T14:46:31Z")
> [@simster](#): > > ‘nothing’ does not exist. It does not exist _inside the universe_. But if the universe is/was expanding, what is/was it expanding into? It had to be nothingness, as the theory goes. There is also the possibility that the universe is/was expanding into an energy “field” of some sort. But the possibility of nothingness exists. (If you have faith. 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/77 "2013-10-05T11:56:51Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > It does not exist _inside the universe_. But if the universe is/was expanding, what is/was it expanding into? It had to be nothingness, as the theory goes. There is also the possibility that the universe is/was expanding into an energy “field” of some sort. > > But the possibility of nothingness exists. (If you have faith. 😃 ) One has to be in existence in order to exist. So there fore it is impossible for nothing to exist… ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/78 "2013-10-05T12:10:27Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > One has to be in existence in order to exist. So there fore it is impossible for nothing to exist… If the laws of physics don’t apply, why does something have to be in existence in order to exist? You are taking the fundamental rules of our universe and applying them to something outside of that universe. Also, if the laws of physics don’t exist (and the basic newtonian theories don’t apply, thus no conservation of energy) then you shouldn’t be bound to needing constituents elements being in existence in order to react and make something. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2013, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/79 "2013-10-05T12:18:45Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > If the laws of physics don’t apply, why does something have to be in existence in order to exist? You are taking the fundamental rules of our universe and applying them to something outside of that universe. > > Also, if the laws of physics don’t exist (and the basic newtonian theories don’t apply, thus no conservation of energy) then you shouldn’t be bound to needing constituents elements being in existence in order to react and make something. Evidence that anything outside of our universe exists? If there is anything outside our universe, there cannot be ‘nothing’. Nothing is a ‘concept’, but in reality ‘nothing’ is an impossibility. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2013, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664/80 "2013-10-05T12:19:15Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > If the laws of physics don’t apply, why does something have to be in existence in order to exist? You are taking the fundamental rules of our universe and applying them to something outside of that universe. > > Also, if the laws of physics don’t exist (and the basic newtonian theories don’t apply, thus no conservation of energy) then you shouldn’t be bound to needing constituents elements being in existence in order to react and make something. What do you mean with ‘outside’ the universe? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-god-debate/669664.md?page=5)