Maybe more like hundreds of years old as many things are likely to have been revised and changed over time as things must have been outdated.



I don't mean to be rude, but it's hard not to be when it comes to this subject, so for that I apologize in advance. When I'm honest I think it's even more arrogant to blindly assume there must be something like God and therefore demand all kinds of laws to be in effect because of it. From the general hate towards gay people (I'm not gay myself, but it doesn't make sense to be actively against it either) to abortion, all in all pretty insane what gets declared in name of a God nobody has ever seen.



Even when we really were created then there's no reason to assume that being 'must' still be alive in my opinion. Perhaps Gods can die as well, as I don't think there have been events that could be descrived as divine intervention by a God. So while in theory it is possible that he or she is not dead, I don't think it's actively interested in 'us' anymore if it still is alive.



No, I have my reasons not to believe in God, it could however become important when I would find strong evidence that totally contradicts my ideas on God.



Difficult to say as there's a difference between the 'abstract' God idea of a being that's everywhere and nowhere at the same time and the idea of God as an actual supernatural being.
I think the abstract God idea has more truth to it though.



According to their definition they should be able to, but in reality it remains to be seen if anything ever included in the definition of God makes sense when it comes to the actual 'being'.



Same as above, there's no difference between the Christian God or the bunch of Hindu Gods in my perception.



I don't think so.



No, probably not. But I mostly believe this is not possible because there's little to nothing known about what God exactly is. Perhaps 'God' was simply an electrical interference that caused the Big Bang and set everything in motion, I don't know. It may sound funny, but if you go with the books "God" seem to be able to be anything from a person to a ray of light, right?

1. assuming someone, or something, created us in a certain way. what makes us/you sure that he/she/it is still alive?
Nothing, as there is not even a proof whether or not he/she/it exists other than your scope saying so.

2. is it important to you that he/she/it is still alive?
Not at all. If the being is dead, we are still alive. If the being is still alive, then he wont reveal himself to us for whatever his reasons are anyway. Our defined lifes will go on, and we should follow the path he drew, as we have always done.

3. do you rather believe that God's spirit lives on in everything that surrounds us, but god itself is dead?
No, I don't. There would be no point in that. A spirit of someone that died and trapped on earth is there for a reason, like watching over someone while not be able to show themselves (though some tend to try). God is already doing that for everyone. What would his spirit be different to what he is now?

4. can gods die?
As stated earlier, we made up the Gods with our fantasy, and thus they can "die" if nobody knows about them anymore. But it turns out to be more of a question what the definition of "dead" is here in the context.

5. can God (he/she/it) die?
Perhaps. At least it would explain why he didn't visited us in the last hundred years, yet he is mentioned in nearly every religion on earth. But I rather believe in a different theory as long as nothing is proven.

6. assuming that God is the spark that set the universe into existence, is it possible that the conversion from energy to matter is the creation itself (big bang) and thus God sacrificed himself to create the universe?
This has been answered by others.

7. assuming 6 is true, will god resurrect when the universe collapes into a single point?
As stated by others, 6 is not true.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. - it's your god/s (so decide yourself).

PS: my god/s is/are complete out of imagination and there exists more(or less?) than time/space.

::deleted::
reason=off topic

The claim " conversion from energy to matter" is not 100 % correct even though it is widely used also in serious scientific publication
Matter ( or better mass) and energy are the same stuff
They are , so to speak,the two sides of the same coin
This is the true meaning of the famous equation E = M*C^2

Moreover Quantum Physics has completly revised our concept of vacuum which was normaly undestood as synonimous with "nothing"
Consequently also the term "creation" must be revised

Suppose that you measure the electro magnetic field in volume V1 over a time T1
V1 and T1 are basically the dimension and the response time of your measuring instrumnet
You find E1 = 0 and B1 = 0
Now you try again using a more sophisticated instrument with V2 << V1 and T2 << T1
you find E2 != 0 and B2 != 0
You come to the conclusion that the electromagnetic field was not null rather the sensitivity of the instrument was too poor to measure it
Nevertheless common sense and classic physics assume that it makes sense to speak of a true " null field "
Quantum physics disagree
The field is never null rather it is " fast changing "
This is valid in general , not only for the electromagnetic field

Consequently what you call " vacuum " is actually a region of space full of energy
Since energy and mass are equivalent items than vacuum is also full of "matter"

The existence of the so called " virtual particles and anti particles " has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt
The term " virtual " may be deceiving
Acually they are "real" particles the only difference with the normal matter, being the life span which is very short

A reasonable but still unproven theory is therefore the following

" The creation(s) was(were) due to quantistic instability (ies) of vacuum "

If this theory is true , obviouly there is a little room left for a personal or impersonal God

Of course, the results of measurement were not polluted by the more sophisticated measuring instrument.
Certainly, measurements with the more sophisticated instrument, were taken again ~soon after the first measurements, and not much, much later.

(Hm, measurements now and later should be consistent then?)
Absolutely, always and never, with certainty, indeed.


This is true, with and without the use of sophisticated instruments to measure this energy, correct?
The use of full here implies that there is more energy than non-energy in a "vacuum"?


What is meant by "matter" here?

That explains the use of two or more separate terms and the relationship to famous, supposedly significant, frequently tossed about equations.

Some might say that I am out of my depth, but actually I have no depth, and truly, when depth is a reasonably rooted consideration, it is yours alone (to delve and fall into).


So, the source of creation for the detestable human condition is now pinned, and "vacuum" will be held responsible?
Actually, not only is that good news, it is an inspiration when considering solutions.
Many thanks.

It means that vacuum is not synonimous with nothing




It means mass
I used the "... " since matter is not a scientific term even if it is often used as synonimous with mass



It is right to use two separate terms for mass (matter) and energy but its wrong to suppose that they are two separate entities

Claiming that God ( energy ) sacrificed himself to create the universe ( matter )is not acceptable neither from a religious nor from a scientific point of view

Our intuition and classic physics before the Einstein's revolution assumed that energy and mass ( matter) were two separate items but they are not

This is a common misconception of the equation

Energy and mass are the two sides of the same coin, it depends which side you are looking at
They alwayes get along in the ratio : C^2

Meh, saw this thread and decided to reply (once), it's possible this is all I will say in this thread.



Simply put, evidence. I refuse to believe that everything that happened in the universe, and what still happens now, all became because of chance. In the immortal words of Albert Einstein "God does not play dice.". There are facts everywhere that are evidence of God's existance.



Yup. God helps me everyday, when I am down he comforts me, when I need help he provides. In my life I have been shown evidence of God's existance and it is very important that he exists. I also believe that all things are made OF God, not just created by God, so if he did not exist....well, neither would anything in our universe.



The question contradicts itself, if God lives in all things, then his existence is definate.



I will answer these two together, being that God is the only God:
No, simply put. The bible states that "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away" (Mat 23:35), it also says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"(John 1:1), simply speaking God is his word, so based on those two statements, God's word will never die and neither will he.



Ummm......what? When God walked into our dimension, it's what caused the "Big Bang", it was creation, why would it be sacrifice?



Assuming 6 is false, this question is irrelevant.

I do not disagree with you, but it depends a bit on your view whether or not they are really similar... I think the coin analogy is striking, as one side of a coin usually is not 100% the same as the other, even though they both are part of the same object. I think that's also exactly the case with E = M*C^2.

Cheers

Dont quote Einstein...he was an atheist