Does God Exist?

[luchitociencia]

First my sense of humor (needed in these times):

After the 5 Ts (teas) [1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus] and the filet mignon (Philemon) - Hebrews some more!

Seriously, a good memory aid for the order of Bible books - after Go Eat Pop Corn (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians).

So, who wrote Hebrews?

From our Bible dictionary here:

Hebrews, Letter to the — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E."

Manuscripts of the Bible — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Quite noteworthy is the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) believed to be from about 200 C.E. It has 86 somewhat damaged leaves out of a codex that probably had 104 leaves originally, and it still contains nine of Paul’s inspired letters: Romans, Hebrews, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and First Thessalonians. It is noteworthy that the letter to the Hebrews is included in this early codex. Since Hebrews does not give its writer’s name, its composition by Paul has frequently been disputed. But this letter’s inclusion in P⁠46, evidently consisting of Paul’s letters exclusively, indicates that in about 200 C.E., Hebrews was accepted by early Christians as an inspired writing of the apostle Paul. The letter to the Ephesians appears in this codex, thus also refuting arguments that Paul did not write this letter."

“Bearing Thorough Witness” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The letter to the Hebrews was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Judea. Although the letter does not specifically identify the writer, evidence suggests that it was Paul.... Paul sends greetings from Italy, and he mentions Timothy, who was with him in Rome.—Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; Heb. 13:23, 24."

Note: Paul may have omitted his name because he was "apostle to the nations" (=Gentiles). Many Jews were biased against Gentiles - some even hated them! Instead, Paul quoted or referred to many Hebrew Scriptures from a Jewish perspective. And it is the evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures that Paul refers to, not who the author of Hebrews was, that provides the "convincing evidence" as per Hebrews 11:1

Who is Paul anyways?

Why he received that new name and by whom?

Name changing is observed when God -thru his angels- changed the name of guys. But, no letters explain how it happened Saul was changed by Paul?

Remember that name changing must have a reason, and there is a Saul and a Paul, perhaps the same person, perhaps two persons.

If his name wasn't changed by God or the Messiah, who had the authority to do such a change and why the reason for that action is not mentioned at all by any writer, canonical or non-canonical letters or manuscripts?

I will tell you this: the whole gospels and letters have been the whole edited by someone(s).

No doubt about it.

I don't say the gospels and letters are not telling the truth, but definitively those have been edited.

Same with the old testament, where errors are by lots, and surely one can notice the scriptures have been edited. The last "edition" contains -by using modern grammatical Hebrew rules- about 20 errors. By using interpretation of text, about five errors. By making translation of the texts, several more errors.

If God exists, then he might be pissed off because those mistakes.

And about the book of Hebrews itself, circumstantial evidence won't prove that Saul or Paul wrote it.

 

[alang1216]

You take for granted the hypothesis of the expansion of the universe. The only way you can prove such a hypothesis is by measure of expansion from point A to point B. And no one has measure it that way.

There is no other way to measure such an assumed expansion.

By consequence your conclusions are based in conjectures, solely in conjectures.

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you see the gyrations everybody went through to explain why it looked like a donut?

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and should shut up immediately. They didn't have to "gyrate" to explain it, because they already perfectly predicted exactly what it looked like.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
if you are asking their origination you then conclude they exist so your insistence becomes their functionality which has been provided already by their creation of physiology which is a metaphysical substance that ceases to exist when its spiritual content is removed - I really do not need to repeat this again.

oh, really, not a christian what's with 4th century bible talk then ...

You keep making your own conclusions and you insist imaging I'm accepting them.

Asking questions is not making conclusions. You can check it using a dictionary.

And yes, you are correct, you don't need to repeat your imaginations, once is enough and are not credible.

.
your responses are empty rhetoric ...

you requested my proof of the metaphysical -

- which has been provided already by their creation of physiology which is a metaphysical substance that ceases to exist when its spiritual content is removed

.
the physical presence of physiology is proof of the metaphysical and the mechanisms for change from parent to sibling the basis for evolution and the beginning of life.

oh, of course all occurring in the past 6000 years ...

