Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[sealybobo]

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

everything is in motion.

we also know that an object will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing. No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory. And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened. So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

Actually, it doesn't mean any of that. Stuff floating around? Perhaps you didn't understand.

Nothing moves unless it is acted upon by an outside influence. Since we are talking about the Universe, what could possibly be an outside influence?

Have you ever seen the experiment of mouse traps and ping-pong balls?



The theory is called, "First Mover" and philosophers have been puzzling over it for centuries. Some for, some against.

Me, I don't care what they or anyone says. It is logical and scientific.

Something (A deity perhaps?) moved the very first object and set the whole thing in motion. To what purpose is a matter for deep debate and not to be had on this forum.

Yes, something did move the first object. Until we know what, the best answer is to say we don't know and keep looking.

We don't know everything there is to know about black holes and alternate universes. Stay tuned. To say god did it and just go back to playing candy crush is just ignorant.
I
It is amazing though. They think life is in those meteors that orbit our sun at the edge of our solar system. Amino acids are in the ice. And like everything else they were flying in order and one day something hit them and they went off like those ping pong balls and they flew in every direction hitting every planet in our solar system. Mars is covered with them. But mars is either too far or close to the sun so life can't live there. Not anymore. They think life either does live on mars or once did and they are proving it. Methane comes out of Mars so there is a chance deep inside life may exist.

Long story short, what caused the meteors to fly out of control and land on earth and start life? I can see why people believe in a creator but there is no proof and logically if we had to have a creator, who created the creator? Can't have that argument both ways.

Why can you imagine a god that has no beginning, end or creator but you can't imagine the universe that way? Fascinating.

 

[sealybobo]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

 

[PostmodernProph]

When science discovered when the big bang happened, it contradicted religion.

not all religions.....it didn't contradict Christianity, for example.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

and it was explained to you many times......for some reason you ignore that and keep asking the same stupid question.....that which is eternal has no beginning.....

 

[sealybobo]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

and it was explained to you many times......for some reason you ignore that and keep asking the same stupid question.....that which is eternal has no beginning.....

Our universe didn't need any divine help. Stephen Hawkingnoted that many people still seek a divinesolutionto counter the theories of curious physicists. What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions? After outlining the historical theological debate about how the universe was created, Hawking gave amore scientific cosmological explanation, including the steady-state theory. This idea hypothesizes that there is no beginning and no end and that galaxies continue to form from spontaneously created matter. After giving a brief historical background on relativistic physics and cosmology, Hawking discussed the idea of a repeating Big Bang….therefore, time began at the moment of singularity, and this has likely occurred only once. The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

Hawking noted that in the 1980s, around the time he released a paper discussing the moment the universe was born, Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy. “I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition,” Hawking joked. He closed by outlining "M-theory,". M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

and it was explained to you many times......for some reason you ignore that and keep asking the same stupid question.....that which is eternal has no beginning.....

Our universe didn't need any divine help. Stephen Hawkingnoted that many people still seek a divinesolutionto counter the theories of curious physicists. What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions? After outlining the historical theological debate about how the universe was created, Hawking gave amore scientific cosmological explanation, including the steady-state theory. This idea hypothesizes that there is no beginning and no end and that galaxies continue to form from spontaneously created matter. After giving a brief historical background on relativistic physics and cosmology, Hawking discussed the idea of a repeating Big Bang….therefore, time began at the moment of singularity, and this has likely occurred only once. The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

Hawking noted that in the 1980s, around the time he released a paper discussing the moment the universe was born, Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy. “I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition,” Hawking joked. He closed by outlining "M-theory,". M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

"Our universe didn't need any divine help."
it obviously needed some form of cause......

"What was God doing before the divine creation?"
who knows....maybe he was taking a break after his last created universe was finished.....maybe he has a half dozen going at once.....

".therefore, time began at the moment of singularity".....I agree.....when God created day and night on the first "day" he wasn't creating anything physical.....he was creating time....that which truly distinguishes night and day.....

 

[sealybobo]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

I asked someone why the universe has to have a creator but the creator doesn't.

and it was explained to you many times......for some reason you ignore that and keep asking the same stupid question.....that which is eternal has no beginning.....

