How did the Universe get here?

[PostmodernProph]

Obviously the answer is that glass is an inanimate thing made of molecules held together by chemistry, while Monkeys and other living things are animated collections of molecules held together by chemistry.

All things, both living and not, can be broken down in to their base elements listed on The Periodic Table. Why and how some combinations come to be "alive" is that pesky and unprovable question of origins again.

Back to square one. Unprovable question - nothing but opinions of the evidence.

(See post 816: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...did-the-universe-get-here-55.html#post9380944 )​

Beer?

why not just say "oh, I was wrong....DNA is NOT just a string of chemicals"........

 

[PostmodernProph]

There are plenty of examples of both elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and building both toward the more complex, and toward the less complex.

'Chemistry' should be a verb! LOTS of action there!​

and yet there are no examples of elements and molecules interacting with each other randomly and resulting in anything living......let alone something complex enough to reproduce.....

And that proves that god exists?

/facepalm......no, it just proves you're an idiot.....did you see anyone around here trying to prove God existed?......did you see anyone around here even ask someone to prove God existed?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Who made god? Or are you suggesting with a straight face that he happened without direction?

why do you think God had to happen?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Some would say that fire is alive because it consumes, reproduces and dies.

but poetry has to rhyme.....science doesn't.......

 

[Boss]

If you want to rename "energy" as "God" fine, but renaming energy does not make it spiritual simply because people associate God with spirituality.

You are claiming energy is spiritual, you are claiming energy was created by the spiritual, IOW itself, or itself as God. The onus is on you, not me for proof of your claims of faith. You have yet to prove the spiritual can create anything physical, let alone energy!

My claim is energy is physical and it has been proven that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

You're doing the same thing as Billy P. You are using the circular reasoning that things we know can only be physical and spiritual only applies to things that are imaginary. You are saying: If science can measure or validate it, then it's not spiritual because spiritual can only be unvalidated or unmeasurable things. You've made up your mind this is how we define things. Under that assumption, it's impossible to ever understand anything as spiritual. Spiritual simply becomes a placeholder in your mind for anything that can't be validated with physical science.

I'm not "claiming" energy is spiritual. I am asking you for evidence it's not spiritual or spiritually created. Either you can show that evidence or you can't. If you can't, then we can conclude that you simply have a faith that energy is not spiritual or spiritually created. I don't have a problem with you having faith, but let's call it what it is and stop pretending it's something else. You don't get to claim things are not spiritual because you can physically measure and quantify them, that's circular reasoning.

 

[BillyP]

If you want to rename "energy" as "God" fine, but renaming energy does not make it spiritual simply because people associate God with spirituality.

You are claiming energy is spiritual, you are claiming energy was created by the spiritual, IOW itself, or itself as God. The onus is on you, not me for proof of your claims of faith. You have yet to prove the spiritual can create anything physical, let alone energy!

My claim is energy is physical and it has been proven that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

You're doing the same thing as Billy P. You are using the circular reasoning that things we know can only be physical and spiritual only applies to things that are imaginary. You are saying: If science can measure or validate it, then it's not spiritual because spiritual can only be unvalidated or unmeasurable things. You've made up your mind this is how we define things. Under that assumption, it's impossible to ever understand anything as spiritual. Spiritual simply becomes a placeholder in your mind for anything that can't be validated with physical science.

I'm not "claiming" energy is spiritual. I am asking you for evidence it's not spiritual or spiritually created. Either you can show that evidence or you can't. If you can't, then we can conclude that you simply have a faith that energy is not spiritual or spiritually created. I don't have a problem with you having faith, but let's call it what it is and stop pretending it's something else. You don't get to claim things are not spiritual because you can physically measure and quantify them, that's circular reasoning.

Spiritual means no proof, which makes spiritual nothing but fartsmoke. You can't prove that it's anything other than fartsmoke.

 

[GISMYS]

If you want to rename "energy" as "God" fine, but renaming energy does not make it spiritual simply because people associate God with spirituality.

You are claiming energy is spiritual, you are claiming energy was created by the spiritual, IOW itself, or itself as God. The onus is on you, not me for proof of your claims of faith. You have yet to prove the spiritual can create anything physical, let alone energy!

