Says who? Conservation of Mass is only considered to apply to isolated systems. Whilst the universe is now considered to be an isolated system in itself, it was not OF an isolated system. If you are going to try and quote physics, it would be a good idea for you to learn some.
So, the matter came from outside of the universe? Cause from what I can tell, no matter where the matter came from, it could not have even existed. The thing about isolated systems is that even if you bring something into one, that thing had to come from somewhere.
You almost started to grasp it, and then it fell hopelessly through your fingers. If you really want to understand the start of the universe take a look at the the following link, where an actual theoretical physicist can explain to you, how you can get a universe from "nothing". [link]
All of which is a completely separate argument to the largest flaw in your own argument. Even assuming that you are correct, and god exists, and god is the reason that the universe exists. Why does god exist?
The zero energy hypothesis makes absolutely no sense unless you live in a closed universe. That guy claims the universe is flat. honestly, the theory is the dumbest thing since the invention of political parties.
I admit I'm not very familiar with relativity, but I will cite this guy [link] because I've gone over his math and it all checks out. Heck, he's even an atheist too.
Not to mention the theory only ever got started because mathematicians have hard ons for adding zeros and multiplying by ones.
Also, I think you mean "how does Go exist" not "why". But since I'm not sure, I'll answer both.
The why doesn't matter. He could exist to pop bubble wrap. That's one of the reasons I'd choose to exist.
The how is also irrelevant. Omnipotence is generally incompatible with scientific stuff. By definition, a truly omnipotent being could exist outside the laws and influence of time and space.
Wow, you're really into your psudoscience aren't you? So what you're saying is that, instead of taking the word of a world renowned theoretical physicist, who's work has been published and checked by every scientist out there who could get famous and rich by proving him wrong, you instead chose to believe a 700 word blog written by an anonymous author on the internet?
All of which is completely besides the point. I was not pointing out Lawrence Krauss because of his views on religion, I was pointing out his video as the most concise and easily understood explanation of the start of the universe.
The "flat universe theory" isn't even Krauss's theory, it is actually the peer reviewed and tried and proven theory of the scientific community. If you had spent any time to actually look at the video, rather than search for counter answers online you would already know this.
The thing is, we KNOW the universe is flat, because using that as a basis for a theory we can make predictions about things we have not yet observed, we predict how they SHOULD be if our theory is correct, and then we test the theory. If our predictions are correct, then the underlying theory is usually at least partially correct.
Finally if you are not familiar with relativity then you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None. Without understanding relativity you cannot in any way discuss this in an informed basis. What I mean is, I you don't know anything about relativity, you are talking complete crap.
Moving on, saying that you checked the guys maths, and then saying that "Not to mention the theory only ever got started because mathematicians have hard ons for adding zeros and multiplying by ones." Shows you up as a liar. If you had any understanding of Maths, you would know that this is most certainly NOT the case. Maths is the language of the universe, using maths you can model and predict everything, so long as you have a sufficiently powerful calculator.
And onto my final question. I really meant why. You are saying that a being that exists outside of space and time would not be measurable by our methods. Fine. But why do you think he exists?
We know the universe exists. Its here, unless we go so far as to doubt our very minds, then we cannot question its existence.
You are in essence saying that because it exists we therefore have an eternal and loving god who cares about how you have sex.
How do you get one from the other? Why do you think god exists? What evidence are you basing this theory on?
What is your original cause?
And isn't it just as easy to theorise that the universe started through magic as it is to theorise that "god dun it"?
... pseudoscience. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Unless Newtonian physics are pseudoscience now.
Krauss says that gravitational potential energy is negative energy. Well, if that's the case, the universe has the wrong amount of mass. The amount of energy needed to move infinitely far away from an object is equal to
where g is the gravitational constant, the m's are the masses and d is the starting distance. The speed the object is moving is called the escape velocity.
Now, using that, we can tell how much energy is locked up in the universe based on the mas of the universes.
Now, you could actually write up a formula to give you a hard number for that, but it's not needed. The thing is that if Krauss is right and we apply E=mc^2 to that, we find that at the event horizon of a black hole, we're off by about 50%. Not exactly a small percent. Even the energy from heat and velocity wouldn't even add up. Plus most of the universe isn't an infinite distance away from something, so there wouldn't even be that much.
Of course that's not taking into account the mass gained by going that damn fast if it actually were to fall into an event horizon.
And since nobody really knows what happens inside of an event horizon, we can't be sure what happens between that point and the singularity. But if the matter keeps moving towards it, then once again, the gravitational potential energy of a piece of mass is infinite.
Either any way you look at it, even if gravitational potential energy was negative, it wouldn't add up to zero.
As for the reason I think God exists.
Conservation of mass. That's what this whole thing was about.
Now, what God says to do or not to do (Not everyone agrees on those points) is irrelevant to the existence of a something (doesn't matter if you call it magic and I call it God) or my belief in the existence of God.
The other thing is how the idea of God came about. I learned about the idea from my parents, who learned it from theirs and so on. But at a certain point, there's nobody to learn the idea from. But apparently, bunches of people all over the world throughout history somehow all have the idea of some omnipotent/supernatural being(s).
And who said God was loving? God is an asshole. Seriously. Read the Old Testament. He's the guy who slaps you on the head when you do something stupid. But you know what else, He's our asshole.
And if you didn't point out Krauss because he's an antithesist, I'm a monkey.
Also congratulations on again completely failing to meet the point.
At no point in the link I sent you does Krauss mention gravity as being "negative energy". It has absolutely NO bearing on anything that he mentions. None.
You are simply showing yourself up as someone who argues the point he thinks he sees without actually considering the argument itself. You haven't bothered to watch the video, and you haven't got a clue what its about.
You aren't even worth arguing with. You are so set in your beliefs that you don't bother to comprehend any counterarguments before you reject them. Congratulations. You are a moron.
As to your "argument" about god. Again, you are arguing against what you THINK my argument is. I asked "But why do you think he exists?". I didn't say the IDEA of god, I asked for what reason you actually believe he exists. Your reply was, "Now, what God says to do or not to do (Not everyone agrees on those points) is irrelevant to the existence of a something (doesn't matter if you call it magic and I call it God) or my belief in the existence of God."
How exactly is that an answer? Or do you really think that "The other thing is how the idea of God came about. I learned about the idea from my parents, who learned it from theirs and so on. But at a certain point, there's nobody to learn the idea from. But apparently, bunches of people all over the world throughout history somehow all have the idea of some omnipotent/supernatural being(s)." Counts as an answer?
So you are basing your entire belief on the fact that the idea is old? Is that really it? Honestly? Not to mention that your reasoning is completely flawed. Have you ever heard of Agenticity? If not you should look it up. Our brains are wired to believe in other minds. Its for survival purposes. The following video is why [link]
This means that we are predisposed to believe in the minds of objects. If you actually spend any time on real research you will find that ALL original religions had a large multitude of gods. It was only later that the idea of a single god came along.
Saying that you believe god exists because your parents believed it, is completely correct. But that does not in any way make it logical.
I've been admiring Hawking for many years now. Someone needed to do what he did, and as a cosmologist and astrophysicist who has spent many years studying the beginning of the universe, he was ideally suited to the task.