If God doesn't exist...

[Militants]

Manny Swedish people against me because they is stupidfy or is it Swedish God ?

 

[zaangalewa]

Don't understand what you mean with my mother.

What is the name of the language of your mother?

 

[zaangalewa]

I may say in Swedish for someone Asa even I can not be in both Finnish and Swedish, and English is easier to make than to talk. Do not understand why language is so hard and talk. Would someone in this way, or is it in my nature difficult to talk.

Can handle myself and live for myself anyway, I can not talk even though I said now in Google translate off course from Swedish to English. Outlandish rule to speak more than understand language but I can't in that way. I must understand to speak.

Lost in translation? What's your mother tongue?

Swedish....

I doubt about. Between english or german and swedish is not such a far distance in the logic and the meaning of basic expressions.



"The Lord has called us from different nations, but we must be united with one heart and one soul. In the divine heart of Jesus we will always meet one another ..."
Rightous among the nations: Saint Mary Elizabeth Hesselblad

 

[Mudda]

... The rejection of belief.

This sentence is confusing. If someone believes not in god - what would be wrong if god exists otherwise it would be not wrong - what should this one reject? The belief of others?

It is the rejection of belief in superstitious entities. What's hard to understand? Seems pretty straightforward to me. I know you want to try to muddy the waters, but it is just pointless for you to do so. Doesn't change anything.

If I see it the right way then you reject my belief. But I have nothing to do with you. So I don't understand this attitude. I don't think you have a big idea about me nor about my belief.

Everyone can tell that you're an idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.

Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.

You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.

View attachment 67220

I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.

Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.

You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.

Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?

Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.

Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.

But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.

So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.

View attachment 67225

I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...

...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...

It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Isn't it possible that neither is the case? That there are no gods, but science doesn't hold all the answers?

Perhaps... But if everything we do and seem is but a dream within a dream...

Who's dreaming the dream and wouldn't they be considered God?

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century Frenchphilosopher, mathematician and physicistBlaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[zaangalewa]

Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.

Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.

You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.

View attachment 67220

I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.

Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.

You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.

Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?

Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.

Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.

But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.

So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.

View attachment 67225

I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...

...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...

It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.

I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science. This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Its called The Big Bang theory. That is how science handles something that hasn't been tested and proven by evidence. The Theory of Relativity. We pretty much know it's true, but absolute proof hasn't been produced yet, so it remains a theory. Gravity is only called a 'law' because back then they used terms like 'law'. Theory is the preferred term today.

Religion, on the other hand, finds a conclusion they want to believe and then ignores any evidence that doesn't support that conclusion and never changes its mind on the conclusion. And each person that believes in one of the 4000 'gods' that humans on Earth currently believe in thinks their god is THE only god.

You just believe in one more god than I do. I think 4000 are phoney or lacking of evidence, you think 3,999 are phoney. And you have no more evidence of yours than anyone else does of theirs.

View attachment 67220

I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.

Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.

You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.

Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?

Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.

Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.

But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.

So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.

View attachment 67225

I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...

...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...

It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.

"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."

Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system.
2. The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
3. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
   1. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

1. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
2. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
3. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
4. And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
5. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
   1. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
6. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, thatit wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.

There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

 

[Mudda]

View attachment 67220

I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.

Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.

You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.

Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?

Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.

Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.

But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.

So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.

View attachment 67225

I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...

...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...

It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.

"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."

Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system.
2. The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.
3. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
   1. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
4. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

1. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
2. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
3. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?
4. And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’
5. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
   1. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
6. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, thatit wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.

There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

How did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again?

 

[ChrisL]

Manny Swedish people against me because they is stupidfy or is it Swedish God ?

Well, let me help you out . . . it is "many." I'm sure that you know how to use google, correct? Stop acting please. Thanks.

 

[zaangalewa]

View attachment 67220

I have all the evidence I require to believe in God.

Science to me is nothing more than answering why God does things in a specific way.

You on the other hand appear to have difficulty with answering the precepts of your scientific alter of truth most especially with having readily available answers to questions about your scientific creationism theology.

Doesn't the Big Bang just happened violate "Isaac Newton's" Laws Of Motion?

Shouldn't 'you' know this all things considered?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.

Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.

But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.

So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.

View attachment 67225

I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...

...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...

It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.

"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."

Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.

From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.

The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.

1. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
   1. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
2. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

1. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
2. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
3. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?

