Is Jesus the Word of God?

[ding]

Sure he is. The painter cannot be the painting.

Your text clearly states he is in space and time even taking walks through his creation.


There is no painting.

The cosmos is not a creation.

Can I use something you created as evidence?

Are you your creation?

No you cannot as that would not be evidence of your argument.

Existence is not evidence of creation and there is no evidence of a creator.

Don't be silly. Of course I can use tangible items as evidence. They do it all the time.

If I found something you created but didn't know who created it, are you telling me there is absolutely nothing I could determine from that tangible item about the person who created it ?

I am saying that finding a man made object does not compare to the universe.

You have no evidence indirect or otherwise that it was created which is why your conparison is a rather childish and stupid FAILURE.

A better analogy is this.

You see a tree. You know it ultimately came from a seed but did am person plant the tree or did the seed fall there naturally?

You generally have no way of knowing unless some other evidence is present such as other trees in an orchard planted in deliberate rows.

You have no evidence that all of the cosmos was created by anything intelligent guidance.

I am establishing the self evident fact that tangible items can be used as evidence.

You on the other hand believe I cannot use something YOU created as evidence.

 

[BS Filter]

I'm always fascinated by athiests. They claim to believe that there is no God,

OF COURSE there is a God. No one can dispute that. God is the original cause that brought about the world (universe). Everything must have a cause. What is at debate but so often misconstrued by most people is whether God is personal (conscious, living, intelligent) or impersonal (and object or force or effect). The Personalist believes that things like wisdom, compassion and love must come from a fount of infinite wisdom, compassion and love, whereas the Impersonalist wants to think that it was all simply a matter of random chance and infinite rolls of a dice. BOTH are true. The universe came from a roll of the dice, but there are MANY universes and many sets of dice and God in his infinite wisdom, compassion and love---- made them all.

Anyone can dispute it and even prove there is no god.

No one can prove there is no God or Creator.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No there are notm and you need to cite specific chapters and verses. as the other fools failed to to do

~14 billion years ago all the matter and energy that exists in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool. We know this from the cosmic background radiation, red shift and solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

In fact, the matter that makes up who you are was present for the creation of space and time.

The laws of nature were in place before space and time were created as they governed the creation of space and time. These same laws predestined being that know and create would eventually arise.

Actually no we do not know that.

We know the expansion happened, however thanks to Einstein and the red shift ad background radiation we only have a good idea of what happened a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the expansion began.

We really do not have any idea what happened in the time before that fraction of a second.

Therefore the rest of your post is pure ignorance of cosmology. Especially the part about the laws being present BEFORE the expansion began which we do NOT know and have no reason to state as a truth the way you did.

Also nothing whatsoever in cosmology and our understanding of the universe points to it being created as opposed to happening due to natural forces.

You are dishonestly citing evidence where their is none at all

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. T

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

A beginning does not mean a moment of creation.

Sure it does. It is not possible for the universe to be infinite acting. It would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Do you have any background in science at all.

I do.

No it does not and clearly you are lacking in comprehension of thermo dynamics so I would caution you against bragging about something you do not understand.

 

[ding]

~14 billion years ago all the matter and energy that exists in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool. We know this from the cosmic background radiation, red shift and solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

In fact, the matter that makes up who you are was present for the creation of space and time.

The laws of nature were in place before space and time were created as they governed the creation of space and time. These same laws predestined being that know and create would eventually arise.

Actually no we do not know that.

We know the expansion happened, however thanks to Einstein and the red shift ad background radiation we only have a good idea of what happened a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the expansion began.

We really do not have any idea what happened in the time before that fraction of a second.

Therefore the rest of your post is pure ignorance of cosmology. Especially the part about the laws being present BEFORE the expansion began which we do NOT know and have no reason to state as a truth the way you did.

Also nothing whatsoever in cosmology and our understanding of the universe points to it being created as opposed to happening due to natural forces.

You are dishonestly citing evidence where their is none at all

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. T

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

A beginning does not mean a moment of creation.

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

YEs all true although the proper term is great expansion not big bang and no part of that understanding points to a creator.

So then you do agree that space and time had a beginning. Congratulations for not denying science.

The laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. Yes or no?

