Why did God create humans?

[ding]

He was broke. Like a pimp without hoes.

Think about it. He made this world for us but made us sheep compared to the top predators for millions of years until we finally got smart enough? Really? So now we're taking the garden story literally?

We got smart with the help of aliens after millions of years of being ape-smart. People really are worshipping the wrong person.

Clearly that smart skipped your generation.

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

Even if aliens created us a real theist would ask who created the aliens.

We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. This applies for everywhere in the universe. So regardless of where, the reality is that at the moment space and time came into existence from nothing, beings that know and create were pre-destined to exist by the laws of nature.

 

[ding]

Clearly that smart skipped your generation.

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise. Here is the proof you have been looking for. Maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Our BB was possibly the explosion of a super massive black hole that created new time and space. No need to invent invisible people to explain it.

That doesn't matter either. Whether it was a black hole or a big bang, the laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

 

[ding]

We got smart with the help of aliens after millions of years of being ape-smart. People really are worshipping the wrong person.

Clearly that smart skipped your generation.

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise. Here is the proof you have been looking for. Maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Being.

 

[ding]

Clearly that smart skipped your generation.

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

Even if aliens created us a real theist would ask who created the aliens.

Other aliens?

Ho created them?

And who created god?

That answer can be found in the reasoning of the final state of fact. You don't have enough intelligence to understand it.

 

[Mickiel]

God created humans because he is a creator;

he is what he is , and will do what he does.

 

[sealybobo]

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise. Here is the proof you have been looking for. Maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Our BB was possibly the explosion of a super massive black hole that created new time and space. No need to invent invisible people to explain it.

That doesn't matter either. Whether it was a black hole or a big bang, the laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

You keep saying pre destined. What do you mean? By who? How do you know?

 

[ding]

You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise. Here is the proof you have been looking for. Maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Our BB was possibly the explosion of a super massive black hole that created new time and space. No need to invent invisible people to explain it.

That doesn't matter either. Whether it was a black hole or a big bang, the laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

You keep saying pre destined. What do you mean? By who? How do you know?

I'll let George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, answer your question.

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[ding]

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Throughout history the concept of authority has been accepted in every society. For instance, John the Baptist, who was recognized as a great prophet in his day - as evidenced by Herod's treatment of John - served as the authority for establishing Jesus as the Messiah. The reason I am mentioning this is that both atheists and Christians should accept the concept of authority and the importance of it as well.

Professor George Wald rightly identifies that we live in a universe where the laws are such that the evolution or creation of intelligent life with a mind like ours seems to be the order of nature, and that the laws are so finely tuned that even minor changes would produce different results. Mind you science still does not know how life made the leap from non-living matter to life, Wald is saying that after the leap was made, given our conditions and physical laws, intelligent life with a mind like ours was destined to evolve.

Like every good story we should start at the beginning. Unfortunately for us science can not help us much for the very beginning of Creation. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

According to Professor Lederman, who is also the Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the laws of nature were already in place before the very beginning of Creation. While it may be contested that the laws of nature existed before the very beginning, it is uncontested that the laws of nature were in place within a billionth of a trillionth of a second. Therefore, for all practical intents and purposes, the laws of nature have been in place since the very beginning of time and have not changed since then.

Another point that Professor Lederman - who is also the founder and Resident Scholar at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy - makes is that before the very beginning "this curious vacuum held potential." For those who wish to know more about Professor lederman, I am attaching a link to his wiki page. Professor Lederman's credentials are quite impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

 

[sealybobo]

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Our BB was possibly the explosion of a super massive black hole that created new time and space. No need to invent invisible people to explain it.

That doesn't matter either. Whether it was a black hole or a big bang, the laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

You keep saying pre destined. What do you mean? By who? How do you know?

I'll let George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, answer your question.

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Deep

 

[sealybobo]

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Throughout history the concept of authority has been accepted in every society. For instance, John the Baptist, who was recognized as a great prophet in his day - as evidenced by Herod's treatment of John - served as the authority for establishing Jesus as the Messiah. The reason I am mentioning this is that both atheists and Christians should accept the concept of authority and the importance of it as well.