My claim is energy is physical and it has been proven that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

You're doing the same thing as Billy P. You are using the circular reasoning that things we know can only be physical and spiritual only applies to things that are imaginary. You are saying: If science can measure or validate it, then it's not spiritual because spiritual can only be unvalidated or unmeasurable things. You've made up your mind this is how we define things. Under that assumption, it's impossible to ever understand anything as spiritual. Spiritual simply becomes a placeholder in your mind for anything that can't be validated with physical science.

I'm not "claiming" energy is spiritual. I am asking you for evidence it's not spiritual or spiritually created. Either you can show that evidence or you can't. If you can't, then we can conclude that you simply have a faith that energy is not spiritual or spiritually created. I don't have a problem with you having faith, but let's call it what it is and stop pretending it's something else. You don't get to claim things are not spiritual because you can physically measure and quantify them, that's circular reasoning.

Spiritual means no proof, which makes spiritual nothing but fartsmoke. You can't prove that it's anything other than fartsmoke.

THE spiritual reality is far more real than our reality we live in now.we are like ants in a little boys ant farm, all we see and know of the world is what we see in our little glass box. BEST YOU LEARN YOUR PLACE IN ALMIGHTY GOD'S CREATION!

 

[edthecynic]

If you want to rename "energy" as "God" fine, but renaming energy does not make it spiritual simply because people associate God with spirituality.

You are claiming energy is spiritual, you are claiming energy was created by the spiritual, IOW itself, or itself as God. The onus is on you, not me for proof of your claims of faith. You have yet to prove the spiritual can create anything physical, let alone energy!

My claim is energy is physical and it has been proven that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

You're doing the same thing as Billy P. You are using the circular reasoning that things we know can only be physical and spiritual only applies to things that are imaginary. You are saying: If science can measure or validate it, then it's not spiritual because spiritual can only be unvalidated or unmeasurable things. You've made up your mind this is how we define things. Under that assumption, it's impossible to ever understand anything as spiritual. Spiritual simply becomes a placeholder in your mind for anything that can't be validated with physical science.

I'm not "claiming" energy is spiritual. I am asking you for evidence it's not spiritual or spiritually created. Either you can show that evidence or you can't. If you can't, then we can conclude that you simply have a faith that energy is not spiritual or spiritually created. I don't have a problem with you having faith, but let's call it what it is and stop pretending it's something else. You don't get to claim things are not spiritual because you can physically measure and quantify them, that's circular reasoning.

Well, there you go again! Do I have to go back and link to where you claimed energy was a duality, physical and spiritual?

You are just a waste of my time, and so I have no more TIME for you so you no longer exist.

 

[Boss]

Gravity... Are measurable quantities. God is not, it's only a figment of some people's imagination.

How do you KNOW God is not a measurable quantity? Where is the test that proves this? You see, what you are doing is saying "things we know are not God because God can only be that which we do not know." This is known as circular reasoning.

Well then tell us what measuring instrument measures God?

Who says there has to be one? There are plenty of things in physical nature that we did not have the instruments to measure at some point, in fact, virtually everything in science falls into such a category if we're going to get technical about it. Before we had microscopes and telescopes, stars and atoms still existed. They didn't suddenly become "real" when we were finally able to develop instruments to measure them.

What a really dumb question that was.

 

[Boss]

If you want to rename "energy" as "God" fine, but renaming energy does not make it spiritual simply because people associate God with spirituality.

You are claiming energy is spiritual, you are claiming energy was created by the spiritual, IOW itself, or itself as God. The onus is on you, not me for proof of your claims of faith. You have yet to prove the spiritual can create anything physical, let alone energy!

My claim is energy is physical and it has been proven that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

You're doing the same thing as Billy P. You are using the circular reasoning that things we know can only be physical and spiritual only applies to things that are imaginary. You are saying: If science can measure or validate it, then it's not spiritual because spiritual can only be unvalidated or unmeasurable things. You've made up your mind this is how we define things. Under that assumption, it's impossible to ever understand anything as spiritual. Spiritual simply becomes a placeholder in your mind for anything that can't be validated with physical science.

I'm not "claiming" energy is spiritual. I am asking you for evidence it's not spiritual or spiritually created. Either you can show that evidence or you can't. If you can't, then we can conclude that you simply have a faith that energy is not spiritual or spiritually created. I don't have a problem with you having faith, but let's call it what it is and stop pretending it's something else. You don't get to claim things are not spiritual because you can physically measure and quantify them, that's circular reasoning.