I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this is okay for me too. He's the creator not I. But the idea to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.

And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’

1. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
   1. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
2. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, thatit wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.

There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.



Christmas is in you. English subtitles:

Letter to grandpa:
Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy

Answer:
For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa

 

[PoliticalChic]

You start from a position of 'fairies are real and men fly through the sky'. Sorry, I left that type of 'thought' behind long ago.

Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well.

But I've found people that need religioin need it more than they need to see reality. Which is fine, it does not affect me in any way. Until one of them decides its time to pick up a gun and force all the rest of us to see just how wonderful their god is.

So be happy. If a 'god' does exist, science will discover that. And report it honestly.

View attachment 67225

I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...

...Physicists state the laws of the universe didn't exist at and right after the Big Bang. Read Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking, they spell it out quite well...

It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.

"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."

Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.

From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.

The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.

1. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
   1. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
2. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

1. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
2. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
3. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?

I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.

And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’

1. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
   1. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
2. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, thatit wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.

There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.



Christmas is in you. English subtitles:

Letter:
Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy

Answer:
For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa

God is with a capital 'g.'

 

[Luddly Neddite]

View attachment 67225

I never said that... Only that God exists and that I'm quite comfortable with that... Whereas you appear to have difficulties with that and explaining your scientific creationism beliefs.

I have read Lawrence Krauss, Stephen King, Einstein, and many others; and to quote you...

It would appear that even those physicsts are suggesting that a miracle occurred at that time of your scientific creationism theology. Does this mean another miracle will occur sometime where the laws and theories of physics don't apply?... Sort of like believing in the second coming don't you think?... Will Einstein and a few others be resurrected when this momentous event occurs? Can we call it a miracle then or will you and others still object to referring to something in that way even though you can't provide a quantfiable explanation for the event?

****CHUCKLE*****

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.

"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."

Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.

From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.

The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.

1. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
   1. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
2. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

1. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
2. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
3. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?

I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.

And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’

1. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
   1. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
2. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, thatit wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.

There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.



Christmas is in you. English subtitles:

Letter:
Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy

Answer:
For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa

God is with a capital 'g.'

Which god?

It would not be capitalized unless you're talking about a particular god and there are many to choose from.

Even then, it would not capitalized unless one believes its a real 'thing'. A discussion of myths, legend and superstitions do not require capitalization.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I found this logical and informative...

"The Genesis Enigma: Why the First Book of the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate"
by Andrew Parker



Parker is a scientist.

Why should the bible be "scientifically accurate"? "Science" is accurate today - hopefully - but what we know today in science will maybe not be accurate any longer in 2000 years - hopefully too. The bible tells us something what we are still able to understand. The story of Noahs arch for example understood every child 2000 yeras ago, understands every child today and will be understood from every child in 2000 years. Only some "scientifically accurate" people have sometimes a problem with the story of Noahs arch - for example if they are asking themselve. "Where concrete were once Sodom and Gomorah?". But maybe Sodom and Gomorah were in us? This story is not written to be a lesson in a book for physics - it's a prophecy. We do not know for example exactly where or when this had happended. Could even be this will happen here now - or in another universe anywhen - or one day in an unkown future as sure as it would had happened in the past.
This was anyway not the intention of the authors of the Genesis thousands of years ago, when they sat around the campfire and knew nothing about us. But the light of their campfires, the light in their eyes - living, loving, laughing - and also the light in a thornbush - are still enlightening us.

"I guess what Mr. Parker shows to us: The Genesis is not in confrontation with modern science."

Exactly
Genesis Correlates With Modern Science

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar System.

From the view of science today "light" is the electromagnetical spectrum - the part of this spectrum we are able to see we call "light". If we (=spiritual people) say "light" we are in most cases also always thinking about an inner representation of light. The most importnat thing for us is the ability "to see". If god says "Let there be light" this could in terms of science also mean for example "Let there be information." The strange thing: only spiritual beings, living entities, are able to see.

The Sumarians believed that the earth lay at the center of the universe, and the ancient Israelites saw the stars as a heavenly sphere that enclosed everything.