Or would you like to deny science again?

Do you have a background in science?

 

[Soupnazi630]

I'm always fascinated by athiests. They claim to believe that there is no God,

OF COURSE there is a God. No one can dispute that. God is the original cause that brought about the world (universe). Everything must have a cause. What is at debate but so often misconstrued by most people is whether God is personal (conscious, living, intelligent) or impersonal (and object or force or effect). The Personalist believes that things like wisdom, compassion and love must come from a fount of infinite wisdom, compassion and love, whereas the Impersonalist wants to think that it was all simply a matter of random chance and infinite rolls of a dice. BOTH are true. The universe came from a roll of the dice, but there are MANY universes and many sets of dice and God in his infinite wisdom, compassion and love---- made them all.

Anyone can dispute it and even prove there is no god.

No one can prove there is no God or Creator.

Yes they can.

Any and all knowledge you have of a god or creator comes exclusively from books which are proven to be man made.

Just as we can prove batman is man made and not real the same is true for a god.

 

[BS Filter]

See this is where it convolutes itself with the edict of Nantes.. This three personage being one is just to preposterous...

Because you aren't a father and a son and a brother?

No one can be their OWN father son or brother.

The trinity is a rationalization created by later christians,

Truth is discovered.

Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist?

I am an atheist and yes truth is discovered through evidence and intelligent thought which is the opposite of faith and ancient myth

Einstein was a very intelligent guy. He believed in Intelligent Design and a Spirit and intelligence that created the universe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He believed in Intelligent Design and a Spirit and intelligence that created the universe.

No he did not. You faithy types always try to sell this same lie.

 

[ding]

~14 billion years ago all the matter and energy that exists in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool. We know this from the cosmic background radiation, red shift and solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

In fact, the matter that makes up who you are was present for the creation of space and time.

The laws of nature were in place before space and time were created as they governed the creation of space and time. These same laws predestined being that know and create would eventually arise.

Actually no we do not know that.

We know the expansion happened, however thanks to Einstein and the red shift ad background radiation we only have a good idea of what happened a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the expansion began.

We really do not have any idea what happened in the time before that fraction of a second.

Therefore the rest of your post is pure ignorance of cosmology. Especially the part about the laws being present BEFORE the expansion began which we do NOT know and have no reason to state as a truth the way you did.

Also nothing whatsoever in cosmology and our understanding of the universe points to it being created as opposed to happening due to natural forces.

You are dishonestly citing evidence where their is none at all

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. T

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

A beginning does not mean a moment of creation.

Sure it does. It is not possible for the universe to be infinite acting. It would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Do you have any background in science at all.

I do.

No it does not and clearly you are lacking in comprehension of thermo dynamics so I would caution you against bragging about something you do not understand.

I have an engineering degree. What is your background? Because I assure you I do understand thermodynamics.

Would you like to discuss it with me?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Actually no we do not know that.

We know the expansion happened, however thanks to Einstein and the red shift ad background radiation we only have a good idea of what happened a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the expansion began.

We really do not have any idea what happened in the time before that fraction of a second.

Therefore the rest of your post is pure ignorance of cosmology. Especially the part about the laws being present BEFORE the expansion began which we do NOT know and have no reason to state as a truth the way you did.

Also nothing whatsoever in cosmology and our understanding of the universe points to it being created as opposed to happening due to natural forces.

You are dishonestly citing evidence where their is none at all

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. T

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

A beginning does not mean a moment of creation.

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

YEs all true although the proper term is great expansion not big bang and no part of that understanding points to a creator.

So then you do agree that space and time had a beginning. Congratulations for not denying science.

The laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. Yes or no?

Or would you like to deny science again?

Do you have a background in science?

I have never denied science.

I understand it better than you as I corrected you on several falsehoods.

And NO there is no law of nature which predestines beings of any kind.

 

[ding]

~14 billion years ago all the matter and energy that exists in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool. We know this from the cosmic background radiation, red shift and solutions to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

In fact, the matter that makes up who you are was present for the creation of space and time.

The laws of nature were in place before space and time were created as they governed the creation of space and time. These same laws predestined being that know and create would eventually arise.

Actually no we do not know that.

