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.
Actually what I am discussing here is the moral law.So you're saying there is a subtle force that changes us in a particular direction? You say God, I say evolution. Maybe they are the same thing?Yes and no. There is a self compensating feature built into existence which progresses us. Let’s at least give God credit for that, shall we. But yes, if we are to have free will, his involvement is limited to his spirit inside us which has a very quiet voice.If that were true it would mean God plays no part in our lives and cares nothing for us. He might as well not exist then.That religion is not God. Religion is people’s perception of God. So there can be many perceptions without having any bearing on the existence of God.
That’s where you are wrong. Show me a cosmological model that shows how an open system can explain what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, etc. you can’t because there is none. So rather than accepting the generally accepted cosmological model which describes what we see, you dismiss it because it makes you uncomfortable.Because no one knows what came before the Big Bang. You say nothing, I say I don't know. You don't know how the universe could come from nothing and neither do I. You say there is a gap in our knowledge and want to fill it with God. I can live with a gap.Why do you want to talk about an open system?
No that is not generally accepted:It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.
You do realize that that the presence of matter and energy creates space and time, right?Because no one knows what came before the Big Bang. You say nothing, I say I don't know. You don't know how the universe could come from nothing and neither do I. You say there is a gap in our knowledge and want to fill it with God. I can live with a gap.Why do you want to talk about an open system?
Right? But where did the matter come from and how did it not violate the FLoT and the SLoT.No that is not generally accepted:It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.sin·gu·lar·i·ty
/ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/
Doesn't sound like nothing to me or are black holes nothing?
- a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
That’s not a fact. Your cut and paste slogans about social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism leading to socialism and communism are stereotypical falsehoods you stole from fundie xtian websites.Think what you want of me. My posts stand alone.I put everything in my own words.
Hard to believe with some of those long winded sermons of yours.
evolution is anything which moved from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. Such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness.
Now, you're moving the goalposts from what was being discussed. I'll assume you gave up. Anyway, natural selection fits that criteria, but it isn't to a more advanced state. We have two explanations for it, 1) It is the variations of species due to genetic drift and 2) changes to a species due to their environment. It is the latter that you are addressing. Natural selection is more than that. The latter is a move to a state so one can survive. It isn't a move to a fittest state that you are proposing. It is a change due to mutation and it does not follow a creature is better for it. It can survive better in the environment that it is in.
They rest is just fallacious argument from assuming something is true, but you're wrong.
Look at the coronavirus. The flu virus has mutated in the environment that it is in so that it is more of a predator and killer. It wants to reach our lungs in order to flourish and survive. I think one China doctor trying to do an autopsy of a dead patient said it was the most dangerous environment in the world he was in. He said that he had to risk the autopsy because that was the only way to learn how to defeat the virus. The virus hasn't mutated to a better organism. Just one that could better survive. If it could mutate to a superior state, then it would be all over for us. Moreover, the survival of the fittest that you believe is racism. It led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler and the rise of Nazism, and the Holocaust. Today, the survival of the fittest mechanism has led to secular humanism. It's just another progression towards socialism and communism. That's a fact.
He understands not, what someone says to him. He wins - that's all. The only problem is he knows not what he is winning, why.In your mind, not mine.Haha...poor little god gets tinier every day....A nice definition "god is the unknown".
We obviously don't know where the singularity came from. Please explain how the presence of a singularity violate the FLoT and the SLoT.Right? But where did the matter come from and how did it not violate the FLoT and the SLoT.
the answer to that is what I have been trying to explain to you.
.Nor could you ever. That's the thing...there can never be evidence of the "supernatural", inherently and by definition. If no physical determinism, then cause and effect ceases to exist. If no cause and effect, then nothing could ever be evidence for or against.As we've seen, you cannot identify a single instance of supernaturalism
Once someone introduces magic, the discussion is over. They could never produce evidence for the magic, nor could you ever produce evidence against it. This should be everyone's first clue what a useless idea magic is.
Nor could you ever. That's the thing...there can never be evidence of the "supernatural", inherently and by definition. If no physical determinism, then cause and effect ceases to exist. If no cause and effect, then nothing could ever be evidence for or against.