1. The idea that th earth is round emerged some time after the Old Testament was written, when in the late sixth century BCE Pythagoras declared that the earth, along with the other planets, was spherical.
   1. In 287 BCE, Strato of Lampsacus’ school “advanced the theory that the sun was at rest at the center of the sphere of fixed stars, and that the earth and planets revolved around the sun.” Greek Astronomy
2. Then, in the 20th century, Einstein advanced his theory of general relativity, the implication of which was that the universe was not static- it must be expanding or contracting.

One very nice "side effect" of this expansion is for example that the universe expands from everywhere in all directions. So: If someone travels through this universe this one will be always in the middle of the universe. Or with other words: All points of the universe are always only in the middle.

a. An understanding of the red shift pretty much established an expanding universe. With this came the realization that there must have been a beginning.

1. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain!
2. The basic forces of nature emerged- first gravity, then the strong force that holds the nuclei of atoms together (no atoms existed at this time), followed by weaker, then ‘electromagnetic’ forces. By the end of the firs second, there were quarks and electrons, nutrinos, some other stuff….and, later, some of them smashed together to form protons and neutrons.
3. So, there we have the idea of the universe suddenly appearing at a beginning, and all of that from a huge amount of energy. Of course, that doesn’t begin to ask the obvious: what existed before the Big Bang, and where did all that energy come from?

I fear it's not wrong that god made the universe out of nothing - although if god made it in another way then this okay for me too. He's the creator. But the idea to create everything out of nothing is so clear and confusing the same time so I think god made it indeed in this way. With other words: No existance was existing - but god created existance. This makes all discussions about the existance of god somehow funny. God seems to be everywhere - even the nothing - or every notexistance - seems not to be without him.

And, of course, the ancient Israelites behind the account of creation in Genesis, chapter 1, would have been oblivious to all the detailed described above. No idea about any ‘Big Bang.’

1. Probably anyone writing a creation account should have begun with the idea of the formation of the sun and the planets….shouldn’t they? Without the sun…how could Genesis refer to the ‘days’ of creation? So…“Let there be light” doesn’t really entail much….does it? It makes intuitive sense.
   1. Even the pagan world figured this out: most tended to worship the sun as the source of all life. But Genesis doesn’t speak of the sun…..only of light, until verses 14-19.
2. Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darknesswasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, thatit wasgood: and God divided the light from the darkness.


Interesting? Modern scientific narrative and biblical narrative seem to agree here. But there’s more in the Genesis author’s narrative.

There follows an order of events of the creation.
A pretty specific order of events.
And it’s surprisingly accurate.

As a Catholic I love it to see everything in contact with anything else. We are still in the beginning - and somehow it looks to me as if we would be always in the beginning - until it ends. The strange thing - I also don't live in fear of this end. If I am not - why to be worried if god is also in the nothing? Who believes in god indeed never is alone - even if he's not existing any longer.



Christmas is in you. English subtitles:

Letter:
Dear grandpa, just in case you forgot: I'm writing to remind you about the bicycle you said will be coming for Christmas this year. I hope that your trip to heaven is going well. Love, Tommy

Answer:
For Tommy. I'm sorry this took so long. Grandpa

God is with a capital 'g.'

Which god?

It would not be capitalized unless you're talking about a particular god and there are many to choose from.

Even then, it would not capitalized unless one believes its a real 'thing'. A discussion of myths, legend and superstitions do not require capitalization.

Maybe this will help lead you out of the fog:

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh



Don't forget to capitalize 'God.'

 

[M3sIah]

As God didn't excist, neighter I did not my job to reveal, what's about to happen (Just look my previous message & let enlighteness be a happiness happening, ... till soon)

 

[ChrisL]

As God didn't excist, neighter I did not my job to reveal, what's about to happen (Just look my previous message & let enlighteness be a happiness happening, ... till soon)

Nobody knows what you're talking about though.

 

[ChrisL]

Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob. Lol. Oh boy! The crazies love their religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob. Lol. Oh boy! The crazies love their religion.

America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.

I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.

 

[M3sIah]

Nope I do not rethink, I thought it over day & night years on years on; so it could be will go in peace overfload ~ truely nobody understands, but when it happens everybody knows www.unitedone.info

 

[ChrisL]

Just what this place needs, ANOTHER crazy nutjob. Lol. Oh boy! The crazies love their religion.

America is based on religion....our system of laws, and even the Constitution.

I'd suggest you re-think your post....but that presupposes an ability to think.

Er no. My post stands. Crazies love their religions.