Creationists' theory in detail

[james bond]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

It was God as the architect and Jesus as the creator. It wasn't god. That is who got you so screwed. He is the sky fairy or "the prince of the power of the air.". You cannot help but pay homage to him and recognize him as "god."

god wants you to believe in singularity or an invisible particle with infinite temperature and infinite density can exist in nature. Math proves you cannot have infinite anything in this world because one can't divide by zero. For example, 5/5 = 1 or 5 x 1 = 5. That works. However, 5/0 = undefined. Because 5/0 = n, but n x 0 = 5 is impossible. Only God or the creator can divide by 0. This is the kind of things in nature that you don't understand. The "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" has fixed you but good.

"Only God or the creator can divide by 0."

no he can't.

because he doesn't exist

What doesn't exist is millions and billions of years old Earth. It would not last that long. We've already had a global flood and the evidence is there for deepest oceans and the highest mountains. Earth's surface is 3/4 water. There are buried underground civilizations and underwater ones, too. It means you will end up in a Lake of Fire for just insulting God. We know God can n x 0 = 5 because he can create 5 items so n x 0 + 5 = 5 . That works with anything, apples, oranges, eggs, atheists, creationists, etc.

It's hilarious that you claim God doesn't exist. It means you get the hot, hot, hot consequences. Why do you think burns are one of the most painful injuries? Also, why do people want to avoid pain in this world? Pain relief is the biggest selling drug. There is some good evidence right there.

 

[progressive hunter]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???

....so. I'm asking YOU NOW--final--give me a detailed creation theory--about a paragraph is ok
...also, if you believe in creation, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Energizer--which is a lot more unbelievable than evolution

I never said I did and is why I said "they" say its based on faith,,,

but the evos do claim one animal changing magically into another as a scientific fact with no proof,,,

so you don't or do believe a fully formed human just appeared/or ''came to be''/etc??

theres no proof one way or the other,,,just like theres no proof we came from primates or a sponge in the ocean,,,

 

[james bond]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???

....so. I'm asking YOU NOW--final--give me a detailed creation theory--about a paragraph is ok
...also, if you believe in creation, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Energizer--which is a lot more unbelievable than evolution

I never said I did and is why I said "they" say its based on faith,,,

but the evos do claim one animal changing magically into another as a scientific fact with no proof,,,

so you don't or do believe a fully formed human just appeared/or ''came to be''/etc??

theres no proof one way or the other,,,just like theres no proof we came from primates or a sponge in the ocean,,,

“‘Look, he is coming with the clouds,’ and ‘every eye will see him, even those who pierced him’; and all peoples on earth ‘will mourn because of him.’ So shall it be! Amen.” Revelation 1:7

Jesus is Lord. The Bible says the proof for most people is after you die and "every eye will see him." It means everything will be settled on Earth.

That trumps the atheist who said everyone past, present, and future had to see the proof when it was already written down by God thousands of years ago.

ETA: I dunno, but could this mean that we won't be multi-planetary? Jesus is coming to the Earth as far as I know. People won't be able to escape him like they can't escape gravity.

 

[RWS]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. 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.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

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 beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Lastly, thanks for the opportunity to get this message out. What you intended for evil, God has used for good.

....realistic perception of god????!!!!! there is no god--your whole post there is worthless because you mention god

Is that the best you can do?

debate is over--none of you posted a theory

Sure I did, Monica.

See?

Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. 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.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

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 beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Can you sum up for me? Bc it's seems like you are still making excuses for your God.

 

[harmonica]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???

....so. I'm asking YOU NOW--final--give me a detailed creation theory--about a paragraph is ok
...also, if you believe in creation, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Energizer--which is a lot more unbelievable than evolution

I never said I did and is why I said "they" say its based on faith,,,

but the evos do claim one animal changing magically into another as a scientific fact with no proof,,,

so you don't or do believe a fully formed human just appeared/or ''came to be''/etc??

theres no proof one way or the other,,,just like theres no proof we came from primates or a sponge in the ocean,,,

....so you don't want to answer the question!!!!!!! = I know why you don't want to answer = you don't believe in creation

 

[harmonica]

well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???