Our universe didn't need any divine help. Stephen Hawkingnoted that many people still seek a divinesolutionto counter the theories of curious physicists. What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions? After outlining the historical theological debate about how the universe was created, Hawking gave amore scientific cosmological explanation, including the steady-state theory. This idea hypothesizes that there is no beginning and no end and that galaxies continue to form from spontaneously created matter. After giving a brief historical background on relativistic physics and cosmology, Hawking discussed the idea of a repeating Big Bang….therefore, time began at the moment of singularity, and this has likely occurred only once. The age of the universe — now believed to be about13.8 billion years— fits that model, as the number and maturity of observed galaxies seem to fit in the general scheme.

Hawking noted that in the 1980s, around the time he released a paper discussing the moment the universe was born, Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy. “I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition,” Hawking joked. He closed by outlining "M-theory,". M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

"Our universe didn't need any divine help."
it obviously needed some form of cause......

"What was God doing before the divine creation?"
who knows....maybe he was taking a break after his last created universe was finished.....maybe he has a half dozen going at once.....

".therefore, time began at the moment of singularity".....I agree.....when God created day and night on the first "day" he wasn't creating anything physical.....he was creating time....that which truly distinguishes night and day.....

Smart scientists who study this stuff don't see any proof of a god nor do they have faith there is one without proof.

But I understand where you are coming from. My dad agrees with you. There must be a creator. Why? Because there just must be!!! Anyone who says differently is stupid.

Unfortunately his argument is not sound.

 

[PostmodernProph]

why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....

 

[sealybobo]

why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Smart people who know this and still believe believe because they want to believe. Even they would have to admit that there is no proof.

Just look at who we take seriously on USMB. Do we take anyone who takes the bible literally seriously? No. We blow them off as nuts. So the only people who we even debate with here are people who have philosophical reasons for believing in god(s).

Because we can't prove there is no god, that is why they have FAITH. Because they were brainwashed with fear and hell. Because they want to believe, no other reason.

 

[sealybobo]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

 

[sealybobo]

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

 

[sealybobo]

why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....

Because they are able to put all the bullshit aside and think rationally about this. They even understand what part of the brain invents/believes in god(s) and how our primitive and ancient ancestors were superstitious and had a healthy fear of the unknown so they came up with a super parent. Then the rulers used god to control the masses and have been doing so ever since.

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

 

[JimBowie1958]

Meh, they are playing semantic games.



To say that the 'universe as we know it' somehow does not include the Cosmic inflation period is an odd take on 'as we know it'. The universe has gone through changes and will go through more, and nothing about the change in and of itself makes it alien to, before, after or parallel to our universe.

The Big Bang in common parlance is from T0 to the end of the Cosmic inflation, so to say that the Big Bang occurred AFTER the Cosmic inflation is to simply deny what the original theory proposed and described. It is saying that the Big Bang doesn't have a Bang to it at all.

It is semantic bullshit. The Big Bang is from the start of time and the measurable, calculable universe, not some convenient time point for a emo physicist and his opinion.

With all due respect Jim, I"m gonna take the word of physicists and astronomers employed in those fields over you who only knows whatever he's read on wiki.

Of course, do whatever you like, but this guys definition of the Big Bang 1) you found ONE SCIENTIST who contradicts the definition of the original theory which goes back to T0, and 2) he is a minority view. Wikipedia is good for that at least in that it shows what the main stream status quoi opinion is on any topic, including this one. OF course that doesn't mean they are right, but this guy just wants to redefine a word already in widespread use. Maybe instead of redefining the Big Bang he should make up a new word like Normality Inception.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

Gullibility like the pounds of salt required to take that horse shit you just posted seriously?

What you are a psychologist authority on gullibility now? yeah, right, whenever it suits your point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

everything is in motion.

we also know that an object will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing. No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory.

No, ignoramus, before the Big Bang there was NOTHING in our universe. Anything prior to the Big Bang is just nonscientific supposition and speculation.

And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.

The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, you idiot.

So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lol, so now you are just lying. Theists have never claimed that the universe was always just here; that was the atheist claim. Theist have always claimed that the universe had a starting point.