Just seeing you saying "evolution" disqualifies you as a reasonable individual.

Read my lips: There was, there is, there won't be any evolution.

That theory is a fraud.

Just seeing you saying "evolution" disqualifies you as a reasonable individual.

Read my lips: There was, there is, there won't be any evolution.

That theory is a fraud.

have those kinds of religionist ever considered disinformation is an evil unto itself the practitioners ultimately will be held accountable for.

.
too bad lunatic, I have already answered your rhetoric ... in your case without the qualifier.

 

[luchitociencia]

I wanted you to try adding oxygen to the experiment online. The figure would show you what happens. Better online that in real life.

Anyway, today we know it was the volcanic or methane gases that was around during primordial Earth. Would God cause you harm then? Nope.

007. Think of fertilizer as help for growing plants when you vision the volcanic gases. Also, too much fertilizer burns or kills the plants.

Think about oxygen, which is needed for our survival, however our cells have to repair between themselves because oxygen also causes them damage.

The early conditions on earth facilitate the appearance of life.

On the other side, look what happens when you make lemonade You have water, you add sugar and lemon. However, cold water will slow sugar to dissolve. No stirring will cause an uneven dissolving of sugar and lemon juice, and so forth.

The process to make life requires not only the right ingredients but also the adequate process.

I read your comments and the comments of others, and it is noticeable the great interest to discover how life came to exists.

But life is not how the existence of God must be demonstrated. Like to say that one will believe god exists because a miracle happened.

God can't be demonstrated that way, same as using several circumstantial "evidence" like codes in DNA, repetitive cycles with close accuracy like orbit of earth around the sun, etc.

Believing in God is by faith.

The atheist wishes to take away the belief in God from people, because he can't feel it, because he has an arid soul, and he can't have the joy of knowing that the presence of God settles inside our mind, our soul, our body.

The atheist is like the serpent, always suggesting there is a way other than God.

As a believer, one can study science to admire the creation of God but not so to justify that God exists.

The believer can study science to learn the wisdom of God's design, and show others the marvels God have gave man to understand that God can offer much more if man follows Him with all his hearth, and mind and soul.

One day man might be capable to imitate God creating life, but... beware... in that moment man will think God is not needed anymore and that day God will change the world one more time.

Everything a true believe does and says must be made for the glory of God.

Jesus did it that way, and true believers must follow his example.

Let the serpent (atheist) speak vanity, because God will silence his tongue same way He did with the original serpent.

Faith must be the main ingredient in every answer you give to your challengers. You are not defending God, you are not defending yourself, you are just obeying God and responding to others the way God will guide you to do.

That is a promise made long ago, and as long as I can remember, I have read that God always fulfills his word.

No need to prove anything, just show God's creation the way you are learning step by step. You know God exists, you feel He does, then you are blessed.

 

[BreezeWood]

Did you know that the central nervous system of every mammal species got larger over time?

I didn't know that and I'm not sure what it means.

It means that very nature of existence is to create intelligence. It is unavoidable. It is not an accident.

That's ridiculous. The nature of existence is to continue to exist. That's it. If more intelligence facilitates that, then more intelligence will probably develop. But life on Earth existed for about 3 billion years before it even had a brain.

Apparently you haven’t studied the evolution of space and time.

the nature of existence is to evolve. It started with cosmic evolution then stellar evolution then chemical evolution then biological evolution and lastly evolution of consciousness.

So the pinnacle of existence is literally intelligence. It is by far the most complex thing the universe has produced and is literally the culmination of everything before it. It’s really no different than building a house.

I can’t wait to see what the next evolutionary leap will bring.

... then biological evolution and lastly evolution of consciousness.

.
physiology and its spiritual content are inseparably linked - no being from any time has been without consciousness - except maybe for bing.

the next progression as monumental as our becoming sapien could well be the spiritual content evolving without the need for a physiological presence.

Just curious - do you think computers are conscious? If so, what if the computer is in sleep mode - is their memory erased? What do you believe about the soul?

