# Hawking Says Universe Created Itself



## RWNJ

He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research


----------



## S.J.

So, Hawking is a creationist now?  So much for his atheism.


----------



## Gracie

I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.

If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.

Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.

God popped out of nothing! =


----------



## ScienceRocks

Gracie said:


> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.



Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.


----------



## RWNJ

ScienceRocks said:


> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =


You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.


----------



## RWNJ

ScienceRocks said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Cause and effect only applies to a temporal universe. God exists outside of space and time. He has no beginning and no end.


----------



## aaronleland

I take anything Stephen Hawking says with a grain of salt until I get a random message board poster's take on it.


----------



## Gracie

I guess if you have ALS, can't speak, are paralyzed, then you automatically become "the greatest mind that ever lived" and are a "genius"?


----------



## Windparadox

`
The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."

Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.


----------



## Muhammed

ScienceRocks said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.
Click to expand...

The universe was never created.


----------



## Gracie

Pfffffffffft. That is his opinion and his opinion only. Yet, people grovel all over him thinking he is The Bestest when all it is is JUST an opinion from an atheist.


----------



## aaronleland

Gracie said:


> I guess if you have ALS, can't speak, are paralyzed, then you automatically become "the greatest mind that ever lived" and are a "genius"?



He had already attended Oxford and Cambridge and begun his work before his health declined. I don't think anybody says he's the greatest mind to ever live, but he's definitely a genius.


----------



## Gracie

aaronleland said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if you have ALS, can't speak, are paralyzed, then you automatically become "the greatest mind that ever lived" and are a "genius"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had already attended Oxford and Cambridge and begun his work before his health declined. I don't think anybody says he's the greatest mind to ever live, but he's definitely a genius.
Click to expand...

He is a man with a disease that is intelligent and has influence that he willynilly slams around as truth when he IS just a man and can't prove or disprove a damn thing. It's all HIS opinions. Period.


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> God exists outside of space and time. He has no beginning and no end.


As do the best sky fathers.


----------



## cnm

Gracie said:


> Pfffffffffft. That is his opinion and his opinion only. Yet, people grovel all over him thinking he is The Bestest when all it is is JUST an opinion from an atheist.


And some math.


----------



## Windparadox

Muhammed said:


> The universe was never created.


`
That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.


----------



## Gracie

Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.


----------



## aaronleland

If Hawking is so great let's see him do this. 

Yeah. Didn't think so, cocksuckers.


----------



## cnm

Whether he's right, it's not just opinion.

_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.


"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_​


----------



## fncceo

Gracie said:


> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.



Dude!  He talks like a robot.  He must be smart.


----------



## Windparadox

cnm said:


> Whether he's right, it's not just opinio_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_


`
Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.


----------



## Muhammed

Windparadox said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
Click to expand...

There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.


----------



## Gracie

Windparadox said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he's right, it's not just opinio_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

Trying to read your weird font is almost a futility too. Just sayin'.


----------



## cnm

Gracie said:


> Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.


Ffs. Another science illiterate. USMB is full of them, pontificating away about things of which they're totally ignorant. A scientific theory must have evidence, it is not just someone's opinion.

Too, scientific theories are never proven, they have more or less evidence supporting them.


----------



## Windparadox

Muhammed said:


> TThere is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.


`
I didn't say there was. It's all theoretical. While the Big Bang is an accepted theory in the scientific community, it also allows for other competing science based postulations. It may not be "compelling" to you, but it certainly is for others.


----------



## K9Buck

Windparadox said:


> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.



The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.


----------



## K9Buck

aaronleland said:


> ... he's definitely a genius.



And a fool, I'm sorry to say.


----------



## gtopa1

Windparadox said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he's right, it's not just opinio_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...


Quite wrong, Mindy. Science is a METHOD!! Any fool can understand a method.

And that excludes many scientists!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

K9Buck said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
Click to expand...


I often wonder if people would take the word of a plumber that there is no God? Dealing with the nuts and bolts of creation is to me not that far from trade work only with a dash of self delusion. Scientists who are religious understand Science better imo.

Just sayin'. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

Windparadox said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> TThere is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I didn't say there was. It's all theoretical. While the Big Bang is an accepted theory in the scientific community, it also allows for other competing science based postulations. It may not be "compelling" to you, but it certainly is for others.
Click to expand...


Once you have "compelling" it isn't Science.

Greg


----------



## K9Buck

Windparadox said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
Click to expand...


Someone or some thing would have to create it in the first place for it to happen, right?


----------



## Windparadox

K9Buck said:


> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.


`
Key words "non-believer." I went to a Catholic university that taught physics, math and the sciences. Their taught the same things I am espousing, minus the religious myths of course. Obviously they did not feel the sciences interfered with their theology. So already, only certain christian sects push the notion of a literal biblical creation. I'm glad to say, I am not a believer in that. You can believe it all you want, but don't expect other people to follow suit.


----------



## Gracie

gtopa1 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often wonder if people would take the word of a plumber that there is no God? Dealing with the nuts and bolts of creation is to me not that far from trade work only with a dash of self delusion. Scientists who are religious understand Science better imo.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

If the plumber had a disease, got lots of msm attention...probably so. Hawking is another one that is using his "celeb" status to press his opinion upon others as FACT when it is not fact at all. Just opinion.


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> Whether he's right, it's not just opinion.
> 
> _"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
> 
> 
> "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
> 
> 
> In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_​



Spontaneous creation?  LOL.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence? It created itself?


According to the law of gravity, according to Hawkings. Where is he wrong in his interpretation of that law?


----------



## K9Buck

Muhammed said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
Click to expand...


The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward.  The ABG adherents are trying to disavow the Big Bang because of its implications with regard to a creator.


----------



## cnm

Gracie said:


> Hawking is another one that is using his "celeb" status to press his opinion upon others as FACT when it is not fact at all. Just opinion.


Ffs. With the law of gravity as driver of his theory. I don't think the law of gravity is just opinion. Nor do I think Hawking is pressing 'his opinion upon others as FACT'. Scientists don't do that. He may be saying there is more or less evidence for this hypothesis.


----------



## K9Buck

Windparadox said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he's right, it's not just opinio_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...


There is no shortage of non-believers that won't look at science that threatens their narrative.


----------



## Windparadox

gtopa1 said:


> Once you have "compelling" it isn't Science.Greg


`
Compelling is subjective. I'm compelled by facts and and proof. While, empirical proof is best, the combination of logic and theory can also be compelling. Ultimately, it depends on the individual.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> There is no shortage of non-believers that won't look at science that threatens their narrative.


Invincible ignorance is invincible where ever it occurs. Got some examples?


----------



## K9Buck

Windparadox said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Key words "non-believer." I went to a Catholic university that taught physics, math and the sciences. Their taught the same things I am espousing, minus the religious myths of course. Obviously they did not feel the sciences interfered with their theology. So already, only certain christian sects push the notion of a literal biblical creation. I'm glad to say, I am not a believer in that. You can believe it all you want, but don't expect other people to follow suit.
Click to expand...


What caused the universe to come into existence?  How did life come into existence?


----------



## K9Buck

Gracie said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I often wonder if people would take the word of a plumber that there is no God? Dealing with the nuts and bolts of creation is to me not that far from trade work only with a dash of self delusion. Scientists who are religious understand Science better imo.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the plumber had a disease, got lots of msm attention...probably so. Hawking is another one that is using his "celeb" status to press his opinion upon others as FACT when it is not fact at all. Just opinion.
Click to expand...


If Hawking was a believer in a creator and said as much, the atheists here referencing him would be eviscerating him without mercy.


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence? It created itself?
> 
> 
> 
> According to the law of gravity, according to Hawkings. Where is he wrong in his interpretation of that law?
Click to expand...


Without a universe there is no such thing as physics.  So how could gravity create the universe before the existence of such physical laws as the aforementioned law of gravity?  Like I said, Anything But God theory.


----------



## Windparadox

K9Buck said:


> Someone or some thing would have to create it in the first place for it to happen, right?


`
Thomas Aquinas touches on that subject in the  "_Summa Theologica" _which in part, attempts to postulate/prove the existence of God.There may be a divine influence that can be called "The First Cause" (or something like that) but what Hawking talks about in his book is that its existence is not required in the particular theory he talks about.


----------



## Gracie

*Definition of theory*
plural theories
1:a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 

the wave theory of light
2a :a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action 

her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b :an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase _in theory_ 

in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
:a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b :an unproved assumption :conjecture
c :a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject 

theory of equations
4:the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 

music theory
5:abstract thought :speculation
:the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


----------



## Windparadox

K9Buck said:


> There is no shortage of non-believers that won't look at science that threatens their narrative.


`
There are tens of thousands of scientists who believe in God. Whether they believe in once certain christian sects interpretation, is another thing.  I see no problem with a good, moral Christian believing in science and the Big Bang


----------



## Eloy

RWNJ said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

You should need no lesson from me about calling names. 
Hawking is mistaken just as much as you are.
Neither a god nor the universe created the universe as it always existed. It had no beginning.


----------



## K9Buck

Windparadox said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone or some thing would have to create it in the first place for it to happen, right?
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Thomas Aquinas touches on that subject in the  "_Summa Theologica" _which in part, attempts to postulate/prove the existence of God.There may be a divine influence that can be called "The First Cause" (or something like that) but what Hawking talks about in his book is that its existence is not required in the particular theory he talks about.
Click to expand...


I don't think we have to be physicists to know that nothing happens in this universe without something first causing it to happen.  Something or someone had to give it that initial push.  Then, the topic becomes, how did life come into existence?  Did that "spontaneously create" itself too?  Come on.  It's obvious.  There is a creator.  Then throw in the anecdotal "evidence" (not scientific, I understand) of the seemingly countless numbers of people who have described near-death experiences of seeing the "other side", etc., and it should give you pause to seriously consider the very real possibility and _likelihood _that, indeed, there IS a creator!


----------



## Gracie

Windparadox said:


> So already, only certain christian sects push the notion of a literal biblical creation. I'm glad to say, I am not a believer in that. You can believe it all you want, but don't expect other people to follow suit.


Ditto. The problem is..he has a bigger podium and knows people will follow his suit. Influencing small minded people to take what he says as fact when all it is is....theory.


----------



## K9Buck

Eloy said:


> It had no beginning.



Well, the Big Bang seems to indicate otherwise.  Additionally, the universe IS a physical place that could not have created itself, regardless of what Hawking or anyone else says.  To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.


----------



## Gracie

It didn't just magically appear any more than that blank spot on your desk will magically produce a rock. You have to place it there.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward.


Except when it wasn't.


----------



## Windparadox

K9Buck said:


> I don't think we have to be physicists to know that nothing happens in this universe without something first causing it to happen.  Something or someone had to give it that initial push.  Then, the topic becomes, how did life come into existence?  Did that "spontaneously create" itself too?  Come on.  It's obvious.  There is a creator.  Then throw in the anecdotal "evidence" (not scientific, I understand) of the seemingly countless numbers of people who have described near-death experiences of seeing the "other side", etc., and it should give you pause to seriously consider the very real possibility and _likelihood _that, indeed, there IS a creator!


`
No one is stopping you from believing what you faith says. But to repeat myself, don't expect others to share in it. I happen totally reject your particular beliefs but it doesn't mean I'm against them. So long as most of the public and private schools teach the sciences apart from religious tenets, science shall endure.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.


Must be a sky fairy, that's common sense.


----------



## Eloy

K9Buck said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It had no beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Big Bang seems to indicate otherwise.  Additionally, the universe IS a physical place that could not have created itself, regardless of what Hawking or anyone else says.  To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.
Click to expand...

Logic and common sense dictate that there was no so-called big bang nor did the universe appear out of non-existence. Therefore, the universe always was, is, and will be.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> What caused the universe to come into existence? How did life come into existence?


Who knows? There are various theories with more or less evidence.

Star matter spread by comets seems the best bet at the moment, seeing they contain water and compounds essential to life as we know it.


----------



## cnm

Gracie said:


> Definition of theory


The one that concerns us here is Scientific Theory. Are you intentionally acting the dullard?


----------



## cnm

* Theory basics*
_ 
 The University of California, Berkley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses." 


 Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts. 
https://www.livescience.com_​


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it wasn't.
Click to expand...


When was that?  

I think this guy is another ABG adherent.  He's not here to discuss; he's here to shill.  I see "ignore" in his future.


----------



## Kosh

It is funny to watch all those that they claim to believe in science, base their entire belief on the world based on a debunked far left religion.

The big bang in the sense of math breaks down at a certain point that can not be explained by any math.

Just as the human conciseness can not be explained in math either.

For anyone to think that humans are the superior beings in the universe and can not comprehend that a more powerful being could very well exist, just shows they do not truly believe in science.


----------



## K9Buck

Windparadox said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we have to be physicists to know that nothing happens in this universe without something first causing it to happen.  Something or someone had to give it that initial push.  Then, the topic becomes, how did life come into existence?  Did that "spontaneously create" itself too?  Come on.  It's obvious.  There is a creator.  Then throw in the anecdotal "evidence" (not scientific, I understand) of the seemingly countless numbers of people who have described near-death experiences of seeing the "other side", etc., and it should give you pause to seriously consider the very real possibility and _likelihood _that, indeed, there IS a creator!
> 
> 
> 
> `
> No one is stopping you from believing what you faith says. But to repeat myself, don't expect others to share in it. I happen totally reject your particular beliefs but it doesn't mean I'm against them. So long as most of the public and private schools teach the sciences apart from religious tenets, science shall endure.
Click to expand...


My faith is based on what I have observed combined with rational thought, NOT what religious organizations or the bible say.  You declined to comment on any of the points that I made.  I have the impression that you are committed to your atheism regardless of any scientific or non-scientific evidence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ScienceRocks said:


> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =



You're delusional if you think that this is a random universe


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> When was that?
> 
> I think this guy is another ABG adherent. He's not here to discuss; he's here to shill. I see "ignore" in his future.


Before it existed.

I see ignorance in your past and future.


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Must be a sky fairy, that's common sense.
Click to expand...


Earlier you called me a "fill in the gaps with your sky God" and then you turned around and advocated for the theory that everything came from nothing.  LOL.


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was that?
> 
> I think this guy is another ABG adherent. He's not here to discuss; he's here to shill. I see "ignore" in his future.
> 
> 
> 
> Before it existed.
> 
> I see ignorance in your future.
Click to expand...


I see you've gone into full k*nt mode...again.  It's time to put you on "ignore".  Goodbye moron.


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> The big bang in the sense of math breaks down at a certain point that can not be explained by any math.


Where is that?


----------



## K9Buck

Eloy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It had no beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Big Bang seems to indicate otherwise.  Additionally, the universe IS a physical place that could not have created itself, regardless of what Hawking or anyone else says.  To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic and common sense dictate that there was no so-called big bang nor did the universe appear out of non-existence. Therefore, the universe always was, is, and will be.
Click to expand...


ABG theory in action.


----------



## Moonglow

RWNJ said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

Always existed, yet no law of cause and effect needed for God....You contradict yourself..


----------



## sealybobo

RWNJ said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

Not if we are just one universe in a lava lamp of universes


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Earlier you called me a "fill in the gaps with your sky God" and then you turned around and advocated for the theory that everything came from nothing. LOL.


You're still filling the gaps with god. Link to my advocacy?


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> I see you've gone into full k*nt mode...again. It's time to put you on "ignore". Goodbye moron.


Hoho, very Christian. I can see your faith sustains you.


----------



## Mac1958

We don't know yet.  It's a fun and fascinating mystery.  Maybe we'll get there one day.

Anyone who claims they know for sure isn't being honest.  Or they're brainwashed.


----------



## sealybobo

Windparadox said:


> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.


They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science


----------



## Eloy

K9Buck said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It had no beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Big Bang seems to indicate otherwise.  Additionally, the universe IS a physical place that could not have created itself, regardless of what Hawking or anyone else says.  To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic and common sense dictate that there was no so-called big bang nor did the universe appear out of non-existence. Therefore, the universe always was, is, and will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ABG theory in action.
Click to expand...

I gather you think that I would hold onto a theory that anything but God creating the universe has got to be the answer but this is not the case. I see no reason to believe that the universe had a beginning so I reject Hawking and the scientists who agree with him.


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always existed, yet no law of cause and effect needed for God....You contradict yourself..
Click to expand...


Either one believes that a creator created the universe and the life that inhabits it or one believes, like Stephen Hawking apparently does, that the universe created itself and then that life created itself too.  I presume you're advocating for the latter as well.  The concept that the creator could and has always existed is something that we cannot wrap our minds around but, the scientific evidence that we have certainly indicates that someone NOT bound to the laws of this universe, someone _outside _of this universe, got it started.


----------



## K9Buck

Eloy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It had no beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Big Bang seems to indicate otherwise.  Additionally, the universe IS a physical place that could not have created itself, regardless of what Hawking or anyone else says.  To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic and common sense dictate that there was no so-called big bang nor did the universe appear out of non-existence. Therefore, the universe always was, is, and will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ABG theory in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gather you think that I would hold onto a theory that anything but God creating the universe has got to be the answer but this is not the case. I see no reason to believe that the universe had a beginning so I reject Hawking and the scientists who agree with him.
Click to expand...


There are scientists and atheists that let their dogma get in the way of rational thought.  Many of them are trying to debunk, without success, the Big Bang because it contradicts their ideological belief that there is no such thing as a creator.  I suspect that you are one of them, hence the ABG remark.


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> Always existed, yet no law of cause and effect needed for God....You contradict yourself..



Some things are beyond our comprehension.  What is NOT beyond our comprehension is the clear evidence that the universe had a beginning and that the universe was created by someone OUTSIDE of said universe.  I will add that logical thought should compel one to the conclusion that a creator also created life on Earth and that it did not just create itself as many atheists apparently posit.