Wjhy do pig-headed atheists like you always lie?

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

We do know. We know that time and space ant this universe had a start, and whatever started it all was an eternal object, not something that is presently solely within our universe.

Show me a link that says it was an eternal object and not something that is already presently in our solar system please.

Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.

Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When science discovered when the big bang happened, it contradicted religion. I saw the whole story on public tv. Stephen Hawkins that guy in the wheelchair

Again, the Big Bang was written by a Catholic Priest who saw no contradiction with Catholicism and the Pope himself at the time hailed it as the scientific form of Genesis. It was atheists who claimed the eternal universe with the steady state theory. BTW, you are a liar.

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

everything is in motion.

we also know that an object will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing. No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory.

No, ignoramus, before the Big Bang there was NOTHING in our universe. Anything prior to the Big Bang is just nonscientific supposition and speculation.

And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.

The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, you idiot.

So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lol, so now you are just lying. Theists have never claimed that the universe was always just here; that was the atheist claim. Theist have always claimed that the universe had a starting point.

Wjhy do pig-headed atheists like you always lie?

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

We do know. We know that time and space ant this universe had a start, and whatever started it all was an eternal object, not something that is presently solely within our universe.

Show me a link that says it was an eternal object and not something that is already presently in our solar system please.

Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.

Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What is your theory about before the big bang? Just curious.

I just remember watching a piece on Stephen Hawking and his theory went against the church's belief and so he said his theory concluded that

Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.

As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.

His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.

Professor Hawking’s latest remarks came in an interview in which the theoretical physicist told how he had learnt to live in the shadow of death since being diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 21.

The disease, which is incurable, was expected to kill him within a few years. Instead, he said, it ultimately led him to enjoy life more.

The 69-year-old Cambridge University academic said: ‘I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years.

‘I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.

‘I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.

‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.’

There is more of that gullibility you were talking about earlier. A scientist has no more authority to speak on things outside of the natural, of this universe than a theologian has to speculate on the theory of evolution or how to build a bridge.

You science worshipping morons need to take a step back and reacquaint yourself with the scope of legitimate scientific authority, and this goes way beyond that.

 

[sealybobo]

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

everything is in motion.

we also know that an object will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing. No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory.

No, ignoramus, before the Big Bang there was NOTHING in our universe. Anything prior to the Big Bang is just nonscientific supposition and speculation.

And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.

The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, you idiot.

So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lol, so now you are just lying. Theists have never claimed that the universe was always just here; that was the atheist claim. Theist have always claimed that the universe had a starting point.

Wjhy do pig-headed atheists like you always lie?

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

We do know. We know that time and space ant this universe had a start, and whatever started it all was an eternal object, not something that is presently solely within our universe.

Show me a link that says it was an eternal object and not something that is already presently in our solar system please.

Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.

Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When science discovered when the big bang happened, it contradicted religion. I saw the whole story on public tv. Stephen Hawkins that guy in the wheelchair

Again, the Big Bang was written by a Catholic Priest who saw no contradiction with Catholicism and the Pope himself at the time hailed it as the scientific form of Genesis. It was atheists who claimed the eternal universe with the steady state theory. BTW, you are a liar.

I just tend to use logic, a little faith, and science.

everything is in motion.

we also know that an object will either stay in motion, or stay at rest.

At the very beginning of time and space....there was nothing. No motion at all.

Then in an instant................................

What does all this prove?

There wasn't nothing. There was "stuff" floating around and it all came together into a really tight ball and then BANG. At least that is the theory.

No, ignoramus, before the Big Bang there was NOTHING in our universe. Anything prior to the Big Bang is just nonscientific supposition and speculation.

And I remember reading how theists didn't like the big bang theory at first because Stephen Hawkins said something like it proved that there was a time when the big bang happened.

The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, you idiot.

So what was happening the billions of years before the big bang? Theists said the universe was always here. Because of the big bang we know that not to be true.

Lol, so now you are just lying. Theists have never claimed that the universe was always just here; that was the atheist claim. Theist have always claimed that the universe had a starting point.

Wjhy do pig-headed atheists like you always lie?

Lets say you are right though. What does any of that prove? The answer is nothing. We don't know. So keep looking. To say "god did it" is not a logical answer that you have proof of, right?