Professor George Wald rightly identifies that we live in a universe where the laws are such that the evolution or creation of intelligent life with a mind like ours seems to be the order of nature, and that the laws are so finely tuned that even minor changes would produce different results. Mind you science still does not know how life made the leap from non-living matter to life, Wald is saying that after the leap was made, given our conditions and physical laws, intelligent life with a mind like ours was destined to evolve.

Like every good story we should start at the beginning. Unfortunately for us science can not help us much for the very beginning of Creation. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

According to Professor Lederman, who is also the Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the laws of nature were already in place before the very beginning of Creation. While it may be contested that the laws of nature existed before the very beginning, it is uncontested that the laws of nature were in place within a billionth of a trillionth of a second. Therefore, for all practical intents and purposes, the laws of nature have been in place since the very beginning of time and have not changed since then.

Another point that Professor Lederman - who is also the founder and Resident Scholar at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy - makes is that before the very beginning "this curious vacuum held potential." For those who wish to know more about Professor lederman, I am attaching a link to his wiki page. Professor Lederman's credentials are quite impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

If someone doesn't believe in God to they go to hell? Do you believe God talked to Noah and told him those ten things?

 

[sealybobo]

There's a lot we don't know and our existence has stumped the greatest minds on the 3rd rock from the sun

 

[ding]

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Throughout history the concept of authority has been accepted in every society. For instance, John the Baptist, who was recognized as a great prophet in his day - as evidenced by Herod's treatment of John - served as the authority for establishing Jesus as the Messiah. The reason I am mentioning this is that both atheists and Christians should accept the concept of authority and the importance of it as well.

Professor George Wald rightly identifies that we live in a universe where the laws are such that the evolution or creation of intelligent life with a mind like ours seems to be the order of nature, and that the laws are so finely tuned that even minor changes would produce different results. Mind you science still does not know how life made the leap from non-living matter to life, Wald is saying that after the leap was made, given our conditions and physical laws, intelligent life with a mind like ours was destined to evolve.

Like every good story we should start at the beginning. Unfortunately for us science can not help us much for the very beginning of Creation. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

According to Professor Lederman, who is also the Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the laws of nature were already in place before the very beginning of Creation. While it may be contested that the laws of nature existed before the very beginning, it is uncontested that the laws of nature were in place within a billionth of a trillionth of a second. Therefore, for all practical intents and purposes, the laws of nature have been in place since the very beginning of time and have not changed since then.

Another point that Professor Lederman - who is also the founder and Resident Scholar at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy - makes is that before the very beginning "this curious vacuum held potential." For those who wish to know more about Professor lederman, I am attaching a link to his wiki page. Professor Lederman's credentials are quite impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

If someone doesn't believe in God to they go to hell? Do you believe God talked to Noah and told him those ten things?

No. Those are not literal accounts. They are allegorical.

 

[sealybobo]

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

Throughout history the concept of authority has been accepted in every society. For instance, John the Baptist, who was recognized as a great prophet in his day - as evidenced by Herod's treatment of John - served as the authority for establishing Jesus as the Messiah. The reason I am mentioning this is that both atheists and Christians should accept the concept of authority and the importance of it as well.

Professor George Wald rightly identifies that we live in a universe where the laws are such that the evolution or creation of intelligent life with a mind like ours seems to be the order of nature, and that the laws are so finely tuned that even minor changes would produce different results. Mind you science still does not know how life made the leap from non-living matter to life, Wald is saying that after the leap was made, given our conditions and physical laws, intelligent life with a mind like ours was destined to evolve.

Like every good story we should start at the beginning. Unfortunately for us science can not help us much for the very beginning of Creation. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

According to Professor Lederman, who is also the Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the laws of nature were already in place before the very beginning of Creation. While it may be contested that the laws of nature existed before the very beginning, it is uncontested that the laws of nature were in place within a billionth of a trillionth of a second. Therefore, for all practical intents and purposes, the laws of nature have been in place since the very beginning of time and have not changed since then.