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always existed, yet no law of cause and effect needed for God....You contradict yourself..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either one believes that a creator created the universe and the life that inhabits it or one believes, like Stephen Hawking apparently does, that the universe created itself and then that life created itself too.  I presume you're advocating for the latter as well.  The concept that the creator could and has always existed is something that we cannot wrap our minds around but, the scientific evidence that we have certainly indicates that someone NOT bound to the laws of this universe, someone _outside _of this universe, got it started.
Click to expand...

And this super powerful all knowing being that was created in a book wants us all to bow down and worship him?? Adorate and think of him all the live long day....Sounds rather cultic..


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> We don't know yet.  It's a fun and fascinating mystery.  Maybe we'll get there one day.
> 
> Anyone who claims they know for sure isn't being honest.  Or they're brainwashed.



The only ones that know for sure are the arrogant, condescending, atheists that accuse believers of having an imaginary sky fairy to fill in the gaps.  Meanwhile, they posit theories that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.  LOL.


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always existed, yet no law of cause and effect needed for God....You contradict yourself..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either one believes that a creator created the universe and the life that inhabits it or one believes, like Stephen Hawking apparently does, that the universe created itself and then that life created itself too.  I presume you're advocating for the latter as well.  The concept that the creator could and has always existed is something that we cannot wrap our minds around but, the scientific evidence that we have certainly indicates that someone NOT bound to the laws of this universe, someone _outside _of this universe, got it started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this super powerful all knowing being that was created in a book wants us all to bow down and worship him?? Adorate and think of him all the live long day....Sounds rather cultic..
Click to expand...


Now you're deflecting.  Go ahead and believe that the universe created itself and that life created itself.  It's ok with me.


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always existed, yet no law of cause and effect needed for God....You contradict yourself..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either one believes that a creator created the universe and the life that inhabits it or one believes, like Stephen Hawking apparently does, that the universe created itself and then that life created itself too.  I presume you're advocating for the latter as well.  The concept that the creator could and has always existed is something that we cannot wrap our minds around but, the scientific evidence that we have certainly indicates that someone NOT bound to the laws of this universe, someone _outside _of this universe, got it started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this super powerful all knowing being that was created in a book wants us all to bow down and worship him?? Adorate and think of him all the live long day....Sounds rather cultic..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're deflecting.  Go ahead and believe that the universe created itself and that life created itself.  It's ok with me.
Click to expand...

I'm kewl with the all powerful thing yet I don't think adoration is the name of the beings game, I think that is the religion created to help control humans and have a revenue stream from tithes...


----------



## Windparadox

K9Buck said:


> My faith is based on what I have observed combined with rational thought, NOT what religious organizations or the bible say.  You declined to comment on any of the points that I made.  I have the impression that you are committed to your atheism regardless of any scientific or non-scientific evidence.


`
You are welcome to your personal beliefs. Unfortunately, they don't interest me. Sorry.


----------



## Mac1958

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know yet.  It's a fun and fascinating mystery.  Maybe we'll get there one day.
> 
> Anyone who claims they know for sure isn't being honest.  Or they're brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones that know for sure are the arrogant, condescending, atheists that accuse believers of having an imaginary sky fairy to fill in the gaps.  Meanwhile, they posit theories that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.  LOL.
Click to expand...

Well, there's plenty of arrogance and condescension coming from both sides of this.

The side opposite yours certainly does enjoy the mockery and personal insults, I'll give you that.

Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind". 
.


----------



## Moonglow

You are certainly free to kneel and bob all you like....


----------



## Eloy

K9Buck said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It had no beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Big Bang seems to indicate otherwise.  Additionally, the universe IS a physical place that could not have created itself, regardless of what Hawking or anyone else says.  To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logic and common sense dictate that there was no so-called big bang nor did the universe appear out of non-existence. Therefore, the universe always was, is, and will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ABG theory in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gather you think that I would hold onto a theory that anything but God creating the universe has got to be the answer but this is not the case. I see no reason to believe that the universe had a beginning so I reject Hawking and the scientists who agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are scientists and atheists that let their dogma get in the way of rational thought.  Many of them are trying to debunk, without success, the Big Bang because it contradicts their ideological belief that there is no such thing as a creator.  I suspect that you are one of them, hence the ABG remark.
Click to expand...

I confess that I have no training in Natural Science so any physicist could wipe the floor with me in an argument on his terms, namely the laws of physics and such. It is also true that I am an atheist and so I reject the doctrines of theologians. This surely puts me in a small minority of people who are not persuaded by conventional science and religious dogma. Nevertheless, ir is simpler for me to believe that the universe always existed and had no beginning in a similar way as people who believe in a god are sure he always existed.


----------



## Gracie

Windparadox said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> My faith is based on what I have observed combined with rational thought, NOT what religious organizations or the bible say.  You declined to comment on any of the points that I made.  I have the impression that you are committed to your atheism regardless of any scientific or non-scientific evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> You are welcome to your personal beliefs. Unfortunately, they don't interest me. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Again...ditto and right back attcha.


----------



## K9Buck

Eloy said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Big Bang seems to indicate otherwise.  Additionally, the universe IS a physical place that could not have created itself, regardless of what Hawking or anyone else says.  To believe that existence can spontaneously appear out of _non-existence_ is to defy all logic and common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Logic and common sense dictate that there was no so-called big bang nor did the universe appear out of non-existence. Therefore, the universe always was, is, and will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ABG theory in action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gather you think that I would hold onto a theory that anything but God creating the universe has got to be the answer but this is not the case. I see no reason to believe that the universe had a beginning so I reject Hawking and the scientists who agree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are scientists and atheists that let their dogma get in the way of rational thought.  Many of them are trying to debunk, without success, the Big Bang because it contradicts their ideological belief that there is no such thing as a creator.  I suspect that you are one of them, hence the ABG remark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I confess that I have no training in Natural Science so any physicist could wipe the floor with me in an argument on his terms, namely the laws of physics and such. It is also true that I am an atheist and so I reject the doctrines of theologians. This surely puts me in a small minority of people who are not persuaded by conventional science and religious dogma. Nevertheless, ir is simpler for me to believe that the universe always existed and had no beginning in a similar way as people who believe in a god are sure he always existed.
Click to expand...


Nor am I a physicist.  Thank you for your honesty.  It's refreshing to meet an atheist that is honest and open.


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang in the sense of math breaks down at a certain point that can not be explained by any math.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?
Click to expand...


You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.

But then again you are a far left drone that thinks the science is settled!

There is no one equation for the standard BB model of the universe.

It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.

But the far left religion will never allow you to consider anything outside your religious dogma.


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> .



I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.


----------



## Moonglow

Kosh said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang in the sense of math breaks down at a certain point that can not be explained by any math.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.
> 
> But then again you are a far left drone that thinks the science is settled!
> 
> There is no one equation for the standard BB model of the universe.
> 
> It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.
> 
> But the far left religion will never allow you to consider anything outside your religious dogma.
Click to expand...

Nice walk in a circle horseman...If you applied the same formula of babble to the Bible, you wouldn't kneel and beg...


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> You are certainly free to kneel and bob all you like....



See what I mean, Mac?  Ignores reason and resorts to derision.  Atheists don't want there to be a creator.


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
Click to expand...

Just saying that a God created the universe because of the dogma presented in a book written thousands of years ago is not proof that God does exist and neither does the best guess of a scholar physicist and his galaxy gang banging theory.....As far as I am concerned neither is probably the best answer...


----------



## Mac1958

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
Click to expand...

I've spoken with many Christians who say the basis of their belief is "faith".  It's a word we hear all the time.  They tell me they realize God hasn't made himself obvious, but that they have "faith" that He's there.  Faith is the bridge between Point A and Point B.

Okay, that's fine.  But that's not empirical evidence. 

All He has to do is show up and say howdy, and we'll have proof.  Until then, this is based on "faith".
.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.



It is not unusual for the very brilliant to go mad at the end.


----------



## Kosh

Moonglow said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang in the sense of math breaks down at a certain point that can not be explained by any math.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.
> 
> But then again you are a far left drone that thinks the science is settled!
> 
> There is no one equation for the standard BB model of the universe.
> 
> It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.
> 
> But the far left religion will never allow you to consider anything outside your religious dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice walk in a circle horseman...If you applied the same formula of babble to the Bible, you wouldn't kneel and beg...
Click to expand...


And another far left drone chimes in and proves my comments!

As they are wanting to be the top drone of the month!


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know yet.  It's a fun and fascinating mystery.  Maybe we'll get there one day.
> 
> Anyone who claims they know for sure isn't being honest.  Or they're brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones that know for sure are the arrogant, condescending, atheists that accuse believers of having an imaginary sky fairy to fill in the gaps.  Meanwhile, they posit theories that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there's plenty of arrogance and condescension coming from both sides of this.
> 
> The side opposite yours certainly does enjoy the mockery and personal insults, I'll give you that.
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> .
Click to expand...


I don't base my faith in a creator in religious dogma nor in the bible but, with all that's been said, I am reminded of something Jesus said in the bible.  Don't cast your pearls to the swine.  Discussing the concept of a creator with hardcore, militant atheists like we have here is the equivalent of casting pearls to the swine.  I think my participation in this thread is about over.


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just saying that a God created the universe because of the dogma presented in a book written thousands of years ago is not proof that God does exist and neither does the best guess of a scholar physicist and his galaxy gang banging theory.....As far as I am concerned neither is probably the best answer...
Click to expand...


You're apparently not reading anything I have shared here.  Engaging with you on these sorts of topics appears to be a waste of everyone's time and effort.  See ya in a non-religious thread.


----------



## Windparadox

sealybobo said:


> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science


`
Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone.


So, where did those laws of physics come from? Hmmm?


----------



## Moonglow

Kosh said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang in the sense of math breaks down at a certain point that can not be explained by any math.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.
> 
> But then again you are a far left drone that thinks the science is settled!
> 
> There is no one equation for the standard BB model of the universe.
> 
> It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.
> 
> But the far left religion will never allow you to consider anything outside your religious dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice walk in a circle horseman...If you applied the same formula of babble to the Bible, you wouldn't kneel and beg...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And another far left drone chimes in and proves my comments!
> 
> As they are wanting to be the top drone of the month!
Click to expand...

I was raised in a church with a scholarly grandmother that was a theologian at heart, since they wouldn't let women be lay persons in the church,,I know all about the fictional and nonfictional accounts in der Bible and that good time religion shared by fire and brimstone yellers...It never moved me so much I felt like donating money to it..Even as a kid..


----------



## Windparadox

RWNJ said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone.
> 
> 
> 
> So, where did those laws of physics come from? Hmmm?
Click to expand...


Thanos?


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.


Ffs, you unbelievable imbecile, it's your assertion, not mine.


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just saying that a God created the universe because of the dogma presented in a book written thousands of years ago is not proof that God does exist and neither does the best guess of a scholar physicist and his galaxy gang banging theory.....As far as I am concerned neither is probably the best answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're apparently not reading anything I have shared here.  Engaging with you on these sorts of topics appears to be a waste of everyone's time and effort.  See ya in a non-religious thread.
Click to expand...

Do you still post in the porn section?


----------



## Kosh

Moonglow said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big bang in the sense of math breaks down at a certain point that can not be explained by any math.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.
> 
> But then again you are a far left drone that thinks the science is settled!
> 
> There is no one equation for the standard BB model of the universe.
> 
> It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.
> 
> But the far left religion will never allow you to consider anything outside your religious dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice walk in a circle horseman...If you applied the same formula of babble to the Bible, you wouldn't kneel and beg...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And another far left drone chimes in and proves my comments!
> 
> As they are wanting to be the top drone of the month!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised in a church with a scholarly grandmother that was a theologian at heart, since they wouldn't let women be lay persons in the church,,I know all about the fictional and nonfictional accounts in der Bible and that good time religion shared by fire and brimstone yellers...I never moved me so much I felt like donating money to it..Even as a kid..
Click to expand...


And the far left religion continues to corrupt everyone it comes in contact with!

The far left continues to prove that they love to run their debunked narratives!

But this one has one mission on this board and that is to be the top drone of the month!


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.


Rubbish. You've asserted.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
Click to expand...

There is only one Bible. And it is not to be interpreted but understood by using Biblical, historical and cultural context.


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.
> 
> 
> 
> Ffs, you unbelievable imbecile, it's your assertion, not mine.
Click to expand...


And this far left drone proves my point for me, even after it is explained to them. They just ignore and deny!

So you see it is about the far left religious narrative and nothing else, not even in real science.


----------



## Moonglow

Kosh said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to know science therefore you are asking a question you should know the answer for.
> 
> But then again you are a far left drone that thinks the science is settled!
> 
> There is no one equation for the standard BB model of the universe.
> 
> It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.
> 
> But the far left religion will never allow you to consider anything outside your religious dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice walk in a circle horseman...If you applied the same formula of babble to the Bible, you wouldn't kneel and beg...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And another far left drone chimes in and proves my comments!
> 
> As they are wanting to be the top drone of the month!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was raised in a church with a scholarly grandmother that was a theologian at heart, since they wouldn't let women be lay persons in the church,,I know all about the fictional and nonfictional accounts in der Bible and that good time religion shared by fire and brimstone yellers...I never moved me so much I felt like donating money to it..Even as a kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the far left religion continues to corrupt everyone it comes in contact with!
> 
> The far left continues to prove that they love to run their debunked narratives!
> 
> But this one has one mission on this board and that is to be the top drone of the month!
Click to expand...

Far left religion? Yeah you go with that and next time you can tell us what religion the far right Aryans are...


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Some things are beyond our comprehension. What is NOT beyond our comprehension is the clear evidence that the universe had a beginning and that the universe was created by someone OUTSIDE of said universe.


There you go, invoking the sky fairy to act as the god of gaps in your knowledge.


----------



## Moonglow

RWNJ said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one Bible. And it is not to be interpreted but understood by using Biblical, historical and cultural context.
Click to expand...

Which Bible is that?


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.
> 
> 
> 
> Rubbish. You've asserted.
Click to expand...


And you as a far left drone have yet to offer any alternatives other than to base all your posts on the debunked far left religious dogma. And thus proving you are here to push the far left religious agenda and nothing else!

Got any real science to offer?


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> And this far left drone proves my point for me, even after it is explained to them. They just ignore and deny!


You said the maths broke down. I asked where, you said I should know. Really, how dumb do you have to show yourself?


----------



## RWNJ

Muhammed said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe was never created.
Click to expand...

It had to be created. It couldn't have created itself, and it can't be eternal because if it was there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago.


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just saying that a God created the universe because of the dogma presented in a book written thousands of years ago is not proof that God does exist and neither does the best guess of a scholar physicist and his galaxy gang banging theory.....As far as I am concerned neither is probably the best answer...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're apparently not reading anything I have shared here.  Engaging with you on these sorts of topics appears to be a waste of everyone's time and effort.  See ya in a non-religious thread.
Click to expand...

Did you have some other source for forming the basis of your hypothesis for your thesis OP?


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this far left drone proves my point for me, even after it is explained to them. They just ignore and deny!
> 
> 
> 
> You said the maths broke down. I asked where, you said I should know. Really, how dumb do you have to show yourself?
Click to expand...


And I did say what is common knowledge on the subject.

If you knew anything about real science you would know.

And I did explain it, you just did not understand the answer.


----------



## Moonglow

RWNJ said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It had to be created. It couldn't have created itself, and it can't be eternal because if it was there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago.
Click to expand...

Based on what evidence?


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> And you as a far left drone have yet to offer any alternatives other than to base all your posts on the debunked far left religious dogma. And thus proving you are here to push the far left religious agenda and nothing else!


Anyone translate this?


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> And I did say what is common knowledge on the subject.


I don't know to what you refer. Where does the maths of the BB break down? Educate me.


----------



## Eloy

Windparadox said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
Click to expand...

It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've spoken with many Christians who say the basis of their belief is "faith".  It's a word we hear all the time.  They tell me they realize God hasn't made himself obvious, but that they have "faith" that He's there.  Faith is the bridge between Point A and Point B.
> 
> Okay, that's fine.  But that's not empirical evidence.
> 
> All He has to do is show up and say howdy, and we'll have proof.  Until then, this is based on "faith".
> .
Click to expand...


I met a woman years ago who told me about an NDE that she experienced.  Long story short, she died and met Jesus.  I said "That experience must have really strengthened your faith".  She responded, quite adamantly "It's not _faith_, it's _fact_!".  

For most of the rest of us, however, it _is_ faith.  But those who look for God will find him, at least those who _want _to find him.  The militant, narrow-minded atheists here do NOT want to find God.  

I talk to my kids and other family members about God and give them reasons to believe, especially scientific arguments for the belief in a creator.  I encourage believers to do the same because, eventually, our children will encounter the Godless, soulless atheists that will do everything they can to persuade them that there is no God and, frankly, no purpose to life.  

If you ever check out YouTube there are many credible people who share their NDE experiences.  The ABG adherents will tell you they're dreaming, lying, experiencing the effects of a dying brain, anything to dismiss the idea that there is a creator and that there is an afterlife.  

Frankly, it's my personal belief that atheists have been deceived by the greatest liar in world history, Satan.  At most atheists are also liberals, you'll also see these people lie through their teeth and avoid simple questions that reveal their ideology to be unreasonable.  I will say that Muslims have also been deceived by Satan.  There's a reason much of the world has hated Israel from the beginning of time - Satan.  No other segment of humanity has been as oppressed and persecuted throughout Earth's history as have the Jews, God's chosen people in the Old Testament.  If there is no creator, why then have the Jews been so mercilessly persecuted?  Coincidence?  I think not.  There's a reason that many liberals and Muslims despise Israel, it's because they've both been deceived by Satan.  

Now, if you don't believe in God and Satan then you're left to believe that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he's right, it's not just opinio_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...


That's funny. Many of the greatest scientists are, or were, Christians. In fact, it was Christians who developed the scientific method.


