Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.
"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."
What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?
It is the only revealed religion. The allegorical account of Creation. The account of the Great Migration. etc.,
There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.
You are not agnostic. If you were you would be arguing equally the other side. You don't do that. You have a horse in the race.
But how do you get to the god of the bible?
After an extensive study of the major religions.
Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXTFirst of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.1. Cosmic evolutionWhat is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness
All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?
It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.
The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.
The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).
These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.
However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.
One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.
All tangible items can be evidence? Okay, go out in your front yard, pick up a random rock, and tell us what that rock tells you about WillReadMore.No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence. This the part we are going around in circles over. You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).
On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.
You don't know anything about my standards or me. All the other religions were men seeking God. None made the claim that God was seeking them. But revelation will be given to people who seek God. That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth. I read each religion in its best possible light. That was my standard. The main difference between the religions is the nature of God. That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God. To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the same core values of virtue.Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.
"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."
What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?
It is the only revealed religion. The allegorical account of Creation. The account of the Great Migration. etc.,
There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.
You are not agnostic. If you were you would be arguing equally the other side. You don't do that. You have a horse in the race.
But how do you get to the god of the bible?
After an extensive study of the major religions.
What is "the only revealed religion"? What does that mean?
So you studied all the religions and figured you'd pick the one that made the most sense to you? Like I've said before, your standards are way too low.
Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not.You don't know anything about my standards or me. All the other religions were men seeking God. None made the claim that God was seeking them. But revelation will be given to people who seek God. That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth. I read each religion in its best possible light. That was my standard. The main difference between the religions is the nature of God. That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God. To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the general same core values of virtue.Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.
"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."
What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?
It is the only revealed religion. The allegorical account of Creation. The account of the Great Migration. etc.,
There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.
You are not agnostic. If you were you would be arguing equally the other side. You don't do that. You have a horse in the race.
But how do you get to the god of the bible?
After an extensive study of the major religions.
What is "the only revealed religion"? What does that mean?
So you studied all the religions and figured you'd pick the one that made the most sense to you? Like I've said before, your standards are way too low.
A first cause is needed. That cause is outside the realm of examination. That cause is in the realm of philosophy. You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXTFirst of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.1. Cosmic evolutionWhat is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness
All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?
It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.
The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.
The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).
These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.
However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.
One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.
And therein lies the problem. Because "the best you can do" is not scientific, and does not provide the objective evidence of "God" that us rational atheists require to change our position. Because "the best you can do" is presume that God exists, and then tell us all about this imaginary God that you are incapable of even proving exists.And is it your contention that science can do those things? I am afraid that the best we can do is to study what was created and evaluate that as indirect evidence for a Creator. You keep demanding definitive proof of the supernatural where there can never be any. Of the two positions, mine is the more reasonable. I don't demand the impossible, you do.You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.What do you think I've been doing, lol.Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?Sure, make the presumption and then test it.Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.
What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "
This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.We don't know all of these things. For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created." We know no such thing. Simply because Homo Sapiens did evolve, in no way indicates that thery were predestined to evolve. You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence. Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.
Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.
And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.
I didn't ask for evidence. I asked for objective evidence. I also didn't ask for objective evidence about the nature of God. I asked for objective evidence of the existence of God. You keep wanting to skip right over that, and tell me what kind of God this God is that you haven't even proves existed in the first place.Wow, did you just really write that? I guess your mind is made up. Why do you keep asking for evidence then? After all you just admitted that you prejudge any conclusions arrived at as faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence. Why do you keep asking for it? Are you illogical? Or disingenuous?You can, but any conclusions that you arrive at are faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence.No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.
You have shown yourself to be incapable of honest dialogue when you argued that the universe did not have a beginning, even though all of the evidence at hand shows the universe started from an extremely tiny hot dense space and expanded and cooled, not to mention your dismissal of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which precludes an eternal universe from what we observe today.
Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me? Are you seriously going to compare the examination of the creation of the universe and everything that has unfolded since that point to an examination of a random rock found in my backyard? Have you not been paying attention to the discussion on the evolution of matter and what that has led to? That's the rock, dude. I am examining the rock. Have you not been paying attention to how I established that it is impossible for the universe to be infinite? That was me examining the rock. Have you not been paying attention to the discussion on the first cause? That was me examining the rock. According to you I haven't done anything. I think I've done a pretty good examination of the rock. Especially considering that all you have done is try to keep evidence out of the record. Which makes perfect sense since you are losing the debate that I have been having while you were filing motions to suppress.All tangible items can be evidence? Okay, go out in your front yard, pick up a random rock, and tell us what that rock tells you about WillReadMore.No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence. This the part we are going around in circles over. You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.
When are you going to quit pretending that what you are providing is evidence for what I asked for?I'm not doing that though. Right now I am just trying to prove that there is indirect physical evidence for a Creator. When are you going to stop demanding proof that you know is impossible to provide?No, I am under the impression that claiming the existence of a "supernatural" being is unsupportable by evidence. If you want to believe that such beings exist, that is your perogative. However, please do not insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that such can be proven by objective evidence.Are you under the illusion that you can prove the existence of a supernatural being in the natural world? The best we can do is study the natural world and examine it for indirect evidence of a Creator. You have no interest in that because it opposes your worldview. It threatens you.You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.What do you think I've been doing, lol.Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?