We know the expansion happened, however thanks to Einstein and the red shift ad background radiation we only have a good idea of what happened a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the expansion began.

We really do not have any idea what happened in the time before that fraction of a second.
Therefore the rest of your post is pure ignorance of cosmology. Especially the part about the laws being present BEFORE the expansion began which we do NOT know and have no reason to state as a truth the way you did.

Also nothing whatsoever in cosmology and our understanding of the universe points to it being created as opposed to happening due to natural forces.

You are dishonestly citing evidence where their is none at all

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. T

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

A beginning does not mean a moment of creation.

Sure it does. It is not possible for the universe to be infinite acting. It would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Do you have any background in science at all.

I do.

No it does not and clearly you are lacking in comprehension of thermo dynamics so I would caution you against bragging about something you do not understand.

Do you understand that for every matter to energy and energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy?

 

[BS Filter]

I'm always fascinated by athiests. They claim to believe that there is no God,

OF COURSE there is a God. No one can dispute that. God is the original cause that brought about the world (universe). Everything must have a cause. What is at debate but so often misconstrued by most people is whether God is personal (conscious, living, intelligent) or impersonal (and object or force or effect). The Personalist believes that things like wisdom, compassion and love must come from a fount of infinite wisdom, compassion and love, whereas the Impersonalist wants to think that it was all simply a matter of random chance and infinite rolls of a dice. BOTH are true. The universe came from a roll of the dice, but there are MANY universes and many sets of dice and God in his infinite wisdom, compassion and love---- made them all.

Anyone can dispute it and even prove there is no god.

No one can prove there is no God or Creator.

Yes they can.

Any and all knowledge you have of a god or creator comes exclusively from books which are proven to be man made.

Just as we can prove batman is man made and not real the same is true for a god.

You can't prove the Bible isn't inspired by the Spirit of God. It's just your opinion.

 

[Soupnazi630]

See this is where it convolutes itself with the edict of Nantes.. This three personage being one is just to preposterous...

Because you aren't a father and a son and a brother?

No one can be their OWN father son or brother.

The trinity is a rationalization created by later christians,

Truth is discovered.

Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist?

I am an atheist and yes truth is discovered through evidence and intelligent thought which is the opposite of faith and ancient myth

Einstein was a very intelligent guy. He believed in Intelligent Design and a Spirit and intelligence that created the universe.

No he did not.

he was quite the atheist,

 

[ding]

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. T

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

A beginning does not mean a moment of creation.

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

YEs all true although the proper term is great expansion not big bang and no part of that understanding points to a creator.

So then you do agree that space and time had a beginning. Congratulations for not denying science.

The laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. Yes or no?

Or would you like to deny science again?

Do you have a background in science?

I have never denied science.

I understand it better than you as I corrected you on several falsehoods.

And NO there is no law of nature which predestines beings of any kind.

You are doing it right now when you deny the universe had a beginning and may have existed forever.

That would violate the SLoT.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I'm always fascinated by athiests. They claim to believe that there is no God,

OF COURSE there is a God. No one can dispute that. God is the original cause that brought about the world (universe). Everything must have a cause. What is at debate but so often misconstrued by most people is whether God is personal (conscious, living, intelligent) or impersonal (and object or force or effect). The Personalist believes that things like wisdom, compassion and love must come from a fount of infinite wisdom, compassion and love, whereas the Impersonalist wants to think that it was all simply a matter of random chance and infinite rolls of a dice. BOTH are true. The universe came from a roll of the dice, but there are MANY universes and many sets of dice and God in his infinite wisdom, compassion and love---- made them all.

Anyone can dispute it and even prove there is no god.

No one can prove there is no God or Creator.

Yes they can.

Any and all knowledge you have of a god or creator comes exclusively from books which are proven to be man made.

Just as we can prove batman is man made and not real the same is true for a god.

You can't prove the Bible isn't inspired by the Spirit of God. It's just your opinion.

Can you prove lord of the rings was not inspired by Gandalf?

Yes I can and yes I can prove it as the spirit of god is strictly and exclusively a concept you found in the bible which there is no evidence of any kind for outside the bible and since we know the bible is manmade so is your silly spirit and holy ghost

 

[ding]

Because you aren't a father and a son and a brother?