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know yet.  It's a fun and fascinating mystery.  Maybe we'll get there one day.
> 
> Anyone who claims they know for sure isn't being honest.  Or they're brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones that know for sure are the arrogant, condescending, atheists that accuse believers of having an imaginary sky fairy to fill in the gaps.  Meanwhile, they posit theories that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there's plenty of arrogance and condescension coming from both sides of this.
> 
> The side opposite yours certainly does enjoy the mockery and personal insults, I'll give you that.
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't base my faith in a creator in religious dogma nor in the bible but, with all that's been said, I am reminded of something Jesus said in the bible.  Don't cast your pearls to the swine.  Discussing the concept of a creator with hardcore, militant atheists like we have here is the equivalent of casting pearls to the swine.  I think my participation in this thread is about over.
Click to expand...

Jesus said that to his disciples to only preach before receptive people...Are you preaching before receptive people?


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you as a far left drone have yet to offer any alternatives other than to base all your posts on the debunked far left religious dogma. And thus proving you are here to push the far left religious agenda and nothing else!
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone translate this?
Click to expand...


Yes the far left can not understand anything beyond their debunked religious dogma!


----------



## Moonglow

RWNJ said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he's right, it's not just opinio_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny. Many of the greatest scientists are, or were, Christians. In fact, it was Christians who developed the scientific method.
Click to expand...

And many are not...And some are Hindus and some are Jews, some are Muslims,etc, etc....So we have a paradox of God's all being a creator..


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I did say what is common knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know to what you refer. Where does the maths of the BB break down? Educate me.
Click to expand...


Far left drones can not be educated as they will never let go of their debunked religious dogma.

It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.

This was posted once before, why is it hard for you to understand it?

You claim you know science.


----------



## K9Buck

Eloy said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
Click to expand...


I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.


----------



## Moonglow

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you as a far left drone have yet to offer any alternatives other than to base all your posts on the debunked far left religious dogma. And thus proving you are here to push the far left religious agenda and nothing else!
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone translate this?
Click to expand...


----------



## Windparadox

Eloy said:


> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.


`
When it comes down to people stating that their belief, is the only one true belief, discussion become useless.


----------



## Taz

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've spoken with many Christians who say the basis of their belief is "faith".  It's a word we hear all the time.  They tell me they realize God hasn't made himself obvious, but that they have "faith" that He's there.  Faith is the bridge between Point A and Point B.
> 
> Okay, that's fine.  But that's not empirical evidence.
> 
> All He has to do is show up and say howdy, and we'll have proof.  Until then, this is based on "faith".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a woman years ago who told me about an NDE that she experienced.  Long story short, she died and met Jesus.  I said "That experience must have really strengthened your faith".  She responded, quite adamantly "It's not _faith_, it's _fact_!".
> 
> For most of the rest of us, however, it _is_ faith.  But those who look for God will find him, at least those who _want _to find him.  The militant, narrow-minded atheists here do NOT want to find God.
> 
> I talk to my kids and other family members about God and give them reasons to believe, especially scientific arguments for the belief in a creator.  I encourage believers to do the same because, eventually, our children will encounter the Godless, soulless atheists that will do everything they can to persuade them that there is no God and, frankly, no purpose to life.
> 
> If you ever check out YouTube there are many credible people who share their NDE experiences.  The ABG adherents will tell you they're dreaming, lying, experiencing the effects of a dying brain, anything to dismiss the idea that there is a creator and that there is an afterlife.
> 
> Frankly, it's my personal belief that atheists have been deceived by the greatest liar in world history, Satan.  At most atheists are also liberals, you'll also see these people lie through their teeth and avoid simple questions that reveal their ideology to be unreasonable.  I will say that Muslims have also been deceived by Satan.  There's a reason much of the world has hated Israel from the beginning of time - Satan.  No other segment of humanity has been as oppressed and persecuted throughout Earth's history as have the Jews, God's chosen people in the Old Testament.  If there is no creator, why then have the Jews been so mercilessly persecuted?  Coincidence?  I think not.  There's a reason that many liberals and Muslims despise Israel, it's because they've both been deceived by Satan.
> 
> Now, if you don't believe in God and Satan then you're left to believe that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic because there's no actual proof either way for or against the possibility of a creator, and if anyone ever comes up with real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.


----------



## K9Buck

Kosh said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I did say what is common knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know to what you refer. Where does the maths of the BB break down? Educate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far left drones can not be educated as they will never let go of their debunked religious dogma.
> 
> It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.
> 
> This was posted once before, why is it hard for you to understand it?
> 
> You claim you know science.
Click to expand...


Stop wasting your time, energy and bandwidth on a troll.  Don't cast your pearls.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> TThere is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I didn't say there was. It's all theoretical. While the Big Bang is an accepted theory in the scientific community, it also allows for other competing science based postulations. It may not be "compelling" to you, but it certainly is for others.
Click to expand...

Something most people don't know about the big bang is that the mathematical model breaks down before it gets to the beginning. Why is that? Personally, I believe that God probably used the big bang to create the universe, while at the same time creating the universal pohysical constants, among other things. Perhaps there was no math at the point where it breaks down.


----------



## K9Buck

Taz said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've spoken with many Christians who say the basis of their belief is "faith".  It's a word we hear all the time.  They tell me they realize God hasn't made himself obvious, but that they have "faith" that He's there.  Faith is the bridge between Point A and Point B.
> 
> Okay, that's fine.  But that's not empirical evidence.
> 
> All He has to do is show up and say howdy, and we'll have proof.  Until then, this is based on "faith".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a woman years ago who told me about an NDE that she experienced.  Long story short, she died and met Jesus.  I said "That experience must have really strengthened your faith".  She responded, quite adamantly "It's not _faith_, it's _fact_!".
> 
> For most of the rest of us, however, it _is_ faith.  But those who look for God will find him, at least those who _want _to find him.  The militant, narrow-minded atheists here do NOT want to find God.
> 
> I talk to my kids and other family members about God and give them reasons to believe, especially scientific arguments for the belief in a creator.  I encourage believers to do the same because, eventually, our children will encounter the Godless, soulless atheists that will do everything they can to persuade them that there is no God and, frankly, no purpose to life.
> 
> If you ever check out YouTube there are many credible people who share their NDE experiences.  The ABG adherents will tell you they're dreaming, lying, experiencing the effects of a dying brain, anything to dismiss the idea that there is a creator and that there is an afterlife.
> 
> Frankly, it's my personal belief that atheists have been deceived by the greatest liar in world history, Satan.  At most atheists are also liberals, you'll also see these people lie through their teeth and avoid simple questions that reveal their ideology to be unreasonable.  I will say that Muslims have also been deceived by Satan.  There's a reason much of the world has hated Israel from the beginning of time - Satan.  No other segment of humanity has been as oppressed and persecuted throughout Earth's history as have the Jews, God's chosen people in the Old Testament.  If there is no creator, why then have the Jews been so mercilessly persecuted?  Coincidence?  I think not.  There's a reason that many liberals and Muslims despise Israel, it's because they've both been deceived by Satan.
> 
> Now, if you don't believe in God and Satan then you're left to believe that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm agnostic because there's no actual proof either way for or against the possibility of a creator, and if anyone ever comes up with real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.
Click to expand...


That's fair.  Keep looking and keep an open mind!


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.
Click to expand...

My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..


----------



## Kosh

K9Buck said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I did say what is common knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know to what you refer. Where does the maths of the BB break down? Educate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far left drones can not be educated as they will never let go of their debunked religious dogma.
> 
> It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.
> 
> This was posted once before, why is it hard for you to understand it?
> 
> You claim you know science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop wasting your time, energy and bandwidth on a troll.  Don't cast your pearls.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I have the time for a good feeding!


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> I talk to my kids and other family members about God and give them reasons to believe, especially scientific arguments for the belief in a creator.


I bet those are hilarious. You should tell us some for our entertainment. Let me guess one..._'It's obvious common sense.'_


----------



## RWNJ

K9Buck said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
Click to expand...

Something you might find interesting. It is a scientific fact that space and time are a part of the fabric of the universe. Which begs the question. If there was no uiverse, and thus no space or time, WHEN and WHERE did the big bang happen?


----------



## Mac1958

K9Buck said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've spoken with many Christians who say the basis of their belief is "faith".  It's a word we hear all the time.  They tell me they realize God hasn't made himself obvious, but that they have "faith" that He's there.  Faith is the bridge between Point A and Point B.
> 
> Okay, that's fine.  But that's not empirical evidence.
> 
> All He has to do is show up and say howdy, and we'll have proof.  Until then, this is based on "faith".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a woman years ago who told me about an NDE that she experienced.  Long story short, she died and met Jesus.  I said "That experience must have really strengthened your faith".  She responded, quite adamantly "It's not _faith_, it's _fact_!".
> 
> For most of the rest of us, however, it _is_ faith.  But those who look for God will find him, at least those who _want _to find him.  The militant, narrow-minded atheists here do NOT want to find God.
> 
> I talk to my kids and other family members about God and give them reasons to believe, especially scientific arguments for the belief in a creator.  I encourage believers to do the same because, eventually, our children will encounter the Godless, soulless atheists that will do everything they can to persuade them that there is no God and, frankly, no purpose to life.
> 
> If you ever check out YouTube there are many credible people who share their NDE experiences.  The ABG adherents will tell you they're dreaming, lying, experiencing the effects of a dying brain, anything to dismiss the idea that there is a creator and that there is an afterlife.
> 
> Frankly, it's my personal belief that atheists have been deceived by the greatest liar in world history, Satan.  At most atheists are also liberals, you'll also see these people lie through their teeth and avoid simple questions that reveal their ideology to be unreasonable.  I will say that Muslims have also been deceived by Satan.  There's a reason much of the world has hated Israel from the beginning of time - Satan.  No other segment of humanity has been as oppressed and persecuted throughout Earth's history as have the Jews, God's chosen people in the Old Testament.  If there is no creator, why then have the Jews been so mercilessly persecuted?  Coincidence?  I think not.  There's a reason that many liberals and Muslims despise Israel, it's because they've both been deceived by Satan.
> 
> Now, if you don't believe in God and Satan then you're left to believe that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.
Click to expand...

Either position, right now, requires Faith.  For me, personally, I admit to not knowing.  I doubt the existence of God - or at least, especially the God that I hear about - but empirical evidence would draw me in one direction or the other.  Right now, I have neither, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

NDE's could easily be generated by our brains.  We don't know.

Regarding the "pearls before swine" comment you made earlier, I can understand that.  As I also understand it, however, you're supposed to humbly keep trying, but I'm no expert there.  I do know that trying to change anyone's mind in this online format is almost certainly a waste of time, either on religion or politics.
.


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> You claim you know science.


I don't know where the maths for the BB breaks down, as you claim it does. Educate me.


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..
Click to expand...


Yes, many people say the same.  Many others have returned to share experiences.  Some of them have shocked medical staff and families by telling them things they said or did or described things in the hospital that they couldn't have possibly known about.  When my grandmother was in Hospice I had an opportunity to speak to many Hospice nurses.  Every one of them had a supernatural experience to share with me and every one of them definitely believed in life after death.


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you know science.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where the maths for the BB breaks down, as you claim it does. Educate me.
Click to expand...


And I did, you choose to ignore it!

It may be better to put it another way: while it is true that when building a theory on another theory, the conclusion of the first theory must be taken as an axiom in the second, but that shouldn't mislead one to be believe that that first theory isn't still a testable scientific theory with evidence of its own to back it up. In addition, the success of the new theory provides evidence to back up the theories its axioms are built from.

This explains where and why the math breaks down..

If you choose to ignore this, then that is on you and proves the far left does not care about science, just running debunked religious narratives.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Frankly, it's my personal belief that atheists have been deceived by the greatest liar in world history, Satan.


I thought everything was good that came from god.


----------



## Kosh

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once. 

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, it's my personal belief that atheists have been deceived by the greatest liar in world history, Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought everything was good that came from god.
Click to expand...


See how the far left is here to run their debunked narratives?

Proof the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet!


----------



## RWNJ

K9Buck said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone or some thing would have to create it in the first place for it to happen, right?
Click to expand...

Yes. But some scientists think it's OK to ignore the law of cause and effect.


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> Something most people don't know about the big bang is that the mathematical model breaks down before it gets to the beginning.


As I understand it, the BB model only deals with what happens after. What happens before is what the discussion is about.


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> But some scientists think it's OK to ignore the law of cause and effect.


What on earth are you talking about? Action and reaction?


----------



## RWNJ

K9Buck said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward.  The ABG adherents are trying to disavow the Big Bang because of its implications with regard to a creator.
Click to expand...

Wrong. God probably caused the big bang. In fact, the Bible states that God streached out the heavens. See the connection?


----------



## K9Buck

Mac1958 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most atheists are saying "I see no empirical evidence.  Provide it and I'll change my mind".
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly made very sound, logical arguments and every single atheist here has ignored them or deflected.  Atheists demand proof and when given strong evidence, they run and hide.  Then they accuse the presenter of believing in sky fairies, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've spoken with many Christians who say the basis of their belief is "faith".  It's a word we hear all the time.  They tell me they realize God hasn't made himself obvious, but that they have "faith" that He's there.  Faith is the bridge between Point A and Point B.
> 
> Okay, that's fine.  But that's not empirical evidence.
> 
> All He has to do is show up and say howdy, and we'll have proof.  Until then, this is based on "faith".
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I met a woman years ago who told me about an NDE that she experienced.  Long story short, she died and met Jesus.  I said "That experience must have really strengthened your faith".  She responded, quite adamantly "It's not _faith_, it's _fact_!".
> 
> For most of the rest of us, however, it _is_ faith.  But those who look for God will find him, at least those who _want _to find him.  The militant, narrow-minded atheists here do NOT want to find God.
> 
> I talk to my kids and other family members about God and give them reasons to believe, especially scientific arguments for the belief in a creator.  I encourage believers to do the same because, eventually, our children will encounter the Godless, soulless atheists that will do everything they can to persuade them that there is no God and, frankly, no purpose to life.
> 
> If you ever check out YouTube there are many credible people who share their NDE experiences.  The ABG adherents will tell you they're dreaming, lying, experiencing the effects of a dying brain, anything to dismiss the idea that there is a creator and that there is an afterlife.
> 
> Frankly, it's my personal belief that atheists have been deceived by the greatest liar in world history, Satan.  At most atheists are also liberals, you'll also see these people lie through their teeth and avoid simple questions that reveal their ideology to be unreasonable.  I will say that Muslims have also been deceived by Satan.  There's a reason much of the world has hated Israel from the beginning of time - Satan.  No other segment of humanity has been as oppressed and persecuted throughout Earth's history as have the Jews, God's chosen people in the Old Testament.  If there is no creator, why then have the Jews been so mercilessly persecuted?  Coincidence?  I think not.  There's a reason that many liberals and Muslims despise Israel, it's because they've both been deceived by Satan.
> 
> Now, if you don't believe in God and Satan then you're left to believe that the universe came out of nowhere and that life created itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either position, right now, requires Faith.  For me, personally, I admit to not knowing.  I doubt the existence of God - or at least, especially the God that I hear about - but empirical evidence would draw me in one direction or the other.  Right now, I have neither, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
> 
> NDE's could easily be generated by our brains.  We don't know.
> 
> Regarding the "pearls before swine" comment you made earlier, I can understand that.  As I also understand it, however, you're supposed to humbly keep trying, but I'm no expert there.  I do know that trying to change anyone's mind in this online format is almost certainly a waste of time, either on religion or politics.
> .
Click to expand...


The hardcore atheist is unlikely to change barring they themselves having some sort of NDE, such as the one the self-described, militant atheist and university professor Howard Storm had in 1985(?).  He quit his cushy university professorship (head of his department), went to seminary school and became a church pastor.  You can listen to his story here.  
There's also the story of neurosurgeon Even Alexander, a neurosurgeon who was also an atheist who contracted bacterial meningitis, went into a coma, had an NDE and, against big odds, survived and made a complete recovery.  You can hear his story here:

There's countless more.  Some of them are probably lying to get attention, etc., but I absolutely believe many of them are telling the truth, especially the ones that tell how they went to Hell.  LOL!


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, many people say the same.  Many others have returned to share experiences.  Some of them have shocked medical staff and families by telling them things they said or did or described things in the hospital that they couldn't have possibly known about.  When my grandmother was in Hospice I had an opportunity to speak to many Hospice nurses.  Every one of them had a supernatural experience to share with me and every one of them definitely believed in life after death.
Click to expand...

There is no life after death according to Jesus and his views were the same as the Jews....or Hebrews...There is no life  until after resurrection and judgement will decide if you exist anymore..


----------



## K9Buck

RWNJ said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward.  The ABG adherents are trying to disavow the Big Bang because of its implications with regard to a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. God probably caused the big bang. In fact, the Bible states that God streached out the heavens. See the connection?
Click to expand...


Yes, God caused the big bang which marked the beginning of space and time.  The universe has been expanding ever since.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you have "compelling" it isn't Science.Greg
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Compelling is subjective. I'm compelled by facts and and proof. While, empirical proof is best, the combination of logic and theory can also be compelling. Ultimately, it depends on the individual.
Click to expand...

Is the law of cause and effect not compelling? The universe exists. Therefore it was caused to happen. I simply believe that the only rational cause is God.


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> See how the far left is here to run their debunked narratives?
> 
> Proof the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet!


So, what, bad things come from god? That would seem to have to be the case if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

My response to Hawking would be "whence comes existence?"  Why does anything "exist" at all?

For every Yin there is a Yang.  What is the comparable state of non-existence, and what catalyst altered that state?  Would not such a catalyst by necessity exist independent of either state?


----------



## RWNJ

Kosh said:


> (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
> 
> Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


Entropy. Don't forget about entropy. If the universe had always existed all the energy would be gone.