....so. I'm asking YOU NOW--final--give me a detailed creation theory--about a paragraph is ok
...also, if you believe in creation, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Energizer--which is a lot more unbelievable than evolution

I never said I did and is why I said "they" say its based on faith,,,

but the evos do claim one animal changing magically into another as a scientific fact with no proof,,,

so you don't or do believe a fully formed human just appeared/or ''came to be''/etc??

theres no proof one way or the other,,,just like theres no proof we came from primates or a sponge in the ocean,,,

“‘Look, he is coming with the clouds,’ and ‘every eye will see him, even those who pierced him’; and all peoples on earth ‘will mourn because of him.’ So shall it be! Amen.” Revelation 1:7

Jesus is Lord. The Bible says the proof for most people is after you die and "every eye will see him." It means everything will be settled on Earth.

That trumps the atheist who said everyone past, present, and future had to see the proof when it was already written down by God thousands of years ago.

ETA: I dunno, but could this mean that we won't be multi-planetary? Jesus is coming to the Earth as far as I know. People won't be able to escape him like they can't escape gravity.

but there is no lord/god/jesus was not god----you proved you are wrong

 

[harmonica]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

It was God as the architect and Jesus as the creator. It wasn't god. That is who got you so screwed. He is the sky fairy or "the prince of the power of the air.". You cannot help but pay homage to him and recognize him as "god."

god wants you to believe in singularity or an invisible particle with infinite temperature and infinite density can exist in nature. Math proves you cannot have infinite anything in this world because one can't divide by zero. For example, 5/5 = 1 or 5 x 1 = 5. That works. However, 5/0 = undefined. Because 5/0 = n, but n x 0 = 5 is impossible. Only God or the creator can divide by 0. This is the kind of things in nature that you don't understand. The "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" has fixed you but good.

"Only God or the creator can divide by 0."

no he can't.

because he doesn't exist

What doesn't exist is millions and billions of years old Earth. It would not last that long. We've already had a global flood and the evidence is there for deepest oceans and the highest mountains. Earth's surface is 3/4 water. There are buried underground civilizations and underwater ones, too. It means you will end up in a Lake of Fire for just insulting God. We know God can n x 0 = 5 because he can create 5 items so n x 0 + 5 = 5 . That works with anything, apples, oranges, eggs, atheists, creationists, etc.

It's hilarious that you claim God doesn't exist. It means you get the hot, hot, hot consequences. Why do you think burns are one of the most painful injuries? Also, why do people want to avoid pain in this world? Pain relief is the biggest selling drug. There is some good evidence right there.

..you have been brainwashed big time
''consequences''' hahahahahah--what would those be?
hahahhahahahahaha
I'M SO SCARED hahhahahahahahahahaha

 

[harmonica]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

It was God as the architect and Jesus as the creator. It wasn't god. That is who got you so screwed. He is the sky fairy or "the prince of the power of the air.". You cannot help but pay homage to him and recognize him as "god."

god wants you to believe in singularity or an invisible particle with infinite temperature and infinite density can exist in nature. Math proves you cannot have infinite anything in this world because one can't divide by zero. For example, 5/5 = 1 or 5 x 1 = 5. That works. However, 5/0 = undefined. Because 5/0 = n, but n x 0 = 5 is impossible. Only God or the creator can divide by 0. This is the kind of things in nature that you don't understand. The "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" has fixed you but good.

"Only God or the creator can divide by 0."

no he can't.

because he doesn't exist

he's truly crazy.....

 

[Hollie]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???