Another point that Professor Lederman - who is also the founder and Resident Scholar at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy - makes is that before the very beginning "this curious vacuum held potential." For those who wish to know more about Professor lederman, I am attaching a link to his wiki page. Professor Lederman's credentials are quite impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

In November of 1919, at the age of 40, Albert Einstein became an overnight celebrity, thanks to a solar eclipse. Eddington’s experiment had confirmed that light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity. Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.

General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.

That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community. The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

If someone doesn't believe in God to they go to hell? Do you believe God talked to Noah and told him those ten things?

No. Those are not literal accounts. They are allegorical.

Just wanted to know if you were rational or not.

I wonder if intelligent life is rare. They say it was a fluke we exist for example lucky for the dinosaurs going extinct.

And who's to say solar systems are better off with humans around? We are parasites and polluters.

Id father go to a planet ruled by smart dolphins or whales.

Or other more intelligent life might be less greedy and violent.

Imagine a world where no one worked and they all just did whatever needed to be done to have the most fun. A place where robots do all the work.

 

[Mudda]

Think about it. He made this world for us but made us sheep compared to the top predators for millions of years until we finally got smart enough? Really? So now we're taking the garden story literally?

We got smart with the help of aliens after millions of years of being ape-smart. People really are worshipping the wrong person.

Clearly that smart skipped your generation.

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

Even if aliens created us a real theist would ask who created the aliens.

We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. This applies for everywhere in the universe. So regardless of where, the reality is that at the moment space and time came into existence from nothing, beings that know and create were pre-destined to exist by the laws of nature.

So you're saying that aliens exist?

 

[Mudda]

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise. Here is the proof you have been looking for. Maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Our BB was possibly the explosion of a super massive black hole that created new time and space. No need to invent invisible people to explain it.

That doesn't matter either. Whether it was a black hole or a big bang, the laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

Easy to say after the game has already been played out. Got anything we don't already know?

 

[Mudda]

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

Even if aliens created us a real theist would ask who created the aliens.

Other aliens?

Ho created them?

And who created god?

That answer can be found in the reasoning of the final state of fact. You don't have enough intelligence to understand it.

WTF does that mean?

 

[Mudda]

"You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to eventually arise." Other than hindsight, you have nothing, admit it.

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Our BB was possibly the explosion of a super massive black hole that created new time and space. No need to invent invisible people to explain it.

That doesn't matter either. Whether it was a black hole or a big bang, the laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

You keep saying pre destined. What do you mean? By who? How do you know?

I'll let George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, answer your question.

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Got anything real, and not some douchebag's opinion?

 

[ding]

We got smart with the help of aliens after millions of years of being ape-smart. People really are worshipping the wrong person.

Clearly that smart skipped your generation.

We noticed that you didn't refute what I said. Good for you.

Even if aliens created us a real theist would ask who created the aliens.

We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. This applies for everywhere in the universe. So regardless of where, the reality is that at the moment space and time came into existence from nothing, beings that know and create were pre-destined to exist by the laws of nature.

So you're saying that aliens exist?

I am saying that we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that intelligent beings (i.e. beings that know and create) will eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions. Extrapolate that to mean anything you want. That shouldn't be too hard for you because you habitually misstate what I write all of the time. You are irrational.

 

[ding]

Even if aliens created us a real theist would ask who created the aliens.

Other aliens?

Ho created them?

And who created god?

That answer can be found in the reasoning of the final state of fact. You don't have enough intelligence to understand it.

WTF does that mean?

It means that you have not demonstrated enough objectivity to have an adult conversation.

 

[ding]

What was God doing 13 billion years before our big bang?

Our BB was possibly the explosion of a super massive black hole that created new time and space. No need to invent invisible people to explain it.

That doesn't matter either. Whether it was a black hole or a big bang, the laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

You keep saying pre destined. What do you mean? By who? How do you know?

I'll let George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, answer your question.

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Got anything real, and not some douchebag's opinion?

Just science and our observations. It appears to be more than what you have. So, it is debatable which of us is the douchebag.