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> 
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, many people say the same.  Many others have returned to share experiences.  Some of them have shocked medical staff and families by telling them things they said or did or described things in the hospital that they couldn't have possibly known about.  When my grandmother was in Hospice I had an opportunity to speak to many Hospice nurses.  Every one of them had a supernatural experience to share with me and every one of them definitely believed in life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no life after death according to Jesus and his views were the same as the Jews....or Hebrews...There is no life  until after resurrection and judgement will decide if you exist anymore..
Click to expand...


This would contradict that belief.  It would also contradict the countless statements of people who have experienced a taste of the afterlife before returning to this realm.  

New International Version
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> I simply believe that the only rational cause is God.


Absolutely. Sky fairies are common sense.


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> See how the far left is here to run their debunked narratives?
> 
> Proof the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet!
> 
> 
> 
> So, what, bad things come from god? That would seem to have to be the case if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator.
Click to expand...


Once again the far left religious narrative runs as it proves that they do not believe in science, just debunked far left religious narratives.

Do you believe that humans are the superior conscience in the universe?


----------



## K9Buck

Billy_Kinetta said:


> My response to Hawking would be "whence comes existence?"  Why does anything "exist" at all?
> 
> For every Yin there is a Yang.  What is the comparable state of non-existence, and what catalyst altered that state?



Well said.  There's too much logical thought here for an atheist to touch.  They'll run from it like roaches to a light.


----------



## cnm

Billy_Kinetta said:


> My response to Hawking would be "whence comes existence?" Why does anything "exist" at all?


I bet his answer would be 'Fucked if I know'.


----------



## RWNJ

cnm said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But some scientists think it's OK to ignore the law of cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about? Action and reaction?
Click to expand...

Nope. Cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. So, who or what caused the big bang?


----------



## K9Buck

Kosh said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> See how the far left is here to run their debunked narratives?
> 
> Proof the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet!
> 
> 
> 
> So, what, bad things come from god? That would seem to have to be the case if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the far left religious narrative runs as it proves that they do not believe in science, just debunked far left religious narratives.
> 
> Do you believe that humans are the superior conscience in the universe?
Click to expand...


Yes sir.  The science is absolutely on the side of a creator.  I'd call it the "preponderance of the evidence".  Atheists have nothing except to say that the universe came from nothing and that life created itself.


----------



## Kosh

RWNJ said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
> 
> Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp
> 
> 
> 
> Entropy. Don't forget about entropy. If the universe had always existed all the energy would be gone.
Click to expand...


Not accord to the new "Theroy" based on a computer model.

As we all know (according to the far left religion) computer models are to be believed over everything!


----------



## cnm

Kosh said:


> Do you believe that humans are the superior conscience in the universe?


I don't even know they're the superior conscience on Earth. You?


----------



## K9Buck

RWNJ said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But some scientists think it's OK to ignore the law of cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about? Action and reaction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Cause and effect. Nothing happens without something or someone else causing it to happen. So, who or what caused the big bang?
Click to expand...


The creator, aka "God".


----------



## Moonglow

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, many people say the same.  Many others have returned to share experiences.  Some of them have shocked medical staff and families by telling them things they said or did or described things in the hospital that they couldn't have possibly known about.  When my grandmother was in Hospice I had an opportunity to speak to many Hospice nurses.  Every one of them had a supernatural experience to share with me and every one of them definitely believed in life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no life after death according to Jesus and his views were the same as the Jews....or Hebrews...There is no life  until after resurrection and judgement will decide if you exist anymore..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would contradict that belief.  It would also contradict the countless statements of people who have experienced a taste of the afterlife before returning to this realm.
> 
> New International Version
> Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
Click to expand...

But Jesus didn't go to paradise the day he died...


----------



## Kosh

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that humans are the superior conscience in the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know they're the superior conscience on Earth. You?
Click to expand...


Well the far left is certain not superior to anything or anyone, not even an ameba.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Yes sir.  The science is absolutely on the side of a creator.


I bet your family is enlightened by such scientific argument





> I'd call it the "preponderance of the evidence".  Atheists have nothing except to say that the universe came from nothing and that life created itself.


No, they say available evidence suggests that might be the case and that life came from chemical reactions. 

But obviously a sky fairy is the common sense answer.


----------



## K9Buck

Moonglow said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.
> 
> 
> 
> My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, many people say the same.  Many others have returned to share experiences.  Some of them have shocked medical staff and families by telling them things they said or did or described things in the hospital that they couldn't have possibly known about.  When my grandmother was in Hospice I had an opportunity to speak to many Hospice nurses.  Every one of them had a supernatural experience to share with me and every one of them definitely believed in life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no life after death according to Jesus and his views were the same as the Jews....or Hebrews...There is no life  until after resurrection and judgement will decide if you exist anymore..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would contradict that belief.  It would also contradict the countless statements of people who have experienced a taste of the afterlife before returning to this realm.
> 
> New International Version
> Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Jesus didn't go to paradise the day he died...
Click to expand...


How do you know?  Perhaps he went to Heaven and then resurrected his body on Sunday.  It would certainly be consistent with the countless numbers of people who have shared their NDE's.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

cnm said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to Hawking would be "whence comes existence?" Why does anything "exist" at all?
> 
> 
> 
> I bet his answer would be 'Fucked if I know'.
Click to expand...


I believe that would indeed be the case.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> 
> My response to Hawking would be "whence comes existence?"  Why does anything "exist" at all?
> 
> For every Yin there is a Yang.  What is the comparable state of non-existence, and what catalyst altered that state?
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.  There's too much logical thought here for an atheist to touch.  They'll run from it like roaches to a light.
Click to expand...

While you're so scared of it you have to invent a god of gaps to fill in your knowledge.


----------



## K9Buck

The future of God's followers is to be physically resurrected and to live on a remade Earth where Jesus will be King.  Some remnants of Earth, such as the Nazi death camps that are now used as memorials, will apparently no longer exist.

Isaiah 65:17
Verse Concepts

"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.


----------



## RWNJ

cnm said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe that the only rational cause is God.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Sky fairies are common sense.
Click to expand...

FOOL! I suppose it's also common sense that the universe created itself? Give me a break.


----------



## K9Buck

RWNJ said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe that the only rational cause is God.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Sky fairies are common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FOOL! I suppose it's also common sense that the universe created itself? Give me a break.
Click to expand...


Let the dead bury their dead.  Put that fool on ignore as I did.  Don't argue with morons.


----------



## RWNJ

K9Buck said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe that the only rational cause is God.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Sky fairies are common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FOOL! I suppose it's also common sense that the universe created itself? Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I did that, who would I make fun of?
> Let the dead bury their dead.  Put that fool on ignore as I did.  Don't argue with morons.
Click to expand...


----------



## K9Buck

On another note, I've noticed that atheists here are constantly demanding "PROOF!" while simultaneously offering up horseshit of their own.


----------



## RWNJ

K9Buck said:


> On another note, I've noticed that atheists here are constantly demanding "PROOF!" while simultaneously offering up horseshit of their own.


There is no such high thing as an atheist. There are those who have accepted the fact that they are sinners in need of redemption, and those who love their sin more than God.


----------



## Muhammed

K9Buck said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward.
Click to expand...

Outward to where?
 There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.


----------



## J.E.D

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research


And you know this, how?....


----------



## Muhammed

RWNJ said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I've noticed that atheists here are constantly demanding "PROOF!" while simultaneously offering up horseshit of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such high thing as an atheist. There are those who have accepted the fact that they are sinners in need of redemption, and those who love their sin more than God.
Click to expand...

I'm an athiest because I've always found the theory that supernatural beings exist to be just patently absurd on it's face and I wasn't raised in a religious family.

However I am a tolerant athiest. I harbor no antipathy towards religious folks.


----------



## Skull Pilot

RWNJ said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

What if the universe always existed and we only have a theory, the big bang, to try to explain  only one event that happened ?

As far as the big bang theory goes it's simply the best explanation for what we can observe in the universe but then consider the fact that we cannot observe and do not understand Dark Energy and Dark Matter which actually comprise 95% of the matter and energy in the entire universe and tell me what confidence you have in a theory of the creation of the universe than only accounts for combined 5% of matter and energy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research



Since RWNJ fails to prove a Creator exists, we can assume the postulate put forth by Mr. Hawking has merit.  This thread and the other one are examples of a polemic, one can believe him or not, but nothing has nor can be answered by responding to his mental masturbation.


----------



## Windparadox

Muhammed said:


> Outward to where? There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.


`
Actually, you are right but the explanation is a head banger. I'm no physicist. For starters,many people assume the "big bang"  singularity happened from a central point and expanded outward. That's not correct. It happened every time and everyplace, simultaneously. The universe has no center, no shape, no edge. It's not really physically going anywhere.

So, why do we say it's "expanding"? If so, what is it expanding into? I have a couple of good sites I'll list at the bottom of this that have better explanations but in essence, they physically are not aren't expanding anywhere. What is expanding is the time/space between bodies. A good analogy is take a deflated balloon and put two dots on it. Then start to blow up the balloon.  Note that the two dots are farther apart. Keep blowing up the balloon and the dots become even further apart. The dots haven't moved but the space between them (skin of the balloon) has expanded. Time/space has expanded, not the physical entities. That is what is meant by "expansion."

*What is the universe expanding into.*
`


----------



## sealybobo

Moonglow said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is only one Bible. And it is not to be interpreted but understood by using Biblical, historical and cultural context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Bible is that?
Click to expand...

Yea, which version?  King James or one of the many other versions?

I can tell you this.  The Greeks practically invented Christianity.  We may have actually invented it.  Paul went to Greece and that's where he wrote practically half the bible. 

So I don't even want to know what King James did to it.  I can only imagine.


----------



## Eloy

K9Buck said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I encourage you to get on YouTube and do a search for atheist near death experiences.  I don't pretend that every person that has posted their NDE on YouTube is being honest.  But, if you watch some of them, I believe you can sort of glean who is being honest, especially when they're telling the whole world that they went to Hell and experienced pure terror and that, upon returning, decided to change their life.  If you seek God, you will find him.
Click to expand...

I had this experience myself and upon waking up I decided to quit the medication prescribed for me.


----------



## sealybobo

Eloy said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already know what's going to happen so who cares. It is written. Prophecized. And some even believe the end days are near but it's not pollution it's sin that's doing is in. Damn the science
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Not all Christians believe in creationist concepts. That's the rub. Consider this, there are hundreds of different Christian sects (or calling themselves "Christian") who have hundreds of different beliefs in God and the bible. Many even have their own bibles. Then there are millions of different interpretations of that bible. Many believe that we are in the "end times" now. I don't even try to keep up with that. I simply let them believe what they want. I've no interest in their beliefs nor changing their minds. If someone does not like mine, fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would indeed be a most unorthodox Christian who did not believe that a god created the world.
Click to expand...


Yea but some Christians who believe in science might just believe that god created the big bang, then planted the life seed and let evolution take place.  Evolution 1 million years ago and the Jesus story are two different things.  

Most Christians can just write this off as the Jews in the old testament didn't know what they were talking about.  Evolution and the big bang don't debunk the Jesus story right?  

How about Christians who believe non christians go to heaven even after reading this:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


----------



## Eloy

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, many people say the same.  Many others have returned to share experiences.  Some of them have shocked medical staff and families by telling them things they said or did or described things in the hospital that they couldn't have possibly known about.  When my grandmother was in Hospice I had an opportunity to speak to many Hospice nurses.  Every one of them had a supernatural experience to share with me and every one of them definitely believed in life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no life after death according to Jesus and his views were the same as the Jews....or Hebrews...There is no life  until after resurrection and judgement will decide if you exist anymore..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would contradict that belief.  It would also contradict the countless statements of people who have experienced a taste of the afterlife before returning to this realm.
> 
> New International Version
> Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Jesus didn't go to paradise the day he died...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know?  Perhaps he went to Heaven and then resurrected his body on Sunday.  It would certainly be consistent with the countless numbers of people who have shared their NDE's.
Click to expand...

The


----------



## Windparadox

sealybobo said:


> Yea but some Christians who believe in science might just believe that god created the big bang, then planted the life seed and let evolution take place.  Evolution 1 million years ago and the Jesus story are two different things. Most Christians can just write this off as the Jews in the old testament didn't know what they were talking about.  Evolution and the big bang don't debunk the Jesus story right? How about Christians who believe non christians go to heaven even after reading this:Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


`
I'm not an atheist, I do believe in some kind of supreme divinity, but definitely not the kind of beliefs I see the more radical religious elements push. I tend to be more spiritual. I was more interested in the science here, which I see was just a front to get into useless religious arguments. I'll pass.


----------



## Eloy

K9Buck said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Father in law died and then came back and he said he saw nothing, it was like going to sleep and waking up..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, many people say the same.  Many others have returned to share experiences.  Some of them have shocked medical staff and families by telling them things they said or did or described things in the hospital that they couldn't have possibly known about.  When my grandmother was in Hospice I had an opportunity to speak to many Hospice nurses.  Every one of them had a supernatural experience to share with me and every one of them definitely believed in life after death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no life after death according to Jesus and his views were the same as the Jews....or Hebrews...There is no life  until after resurrection and judgement will decide if you exist anymore..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This would contradict that belief.  It would also contradict the countless statements of people who have experienced a taste of the afterlife before returning to this realm.
> 
> New International Version
> Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Jesus didn't go to paradise the day he died...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know?  Perhaps he went to Heaven and then resurrected his body on Sunday.  It would certainly be consistent with the countless numbers of people who have shared their NDE's.
Click to expand...

Jesus did not resurrect himself; he was raised to life again by god:
"Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power." (1 Corinthians 6:14)
"... which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead ..." (Ephesians 1:20)
"... knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also ..." (2 Corinthians 4:14)
etc.


----------



## MarkDuffy

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research


Intelligent Designers used to love Hawking but not any longer!

LOL

I guess that means no Christmas card from Discovery Institute this year


----------



## MarkDuffy

Muhammed said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe is spreading outward and all evidence is that it's ALWAYS been spreading outward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outward to where?
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
Click to expand...

17 verses in the Bible say God expanded the universe from its original size. What affect did that have on time, and on red and blue shift?


----------



## sealybobo

Windparadox said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but some Christians who believe in science might just believe that god created the big bang, then planted the life seed and let evolution take place.  Evolution 1 million years ago and the Jesus story are two different things. Most Christians can just write this off as the Jews in the old testament didn't know what they were talking about.  Evolution and the big bang don't debunk the Jesus story right? How about Christians who believe non christians go to heaven even after reading this:Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I'm not an atheist, I do believe in some kind of supreme divinity, but definitely not the kind of beliefs I see the more radical religious elements push. I tend to be more spiritual. I was more interested in the science here, which I see was just a front to get into useless religious arguments. I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Good since I wasn't talking to you.  LOL.  I was commenting on Eloy's comment.  

And I agree with you.  I'm way more interested in the science but good luck with that here.  If you mention Hawking or Tyson or Bill Nye the religious nuts go nuts.  So I just assumed.  LOL.

Anyways, are you new?  Welcome.  I can be a bit annoying at times.


----------



## sealybobo

Windparadox said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but some Christians who believe in science might just believe that god created the big bang, then planted the life seed and let evolution take place.  Evolution 1 million years ago and the Jesus story are two different things. Most Christians can just write this off as the Jews in the old testament didn't know what they were talking about.  Evolution and the big bang don't debunk the Jesus story right? How about Christians who believe non christians go to heaven even after reading this:Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> I'm not an atheist, I do believe in some kind of supreme divinity, but definitely not the kind of beliefs I see the more radical religious elements push. I tend to be more spiritual. I was more interested in the science here, which I see was just a front to get into useless religious arguments. I'll pass.
Click to expand...

I heard it's possible that Venus once harbored life before earth did. Back when the sun was younger and hotter or colder, I forgot which, but the point is it's all natural. And one day this eath won't be habitable for humans but tardigrades will still live here.

As far as the big bang. Some things may be unknowable. Like what was happening before the big bang and are their other universes beyond ours? Like a lava lamp. Our universe is just one bubble.


----------



## rightwinger

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research


The universe always was

Matter cannot be created or destroyed


----------



## rightwinger

K9Buck said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
Click to expand...

The basic matter of the universe was always there


----------



## RWNJ

rightwinger said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
Click to expand...

How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.


----------



## RWNJ

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The basic matter of the universe was always there
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## rightwinger

RWNJ said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
Click to expand...

It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself 
Energy is created.....matter is not


----------



## RWNJ

rightwinger said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
Click to expand...

So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.


----------



## sealybobo

RWNJ said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
Click to expand...

No you are the stupid one. No the universe as we know it is not eternal. We see shooting stars all the time. The universe is dying. It's middle age. But what happens after the last star burns out? What happened before the big bang?

What did god do 29 trillion years ago? Or was god born too 13.5 billion years ago?


----------



## rightwinger

RWNJ said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
Click to expand...


Matter has always been here
No additional matter has been created in billions of years
If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring 

God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science


----------



## sealybobo

RWNJ said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
Click to expand...

There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.


----------



## sealybobo

rightwinger said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter has always been here
> No additional matter has been created in billions of years
> If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring
> 
> God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science
Click to expand...

Then it's not a theory it's a hypothesis


----------



## RWNJ

rightwinger said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter has always been here
> No additional matter has been created in billions of years
> If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring
> 
> God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science
Click to expand...

Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe that the only rational cause is God.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Sky fairies are common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FOOL! I suppose it's also common sense that the universe created itself? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

I don't know how the universe came into being. Scientists present some theories. A sky fairy isn't one of them. I don't think that one is currently testable or repeatable.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> On another note, I've noticed that atheists here are constantly demanding "PROOF!" while simultaneously offering up horseshit of their own.


Offering and requesting evidence. But K9Buck doesn't do science, he thinks it offers 'proofs'.


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> Nope. Cause and effect.