So you accept the universe had a beginning but you reject how it began, right?No that is not generally accepted:It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.sin·gu·lar·i·ty
/ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/
Doesn't sound like nothing to me or are black holes nothing?
- a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
On the contrary, I don't accept universe had a beginning. It was a singularity, whatever that is, now it has changed form into the universe we know. Did that singularity have a beginning? I don't know, do you?So you accept the universe had a beginning but you reject how it began, right?No that is not generally accepted:It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.sin·gu·lar·i·ty
/ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/
Doesn't sound like nothing to me or are black holes nothing?
- a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
It doesn't. First of all, I don't believe you know what they are talking about when they use the term singularity.We obviously don't know where the singularity came from. Please explain how the presence of a singularity violate the FLoT and the SLoT.Right? But where did the matter come from and how did it not violate the FLoT and the SLoT.
the answer to that is what I have been trying to explain to you.
So you believe the universe has existed forever?On the contrary, I don't accept universe had a beginning. It was a singularity, whatever that is, now it has changed form into the universe we know. Did that singularity have a beginning? I don't know, do you?So you accept the universe had a beginning but you reject how it began, right?No that is not generally accepted:It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.sin·gu·lar·i·ty
/ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/
Doesn't sound like nothing to me or are black holes nothing?
- a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
... I have no doubt you know more of the engineering than I do. What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing. It seem more of a leap to say something came from nothing than it does to say the something we see from something in a different form. The later we see all the time, the former we have never seen. Occam's Razor again.
It seems like your position is to just deny everything because you are afraid of what it means to your agnosticism.On the contrary, I don't accept universe had a beginning. It was a singularity, whatever that is, now it has changed form into the universe we know. Did that singularity have a beginning? I don't know, do you?So you accept the universe had a beginning but you reject how it began, right?No that is not generally accepted:It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.sin·gu·lar·i·ty
/ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/
Doesn't sound like nothing to me or are black holes nothing?
- a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
Let's dis-spell this myth once and for all so that we can get to how the universe was created. Fair enough?I don't accept universe had a beginning.
No that is not generally accepted:It’s not my assertion. It is the conclusion of the generally accepted cosmological model which explains what we see. Specifically, red shift, CMB, monopole, horizon, flatness and accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe.What I doubt is your assertion the universe was created from nothing.
The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.sin·gu·lar·i·ty
/ˌsiNGɡyəˈlerədē/
Doesn't sound like nothing to me or are black holes nothing?
- a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.
A black hole is a singularity but it is very real and has a real effect on the universe. The black hole had a beginning but it existed as normal matter before it became a black hole.When you say something like we don't know where it comes from implies that you believe it is a physical phenomenon or event. It isn't. The singularity is merely the point (in mathematics) when Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yields infinite values.
So it literally has nothing to do with the FLoT and the SLoT.
Would you like to learn the role that the FLoT and the SLoT play in this discussion?
I don't know, I don't think there is any evidence for what came before the BB.So you believe the universe has existed forever?
Yeah, um...not buying any of that..Nor could you ever. That's the thing...there can never be evidence of the "supernatural", inherently and by definition. If no physical determinism, then cause and effect ceases to exist. If no cause and effect, then nothing could ever be evidence for or against.As we've seen, you cannot identify a single instance of supernaturalism
Once someone introduces magic, the discussion is over. They could never produce evidence for the magic, nor could you ever produce evidence against it. This should be everyone's first clue what a useless idea magic is.
Nor could you ever. That's the thing...there can never be evidence of the "supernatural", inherently and by definition. If no physical determinism, then cause and effect ceases to exist. If no cause and effect, then nothing could ever be evidence for or against.
the physiology of living beings is a supernatural, metaphysical, physical substance that disappears when its spiritual content is removed.
physiology is not native to planet Earth and will evolve anywhere in the universe and may assume different properties to its environment to sustain life which may or may not be the same as our own. all of which is directed by the metaphysical spiritual content assumed into the physical properties.