Btw, you could be dead - conscious of nothing at all as Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 states and yet your memory might not be erased. The reason is God's memory - see Malachi 3:16.

The reason is God's memory

.
no, no spirit is a part of the Almighty irregardless their memory for which there would be non for the departed without triumph, the callousness of disinformation will not bode well for those practitioners - newtonian.

 

[esalla]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”

That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.

Nobody can tell us:

What was here before the BB?

Where did the energy for BB come from?

What initiated the BB?

The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.

I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?

To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.


Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?

What was here before the BB Gods?

Where did the energy for BB The Gods come from?

What initiated the BB Gods?

You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.

So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?

To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.

To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?

The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.

If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.

And your reference to support this?

According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?

www.scientificamerican.com

"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...

In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"

Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?

Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?

Black holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.

Actually this is the first supposed photograph of a black hole

Did you see the gyrations everybody went through to explain why it looked like a donut?

The center of that is not the black hole.

All kinds of speculation in that photo.

Tell us how you know what the photo is or is not?

How Scientists Captured the First Image of a Black Hole - Teachable Moments | NASA/JPL Edu

Find out how scientists created a virtual telescope as large as Earth itself to capture the first image of a black hole's silhouette.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

 

[esalla]

However, if you look the light coming to you from the past, then you must understand the past light is not traveling from you but is ARRIVING to you.

My intent was to have ding answer my questions and have a discussion, but his was to make snide remarks for my being a fundamentalist Christian vs. his deism. He says he is Catholic, but doesn't use the Bible nor attend church.

The way I have used the map I posted is if we were are able to travel at c to some point on the cone such as the someplace beyond our galaxy. Then we would have to calculate the coordinates carefully and realize where we want to go may not be there at present. If not correct, then we could just overshoot or undershoot our destination by far and screw up our fuel that we have to make the trip there and back.

Tell us James, where did you get your physics degree?

Actually I know

Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”

That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.

Nobody can tell us:

What was here before the BB?

Where did the energy for BB come from?

What initiated the BB?

The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.

I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?

To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.


Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?

What was here before the BB Gods?

Where did the energy for BB The Gods come from?

What initiated the BB Gods?

You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.

So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?

To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.

To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?

The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.

If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.

And your reference to support this?

According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?

www.scientificamerican.com

"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...

In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"

Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?

Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?

Black holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.

Actually this is the first supposed photograph of a black hole

Did you see the gyrations everybody went through to explain why it looked like a donut?

The center of that is not the black hole.

All kinds of speculation in that photo.

Tell us how you know what the photo is or is not?

How Scientists Captured the First Image of a Black Hole - Teachable Moments | NASA/JPL Edu

Find out how scientists created a virtual telescope as large as Earth itself to capture the first image of a black hole's silhouette.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

Don't feed the attention begging troll

 

[esalla]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”

That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.

Nobody can tell us:

What was here before the BB?

Where did the energy for BB come from?

What initiated the BB?

The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.

I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?

To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.


Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?

What was here before the BB Gods?

Where did the energy for BB The Gods come from?

What initiated the BB Gods?

You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.

So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?

To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.

To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?

The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.

If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.

And your reference to support this?

According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?

www.scientificamerican.com

"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...

In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"

Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?

Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?

Black holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.

Actually this is the first supposed photograph of a black hole

Did you see the gyrations everybody went through to explain why it looked like a donut?

The center of that is not the black hole.

All kinds of speculation in that photo.

Tell us how you know what the photo is or is not?

How Scientists Captured the First Image of a Black Hole - Teachable Moments | NASA/JPL Edu

Find out how scientists created a virtual telescope as large as Earth itself to capture the first image of a black hole's silhouette.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

Don't feed the attention begging troll

Not everyone who does not think like you is a troll

 

[tycho1572]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

Some people, for various reasons, believe in a power greater than themselves. Is that a bad thing?

 

[tycho1572]

 

[Flash]

Saying "God did it" is an easy dodge. Saying how it was done, that takes science.