We do know. We know that time and space ant this universe had a start, and whatever started it all was an eternal object, not something that is presently solely within our universe.

Show me a link that says it was an eternal object and not something that is already presently in our solar system please.

Doofus, science cannot prove an eternal object outside our universe. Anything a scientist says about anything prior to the Big Bang is speculation.

Planck epoch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What is your theory about before the big bang? Just curious.

I just remember watching a piece on Stephen Hawking and his theory went against the church's belief and so he said his theory concluded that

Heaven is a ‘fairy story for people afraid of the dark’, Professor Stephen Hawking suggestd yesterday.

As well as saying there is no heaven or afterlife, the renowned scientist said that our brains switch off like ‘broken down computers’ when we die.

His comments upset some religious groups, already angry at his statement last year that the universe was not created by God.

Professor Hawking’s latest remarks came in an interview in which the theoretical physicist told how he had learnt to live in the shadow of death since being diagnosed with motor neurone disease aged 21.

The disease, which is incurable, was expected to kill him within a few years. Instead, he said, it ultimately led him to enjoy life more.

The 69-year-old Cambridge University academic said: ‘I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years.

‘I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.

‘I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.

‘There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.’

There is more of that gullibility you were talking about earlier. A scientist has no more authority to speak on things outside of the natural, of this universe than a theologian has to speculate on the theory of evolution or how to build a bridge.

You science worshipping morons need to take a step back and reacquaint yourself with the scope of legitimate scientific authority, and this goes way beyond that.

What I recognize is that organized religions have zero authority or credibility because they argue/deny common sense.

 

[BreezeWood]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

Nothing moves unless it is acted upon by an outside influence. Since we are talking about the Universe, what could possibly be an outside influence?

Nothing moves unless it is acted upon by an outside influence ... Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration.


there seems to be a bias for the physical, matter over energy, attraction without consideration of their duality present at all times that is the basis for the Universe.

what matter exists so also does energy and the subcomponents of attraction and repulsion - the idea of a universe existing without the duality is without foundation. matter and energy composes singularity as opposite pols - the Big Bang as singularity of matter that at the moment of the Bang is the polar expulsion of Energy. -

as turning points both exist together at their most extreme conditions as states of momentary purity and Spiritual supremacy.

the attraction - repulsion of energy (gravity) is what causes motion in matter. - singularity is the only moment without motion.


that is the basis in Life for the forces of Good vs Evil.

.

 

[sealybobo]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

Nothing moves unless it is acted upon by an outside influence. Since we are talking about the Universe, what could possibly be an outside influence?

Nothing moves unless it is acted upon by an outside influence ... Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration.


there seems to be a bias for the physical, matter over energy, attraction without consideration of their duality present at all times that is the basis for the Universe.

what matter exists so also does energy and the subcomponents of attraction and repulsion - the idea of a universe existing without the duality is without foundation. matter and energy composes singularity as opposite pols - the Big Bang as singularity of matter that at the moment of the Bang is the polar expulsion of Energy. -

as turning points both exist together at their most extreme conditions as states of momentary purity and Spiritual supremacy.

the attraction - repulsion of energy (gravity) is what causes motion in matter. - singularity is the only moment without motion.


that is the basis in Life for the forces of Good vs Evil.

.

It is? Should I just take your word for it or do you have a link to someone else who agrees with you?

 

[PostmodernProph]

why do you believe scientists who don't see proof of a god, are smart?.....

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

Smart people who know this and still believe believe because they want to believe. Even they would have to admit that there is no proof.

Just look at who we take seriously on USMB. Do we take anyone who takes the bible literally seriously? No. We blow them off as nuts. So the only people who we even debate with here are people who have philosophical reasons for believing in god(s).

Because we can't prove there is no god, that is why they have FAITH. Because they were brainwashed with fear and hell. Because they want to believe, no other reason.

so in essence, the test of whether someone is "smart" is whether or not they agree with what you've chosen to believe....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

so you would then concur that since the only explanation for the inception of everything which is physical had to be something non-physical, that inception would have to be a non-testable hypothesis and unworthy of serious consideration, at least on a scientific basis?.....