I didn't realise that was a scientific law. Care to link to it?


----------



## cnm

Muhammed said:


> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.


What?

_Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
Universe is Expanding_​


----------



## Toro

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research



He may be.

But even if he is wrong, that doesn't mean the alternative explanation is that the universe was created by a Christian God. 

People with strongly held religious beliefs attack science with the intent to dismantle explanations that are contrary to religious teachings so that they can offer a religious counter-argument, even though there is no empirical to support their claim.


----------



## cnm

rightwinger said:


> God is a theory


An idea, perhaps. No evidence apart from 'obvious common sense' has been presented for his/her/its existence.


----------



## sealybobo

RWNJ said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter has always been here
> No additional matter has been created in billions of years
> If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring
> 
> God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.
Click to expand...

So then must be a god that did it? Humans have been making this mistake for ions. It's called god of the gaps


----------



## rightwinger

RWNJ said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter has always been here
> No additional matter has been created in billions of years
> If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring
> 
> God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.
Click to expand...


If there is a physical process that creates matter it would be continuing today. Thee is no evidence of matter being created today


----------



## cnm

sealybobo said:


> Humans have been making this mistake for ions.


Must be why they've been so salty for aeons.


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have been making this mistake for ions.
> 
> 
> 
> Must be why they've been so salty for aeons.
Click to expand...

You cannibal.


----------



## Muhammed

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
Click to expand...

Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.


----------



## MarkDuffy

rightwinger said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
Click to expand...

In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.

But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.

Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.

Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?


----------



## MarkDuffy

sealybobo said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you are the stupid one. No the universe as we know it is not eternal. We see shooting stars all the time. The universe is dying. It's middle age. But what happens after the last star burns out? What happened before the big bang?
> 
> What did god do 29 trillion years ago? Or was god born too 13.5 billion years ago?
Click to expand...

Shooting stars are meteorites, space junk. They do not imply the universe is dying, rather that the universe is active. 

Gravity in a galaxy keeps making new stars, but I get the point.

Obviously 29 trillion years ago God was a slacker.


----------



## MarkDuffy

cnm said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe that the only rational cause is God.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Sky fairies are common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FOOL! I suppose it's also common sense that the universe created itself? Give me a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how the universe came into being. Scientists present some theories. A sky fairy isn't one of them. I don't think that one is currently testable or repeatable.
Click to expand...

God is not an origin theory, although the religionists claim it is. Their God was a middleman. 

The God theory claims God doesn't need a creator & thus deny creationism.

It is a funny theory


----------



## MarkDuffy

cnm said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> An idea, perhaps. No evidence apart from 'obvious common sense' has been presented for his/her/its existence.
Click to expand...

A theory is a belief or conclusion accepted by a lot of people.

It is easy for me as a scientist to accept the simple fact that God is indeed a theory. It went waaay passed the hypothesis stage, eons ago.


----------



## RWNJ

cnm said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realise that was a scientific law. Care to link to it?
Click to expand...

It is an observable fact. Nothing happens unless something or someone causes it to happen. Yes. It's a scientific fact.


----------



## MarkDuffy

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to have real problems with Hubble. Methinks extreme redshifts need a relativistic adjustment just like standard physics did at high velocities and/or other causes.

One other redshift ~ Gravitational redshift - Wikipedia


----------



## RWNJ

Toro said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may be.
> 
> But even if he is wrong, that doesn't mean the alternative explanation is that the universe was created by a Christian God.
> 
> People with strongly held religious beliefs attack science with the intent to dismantle explanations that are contrary to religious teachings so that they can offer a religious counter-argument, even though there is no empirical to support their claim.
Click to expand...

Most Christians have no problem with real science. Evolution is not real science. It does not use the scientific method, nor is there any way to falsify it, since there are no scientific experiments than can be performed on it. You've heard of fake news? Well, this is fake science. Science has no way of know how or why anything exists and they never will. All they can do is make some guesses.


----------



## MarkDuffy

RWNJ said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realise that was a scientific law. Care to link to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is an observable fact. Nothing happens unless something or someone causes it to happen. Yes. It's a scientific fact.
Click to expand...

So an eternal God is impossible


----------



## MarkDuffy

Muhammed said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
Click to expand...

Redshift is like the doppler effect. You listen to a train go by?

That ticket you get for speeding?

What is a redshift? | EarthSky.org


----------



## MarkDuffy

RWNJ said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may be.
> 
> But even if he is wrong, that doesn't mean the alternative explanation is that the universe was created by a Christian God.
> 
> People with strongly held religious beliefs attack science with the intent to dismantle explanations that are contrary to religious teachings so that they can offer a religious counter-argument, even though there is no empirical to support their claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Christians have no problem with real science. Evolution is not real science. It does not use the scientific method, nor is there any way to falsify it, since there are no scientific experiments than can be performed on it. You've heard of fake news? Well, this is fake science. Science has no way of know how or why anything exists and they never will. All they can do is make some guesses.
Click to expand...

LOL !!!


----------



## Chuz Life

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research



Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way. 

Lol!

Prove I am wrong.


----------



## MarkDuffy

If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?


----------



## RWNJ

Muhammed said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is strong evidence that the speed of light is not constant. It interacts with cosmic dust or something which can slow it down. There seems to be some sort of interference that slows it down. Not by much, but there it is.


----------



## RWNJ

MarkDuffy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.
> 
> But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.
> 
> Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)
> 
> If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.
> 
> Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?
Click to expand...

None of which can be proven.


----------



## MarkDuffy

Chuz Life said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the Tricky God Theory


----------



## Chuz Life

MarkDuffy said:


> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?



With his science kit. 

Duh!


----------



## RWNJ

MarkDuffy said:


> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?


goodbye, TROLL.


----------



## MarkDuffy

RWNJ said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is strong evidence that the speed of light is not constant. It interacts with cosmic dust or something which can slow it down. There seems to be some sort of interference that slows it down. Not by much, but there it is.
Click to expand...

Correct

Molecular Expressions Microscopy Primer: Physics of Light and Color - Speed of Light in Transparent Materials: Interactive Java Tutorial


----------



## MarkDuffy

Chuz Life said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With his science kit.
> 
> Duh!
Click to expand...

Did he buy it at the God store or get it for Christmas as a present?


----------



## SSGT Bags

God is not a being.
If the Universe created itself, is it not possible that the universe is God, og God is the universe?


----------



## Chuz Life

MarkDuffy said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With his science kit.
> 
> Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did he buy it at the God store or get it for Christmas as a present?
Click to expand...



Forrest Gump would say... "maybe it's a little of both"


----------



## Votto




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
Click to expand...

"Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way. 

Lol!

Prove I am wrong."

why would anyone care to try? That may be possible, and maybe we are just studying what "God made appear to be so". That wouldn't change science one iota.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

SSGT Bags said:


> God is not a being.
> If the Universe created itself, is it not possible that the universe is God, og God is the universe?


"If the Universe created itself, is it not possible that the universe is God, og God is the universe?"'

Sure!  or, maybe this universe is just one of God's toenails. Or a testicle.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong."
> 
> why would anyone care to try? That may be possible, and maybe we are just studying what "God made appear to be so". That wouldn't change science one iota.
Click to expand...


That's the funny part.

It wouldn't refute the chance that there really is a God, either. Would it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Chuz Life said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong."
> 
> why would anyone care to try? That may be possible, and maybe we are just studying what "God made appear to be so". That wouldn't change science one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the funny part.
> 
> It wouldn,t refute the chance that there really is a Godn either. Would it?
Click to expand...

"It wouldn,t refute the chance that there really is a Godn either. Would it?"

No it would not.  It's not meant to.


----------



## Chuz Life

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong."
> 
> why would anyone care to try? That may be possible, and maybe we are just studying what "God made appear to be so". That wouldn't change science one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the funny part.
> 
> It wouldn,t refute the chance that there really is a Godn either. Would it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "It wouldn,t refute the chance that there really is a Godn either. Would it?"
> 
> No it would not.  It's not meant to.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Ok


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong."
> 
> why would anyone care to try? That may be possible, and maybe we are just studying what "God made appear to be so". That wouldn't change science one iota.
Click to expand...


I think God wanted to see how we would behave if we weren't sure that he actually exists.


----------



## K9Buck

SSGT Bags said:


> God is not a being.
> If the Universe created itself, is it not possible that the universe is God, og God is the universe?



No.


----------



## cnm

MarkDuffy said:


> A theory is a belief or conclusion accepted by a lot of people.
> 
> It is easy for me as a scientist to accept the simple fact that God is indeed a theory. It went waaay passed the hypothesis stage, eons ago.


Is that the definition of a scientific theory?


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> It is an observable fact. Nothing happens unless something or someone causes it to happen. Yes. It's a scientific fact.


Link to the scientific law of cause and effect then. When I search the term I get a whole lot of creationist sites. I think it is a law they've created because their arguments have had no effect.


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> None of which can be proven.


Again, science does not do proof it does evidence.


----------



## cnm

RWNJ said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?
> 
> 
> 
> goodbye, TROLL.
Click to expand...

What a limp dick response.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> I think God wanted to see how we would behave if we weren't sure that he actually exists.


That god of gaps is a handy god.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong."
> 
> why would anyone care to try? That may be possible, and maybe we are just studying what "God made appear to be so". That wouldn't change science one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think God wanted to see how we would behave if we weren't sure that he actually exists.
Click to expand...

So he couldn't see it ahead of time?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dear Professor Hawking, The universe did not need God to create it because God created it to appear that way.
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Prove I am wrong."
> 
> why would anyone care to try? That may be possible, and maybe we are just studying what "God made appear to be so". That wouldn't change science one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think God wanted to see how we would behave if we weren't sure that he actually exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So he couldn't see it ahead of time?
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase.  I believe God is testing us by allowing us to live in an environment of uncertainty.  That's my personal hunch.  I may be wrong.


----------



## MarkDuffy

cnm said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A theory is a belief or conclusion accepted by a lot of people.
> 
> It is easy for me as a scientist to accept the simple fact that God is indeed a theory. It went waaay passed the hypothesis stage, eons ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the definition of a scientific theory?
Click to expand...


Sure, there are scientific theories of God, but many drop out with that qualification. The YEC God is not a scientific theory for example.


----------



## ding

J.E.D said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> And you know this, how?....
Click to expand...


Because the laws of nature were already in place before space and time were created.


----------



## ding

cnm said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that humans are the superior conscience in the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know they're the superior conscience on Earth. You?
Click to expand...

Sure.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific evidence shows that the universe had a singularity, the beginning of space and time.  So the question becomes, what CAUSED the universe to come into existence?  It created itself?  That's "scientific" thinking?  Not a chance.  And what about life?  Did life creat itself too?  Hawking and a plethora of non-believers follow the ABG theory (anything but God) as they are bound and determined that there is no such thing as a creator.  The philosophical implications of a creator is too great for many non-believers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The basic matter of the universe was always there
Click to expand...

Actually it wasn't.  According to inflation theory all the matter that exists today was created through a quantum tunneling event and then the universe began to expand and cool.


----------



## ding

cnm said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is an observable fact. Nothing happens unless something or someone causes it to happen. Yes. It's a scientific fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Link to the scientific law of cause and effect then. When I search the term I get a whole lot of creationist sites. I think it is a law they've created because their arguments have had no effect.
Click to expand...

Cause and effect is the foundation upon which science was built.


----------



## ding

MarkDuffy said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm beginning to have real problems with Hubble. Methinks extreme redshifts need a relativistic adjustment just like standard physics did at high velocities and/or other causes.
> 
> One other redshift ~ Gravitational redshift - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

There is also background radiation and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which all support that all the matter in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool.


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not a being.
> If the Universe created itself, is it not possible that the universe is God, og God is the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Correct.  The painter is not the painting but the painting can be used as evidence for the painter.


----------



## ding

MarkDuffy said:


> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?


It is possible for matter to be created in a closed system without violating the conservation of energy.  See inflation theory.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> Matter has always been here



Not according to inflation theory.


----------



## ding

Toro said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may be.
> 
> But even if he is wrong, that doesn't mean the alternative explanation is that the universe was created by a Christian God.
> 
> People with strongly held religious beliefs attack science with the intent to dismantle explanations that are contrary to religious teachings so that they can offer a religious counter-argument, even though there is no empirical to support their claim.
Click to expand...

Ummmm... not me.  I love science.  I don't see any good reason why science and faith are mutually exclusive.  

As to your point about who God is, that question can't be answered until you accept that there is a Creator; a higher power so to speak.


----------



## ding

Muhammed said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
Click to expand...

It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.


----------



## Freewill

ScienceRocks said:


> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =


For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.


----------



## ding

MarkDuffy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.
> 
> But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.
> 
> Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)
> 
> If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.
> 
> Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?
Click to expand...

This is correct.  But since time and space were created through a quantum tunneling event following the laws of conservation, it means the laws of nature were already in place before space and time were created.

As to multiverse, no matter how you cut it there would have had to be a beginning because all multiverses have expansion and if you follow that point back in time every multiverse had a beginning all the way back to the very first one.  

Inflation theory is eternal into the future but it is not eternal into the past.


----------



## ding

Freewill said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
Click to expand...

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter has always been here
> No additional matter has been created in billions of years
> If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring
> 
> God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is a physical process that creates matter it would be continuing today. Thee is no evidence of matter being created today
Click to expand...

That's because it would occur outside of our space and time and therefore outside our realm of observation.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.
Click to expand...

No.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe.  If our universe were infinite we would have thermal equilibrium which we don't see.


----------



## ding

I'm surprised that TNHarley isn't here.

No, I'm not.


----------



## Muhammed

ding said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not a being.
> If the Universe created itself, is it not possible that the universe is God, og God is the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.  The painter is not the painting but the painting can be used as evidence for the painter.
Click to expand...


No way man.  That's crazy.  The painting made itself.  That's scientific!  Saying that the painting had a painter is fucking insane man!   Pass the bong!


----------



## ding

Muhammed said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
Click to expand...

Can't be.  It's not possible.  If the universe were eternal we would be at thermal equilibrium.


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not a being.
> If the Universe created itself, is it not possible that the universe is God, og God is the universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct.  The painter is not the painting but the painting can be used as evidence for the painter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No way man.  That's crazy.  The painting made itself.  That's scientific!  Saying that the painting had a painter is fucking insane man!   Pass the bong!
Click to expand...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe.  Therefore, the universe did have a beginning.

Background radiation, the red shift and solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity tell us that all the matter in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.  Every single cosmological model uses this as a starting point because that's what the observations tell us.

Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event.  An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy.  Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws.  The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

ScienceRocks said:


> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =


_But you're saying the universe popped out of nothing, Matty. Besides, isn't one of the established laws of the universe that uncontrolled energy can't create anything?_


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.



And outside of said universe...a creator.


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And outside of said universe...a creator.
Click to expand...

Intelligence
Existence
Take your pick.


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And outside of said universe...a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence
> Existence
> Take your pick.
Click to expand...


I'll go with a creator.  How about you?


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And outside of said universe...a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence
> Existence
> Take your pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll go with a creator.  How about you?
Click to expand...

Works for me.  I don't think He cares what name we use for Him as long as we seek Him.


----------



## Freewill

ding said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
Click to expand...

Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.


----------



## K9Buck

Freewill said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  

Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.


----------



## Freewill

Muhammed said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
Click to expand...

 The universe being infinite and eternal. Isn't that much like coming across a fire not knowing how it started and believing it to be infinite and eternal?


----------



## K9Buck

Freewill said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe being infinite and eternal. Isn't that much like coming across a fire not knowing how it started and believing it to be infinite and eternal?
Click to expand...


No.  Your analogy isn't analogous.


----------



## Freewill

K9Buck said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read all the responses I was commenting on then you will see my context.


----------



## Freewill

K9Buck said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> 
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe being infinite and eternal. Isn't that much like coming across a fire not knowing how it started and believing it to be infinite and eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Your analogy isn't analogous.
Click to expand...

OK, then how about this, answer one simple question, what do every event that has ever happened have in common?  And is quite frankly the basis of science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
Click to expand...

"Something had to give the initial push"

Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.


----------



## K9Buck

Freewill said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> 
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe being infinite and eternal. Isn't that much like coming across a fire not knowing how it started and believing it to be infinite and eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Your analogy isn't analogous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, then how about this, answer one simple question, what do every event that has ever happened have in common?  And is quite frankly the basis of science.
Click to expand...


A cause?


----------



## cnm

ding said:


> Cause and effect is the foundation upon which science was built.


So it take it neither are you going to link to the 'scientific law of cause and effect'.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
Click to expand...


So causation doesn't exist in the universe?


----------



## Freewill

K9Buck said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe being infinite and eternal. Isn't that much like coming across a fire not knowing how it started and believing it to be infinite and eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Your analogy isn't analogous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, then how about this, answer one simple question, what do every event that has ever happened have in common?  And is quite frankly the basis of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cause?
Click to expand...

Exactly!


----------



## cnm

ding said:


> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible for matter to be created in a closed system without violating the conservation of energy.  See inflation theory.
Click to expand...

You've missed the point here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So causation doesn't exist in the universe?
Click to expand...


I think you mean determinism. And yes, it seems determinism exists in our observable universe. However, our observable universe may not be all there is. Also, there is no reason to believe all of reality even had a beginning. While I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist, I also cannot say that what we observe means he certainly does exist.


----------



## K9Buck

Freewill said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> The universe being infinite and eternal. Isn't that much like coming across a fire not knowing how it started and believing it to be infinite and eternal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Your analogy isn't analogous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, then how about this, answer one simple question, what do every event that has ever happened have in common?  And is quite frankly the basis of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
Click to expand...