You crack me up. I'm going to miss you the most.Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not.You don't know anything about my standards or me. All the other religions were men seeking God. None made the claim that God was seeking them. But revelation will be given to people who seek God. That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth. I read each religion in its best possible light. That was my standard. The main difference between the religions is the nature of God. That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God. To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the general same core values of virtue.Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.
"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."
What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?
It is the only revealed religion. The allegorical account of Creation. The account of the Great Migration. etc.,
There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.
You are not agnostic. If you were you would be arguing equally the other side. You don't do that. You have a horse in the race.
But how do you get to the god of the bible?
After an extensive study of the major religions.
What is "the only revealed religion"? What does that mean?
So you studied all the religions and figured you'd pick the one that made the most sense to you? Like I've said before, your standards are way too low.
"it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God" So you admit that god is not provable. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!
You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass. It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself. Life was preordained by the laws of nature.Sure they are. However it doesn't follow that everything that has the potential to heppen, will, and is, in fact, predestined to happen. Blue flames have the poitential to com flying out of my ass. Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is? How "predestined"is that event? Potential does not equate predestined. It only equates possible.The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.We don't know all of these things. For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created." We know no such thing. Simply because Homo Sapiens did evolve, in no way indicates that thery were predestined to evolve. You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence. Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.
No, it's not. You keep insisting that, and I keep reminding you of the new discoveries, and the theories that they have led to that make your statement untrue. Now, understand, I am not saying that there was no begining. After all, we can't know for certain, at this point, and all we can do is theorize. However, you keep insising that a "first cause" is necessary, as a definitive declarative, and I have presented to you, repeatedly, the newtheory which disputes that contention.A first cause is needed. That cause is outside the realm of examination. That cause is in the realm of philosophy. You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXTFirst of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.1. Cosmic evolutionWhat is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness
All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?
It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.
The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.
The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).
These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.
However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.
One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.
There you go again filing motions to suppress while I'm discussing the evidence. The universe did have a beginning. The start of which is outside the realm of science. It is in the realm of philosophy. Everything after it started can be examined. That examination shows that the universe has become self aware and that self awareness is the pinnacle of the evolution of that tiny, hot, dense space of matter.I didn't ask for evidence. I asked for objective evidence. I also didn't ask for objective evidence about the nature of God. I asked for objective evidence of the existence of God. You keep wanting to skip right over that, and tell me what kind of God this God is that you haven't even proves existed in the first place.Wow, did you just really write that? I guess your mind is made up. Why do you keep asking for evidence then? After all you just admitted that you prejudge any conclusions arrived at as faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence. Why do you keep asking for it? Are you illogical? Or disingenuous?You can, but any conclusions that you arrive at are faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence.No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?
You have shown yourself to be incapable of honest dialogue when you argued that the universe did not have a beginning, even though all of the evidence at hand shows the universe started from an extremely tiny hot dense space and expanded and cooled, not to mention your dismissal of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which precludes an eternal universe from what we observe today.
How is it not?When are you going to quit pretending that what you are providing is evidence for what I asked for?I'm not doing that though. Right now I am just trying to prove that there is indirect physical evidence for a Creator. When are you going to stop demanding proof that you know is impossible to provide?No, I am under the impression that claiming the existence of a "supernatural" being is unsupportable by evidence. If you want to believe that such beings exist, that is your perogative. However, please do not insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that such can be proven by objective evidence.Are you under the illusion that you can prove the existence of a supernatural being in the natural world? The best we can do is study the natural world and examine it for indirect evidence of a Creator. You have no interest in that because it opposes your worldview. It threatens you.You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.What do you think I've been doing, lol.
What are the attributes of a first cause?No, it's not. You keep insisting that, and I keep reminding you of the new discoveries, and the theories that they have led to that make your statement untrue. Now, understand, I am not saying that there was no begining. After all, we can't know for certain, at this point, and all we can do is theorize. However, you keep insising that a "first cause" is necessary, as a definitive declarative, and I have presented to you, repeatedly, the newtheory which disputes that contention.A first cause is needed. That cause is outside the realm of examination. That cause is in the realm of philosophy. You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXTFirst of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness
All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?
It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.
The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.
The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).
These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.
However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.
One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.
Then you're a philosopher, not a Catholic. And you just admitted again that god is unprovable. You might be an agnostic as well.A first cause is needed. That cause is outside the realm of examination. That cause is in the realm of philosophy. You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXTFirst of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.1. Cosmic evolutionWhat is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness
All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?
It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.
The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.
The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).
These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.
However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.
One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.
You asked: If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you? (post # 1,386)Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?All tangible items can be evidence? Okay, go out in your front yard, pick up a random rock, and tell us what that rock tells you about WillReadMore.No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence. This the part we are going around in circles over. You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.
You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?You crack me up. I'm going to miss you the most.Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not.You don't know anything about my standards or me. All the other religions were men seeking God. None made the claim that God was seeking them. But revelation will be given to people who seek God. That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth. I read each religion in its best possible light. That was my standard. The main difference between the religions is the nature of God. That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God. To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the general same core values of virtue.Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.
"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."
What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?
It is the only revealed religion. The allegorical account of Creation. The account of the Great Migration. etc.,
There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.
You are not agnostic. If you were you would be arguing equally the other side. You don't do that. You have a horse in the race.
But how do you get to the god of the bible?
After an extensive study of the major religions.
What is "the only revealed religion"? What does that mean?
So you studied all the religions and figured you'd pick the one that made the most sense to you? Like I've said before, your standards are way too low.
"it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God" So you admit that god is not provable. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!
