Show me where nature created and uses a wheel.

A galaxy.

The universe.

The singularity.

Non of those use a wheel, at best we describe them as looking like a wheel because that is a shape people know.

But I did mean as used in animal movement.

Since our beginnings we have answered a lot of questions about events that were originally attributed to God. Lightning and thunder, earthquakes, volcanos,the plague and many other events have been identified as natural events with no connection to God.
But the one thing we cannot do ourselves is create life. As far as I know, no scientist or doctor has been able to turn a bowl of the components of living matter into even a one celled living creature So maybe that is the one thing we still need a God to explain.
I'm surprised that none of the posts I have read in the numerous threads on the subject of God have mentioned this.

Invoking the possible existence of a "God" has never explained anything.

It would explain the Creation event, cause and effect.

+1 guido.man

Cause and effect are thought of as a linear process, apparently because this is how they appear to our perceptions. What if if could all be cyclical instead? Cause leading to effect, and effect becoming the new cause with a new effect, and so on until an effect arises, great enough to become the original cause.

Time is liner, that would be the answer.

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.

Even when you come close to a black hole, it's still linear.

If you don't have proof you don't have anything.

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.

Exactly, from our current point of of view time is linear. But just look at what we've learned about the universe as a species over the last one hundred years... Could we even imagine what we'll learn over the next hundred years? Could a being we would call God just simply be a being who exists outside spacetime itself?

---

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

I.D.; I was suggesting a possibility, not claiming to prove anything. As Dr. Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. There seems to be a paradox at the very point of the beginning of the universe. Cause and effect appear to have occurred at the very same instant. The two seem to become one, and normal causality to lose its meaning. Yet without a cause, why should the universe even exist? If we assume a creator of the universe, we then have the problem of a causeless cause -- in effect: what created the creator? A paradox indicates that our knowledge is incomplete. I was trying to suggest a solution which incorporates both problems into their solution.

From one point of view, time is linear. I don't believe we know enough about the universe as a whole to insist that this is so from all perspectives. When humans used to know less about our planet, they maintained that the world was flat. Saying, and even believing that this was so did not make it so.

Exactly, from our current point of of view time is linear. But just look at what we've learned about the universe as a species over the last one hundred years... Could we even imagine what we'll learn over the next hundred years? Could a being we would call God just simply be a being who exists outside spacetime itself?

Could be! Answering the question about how a 'being' could find itself outside of spacetime should prove interesting.

I.D.; I was suggesting a possibility, not claiming to prove anything. As Dr. Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. There seems to be a paradox at the very point of the beginning of the universe. Cause and effect appear to have occurred at the very same instant. The two seem to become one, and normal causality to lose its meaning. Yet without a cause, why should the universe even exist? If we assume a creator of the universe, we then have the problem of a causeless cause -- in effect: what created the creator? A paradox indicates that our knowledge is incomplete. I was trying to suggest a solution which incorporates both problems into their solution.

POV Point of view is the only paradox. From our point of view you seem to think there is a paradox. I don't see it that way. Cause, is God. Effect is evident.

I have already stated that God is outside of our time line.

I.D.; I was suggesting a possibility, not claiming to prove anything. As Dr. Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. There seems to be a paradox at the very point of the beginning of the universe. Cause and effect appear to have occurred at the very same instant. The two seem to become one, and normal causality to lose its meaning. Yet without a cause, why should the universe even exist? If we assume a creator of the universe, we then have the problem of a causeless cause -- in effect: what created the creator? A paradox indicates that our knowledge is incomplete. I was trying to suggest a solution which incorporates both problems into their solution.

POV Point of view is the only paradox. From our point of view you seem to think there is a paradox. I don't see it that way. Cause, is God. Effect is evident.

Circular arguments make me dizzy.

---

In our Universe, gravity is the ultimate winner. Even time gives in to gravity.

Einstein's equation E=mc2 does not explain time. Despite this fact, most of his time was used to try understanding the concept of time.

Gravity is warping the Universe and also warping time - meaning that time is related to gravity itself. Gravity is readily explained most of the time by means of Isaac Newton's three gravitational laws. Before sitting down and trying to understand Einstein's theory of relativity (his special and general theories of relativity) from your armchair, you will need to know what Newton's laws are all about.

It is not always that simple. The third law of Newton is a quite complex one and difficult for everyone not being skilled when it comes to mathematics.

Even though time comes to a halt inside the event horizon of a black hole, or at least at the point of the singularity, even the speed of light does not let me travel through the Universe within a one day time frame. I guess the speed of light is not relevant in such a place.

Time is still linear till you get to that point of the singularity. Much slower, yes. But still linear.

euh... personally i really dont believe gravity can affect time, nor the speed of light.

does anyone here travelled one time in his life at light speed and can effectively prove that the time was different ? or someone sent an object or a clock at light speed for x hours or x days and can effectively prove the difference of time ?

Very accurate clocks have been sent into orbit and their running compared to similar clocks on Earth. They appear to slow down very slightly, from our point of view, even when traveling at the speed of ~ 5 miles per second. The degree of slowing is in agreement with Relativity theory. If the relative speed could be increased to nearer that of light, the degree of slowing would be expected to be greater.

euh... personally i really dont believe gravity can affect time, nor the speed of light.

does anyone here travelled one time in his life at light speed and can effectively prove that the time was different ? or someone sent an object or a clock at light speed for x hours or x days and can effectively prove the difference of time ?

Very accurate clocks have been sent into orbit and their running compared to similar clocks on Earth. They appear to slow down very slightly, from our point of view, even when traveling at the speed of ~ 5 miles per second. The degree of slowing is in agreement with Relativity theory. If the relative speed could be increased to nearer that of light, the degree of slowing would be expected to be greater.

Yes, those clocks are on GPS satellites and your GPS has to know about relativity to get your position.

---

euh... personally i really dont believe gravity can affect time, nor the speed of light.

does anyone here travelled one time in his life at light speed and can effectively prove that the time was different ? or someone sent an object or a clock at light speed for x hours or x days and can effectively prove the difference of time ?

Very accurate clocks have been sent into orbit and their running compared to similar clocks on Earth. They appear to slow down very slightly, from our point of view, even when traveling at the speed of ~ 5 miles per second. The degree of slowing is in agreement with Relativity theory. If the relative speed could be increased to nearer that of light, the degree of slowing would be expected to be greater.

Yes, those clocks are on GPS satellites and your GPS has to know about relativity to get your position.

+1

maybe it s just cause it s in space, where is no weight. like if you put a clock way down inside earth, the time also will be different.

They did an experiment where one very accurate clock was flown in a jet one way around the world, and another was flown around in the other direction. Both clocks were obviously subject to the same weight-conferring property of gravity. Because of their motion relative to one another, the clocks then differed very slightly in their elapsed time. The amount of this deviation was consistent with that predicted by relativity theory.

And consistently right!