My belief is that we have a creator that, I presume, has always existed.  Many will say that's impossible.  But here's the rub.  _Something_ had to be able to exist or come into existence _without_ that initial causation.  My guess and my belief is that there is a creator that got it all started.  If one scoffs at that then, as I've stated repeatedly, then we're left with the theory that the universe just came out of nowhere.  The other issue that atheists have is how life came to be.  The atheist would tell you that the universe has always existed or that it created itself or perhaps some other theory.  Let's get past that for a moment.  How then did life come into existence?  Are we to believe that life too has, somehow, always existed?  This is where we're delving into the ABG theories (Anything but God theories) wherein hardened atheists go off the proverbial table of logic.  The only logical conclusion is that there IS a creator who created our universe and who created life.  The atheists offer nothing credible.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist...



You don't believe that a higher intelligence could exist somewhere that could have created us?  You seem to be of the belief that mankind can or will one day be able to create life, so, why couldn't a higher intellect?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe that a higher intelligence could exist somewhere that could have created us?  You seem to be of the belief that mankind can or will one day be able to create life, so, why couldn't a higher intellect?
Click to expand...

I just said I can't rule it out.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe that a higher intelligence could exist somewhere that could have created us?  You seem to be of the belief that mankind can or will one day be able to create life, so, why couldn't a higher intellect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just said I can't rule it out.
Click to expand...


Yea, and did so mockingly.  Guys like you are constantly mocking the possibility that a higher intelligence created us.  It's narrow-minded, arrogant and, frankly, ignorant.


----------



## cnm

ding said:


> Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.


Or that we lack knowledge.


----------



## The Irish Ram

ScienceRocks said:


> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =



Again, backwards.  Science actually says you can't make something from nothing.  Thermal dynamics and all.  So, nothing banging against nothing creates nothing.  So says science.  
And to further muddy your pond, science tells us that there is no such thing as random.  Nothing happens by chance. 
On the other hand, God had physics, dark matter (that we/science just found out existed, even though it has been there taunting us for billions of years.)  and friction.  God spoke, the Holy Spirit moved and the result was light. 
Light.  How do you think light works, Mr Science himself?  In fact, since the advent of the laser, science has made a new discovery about light. That has actually been the case since there was light, but, you know, science also grinds exceedingly slowly.

Laws of science. Einstein= there are 4 dimensions.  
Opps.  String theory.  M theory.
New Laws of science.  Hawking=  there are 10 dimensions.
Opps. Dimension theory.
Future Laws of science: Kaku= An infinite # of dimensions, and 1 God that created them.
Science is catching up to the Creator. Bout time. < (get it?)


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> The only logical conclusion is that there IS a creator who created our universe and who created life.


Three cheers for the god of gaps.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Windparadox said:


> said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary



^Satan could not have said it any better......
Science has nothing to do with the necessity of God.  It is our souls that require His attention.


----------



## Peach

Hawking theory is: 
 gravity supposedly can pull matter together from fine dust into nuggets, clumps, large conglomerates, nebulae, planetesimals, planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters.
________________________________________________
Where does the dust from nuggets, and the nuggets come from? How were they created? The atheist's dilemma is explaining how something came from from a void.


----------



## Peach

Windparadox said:


> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.



While using matter obviously CREATED; Hawking always is confounded by his strict atheism, its a tough religion y'all have


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe that a higher intelligence could exist somewhere that could have created us?  You seem to be of the belief that mankind can or will one day be able to create life, so, why couldn't a higher intellect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just said I can't rule it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, and did so mockingly.  Guys like you are constantly mocking the possibility that a higher intelligence created us.  It's narrow-minded, arrogant and, frankly, ignorant.
Click to expand...

"Mockingly"

Yeah, so? I mocked the magical sky wizard, just as you mock scientists and science. You don't see me whining like a little bitch about it. Wait, I mean k*nt.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot assert with certainty that a magical sky wizard does not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe that a higher intelligence could exist somewhere that could have created us?  You seem to be of the belief that mankind can or will one day be able to create life, so, why couldn't a higher intellect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just said I can't rule it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, and did so mockingly.  Guys like you are constantly mocking the possibility that a higher intelligence created us.  It's narrow-minded, arrogant and, frankly, ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Mockingly"
> 
> Yeah, so? I mocked the magical sky wizard, just as you mock scientists and science. You don't see me whining like a little bitch about it. Wait, I mean k*nt.
Click to expand...


Ha ha!  Touche!


----------



## The Irish Ram

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
Click to expand...


Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical conclusion is that there IS a creator who created our universe and who created life.
> 
> 
> 
> Three cheers for the god of gaps.
Click to expand...


You're a broken record.  That's all you got.  Nobody has ever claimed to have irrefutable proof of a creator, just that it makes the most sense.


----------



## K9Buck

The Irish Ram said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  It was when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.
Click to expand...


The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago.  LOL!


----------



## Borillar

ScienceRocks said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.
Click to expand...

God created man, then man created god in his own image.


----------



## K9Buck

Borillar said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better theory? It is like the chicken or the egg. God has to come from something too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God created man, then man created god in his own image.
Click to expand...


There is certainly some truth to that.


----------



## Peach

The Irish Ram said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
Click to expand...


Einstein was a believer.


----------



## K9Buck

Peach said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein was a believer.
Click to expand...


Educated believers easily defeat the mantra from atheists that the science is "on their side".  It's not.  The science and the logic point to a creator.  It's not proof, but it seems the only logical possibility.


----------



## cnm

Peach said:


> While using matter obviously CREATED; Hawking always is confounded by his strict atheism, its a tough religion y'all have


Ffs.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> Nobody has ever claimed to have irrefutable proof of a creator, just that it makes the most sense.


You've invented an explanation, for which there is no evidence, to fill a hole in your knowledge. No need to get butt hurt when this is pointed out.


----------



## cnm

K9Buck said:


> The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago.  LOL!


Did it? The bible says a lot of things. How do you decide what to discard and what to retain?


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever claimed to have irrefutable proof of a creator, just that it makes the most sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You've invented an explanation, for which there is no evidence, to fill a hole in your knowledge. No need to get butt hurt when this is pointed out.
Click to expand...


Oh, am I "butthurt"?


----------



## K9Buck

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> Did it? The bible says a lot of things. How do you decide what to discard and what to retain?
Click to expand...


Let's get past that for a moment.  

Would you like for there to be a creator and an afterlife in a really cool place surrounded by all the people you ever loved in your life?  When you die, if you found yourself in such a place, would you be happy?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
Click to expand...

He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.

Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
Click to expand...


----------



## ding

Freewill said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
Click to expand...

How so?  

In a closed universe the sum of the positive energy/mass of the universe is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of the universe so that the sum is always equal to zero.


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> For God to be the cause of creation doesn't mean that God has to be defined as being created by anyone.  To use the old story, you find a watch, you know a man made it, who created the man isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which has the attributes of being eternal and unchanging.  A characteristic which is wholly outside the laws of nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> In a closed universe the sum of the positive energy/mass of the universe is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of the universe so that the sum is always equal to zero.
Click to expand...


What did you just call my momma?!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> or that all of reality even had a beginning



The science is definitive.  Space and time as we know it had a beginning.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using that logic, the whole universe is out of the laws of nature, in regards to the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.


----------



## ding

cnm said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarkDuffy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If matter cannot be created, how did God do it?
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible for matter to be created in a closed system without violating the conservation of energy.  See inflation theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've missed the point here.
Click to expand...

Did I?

We have a pretty good idea how He did it.  That was my point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> or that all of reality even had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The science is definitive.  Space and time as we know it had a beginning.
Click to expand...

The science is definitive that, if the universe began as singularity, one could travel backward in time literally forever and would never reach "a beginning".


----------



## ding

cnm said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause and effect is the foundation upon which science was built.
> 
> 
> 
> So it take it neither are you going to link to the 'scientific law of cause and effect'.
Click to expand...

Seriously?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity?



I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.


----------



## The Irish Ram

cnm said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> Did it? The bible says a lot of things. How do you decide what to discard and what to retain?
Click to expand...


Retain it all.  Don't add to it or take away from it and you will find what you are looking for.  Your Father.  
And to insure that you know it is Him doing the talking, 1/4 of His Book tells the future.  Man can't do it, author's can't, you can't.  But there is one who resides in a dimension that can see the beginning the middle and the end. For example:
You are standing on Main street and you see a parade turn the corner and march right past you.  You watch it until it turns an other corner, and it is gone from sight.  Now watch the same parade from a different vantage point.  From a helicopter.  From there you see the beginning, the turn down Main Street and see it turn up the next street to the fair grounds where it ends.

 The one that sees the end from the beginning is the one you want to bank on.  He is the one who forgives us anything because His Son took the death sentence for our transgressions and now therefore there is NO condemnation for those who accept the gift of exchange.   God put our sins so far behind Him that He doesn't even remember them any more.
He remembers the name of every single star in the sky, but your sins are as far from Him as the east is from the west. 
And He loves you so much, He never takes His eyes off of you.  Talk to Him, and find out for yourself.


----------



## ding

cnm said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
Click to expand...

I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.  

My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.


----------



## K9Buck

The Irish Ram said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing, the bible said the universe was expanding many hundreds of years ago.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> Did it? The bible says a lot of things. How do you decide what to discard and what to retain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retain it all.  Don't add to it or take away from it and you will find what you are looking for.  Your Father.
> And to insure that you know it is Him doing the talking, 1/4 of His Book tells the future.  Man can't do it, author's can't, you can't.  But there is one who resides in a dimension that can see the beginning the middle and the end. For example:
> You are standing on Main street and you see a parade turn the corner and march right past you.  You watch it until it turns an other corner, and it is gone from sight.  Now watch the same parade from a different vantage point.  From a helicopter.  From there you see the beginning, the turn down Main Street and see it turn up the next street to the fair grounds where it ends.
> 
> The one that sees the end from the beginning is the one you want to bank on.  He is the one who forgives us anything because His Son took the death sentence for our transgressions and now therefore there is NO condemnation for those who accept the gift of exchange.   God put our sins so far behind Him that He doesn't even remember them any more.
> He remembers the name of every single star in the sky, but your sins are as far from Him as the east is from the west.
> And He loves you so much, He never takes His eyes off of you.  Talk to Him, and find out for yourself.
Click to expand...


I applaud your attempt but, you're talking to a ABG adherent.


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
Click to expand...


Not if you follow the ABG theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.
Click to expand...

That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?
Click to expand...


Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
Click to expand...

For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Something had to give the initial push.  The belief that the universe gave itself the initial push couldn't be more illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
Click to expand...

It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the equations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.


----------



## The Irish Ram

> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true


.

No he did not postulate it, he saw it with his own eyes. His math, his "scientific" theories, depended on it.  And he was right.  Time was the dimension he was lacking.  Finding it gave him relativity.
And STILL  Maimonides, using Genesis,  got it more right than Einstein.....


----------



## The Irish Ram

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
Click to expand...


Then congrats. on your IQ. But, Einstein would wholeheartedly disagree.  His work was based on a beginning of space time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Something had to give the initial push"
> 
> Says you. Unfortunately, you have not a shred of evidence that this is true, or that all of reality even had a beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
Click to expand...

"If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."

Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
Click to expand...


Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.  

Where have I got it wrong?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
Click to expand...

No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.

On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> or that all of reality even had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The science is definitive.  Space and time as we know it had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The science is definitive that, if the universe began as singularity, one could travel backward in time literally forever and would never reach "a beginning".
Click to expand...

And that means absolutely nothing.  None of that has anything to do with the fact that about 14 billion years ago all matter and energy in the universe occupied the space the size of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.  Then... it expanded and cooled.  That is all you need to know that the universe had a beginning.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> or that all of reality even had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The science is definitive.  Space and time as we know it had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The science is definitive that, if the universe began as singularity, one could travel backward in time literally forever and would never reach "a beginning".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that means absolutely nothing.  None of that has anything to do with the fact that about 14 billion years ago all matter and energy in the universe occupied the space the size of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.  Then... it expanded and cooled.  That is all you need to know that the universe had a beginning.
Click to expand...

"That is all you need to know that the universe had a beginning."

You mean, the universe we can observe.  I would say that's rather important concept to keep in mind.  So would scientists.


----------



## DarkFury

Gracie said:


> I guess if you have ALS, can't speak, are paralyzed, then you automatically become "the greatest mind that ever lived" and are a "genius"?


*It's either that or you run for first female president.*


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
Click to expand...

How so?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the implications of being a delusional atheist that adheres to the "Anything but God" theory.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
Click to expand...


If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.  

Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.  

On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Gracie said:


> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.


Of course you don't.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> or that all of reality even had a beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The science is definitive.  Space and time as we know it had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The science is definitive that, if the universe began as singularity, one could travel backward in time literally forever and would never reach "a beginning".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that means absolutely nothing.  None of that has anything to do with the fact that about 14 billion years ago all matter and energy in the universe occupied the space the size of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.  Then... it expanded and cooled.  That is all you need to know that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "That is all you need to know that the universe had a beginning."
> 
> You mean, the universe we can observe.  I would say that's rather important concept to keep in mind.  So would scientists.
Click to expand...

Not really.  That is the domain of philosophy.  Science can only study what it can examine.


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


Are you familiar with ABG theory?


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
Click to expand...

Not at all which I why I asked how so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  But do you understand the implications of our universe beginning as a singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
Click to expand...

<<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>


No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why everyone fawns all over this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you don't.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed A Brief History of Time.  His last book was pretty ironic given his life's story though.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation theory is the leading cosmological model which explains how space and time were created through a quantum tunneling event. An event which occurred per the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Which means those laws were in place before space and time which means those laws were the first cause but still doesn't address the source or first cause of those laws. The only solution to that dilemma is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
Click to expand...

"ABG Theory"

"abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
Click to expand...

Actually we were all present when space and time were created.  Since that time matter/energy has just changed form.  Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.


----------



## Dr Grump

Gracie said:


> Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.



I'll list all the scientific theories that have become fact (you ever heard of gravity?).

Meanwhile you can list all the irrefutable, provable evidence that a god exists. Any god will do.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually we were all present when space and time were created.  Since that time matter/energy has just changed form.  Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.
Click to expand...

"Actually we were all present when space and time were created."

EDIT: well, that's interesting, but matter has been created and annihilated since then, so not sure about that


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll list all the scientific theories that have become fact (you ever heard of gravity?).
> 
> Meanwhile you can list all the irrefutable, provable evidence that a god exists. Any god will do.
Click to expand...

So what evidence will you accept?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually we were all present when space and time were created.  Since that time matter/energy has just changed form.  Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Actually we were all present when space and time were created."
> 
> Says you.  You'll have to excuse me if I don't just lap up any authoritative declaration that any religious goofball utters.  In fact, I'm sure you understand, as you reject all the religious nuttery you disagree with, too.
Click to expand...

No.  Says the conservation of energy.  You know... the First Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.



"The Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."
Where did the laws of physics come from?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
Click to expand...

"Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."

huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually we were all present when space and time were created.  Since that time matter/energy has just changed form.  Until it evolved to the point it became self aware and could know itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Actually we were all present when space and time were created."
> 
> EDIT: well, that's interesting, but matter has been created and annihilated since then, so not sure about that
Click to expand...

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? 

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
Click to expand...

Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
Click to expand...

SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWNJ said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."
> Where did the laws of physics come from?
Click to expand...

"Where did the laws of physics come from?"

One explanation is that all possible universes exist, with all possible laws of physics.  We just happen to live in this one.   Another answer is, "we don't know."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.
Click to expand...

"ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."

I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator.  that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer.  help me out.


----------



## ding

RWNJ said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

There is no law of cause and effect.  There is just cause and effect.  We live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event.


----------



## RWNJ

Windparadox said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether he's right, it's not just opinio_"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.In the forthcoming book, published on 9 September, Hawking says that M-theory, a form of string theory, will achieve this goal: "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find," he theorises.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02_
> 
> 
> 
> `
> Attempting to explain science to certain religious people, is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

Not at all. There are many Christian scientists. In fact, some of the greatest scientists ever were Christians. Just because we don't buy into your BS about evolution does not mean we reject science. I could show you a list of 1,000 scientists who do not believe in Darwinian evolution.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> 
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."
> 
> I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator.  that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer.  help me out.
Click to expand...

I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.  

So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> 
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."
> 
> I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator.  that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer.  help me out.
Click to expand...

Can I use something you create as evidence even if I didn't know you created it?


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all which I why I asked how so.
Click to expand...


Oh wow.  You're missing out on a whole world of possibilities for the committed atheist.  ABG theory stands for "Anything but God".  Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."
> 
> I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator.  that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer.  help me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.
> 
> So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?
Click to expand...

"So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?"

yes, due to the principle of conservation of energy


----------



## RWNJ

Muhammed said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe was never created.
> 
> 
> 
> `
> That may be true in a "closed universe" where the expansion driven by the Big Bang stops and causes its own eventual contraction, only to reform and expand again in another Big Bang. Hawking's theory is based on that. The existence of a god has no effect on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no compelling evidence that the "big bang" hypothesis is correct in the first place.
Click to expand...

And the math breaks down before they get to the actual event itself. I wonder why. Perhaps, that is the point in which God created the physical laws of the universe.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."
> Where did the laws of physics come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Where did the laws of physics come from?"
> 
> One explanation is that all possible universes exist, with all possible laws of physics.  We just happen to live in this one.   Another answer is, "we don't know."
Click to expand...

No.  We actually have a pretty good idea that the laws of nature exited before space and time were created.  How else would space and time have been created without following rules/laws governing their interactions?


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  What ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
Click to expand...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all which I why I asked how so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh wow.  You're missing out on a whole world of possibilities for the committed atheist.  ABG theory stands for "Anything but God".  Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.
Click to expand...

"
 ABG theory stands for "Anything but God". Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.
"

Ridiculous and false. "ABG" is actually the ONLY method to rule out anything, which makes your statement ridiculous.  Second, "anything but god" is the only way to explain anything, as positing "God did it!" explains exactly nothing.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> 
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."
> 
> I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator.  that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer.  help me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.
> 
> So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?"
> 
> yes, due to the principle of conservation of energy
Click to expand...