No one can be their OWN father son or brother.

The trinity is a rationalization created by later christians,

Truth is discovered.

Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist?

I am an atheist and yes truth is discovered through evidence and intelligent thought which is the opposite of faith and ancient myth

Einstein was a very intelligent guy. He believed in Intelligent Design and a Spirit and intelligence that created the universe.

No he did not.

he was quite the atheist,

Actually, he wasn't.

 

[Soupnazi630]

A beginning does not mean a moment of creation.

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

YEs all true although the proper term is great expansion not big bang and no part of that understanding points to a creator.

So then you do agree that space and time had a beginning. Congratulations for not denying science.

The laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. Yes or no?

Or would you like to deny science again?


Do you have a background in science?

I have never denied science.

I understand it better than you as I corrected you on several falsehoods.

And NO there is no law of nature which predestines beings of any kind.

You are doing it right now when you deny the universe had a beginning and may have existed forever.

That would violate the SLoT.

Wrong as I never denied it had a beginning.

I said a beginning does not imply it was created.

 

[ding]

OF COURSE there is a God. No one can dispute that. God is the original cause that brought about the world (universe). Everything must have a cause. What is at debate but so often misconstrued by most people is whether God is personal (conscious, living, intelligent) or impersonal (and object or force or effect). The Personalist believes that things like wisdom, compassion and love must come from a fount of infinite wisdom, compassion and love, whereas the Impersonalist wants to think that it was all simply a matter of random chance and infinite rolls of a dice. BOTH are true. The universe came from a roll of the dice, but there are MANY universes and many sets of dice and God in his infinite wisdom, compassion and love---- made them all.

Anyone can dispute it and even prove there is no god.

No one can prove there is no God or Creator.

Yes they can.

Any and all knowledge you have of a god or creator comes exclusively from books which are proven to be man made.

Just as we can prove batman is man made and not real the same is true for a god.

You can't prove the Bible isn't inspired by the Spirit of God. It's just your opinion.

Can you prove lord of the rings was not inspired by Gandalf?

Yes I can and yes I can prove it as the spirit of god is strictly and exclusively a concept you found in the bible which there is no evidence of any kind for outside the bible and since we know the bible is manmade so is your silly spirit and holy ghost

Actually the Lord of Rings was a story about Christianity.

 

[ding]

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

YEs all true although the proper term is great expansion not big bang and no part of that understanding points to a creator.

So then you do agree that space and time had a beginning. Congratulations for not denying science.

The laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. Yes or no?

Or would you like to deny science again?


Do you have a background in science?

I have never denied science.

I understand it better than you as I corrected you on several falsehoods.

And NO there is no law of nature which predestines beings of any kind.

You are doing it right now when you deny the universe had a beginning and may have existed forever.

That would violate the SLoT.

Wrong as I never denied it had a beginning.

I said a beginning does not imply it was created.

Of course space and time were created. I already explained to you how it was created. I even provided a youtube video that discusses it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No one can be their OWN father son or brother.

The trinity is a rationalization created by later christians,

Truth is discovered.

Do you believe in God? Or are you an atheist?

I am an atheist and yes truth is discovered through evidence and intelligent thought which is the opposite of faith and ancient myth

Einstein was a very intelligent guy. He believed in Intelligent Design and a Spirit and intelligence that created the universe.

No he did not.

he was quite the atheist,

Actually, he wasn't.

I stand corrected he was no atheist but he did not believe in god in the sense you do either.


Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

YEs all true although the proper term is great expansion not big bang and no part of that understanding points to a creator.

So then you do agree that space and time had a beginning. Congratulations for not denying science.

The laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. Yes or no?

Or would you like to deny science again?


Do you have a background in science?

I have never denied science.

I understand it better than you as I corrected you on several falsehoods.

And NO there is no law of nature which predestines beings of any kind.

You are doing it right now when you deny the universe had a beginning and may have existed forever.

That would violate the SLoT.

Wrong as I never denied it had a beginning.

I said a beginning does not imply it was created.

You are all over the map, bro. First you denied that tangible items can be used as evidence, then you denied that the universe had a beginning, then you ass fucked the SLoT.

Did you even graduate high school?