God was no more an invention than Relativity or Evolution.
Is that an invention or a discovery?
We are surrounded by THINGS (as outside in nature as inside in our brains)
and we don’t leave place for NOTHING and it is a pity because NOTHING
can tell us something important about THINGS.
============…
Scientific “Relativity theory” was discovered.
Scientific “Evolution theory” was discovered.
God conception must be discovered on scientific (physics) basis.
Only if you worship science.
Science has intentionally avoided any spiritual association by demand of the Church from day 1. All science has to do is define “God” and their game is all but over. But they are not likely to do that.
It would make more sense to use unknown instead of nothing. People act in a variety of creative ways when they encounter the unknown.
I remind you of this:
Science has created many “gods”. Some are already “dead”, some are still “alive”. The number of “gods” has increased (thus: not decreased!).
Which “scientific god” do you prefer?
Or do you think that all these “gods” are no “real gods” or “true gods” but merely “false gods”?
Rereading: Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler 6 November 2014
“Here, then, is how everything could have come from nothing.”
bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 … ist-at-all
========…
My opinion.
a) Everything was created from a infinite Energy of Nothing: T=0K…
b) Infinite Energy - Nothing is a flat continuum.
c) Infinite Nothing is filled by so-called “ virtual particles”.
d) Infinite Nothing created these “potential virtual particles” in His own
flat image (!). From all flat images (!) the geometrical form of circle
is most perfect form: c/d=pi=3,141592 . . . . . . …
e) “ These so-called virtual particles don’t last long enough to be
observed directly, but we know they exist by their effects.”
f) By their effect the “virtual particles “ can become real quantum
particles ( E=h*f) and create not only “space and time” but everything
in the Universe.
===========…
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============… .
Who is the greatest mathematician?
Scientists discuss “ the three body problem” of motion and
GOD solved the problem of eight planets and their satellites
movement in our solar system.
Conclusion:
We still don’t grow enough to understand God and His mathematics.
============…
That reminds me of the following two responds I posted in your other thread:
And the worship of science and god are interpositional justifications for the shift from primary and secondary logic, except the nomenclature shifted from ’ worship’ to ‘respect for’, then as if devolution had to be accounted for, ‘fear of’.
The destructural movement to primal causes can never be eradicated, in spite of declarations to the effect that history is dead. Angst in the modern world xistential sense will not stop there, it really has to drop to the very abyss of it, the very basic fear of pre-civilized man.
If they merely did that one thing (defining “God”), then they would not remain so dependent from money as they are. Defining “God” requires less money than a “Very Large Telescope” or a “Large Hadron Collider”. 
We killed the gods, therefore they revenged us by killing our memories, our past. Maybe not quite totally, but for all effective purposes, yes.
a) The source of everything is an infinite Energy of Nothing: T=0K…
b) Infinite Energy - Nothing is a flat continuum.
c) Infinite Nothing is filled by so-called “ virtual particles”.
d) Infinite Nothing (T=0K) created these “potential virtual particles”
in “His/Her/Its” own flat image (!). From all flat images (!) the
geometrical form of circle is most perfect form: c/d=pi=3,141592 . . . . . . …
. . . . . . . .
=============…
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive of
as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground state,
coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208 by Danah Zohar. /
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 … everything
=====================…
If it is filled, then it isn’t “nothing”.
If it created anything, then it wasn’t nothing.
"We“ did not kill all gods, it is the other way around: more gods have been invented since "our“ one God was murdered by "us“ (in the last 18th century). Scientific gods, economic gods, political gods, pop gods and many other gods are the most and the youngest gods (false gods).
It seems that some people are talking as if nothing would be everything - so as if black would be white, right (correct) would be left (wrong, false), war would be peace, … and so on.
Black is black and white is white, right is not left and . … and so on.
Why is nothing would be something?
a) We cannot reach T=0K.
b) We cannot reach the density of “virtual particles” –E=Mc^2
c) It means it is impossible to observe them directly by scientific tools
and therefore T=0K and –E=Mc^2 are “nothing” for scientists who want
observe these parameters by tools, but after they say:
“ . . . . we know they exist by their effects.”
bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 … ist-at-all
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q … simir.html
So, nothing became not- nothing, nothing became something . . . . things.
On the other hand, . . . . if observation is scientific doctrine for check the
truth of theory, then why did they accept the quark and string theories?
There are no facts of their observation; there are no facts of their effects,
there are only their mathematical interpretations, mathematical play.
========…
Not all scientists accept the quark theory and the string theories, and the others do it because of their interests and, of course, because of the fact that they are just theorists.