Saying that the universe created itself out of nothing is even a bigger dodge. There is nothing in our knowledge of Science that say it is possible. In fact the Laws of Physics as we understand them says that it is impossible. That is why the secularit theorists come up with absurd things like "the Laws of Physics didn't exist when the universe was made", and other silly things.

True as I have also posted. And most scientists ignore the Bible - thankfully Galileo and Newton accepted that truth comes from both science and the Bible.

The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.

I have already posted on Isaiah 40:22,26 as it relates to the fine tuned expansion of our universe involving plural forms of God's energy (Hebrew ohnim) such as gravity and dark energy. But I have not addressed the illustration in verse 22 that hints at how the singularity was formed.

Isaiah 40:22
There is One who dwells above the circle* of the earth,+
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers.
He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze,
And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.+

Most simply scoff at the illustration of a tent - not realizing this illustration hints at both the shape of the universe (is the universe flat like a stretching out flat tentcloth?). But tents have more than one tent cloth.

The sacred "tent of meeting" (tabernacle) in geometric terms is/was a rectangular prism. The hint as to how the singularity was formed is in the fact that the corners of this tent are actually points with zero dimensions.

Personally, I favor a collision of branes model but based on membranes/cloths with only 2 dimensions. If two 2-d branes were to intersect on edge, the intersection point would be a singularity!

“The most common model of Big Bang theory is that our universe began with a singularity with zero dimensions - but most scientists are at a loss to explain why this happened and so they create fanciful theories with no observational evidence - in other words: blind faith.”

That’s actually not true. The “singularity” is a mathematical solution (of sorts) to Einstein’s theory of relativity. It’s really solving the equation until a null solution is reached.

The “singularity” and a “universe from nothing” are actually misconceptions typically pressed by religionists in an attempt to denigrate science. This allows them to maintain their super-magical gods without any evidence.

Any Scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable.

Nobody can tell us:

What was here before the BB?

Where did the energy for BB come from?

What initiated the BB?

The there is this thingy about how can the whole universe, consisting of trillions of galaxies, be reduced to the size of the head of a pin? Actually, even smaller.

I'm not so sure any scientist that you ask will tell you that TBB theory is really nothing more than placeholder to explain the unexplainable. What scientists have you asked?

To "explain the unexplainable" is an oxymoron. What you're missing is that science provides a mechanism to explore the expansion of the universe and what caused that event to happen. You might not have noticed but it wasn't the religious institutions that placed the Hubble in orbit, built radio telescopes or sent the Explorer spacecraft to distant planets.


Lets pose your questions differently, shall we?

What was here before the BB Gods?

Where did the energy for BB The Gods come from?

What initiated the BB Gods?

You have furthered the common misconception that the BB was a point in space, with all matter on the head of a pin. That's not accurate. Further, the BB was not the beginning of the universe but what came after.

So, you don't agree with scientists who claim our universe began from a singularity with no dimensions? Can you link to scientific evidence for anything you do believe?

To dismiss scientific research by saying the origin of our universe is unexplainable stifles scientific discovery and also ignores what has already been discovered.

To be specific: do you agree that the origin of our universe did not violate the law of conservation of matter and energy (E=Mc^2)? And do you agree that origin did not violate the scientific principle of cause and effect?

The universe beginning from a singularity with no dimensions is not something scientists agree with.

If you presume the universe came into existence as a result of the supernatural hands of the gods, there is no science involved.

And your reference to support this?

According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?

www.scientificamerican.com

"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?...

In some ways, you can think of the universe as a black hole turned inside out. A black hole is a singularity into which material flows. The universe is a singularity out of which material has flowed. A black hole is surrounded by an event horizon, a surface inside which we cannot see. The universe is surrounded by a cosmological horizon, a surface outside of which we cannot see. (A crucial difference, though, is that the event horizon is fixed whereas the cosmological horizon varies from observer to observer.)"

Of course, there are other theories besides the Big Bang, and other models of the Big Bang. Which theory/model do you prefer?

Oh, and God is the greatest scientist that ever existed - he actually created the laws and properties of our universe:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

So how do you think those laws and properties were created/formed/formulated - e.g. E=Mc^2?