Thank you.

That's important because my next point is that what controlled you evolving from sub atomic particles to a being that knows and creates?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one, what I already said: it would appear to us that time has no beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

yes, "this shit" again.  If you are going to introduce untestable, magical nonsense which we could never verify the truth of, then I am going to put it on the same shelf with any ridiculous nonsense that anyone makes up.  and there will never be any way to tell which goofy, magical idea is true and which is false.  That should be a big, huge hint to you that "Because I say so!" is ALL you have to support these magical ideas.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that we lack knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
Click to expand...


Yea, we already talked about this.  I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms.  There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.


----------



## ding

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all which I why I asked how so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh wow.  You're missing out on a whole world of possibilities for the committed atheist.  ABG theory stands for "Anything but God".  Anything is possible when one is an ABG adherent.
Click to expand...

I don't worry about that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean to say that YOU lack the knowledge to name anything else.
> 
> My position is that the only solution which exists for the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, we already talked about this.  I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms.  There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.
Click to expand...

"I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."

see what I mean?  you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this.  Nobody says life came from rocks.  You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....


lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh


----------



## K9Buck

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."
> 
> I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator.  that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer.  help me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.
> 
> So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?
Click to expand...


He's a devoted ABG follower.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play.
> 
> 
> 
> "Sure, that's where studying how matter evolved from sub atomic particles to beings that know and create comes into play."
> 
> huh?  how would that confirm or deny the existence of a creator?  It wouldn't.  We could never do this via science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't tell what something is by how it starts.  You can only tell what it is when it is finished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ecause you can't tell what something is by how it starts. You can only tell what it is when it is finished."
> 
> I asked how any such study would confirm or deny the existence of a creator.  that being the case, I can't make any sense of your answer.  help me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm trying but you are acting a little bit like a dick.
> 
> So are you ready to concede that the matter and energy that make up who you are existed when space and time were created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a devoted ABG follower.
Click to expand...

when trying to actually explain things in the material world?  yes, as that is the correct thing to be.  you know, there are theists who agree with me.  You should, too.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if we could travel back, wouldn't we see all of matter condensing into one point and, with it, the collapsing of space itself?  Upon reaching the final point, I believe we would actually see that there was nothing at all.  No matter, no space, nothing.  Then if we could fast-forward, the matter would appear, literally out of nowhere followed up instantly by the biggest explosion our universe has ever had.  And then we would see the first seconds of the universe.
> 
> Where have I got it wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, "this shit" again.  If you are going to introduce untestable, magical nonsense which we could never verify the truth of, then I am going to put it on the same shelf with any ridiculous nonsense that anyone makes up.  and there will never be any way to tell which goofy, magical idea is true and which is false.  That should be a big, huge hint to you that "Because I say so!" is ALL you have to support these magical ideas.
Click to expand...


You're hilarious.  Everything you've spewed is utter horseshit.  LOL!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we would never reach that point, even without a singularity.we could never observe the beginning of the universe directly, as we are a part of it.
> 
> On a side note, new ideas about what "time" is are emerging   And that's an appropriate word, as they describe time as an emergent property of quantum entanglement.  An observer outside our universe would not perceive any passing of time at all, when observing our universe.  It would not even appear to exist at all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, "this shit" again.  If you are going to introduce untestable, magical nonsense which we could never verify the truth of, then I am going to put it on the same shelf with any ridiculous nonsense that anyone makes up.  and there will never be any way to tell which goofy, magical idea is true and which is false.  That should be a big, huge hint to you that "Because I say so!" is ALL you have to support these magical ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're hilarious.  Everything you've spewed is utter horseshit.  LOL!
Click to expand...

Grown man typing fake "LOL"s on internet = frustrated, angry person


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you follow the ABG theory.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, we already talked about this.  I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms.  There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."
> 
> see what I mean?  you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this.  Nobody says life came from rocks.  You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....
> 
> 
> lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh
Click to expand...


Atheists posit that non-living material, somehow, created life.  I am using a rock as an example.  We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same.  You can't explain how life came to be.  You have NOTHING.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing.
> 
> Your point about an observer not perceiving the passing of time might be true for us, but the creator would certainly know what is happening.
> 
> On another note, we can create programs to simulate the big bang and to even create worlds and to fill it with life.  What we CAN'T do is give the creatures in our world sentience.  But our creator can.  The whole concept of a creator creating the universe and life seems fantastic but, when you look at it using the computer programming analogy, it's not that difficult to imagine at all.
> 
> 
> 
> <<If we were with the creator, we could see all of the matter retract and consolidate into nothing. >>
> 
> 
> No.  If we were the creator, we would be riding a pink unicorn and making it poop dragons, all the while making love to our gay god-lover.  Dang, i guess there is no way to tell who is right, huh?  You REALLY need to recognize the difference between evidence-based thought and magical thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, "this shit" again.  If you are going to introduce untestable, magical nonsense which we could never verify the truth of, then I am going to put it on the same shelf with any ridiculous nonsense that anyone makes up.  and there will never be any way to tell which goofy, magical idea is true and which is false.  That should be a big, huge hint to you that "Because I say so!" is ALL you have to support these magical ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're hilarious.  Everything you've spewed is utter horseshit.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Grown man typing fake "LOL"s on internet = frustrated, angry person
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I'm having fun.


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll list all the scientific theories that have become fact (you ever heard of gravity?).
> 
> Meanwhile you can list all the irrefutable, provable evidence that a god exists. Any god will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what evidence will you accept?
Click to expand...


Physical. Actual presence. Although I am willing to accept actual proof of strange goings on that are unexplainable.


----------



## Dr Grump

K9Buck said:


> You have NOTHING.



Funny thing is. Neither do god botherers.


----------



## K9Buck

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll list all the scientific theories that have become fact (you ever heard of gravity?).
> 
> Meanwhile you can list all the irrefutable, provable evidence that a god exists. Any god will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what evidence will you accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physical. Actual presence. Although I am willing to accept actual proof of strange goings on that are unexplainable.
Click to expand...


You're being rhetorical when you ask for "proof".  In your mind, that ends and wins the debate.


----------



## Dr Grump

K9Buck said:


> You're being rhetorical when you ask for "proof".  In your mind, that ends and wins the debate.



Of course it does. Because it's such a silly argument...


----------



## K9Buck

Dr Grump said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have NOTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is. Neither do god botherers.
Click to expand...


A creator, which you reject because you believe the aforementioned and that the universe created itself.  And round and round we go.


----------



## K9Buck

Dr Grump said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being rhetorical when you ask for "proof".  In your mind, that ends and wins the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Because it's such a silly argument...
Click to expand...


Well ok, genius.  Here's your prize!


----------



## Dr Grump

K9Buck said:


> A creator, which you reject because you believe the aforementioned and that the universe created itself.  And round and round we go.



The 'creator'. What does that even mean? As I said, you have nothing.


----------



## Dr Grump

K9Buck said:


> Well ok, genius.  Here's your prize!



Here's yours.


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what I said. Theory. No proof. Just his opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll list all the scientific theories that have become fact (you ever heard of gravity?).
> 
> Meanwhile you can list all the irrefutable, provable evidence that a god exists. Any god will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what evidence will you accept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physical. Actual presence. Although I am willing to accept actual proof of strange goings on that are unexplainable.
Click to expand...

Can you give a specific example?


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> Can you give a specific example?



That he or she appears in front of the world and proves they can turn water into wine or whatever....


----------



## K9Buck

Dr Grump said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well ok, genius.  Here's your prize!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's yours.
> 
> View attachment 150636
Click to expand...


Yea?!  Well right back at you, you, you...


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give a specific example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That he or she appears in front of the world and proves they can turn water into wine or whatever....
Click to expand...

There you have it.  It was already done.  We done?


----------



## K9Buck

I'm not a guy that's big on bible verses, but this thread did compel me to recall a few verses. 

*Luke 16:28New International Version (NIV)*
28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

*Luke 16:29King James Version (KJV)*
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

*Luke 16:30-31New International Version (NIV)*
30 “‘No, father Abraham, he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> There you have it.  It was already done.  We done?



No it wasn't. There is no proof. The advent of Father Christmas, The tooth fairy and Easter Bunny came on the scene in a lot more recent history than your saviour is alleged to. You believe in them, too?


----------



## K9Buck

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you have it.  It was already done.  We done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. There is no proof. The advent of Father Christmas, The tooth fairy and Easter Bunny came on the scene in a lot more recent history than your saviour is alleged to. You believe in them, too?
Click to expand...


I don't really give a fuck but, just for fun, do you believe the universe had a beginning?


----------



## ScienceRocks




----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe always was
> 
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe.  If our universe were infinite we would have thermal equilibrium which we don't see.
Click to expand...

No one said our universe is infinite. It's just not the only universe.


----------



## K9Buck

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe.  If our universe were infinite we would have thermal equilibrium which we don't see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said our universe is infinite. It's just not the only universe.
Click to expand...


Do you have an evidence to support this assertion?


----------



## sealybobo

Muhammed said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no evidence that the universe is spreading outward.
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> _Using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, Dr. Edwin Hubble has studied many spiral nebulae. He has discovered they are moving away from us at a rapid pace. This is strong evidence of an expanding universe. He has further determined that the farther the nebula, the faster it moves away.
> Universe is Expanding_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Redshift is not evidence that the universe is expanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is evidence that everything is moving away from us and for that to happen the universe must be expanding.  A consequence of an expanding universe is that the universe had a beginning.  This makes certain people very uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to think that too when I was a little kid. That's what we were taught in elementary school. When I got older I put much deeper thought into it before coming to the logical conclusion that the universe is infinite and eternal.
Click to expand...

Our universe was born and will die but that's not the last universe in the universe.


----------



## sealybobo

K9Buck said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe.  If our universe were infinite we would have thermal equilibrium which we don't see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said our universe is infinite. It's just not the only universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have an evidence to support this assertion?
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's an unknowable thing. It's just a scientific possibility to an unknowable question. You claim to know not me


----------



## Andylusion

Windparadox said:


> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.



It's only plausible, if you have faith.  In this case, not a faith in G-d, but a faith in chance.

First we have to assume that string theory... is correct.  Which as the name implies, it is theory, not fact.  It is a possible answer, that somewhat fits what we know, and we know very little.

If we take that as truth, then we can use a mathematical basis for saying that the total net energy, based on the calculations we have, is zero.   If you take the positive energy, and negative energy, and add them up together, the answer is zero.

This implies that no external source of energy is needed, because the pluses and minuses balances out.

Is that true?  We don't even know.  But if we assume that is true, just like we assume string theory is true, then possibly it is true that the universe could create itself, because there is no need for some external energy to create it.

When you go threw every single basis, and label each unproven claim to be a faith based assumption, which is what it really is... you see it's nice... it's a neat concept... but honestly not much substance.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, we already talked about this.  I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms.  There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."
> 
> see what I mean?  you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this.  Nobody says life came from rocks.  You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....
> 
> 
> lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists posit that non-living material, somehow, created life.  I am using a rock as an example.  We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same.  You can't explain how life came to be.  You have NOTHING.
Click to expand...

"am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same"

That's all wrong. No sand, no rock, no ash. Just proteins. And yes, we can explain it quite easily and simply: selection. You seems to thibk that, because you struggle to understand it, it cannot be understood. Of course you only reserve this goofy stance for ideas that don't align with your superstitions. You probably don't don't understand the workings of microprocessors either... But you don't reject quantum theory, because you don't see it as a threat to your superstitions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Andylusion said:


> Windparadox said:
> 
> 
> 
> `
> The article, from a "creationist" web site, is commenting on Hawking's book, *The Grand Design*, in which Hawking postulates; "that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."
> 
> Those who take the bible literally, will object to that of course. They have no use for such things as science anyways. As creationists are all "faith based", argumentation in regards to science is totally lost on them. Hawking does not state an absolute in his book but offers instead, a mathematical and scientifically sound explanation of a "possible" alternative to the creationist concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only plausible, if you have faith.  In this case, not a faith in G-d, but a faith in chance.
> 
> First we have to assume that string theory... is correct.  Which as the name implies, it is theory, not fact.  It is a possible answer, that somewhat fits what we know, and we know very little.
> 
> If we take that as truth, then we can use a mathematical basis for saying that the total net energy, based on the calculations we have, is zero.   If you take the positive energy, and negative energy, and add them up together, the answer is zero.
> 
> This implies that no external source of energy is needed, because the pluses and minuses balances out.
> 
> Is that true?  We don't even know.  But if we assume that is true, just like we assume string theory is true, then possibly it is true that the universe could create itself, because there is no need for some external energy to create it.
> 
> When you go threw every single basis, and label each unproven claim to be a faith based assumption, which is what it really is... you see it's nice... it's a neat concept... but honestly not much substance.
Click to expand...

"It's only plausible, if you have faith. In this case, not a faith in G-d, but a faith in chance."

Ridiculous statement, and just another deperate attempt to drag rational thought down into the murk of faith. It requires no faith to deem it plausible or possible, just as it requires no faith to deem the existence of god to be plausible or possible.


----------



## K9Buck

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with ABG theory?
> 
> 
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, we already talked about this.  I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms.  There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."
> 
> see what I mean?  you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this.  Nobody says life came from rocks.  You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....
> 
> 
> lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists posit that non-living material, somehow, created life.  I am using a rock as an example.  We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same.  You can't explain how life came to be.  You have NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same"
> 
> That's all wrong. No sand, no rock, no ash. Just proteins. And yes, we can explain it quite easily and simply: selection. You seems to thibk that, because you struggle to understand it, it cannot be understood. Of course you only reserve this goofy stance for ideas that don't align with your superstitions. You probably don't don't understand the workings of microprocessors either... But you don't reject quantum theory, because you don't see it as a threat to your superstitions.
Click to expand...


Great.  Replicate it in a lab.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
> 
> 
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
Click to expand...

Actually it does mean it does.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.


----------



## ding

Dr Grump said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you have it.  It was already done.  We done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. There is no proof. The advent of Father Christmas, The tooth fairy and Easter Bunny came on the scene in a lot more recent history than your saviour is alleged to. You believe in them, too?
Click to expand...

Were you there?


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to say this? The universe cannot be eternal. It's a scientific impossibility. If it was eternal, there would be no energy left. It would have been used up an eternity ago. Damn! You're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need for a god. If he's eternal so are universes that he creates. One dies yes but another is born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe.  If our universe were infinite we would have thermal equilibrium which we don't see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said our universe is infinite. It's just not the only universe.
Click to expand...

How do you know?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but we do.  His name is Albert Einstein.  The beginning was discovered when he was introduced to space time by Mr. Hubble and his telescope.  Before that, Einstein didn't realize the universe was expanding.  Once he saw it was, he realized you could trace the expansion right back to a beginning point.  Or do you doubt E=MC2?
> 
> 
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
Click to expand...


You never answered my questions.  I'll skip to the point.  The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions.  Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today.  Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used.  And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.


----------



## Dr Grump

ding said:


> Were you there?



Nope. Neither were you.


----------



## Death Angel

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research


How do you know he's "brilliant"? Nothing I've read from him tells me that. Just another brainwashed left-wing loon. Also a sick pervert.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

K9Buck said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "ABG Theory"
> 
> "abiogenesis" is one word.  And someone who had strong faith could just accept any scientific explanation and say, "that's how god did it!".  So, your problem with abiogenesis goes beyond merely "believing in a creator".  You need to be honest with yourself and everyone else about this simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, we already talked about this.  I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms.  There's your magical fucking unicorn carrying your boyfriend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I'm not buying that non-living material, such as rocks, morphed into living forms."
> 
> see what I mean?  you keep saying this same, stupid thing, though nobody posits this.  Nobody says life came from rocks.  You don't care... you just keep repeating the lie....
> 
> 
> lemme guess: you're a trump guy, heh heh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists posit that non-living material, somehow, created life.  I am using a rock as an example.  We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same.  You can't explain how life came to be.  You have NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "am using a rock as an example. We can use sand, ash, etc. and it's still all the same"
> 
> That's all wrong. No sand, no rock, no ash. Just proteins. And yes, we can explain it quite easily and simply: selection. You seems to thibk that, because you struggle to understand it, it cannot be understood. Of course you only reserve this goofy stance for ideas that don't align with your superstitions. You probably don't don't understand the workings of microprocessors either... But you don't reject quantum theory, because you don't see it as a threat to your superstitions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great.  Replicate it in a lab.  Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous, absurd standard. Truly spoken like someone who knows less than nothing about science.  Do you also reject star formation, since we haven't recreated a star in a lab?  Of course you don't, because it doesn't conflict with your superstitions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know he's "brilliant"? Nothing I've read from him tells me that. Just another brainwashed left-wing loon. Also a sick pervert.
Click to expand...

"How do you know he's "brilliant"? Nothing I've read from him tells me that.:"

As if you have read a single word of his books or published, scientific articles.  Spare us.  You barely manage complete sentences.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answered my questions.  I'll skip to the point.  The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions.  Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today.  Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used.  And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.
Click to expand...

"And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."

Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it.  Yes, there are other possible conclusions.  No, you have made no good argument otherwise.  No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did not "realize" that, he postulated it. You cannot assume as true that which you are trying to argue as true.
> 
> Also, you are off base. If the observable universe did, indeed, begin as a singularity, then to all of us it would appear to be infinite and have no beginning. So you kind of tripped over your own argument, there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does mean it does.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
Click to expand...

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."

Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does mean it does.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."
> 
> Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.
Click to expand...

So what?  How do you think that affects entropy?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answered my questions.  I'll skip to the point.  The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions.  Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today.  Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used.  And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."
> 
> Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it.  Yes, there are other possible conclusions.  No, you have made no good argument otherwise.  No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.
Click to expand...