Well, there you go again! Do I have to go back and link to where you claimed energy was a duality, physical and spiritual?

You are just a waste of my time, and so I have no more TIME for you so you no longer exist.

Yeah, you'll need to go back and find where I stated energy was a duality rather than suggesting it might be a possibility. See, you may not understand this because of your mental handicap, but the words "maybe" and "perhaps" have meaning.

By all means, please do check out of this thread and stop commenting. It is not only a waste of your time but you are contributing to global warming.

 

[Boss]

If you want to rename "energy" as "God" fine, but renaming energy does not make it spiritual simply because people associate God with spirituality.

You are claiming energy is spiritual, you are claiming energy was created by the spiritual, IOW itself, or itself as God. The onus is on you, not me for proof of your claims of faith. You have yet to prove the spiritual can create anything physical, let alone energy!

My claim is energy is physical and it has been proven that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

You're doing the same thing as Billy P. You are using the circular reasoning that things we know can only be physical and spiritual only applies to things that are imaginary. You are saying: If science can measure or validate it, then it's not spiritual because spiritual can only be unvalidated or unmeasurable things. You've made up your mind this is how we define things. Under that assumption, it's impossible to ever understand anything as spiritual. Spiritual simply becomes a placeholder in your mind for anything that can't be validated with physical science.

I'm not "claiming" energy is spiritual. I am asking you for evidence it's not spiritual or spiritually created. Either you can show that evidence or you can't. If you can't, then we can conclude that you simply have a faith that energy is not spiritual or spiritually created. I don't have a problem with you having faith, but let's call it what it is and stop pretending it's something else. You don't get to claim things are not spiritual because you can physically measure and quantify them, that's circular reasoning.

Spiritual means no proof, which makes spiritual nothing but fartsmoke. You can't prove that it's anything other than fartsmoke.

No, Billybob, that's NOT what spiritual means. It IS what spiritual means to you, and thanks for clarifying that. It confirms what a closed-minded idiot you really are on this topic. Now that this has been established, we can dismiss any further musings from you on the subject.

 

[percysunshine]

BTW, did anyone prove that life had a beginning?

Cuz it seems to me that this is the more fundamental question that makes or breaks the whole arguement.

Sooo...you are proposing the eternal life theorm?

That would make you Catholic.

.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Obviously the answer is that glass is an inanimate thing made of molecules held together by chemistry, while Monkeys and other living things are animated collections of molecules held together by chemistry.

All things, both living and not, can be broken down in to their base elements listed on The Periodic Table. Why and how some combinations come to be "alive" is that pesky and unprovable question of origins again.

Back to square one. Unprovable question - nothing but opinions of the evidence.

(See post 816: How did the Universe get here US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum )​

Beer?

why not just say "oh, I was wrong....DNA is NOT just a string of chemicals"........

Why would I want to say that? EVERYthing is just a string of chemicals.



Interesting game, Bro'.

 

[Boss]

EVERYthing is just a string of chemicals.

EVERYTHING is just a string of things we have defined stuff as. BRILLIANT!

Hey... Got another one for ya... No matter where you go, there you are!

 

[BreezeWood]

[MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]

Spirituality like religion and god is a human construct. It exists -- in the mind

define mind - as spirituality is not physiological.

.

The mind like the soul is a human construct -- of the brain. Shut off the brain and where is the mind or the soul? Surely if it/they existed in and of itself/themselves it/they would reveal itself/themselves -- unless it/they is/are a god(s)?

Shut off the brain and where is the mind or the soul? ... unless it/they is/are a god(s)?


Flora has no "Brain" and has both a mind and a Spirit - Spirituality is not physiological nor Inorganic (itfitzme) - the definition of god would prevail were the Spirit pure and refined, prepared for life and the Everlasting through acceptance, the same as for all other living creatures.

.

 

[Montrovant]

You're doing the same thing as Billy P. You are using the circular reasoning that things we know can only be physical and spiritual only applies to things that are imaginary. You are saying: If science can measure or validate it, then it's not spiritual because spiritual can only be unvalidated or unmeasurable things. You've made up your mind this is how we define things. Under that assumption, it's impossible to ever understand anything as spiritual. Spiritual simply becomes a placeholder in your mind for anything that can't be validated with physical science.