Black holes do not exist. If you really know science you will recognize the black hole idea as ridiculous.

Actually this is the first supposed photograph of a black hole

Did you see the gyrations everybody went through to explain why it looked like a donut?

The center of that is not the black hole.

All kinds of speculation in that photo.

Tell us how you know what the photo is or is not?

How Scientists Captured the First Image of a Black Hole - Teachable Moments | NASA/JPL Edu

Find out how scientists created a virtual telescope as large as Earth itself to capture the first image of a black hole's silhouette.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

It is an image of some energy in space. The cosmos is full of energy.

That is not even a picture of a black hole but the shadow of what they think is one.

 

[Meriweather]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

 

[LittleNipper]

First my sense of humor (needed in these times):

After the 5 Ts (teas) [1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus] and the filet mignon (Philemon) - Hebrews some more!

Seriously, a good memory aid for the order of Bible books - after Go Eat Pop Corn (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians).

So, who wrote Hebrews?

From our Bible dictionary here:

Hebrews, Letter to the — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Writership of the letter to the Hebrews has been widely ascribed to the apostle Paul. It was accepted as an epistle of Paul by early writers. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (of about 200 C.E.) contains Hebrews among nine of Paul’s letters, and Hebrews is listed among “fourteen letters of Paul the apostle” in “The Canon of Athanasius,” of the fourth century C.E."

Manuscripts of the Bible — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Quite noteworthy is the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) believed to be from about 200 C.E. It has 86 somewhat damaged leaves out of a codex that probably had 104 leaves originally, and it still contains nine of Paul’s inspired letters: Romans, Hebrews, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and First Thessalonians. It is noteworthy that the letter to the Hebrews is included in this early codex. Since Hebrews does not give its writer’s name, its composition by Paul has frequently been disputed. But this letter’s inclusion in P⁠46, evidently consisting of Paul’s letters exclusively, indicates that in about 200 C.E., Hebrews was accepted by early Christians as an inspired writing of the apostle Paul. The letter to the Ephesians appears in this codex, thus also refuting arguments that Paul did not write this letter."

“Bearing Thorough Witness” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The letter to the Hebrews was addressed to the Hebrew Christians in Judea. Although the letter does not specifically identify the writer, evidence suggests that it was Paul.... Paul sends greetings from Italy, and he mentions Timothy, who was with him in Rome.—Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; Heb. 13:23, 24."

Note: Paul may have omitted his name because he was "apostle to the nations" (=Gentiles). Many Jews were biased against Gentiles - some even hated them! Instead, Paul quoted or referred to many Hebrew Scriptures from a Jewish perspective. And it is the evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures that Paul refers to, not who the author of Hebrews was, that provides the "convincing evidence" as per Hebrews 11:1

Who is Paul anyways?

Why he received that new name and by whom?

Name changing is observed when God -thru his angels- changed the name of guys. But, no letters explain how it happened Saul was changed by Paul?

Remember that name changing must have a reason, and there is a Saul and a Paul, perhaps the same person, perhaps two persons.

If his name wasn't changed by God or the Messiah, who had the authority to do such a change and why the reason for that action is not mentioned at all by any writer, canonical or non-canonical letters or manuscripts?...

As it turns out, “Saul”—derived from the famous first king of Israel, from the tribe of Benjamin, to which Saul/Paul himself belonged (Phil. 3:5)—is simply the Hebrew name for this person. “Paul”—a normal koine name—is his Greek name, derived from the Latin surname Paulus.

For someone born in Tarsus (Acts 21:39) but educated under Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3) in a strict form of Pharisaism (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5–6), this is not unusual. Much as many immigrants to English-speaking worlds take an Anglicized name on top of their ethnic name, many Greek-speaking Jews in Paul’s day would have a Jewish/Hebrew name and a Hellenistic/Greek name.

 

[james bond]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

 

[Newtonian]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

Thank you Meriweather for confirming what I posted about variant Scriptural definitions of Yom/day. I was thinking of Abraham Lincoln's day! The Bible uses this definition of day here:

Genesis 2:4
This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah* God made earth and heaven.