So what are those other possible conclusions?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does mean it does.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."
> 
> Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  How do you think that affects entropy?
Click to expand...

It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of the universe beginnings a singularity? He undermined his own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answered my questions.  I'll skip to the point.  The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions.  Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today.  Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used.  And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."
> 
> Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it.  Yes, there are other possible conclusions.  No, you have made no good argument otherwise.  No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are those other possible conclusions?
Click to expand...

That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced.  I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things.  You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current  purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.


----------



## rightwinger

ding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a scientific impossibility for matter to self create itself
> Energy is created.....matter is not
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter has always been here
> No additional matter has been created in billions of years
> If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring
> 
> God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is a physical process that creates matter it would be continuing today. Thee is no evidence of matter being created today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because it would occur outside of our space and time and therefore outside our realm of observation.
Click to expand...


Gobbledygook


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never answered my questions.  I'll skip to the point.  The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions.  Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today.  Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used.  And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."
> 
> Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it.  Yes, there are other possible conclusions.  No, you have made no good argument otherwise.  No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are those other possible conclusions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced.  I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things.  You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current  purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.


----------



## ding

rightwinger said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree with me. Matter was created. It's a start. Energy was also created. Nothing physical can be eternal. It cannot create itself either. That only leaves one explanation. God did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter has always been here
> No additional matter has been created in billions of years
> If there was a process to continually create new matter...it would still be occurring
> 
> God is a theory.....one totally unsubstantiated by science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, I ask. Where is your evidence? There is no possible way that scientists could possibly know this. All they can do is observe and do experiments. None of that is applicable to why or how matter and energy exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is a physical process that creates matter it would be continuing today. Thee is no evidence of matter being created today
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because it would occur outside of our space and time and therefore outside our realm of observation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gobbledygook
Click to expand...

Obviously you know nothing about multiverses.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only a singularity mathematically.  Mathematically the solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity can take us back to the point the universe was contained in a very very tiny, dense, hot state.  Beyond that the equations yield infinities which I think is appropriate, but I digress.  My point is that people bandy around terms like singularities without understanding what it really means.  It means the euations can only go back to the point when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single freaking atom.  If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning.  Not to mention that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that it is not possible for the universe's age to approach infinity without thermal equilibrium occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does mean it does.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."
> 
> Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  How do you think that affects entropy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.
Click to expand...

Right and that the universe is not infinite which is what I wrote.  You do know what eternal means, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never answered my questions.  I'll skip to the point.  The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions.  Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today.  Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used.  And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."
> 
> Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it.  Yes, there are other possible conclusions.  No, you have made no good argument otherwise.  No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are those other possible conclusions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced.  I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things.  You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current  purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.
Click to expand...

"Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "

Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If people wrapped their head around that, they would quickly come to realize the universe had a beginning."
> 
> Wrong.  That would only demonstrate that what we can observe in the universe began when that hot, dense state coalesced into observable matter. It would only demonstrate that our observations have a limit, not that everything began at that time.  The other things you say about the early universe app[ear to be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does mean it does.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."
> 
> Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  How do you think that affects entropy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right and that the universe is not infinite which is what I wrote.  You do know what eternal means, right?
Click to expand...

I do. Do you know what "authoritative declaration" means?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never answered my questions.  I'll skip to the point.  The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would eventually exist given enough time and the right conditions.  Those laws existed before space and time and are such that the matter that makes up you evolved from subatomic particles 14 billion years ago until today.  Everything which has unfolded from that point to today is evidence that can be used just like any other evidence can be used.  And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws.
> 
> 
> 
> "And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."
> 
> Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it.  Yes, there are other possible conclusions.  No, you have made no good argument otherwise.  No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are those other possible conclusions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced.  I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things.  You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current  purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "
> 
> Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?
Click to expand...

No.  It's not.  

See 5:24 mark.  Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does mean it does.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe.
> 
> 
> 
> "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an eternal universe."
> 
> Wrong. Scientists have come to believe that the net energy of our universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  How do you think that affects entropy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means that our observable universe could indeed have a beginning and end, while not violating the 2nd law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right and that the universe is not infinite which is what I wrote.  You do know what eternal means, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. Do you know what "authoritative declaration" means?
Click to expand...

Yes, as in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes an authoritative declaration that as our universe approaches an infinite time, thermal equilibrium is approached.  In other words if you follow our universe back in time to the very beginning, you reach the point where there was no disorder in the universe.  Since that time disorder has only increased and will continue to do so until thermal equilibrium is reached.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And if you examine that evidence, there is no other possible conclusion that can be reached except that intelligence behind the laws of nature and that there is a specific aim to those laws."
> 
> Simply reiterating and repeating you authoritative declaration is not support of it.  Yes, there are other possible conclusions.  No, you have made no good argument otherwise.  No, stomping your feet and insisting upon the truth of a statement is not support of it.
> 
> 
> 
> So what are those other possible conclusions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced.  I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things.  You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current  purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "
> 
> Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's not.
> 
> See 5:24 mark.  Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. No,posting the opinion of one scientist does not change this.

I think you need to take a step back and see how impossible your position is in winning an argument, and how very easy it is for anyone to defeat it. You insist it is absolutly necessary to ascribe design and purpose to explain the universe. All any goofball has to do is offer a possible explanation which does not include these things. In other words, you lost this argument before you even began. You need to accept that it is your faith-based belief. And the only support you could possibly offer is, "because I say so".


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are those other possible conclusions?
> 
> 
> 
> That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced.  I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things.  You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current  purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "
> 
> Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's not.
> 
> See 5:24 mark.  Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is. No,posting the opinion of one scientist does not change this.
> 
> I think you need to take a step back and see how impossible your position is in winning an argument, and how very easy it is for anyone to defeat it. You insist it is absolutly necessary to ascribe design and purpose to explain the universe. All any goofball has to do is offer a possible explanation which does not include these things. In other words, you lost this argument before you even began. You need to accept that it is your faith-based belief. And the only support you could possibly offer is, "because I say so".
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what laws were followed when space and time were created or do you believe no laws at all were involved?  And if so, can you tell me why you are honoring the law of conservation for the formation of space and time?


----------



## Desperado

lol and he claims to be the smartest person in the world
and no one calls him on it because they feel sorry for him


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are those other possible conclusions?
> 
> 
> 
> That the laws of our universe were simply emergent from the initial conditions, and that what we see today is what selection, operating from those laws, has produced.  I see no need to introduce an "intelligent designer", or "purpose" to explain these things.  You may wish to graft those ideas onto the explanation (like a vestigial appendage whose only current  purpose is to help you reconcile your beliefs with reality), but I certainly do no t find it to be necessary in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did if you believe the net energy of the universe is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sorry, the laws could not be emergent if the creation of space and time followed those laws which it did "
> 
> Actually, that's precisely the opppsite of what scientists believe, as they believe those laws broke down in the early universe. From whence are you divined this special knowledge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  It's not.
> 
> See 5:24 mark.  Of course you should probably watch the entire 6 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is. No,posting the opinion of one scientist does not change this.
> 
> I think you need to take a step back and see how impossible your position is in winning an argument, and how very easy it is for anyone to defeat it. You insist it is absolutly necessary to ascribe design and purpose to explain the universe. All any goofball has to do is offer a possible explanation which does not include these things. In other words, you lost this argument before you even began. You need to accept that it is your faith-based belief. And the only support you could possibly offer is, "because I say so".
Click to expand...


While you are at it can you tell me if the potential for beings that know and create to exist existed when space and time were created?  And if so, can you tell me what laws that evolutionary process followed from the evolution of sub atomic particles to beings that know and create?


----------



## usmbguest5318

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research



Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?

I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.


----------



## RWNJ

Xelor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
Click to expand...

Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.


----------



## MarkDuffy

RWNJ said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

So God created rules that he broke. 

Sorry, if that is true, then they are not rules.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWNJ said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

"You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. "

People believe it is _possible._ You religious goofballs always confuse yourselves.  Let me help:  ONLY YOU are the ones claiming you know these answers.  Only you.  Yet you dance and prance and cackle and point at everyone else for doing the thing ONLY YOU are doing.  Get that through your heads!  You're embarrassing yourselves!


----------



## usmbguest5318

RWNJ said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
Click to expand...




RWNJ said:


> You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?





RWNJ said:


> you say creationists are loony.



I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.

I asked you several questions.  Are you going to answer them?  Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread.  If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.


RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research




And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​


----------



## RWNJ

Xelor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say creationists are loony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.
> 
> I asked you several questions.  Are you going to answer them?  Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread.  If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RWNJ said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say creationists are loony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.
> 
> I asked you several questions.  Are you going to answer them?  Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread.  If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.
Click to expand...

Good god man, get it through your head: the evidence, in the form of a long mathematical proof, is evidence that it is POSSIBLE.


----------



## usmbguest5318

RWNJ said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say creationists are loony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.
> 
> I asked you several questions.  Are you going to answer them?  Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread.  If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.
Click to expand...


You clearly don't know with whom you've engaged.  


RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.


I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of proof to me when it was never mine to begin with and you've not at all fulfilled the burden associated with your opening  post's bare assertion that Hawking is wrong, which is the only thing I've asked that you do.

You are the one making the claim that Hawking is wrong.  Accordingly, the burden of proof is on you to support your refutation of Hawking's ideas.  

I provided a link to the whole of Hawking's book....I suspect you aren't aware even that his exposition of how a universe can be spontaneously created is not in the chapter from which that one sentence Brian Thomas quoted came.  Thomas took his quote from Chapter 8.  Hawking's explanation is in Chapter 6.  The point of Chapter 8 in Hawking's book was to demonstrate that the existence of laws of nature, rules everything must follow," gravity being one such law, facilitate the the spontaneous creation outcome Hawking describes in Chapter 6.  

Hawking is not saying that gravity itself is why the universe could have been spontaneously created without the God of the Bible.  Accordingly, all that rigamarole that Thomas went through in his essay misses the point because it doesn't refute the spontaneous creation model Hawking posited.
In any discussion about a prime cause of everything, the burden of proof is on the people who assert God created the universe, not on the people who say there is no basis for thinking God created the universe, thus they don't accept as true.

Why is that the case?  Because regardless of what you post here, regardless of how you frame the matter, the fact  is that the question of how the universe came into existence -- spontaneously or deliberately -- is "bigger" than you, I and everyone else here.  In the realm of reality, the place were real people have to answer the question, the burden of proof lies with the theists.  That's not going to change regardless of what you demand of me or what you or I write here.
Quite simply, the burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, *not* the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it.  You made the initial claim in this thread:


RWNJ said:


> [Hawking]may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.


Hawking, in his book, presented the case for the validity of his claim that it's possible that the universe could have been created from nothing, spontaneously.  You aren't required to agree with him, but if you are going to assert that he is wrong, you have to, with reference to the case he presented, show just cause for why Hawking's support for his claim is insufficient to warrant your and anyone else's rational belief of it.

Lastly, on this matter -- what caused the universe to exist -- even though you opened the discussion by tossing up Hawking's claim that the universe did not need God in order to come into existence, the fact remains that's your doing so is nothing more than a transposition of the same and strongest theist argument that's been around since "forever."   That argument is the Cosmological Argument, to which Hawking's book is and has always been a refutation.  Recognizing that is precisely why I in my first response to your OP asked the following:


Xelor said:


> And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?


I asked those questions because I was not willing to, out of hand, assert that you have nothing new and meritorious to add to the Cosmological Argument.  You've, however, (1) thrice not directly answered any of those questions and (2) not put forth a refutation of Hawking's exposition.  Accordingly, I am now certain that you have nothing new to offer and that as goes the matter of whether the universe could or could not have formed spontaneously and from nothing, there is nothing new for me to discover by continuing this conversation with you because I have no interest in playing a mere rhetorical game with you, and that is what you've been entreating for with me, whether you realize it or not.


----------



## RWNJ

Xelor said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but *he's dead wrong.*
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Today, now, you decide to bring up that book from 2010?  And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what?  Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly?  Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> I have to ask whether you have something new because invariably the question of what got the universe created resolves to a binary end:  something did or nothing did.  On the "something did" side of things, that something is a god of some sort, which, of course is the something that somehow paradoxically exists and has no cause of its own, thereby defying the very logic that gives rise to the existence of the god-something.  For now disregarding the "WTF?" that goes along with sussing one's way through that, there is the matter that even accepting the Cosmological Argument to the point of everything being created by something, one then needs to establish what that something is; merely naming it doesn't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. You believe that the universe created itself from nothing? How absurd. And you say creationists are loony. LOL! By the way, if God does exist, he is not bound by the laws of physics. He created them, after all. The universe requires a creator. Any other explanation violates the law of cause and effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that the universe created itself from nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say creationists are loony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me what I believe or say, and if you want to know what I believe, all you need to do is ask a neutrally phrased question and I'll answer it.
> 
> I asked you several questions.  Are you going to answer them?  Tell me "no," and I'll stop posting in this thread.  If have substantive answers to the questions I asked then give them.
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you should show us your evidence that the universe created itself from nothing. If you can do that, then we'll have something to discuss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't know with whom you've engaged.
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of proof to me when it was never mine to begin with and you've not at all fulfilled the burden associated with your opening  post's bare assertion that Hawking is wrong, which is the only thing I've asked that you do.
> 
> You are the one making the claim that Hawking is wrong.  Accordingly, the burden of proof is on you to support your refutation of Hawking's ideas.
> 
> I provided a link to the whole of Hawking's book....I suspect you aren't aware even that his exposition of how a universe can be spontaneously created is not in the chapter from which that one sentence Brian Thomas quoted came.  Thomas took his quote from Chapter 8.  Hawking's explanation is in Chapter 6.  The point of Chapter 8 in Hawking's book was to demonstrate that the existence of laws of nature, rules everything must follow," gravity being one such law, facilitate the the spontaneous creation outcome Hawking describes in Chapter 6.
> 
> Hawking is not saying that gravity itself is why the universe could have been spontaneously created without the God of the Bible.  Accordingly, all that rigamarole that Thomas went through in his essay misses the point because it doesn't refute the spontaneous creation model Hawking posited.
> In any discussion about a prime cause of everything, the burden of proof is on the people who assert God created the universe, not on the people who say there is no basis for thinking God created the universe, thus they don't accept as true.
> 
> Why is that the case?  Because regardless of what you post here, regardless of how you frame the matter, the fact  is that the question of how the universe came into existence -- spontaneously or deliberately -- is "bigger" than you, I and everyone else here.  In the realm of reality, the place were real people have to answer the question, the burden of proof lies with the theists.  That's not going to change regardless of what you demand of me or what you or I write here.
> Quite simply, the burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, *not* the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it.  You made the initial claim in this thread:
> 
> 
> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Hawking]may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hawking, in his book, presented the case for the validity of his claim that it's possible that the universe could have been created from nothing, spontaneously.  You aren't required to agree with him, but if you are going to assert that he is wrong, you have to, with reference to the case he presented, show just cause for why Hawking's support for his claim is insufficient to warrant your and anyone else's rational belief of it.
> 
> Lastly, on this matter -- what caused the universe to exist -- even though you opened the discussion by tossing up Hawking's claim that the universe did not need God in order to come into existence, the fact remains that's your doing so is nothing more than a transposition of the same and strongest theist argument that's been around since "forever."   That argument is the Cosmological Argument, to which Hawking's book is and has always been a refutation.  Recognizing that is precisely why I in my first response to your OP asked the following:
> 
> 
> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we are supposed to give greater credence to your attestation that he's wrong on the basis of what? Surely not the 2014 mathematical proof that a whole f*cking universe can indeed come from nothing, so what exactly? Have you something new to add to Aquinas' and later philosophers' Cosmological Argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked those questions because I was not willing to, out of hand, assert that you have nothing new and meritorious to add to the Cosmological Argument.  You've, however, (1) thrice not directly answered any of those questions and (2) not put forth a refutation of Hawking's exposition.  Accordingly, I am now certain that you have nothing new to offer and that as goes the matter of whether the universe could or could not have formed spontaneously and from nothing, there is nothing new for me to discover by continuing this conversation with you because I have no interest in playing a mere rhetorical game with you, and that is what you've been entreating for with me, whether you realize it or not.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Hawking made the claim that the universe created itself from nothing. He has the burden of proof. He has failed to provide it. You lose.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RWNJ said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely..Based on the laws of chemistry and physics it most certainly did.
> 
> If you don't believe this then i ask who or what created god? It is so much more simple to explain things with laws of science compared to figuring out how a super being developed out of nothing.
> 
> Laws of science = billions or even tens of billions of years for such processes to slowly come together.
> 
> God popped out of nothing! =
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot. God wasn't created. He has always existed. And the universe creating itself violates the LAW of cause and effect.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

There is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists – religion, and later ‘god,’ are creations of man.


----------



## mamooth

RWNJ said:


> SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.



Time also started with the big bang. As cause and effect requires time, it does not apply. There's no such thing as "before the big bang". Yeah, that's hard for us temporal creatures to wrap our minds around.


----------



## RWNJ

mamooth said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO, why was there a big bang? What caused it? Someone had to cause it to happen, otherwise it violates the LAW of cause and effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time also started with the big bang. As cause and effect requires time, it does not apply. There's no such thing as "before the big bang". Yeah, that's hard for us temporal creatures to wrap our minds around.
Click to expand...

There was also no space either. So where did the big bang happen? And change does not occur without time. The big bang was a pretty big change. Wasn't is? And where did the energy for the big bang come from? Where did the universal physical constants come from? Why is there order in the universe? None of these questions can be answered without a Creator, Order does not come from chaos.


----------



## DOTR

RWNJ said:


> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research



He knows better now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> RWNJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be brilliant, but he's dead wrong.
> 
> Hawking Says Universe Created Itself | The Institute for Creation Research
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knows better now.
Click to expand...


I doubt that.


----------