I'm not "claiming" energy is spiritual. I am asking you for evidence it's not spiritual or spiritually created. Either you can show that evidence or you can't. If you can't, then we can conclude that you simply have a faith that energy is not spiritual or spiritually created. I don't have a problem with you having faith, but let's call it what it is and stop pretending it's something else. You don't get to claim things are not spiritual because you can physically measure and quantify them, that's circular reasoning.

Spiritual means no proof, which makes spiritual nothing but fartsmoke. You can't prove that it's anything other than fartsmoke.

No, Billybob, that's NOT what spiritual means. It IS what spiritual means to you, and thanks for clarifying that. It confirms what a closed-minded idiot you really are on this topic. Now that this has been established, we can dismiss any further musings from you on the subject.

If we should ignore people who use their own definitions for words, no one would listen to you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What a bunch of nonsense thinking origins was not directed by something. Stop with the chemistry nonsense as well,for your information those chemicals that are found in the cell are soluble in water or would be destroyed by oxygen or the sun. A fully functioning cell is only produced by another fully functioning cell.

You can believe with a straight face it happened without direction ?

Who made god? Or are you suggesting with a straight face that he happened without direction?

How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal about the Glory and Love of God

God exists in multiple dimensions of time

The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

Why can't the universe be eternal?

The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions

What does science say about time?

When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning - at the moment of creation (i.e., the Big Bang).3 In fact, if you examine university websites, you will find that many professors make such a claim - that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning marked the beginning of time (see The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning). Such assertions support the Bible's claim that time began at the creation of the universe.

Conclusion Top of page

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).


If God Created Everything, Who Created God?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Obviously the answer is that glass is an inanimate thing made of molecules held together by chemistry, while Monkeys and other living things are animated collections of molecules held together by chemistry.

All things, both living and not, can be broken down in to their base elements listed on The Periodic Table. Why and how some combinations come to be "alive" is that pesky and unprovable question of origins again.

Back to square one. Unprovable question - nothing but opinions of the evidence.

(See post 816: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...did-the-universe-get-here-55.html#post9380944 )​

Beer?

why not just say "oh, I was wrong....DNA is NOT just a string of chemicals"........

Why would I want to say that? EVERYthing is just a string of chemicals.

because "just" denies the fact that so many things are more than a string of chemicals....a string of chemicals can't determine if a newly conceived child is going to be a mathematical genius......a string of chemicals can't cause a cell to become a brain......now, if you said your post was just a string of words, THAT I might have believed......

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who made them?

Boy you really are a primitive man. 20,000 years ago when lightening or thunder struck primitive man didn't know science and they thought thunder and lightening were god(s). We have long put those thoughts behind us but clearly from your question you have not.

It is as if science doesn't exist despite all the proof around you. But god does exist despite all the lack of proof. You are truly an ignorant close minded simpleton.

But I don't get the feeling you really believe the shit you say. You'll argue despite the fact that you have no argument. Perfect example was when you tried to prove to me my mom doesn't exist. Yea, that's exactly like you not being able to prove your god exists. Fucking idiot.

Well, let's examine this phenomenon we call "lightning" for a moment. Can you explain why the phenomenon exists in our universe? Not how it happens, but why it happens? What causes some atoms to become electrically charged while others are not? Again.. not how it happens but why? There is a force called "electromagnetism" and through this force, phenomenon such as lightning is enabled. Why does this electromagnetic force exist? Why do weak and strong nuclear forces exist? Why does gravity exist?

I think I have a very GOOD argument, and you can't refute it with science. That leads to frustration on your part, and so you go on the attack and start calling names and questioning my intelligence. The fact remains, you have not refuted the argument and you can't. No one can. Science is a great and wonderful tool for us to learn and know about how things work in our universe, but the questions of WHY they work are a mystery. You assume that because we know HOW things work, we can simply dismiss WHY they work.

Your "answer" to the question of "WHY" is to anthropomorphize some imaginary deity and pretend that it was the "purpose" of your imaginary deity.

But your "answer" falls flat on it's stupid face when your "answer" is logically and rationally turned around on you.

When you are asked "WHY did your imaginary deity 'create' the Universe" you can only shrug and point at your imaginary deity and claim that it "KNOWS WHY".

Which is the typical circular argument of all theists like yourself and "WHY" you have zero credibility amongst rational and clear thinking adults in the room.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Who made god? Or are you suggesting with a straight face that he happened without direction?

why do you think God had to happen?......

Because you believe that your God had to "make" the Universe!

You can't have it both ways.