[Note: this is the first of nearly 7,000 occurrences of the Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures.]

Note that history/ generations, time when and "day" are used interchangeably. Hebrew-English interlinear here:

Genesis 2:4 Interlinear: These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;

biblehub.com

Note that "when" is implied by the form of the Hebrew word for created (bara). As a sidepoint, Genesis 1:16 uses a different word for "make" because the stars had already been created but were only then made visible in the sky/atmosphere/expanse between the upper and lower waters. NW ref. footnote on "make" also shows the imperfect Hebrew verb state is being used - the footnote:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state. See App 3C."

On topic - the accuracy of the Biblical account of creation is another evidence the Bible is God's Word.

 

[james bond]

However, if you look the light coming to you from the past, then you must understand the past light is not traveling from you but is ARRIVING to you.

My intent was to have ding answer my questions and have a discussion, but his was to make snide remarks for my being a fundamentalist Christian vs. his deism. He says he is Catholic, but doesn't use the Bible nor attend church.

The way I have used the map I posted is if we were are able to travel at c to some point on the cone such as the someplace beyond our galaxy. Then we would have to calculate the coordinates carefully and realize where we want to go may not be there at present. If not correct, then we could just overshoot or undershoot our destination by far and screw up our fuel that we have to make the trip there and back.

Tell us James, where did you get your physics degree?

Actually I know

Wikipedia

Most of us don't have a physics degree. The example I posted I got if we had an extensive space map, could travel at the speed of light, and we had to map out our trip on how to get there. Some things would be easy like SF to NYC. No need to change the map, but our watches would say we got there instantaneously. However, if the location where we want to visit is light years away, maybe over 100 light years away, then it would be more difficult to calculate. We also would have to be in suspended animation in order to be alive at the end of our trip.

 

[james bond]

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

No. One day = 24 hrs. In the prophecies, one day = one year.

"In our opinion, examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time.

The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day . . .”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does yom mean in Genesis 1:5–2:2 when used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?"

Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days? | GotQuestions.org

Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days? Could the days in Genesis chapter 1 represent long periods of time?

www.gotquestions.org

AFAIK, this is how creation science interprets it, but some believers here believe in evolution or false science.

 

[Indeependent]

How convenient, really. When the authors of the Bibles write 7 days and that becomes an inconvenient timeframe, just change "days" to mean 7,000 years or whatever timeframe fits the fable.

Try to understand the Hebrew and how it used. Today, we are familiar with the expression, "In my grandfather's day..." Certainly no one takes that to mean their grandfather lived one day.

Thank you Meriweather for confirming what I posted about variant Scriptural definitions of Yom/day. I was thinking of Abraham Lincoln's day! The Bible uses this definition of day here:

Genesis 2:4
This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah* God made earth and heaven.

[Note: this is the first of nearly 7,000 occurrences of the Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures.]

Note that history/ generations, time when and "day" are used interchangeably. Hebrew-English interlinear here:

Genesis 2:4 Interlinear: These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;

biblehub.com

Note that "when" is implied by the form of the Hebrew word for created (bara). As a sidepoint, Genesis 1:16 uses a different word for "make" because the stars had already been created but were only then made visible in the sky/atmosphere/expanse between the upper and lower waters. NW ref. footnote on "make" also shows the imperfect Hebrew verb state is being used - the footnote:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“And . . . proceeded to make.” Heb., wai·yaʹʽas (from ʽa·sahʹ). Different from “create” (ba·raʼʹ) found in vss 1, 21, 27; 2:3. Progressive action indicated by the imperfect state. See App 3C."

On topic - the accuracy of the Biblical account of creation is another evidence the Bible is God's Word.

Bara is to create something from...non-existence.
Asay is to create a prototype using what has been created; one or more elements.
Y'tzar is to refine.
The unknown Pristine created "The Power of Multiplicity" over the physical and the metaphysical.
That's one way to interpret these words.

Of course, "Hashahmyim" and "Ha'eretz" are actually a bit more complex to explain and each of these words is an acrostic contains the actual elements that were created.