....so. I'm asking YOU NOW--final--give me a detailed creation theory--about a paragraph is ok
...also, if you believe in creation, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Energizer--which is a lot more unbelievable than evolution

I never said I did and is why I said "they" say its based on faith,,,

but the evos do claim one animal changing magically into another as a scientific fact with no proof,,,

so you don't or do believe a fully formed human just appeared/or ''came to be''/etc??

theres no proof one way or the other,,,just like theres no proof we came from primates or a sponge in the ocean,,,

What makes you think,,, you didn’t come,,, from a sponge in the ocean,,,
,,,,,,, You have no proof,,,, you didn’t,,,,,

,,,,,

 

[ding]

Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. 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.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

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 beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Lastly, thanks for the opportunity to get this message out. What you intended for evil, God has used for good.

....realistic perception of god????!!!!! there is no god--your whole post there is worthless because you mention god

Is that the best you can do?

debate is over--none of you posted a theory

Sure I did, Monica.

See?

Here is your evidence that you seek.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. 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.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

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 beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Can you sum up for me? Bc it's seems like you are still making excuses for your God.

That is summed up. The irony of your statement is that the root cause of the problem with the human condition is that we are the ones who can’t stop making excuses for our behaviors. You are one of the worst ones. Your blaming religion is an excuse.

 

[Hollie]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

It was God as the architect and Jesus as the creator. It wasn't god. That is who got you so screwed. He is the sky fairy or "the prince of the power of the air.". You cannot help but pay homage to him and recognize him as "god."

god wants you to believe in singularity or an invisible particle with infinite temperature and infinite density can exist in nature. Math proves you cannot have infinite anything in this world because one can't divide by zero. For example, 5/5 = 1 or 5 x 1 = 5. That works. However, 5/0 = undefined. Because 5/0 = n, but n x 0 = 5 is impossible. Only God or the creator can divide by 0. This is the kind of things in nature that you don't understand. The "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" has fixed you but good.

"Only God or the creator can divide by 0."

no he can't.

because he doesn't exist

What doesn't exist is millions and billions of years old Earth. It would not last that long. We've already had a global flood and the evidence is there for deepest oceans and the highest mountains. Earth's surface is 3/4 water. There are buried underground civilizations and underwater ones, too. It means you will end up in a Lake of Fire for just insulting God. We know God can n x 0 = 5 because he can create 5 items so n x 0 + 5 = 5 . That works with anything, apples, oranges, eggs, atheists, creationists, etc.

It's hilarious that you claim God doesn't exist. It means you get the hot, hot, hot consequences. Why do you think burns are one of the most painful injuries? Also, why do people want to avoid pain in this world? Pain relief is the biggest selling drug. There is some good evidence right there.

A round'ish earth and a very old earth are demonstrable facts as opposed to the YEC'ist flat earth and young earth.

You can reject the objective truth of an ancient earth and more ancient universe but then you would need to explain why the gods purposely lied to you about a 6,000 year old (round'ish) planet.

Could it be the gods have played a cruel joke on you?

 

[Hollie]

well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???

....so. I'm asking YOU NOW--final--give me a detailed creation theory--about a paragraph is ok
...also, if you believe in creation, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Energizer--which is a lot more unbelievable than evolution

I never said I did and is why I said "they" say its based on faith,,,

but the evos do claim one animal changing magically into another as a scientific fact with no proof,,,

so you don't or do believe a fully formed human just appeared/or ''came to be''/etc??

theres no proof one way or the other,,,just like theres no proof we came from primates or a sponge in the ocean,,,

“‘Look, he is coming with the clouds,’ and ‘every eye will see him, even those who pierced him’; and all peoples on earth ‘will mourn because of him.’ So shall it be! Amen.” Revelation 1:7

Jesus is Lord. The Bible says the proof for most people is after you die and "every eye will see him." It means everything will be settled on Earth.

That trumps the atheist who said everyone past, present, and future had to see the proof when it was already written down by God thousands of years ago.

ETA: I dunno, but could this mean that we won't be multi-planetary? Jesus is coming to the Earth as far as I know. People won't be able to escape him like they can't escape gravity.

Thats a scam that many religions pull: there are rewards (carnal pleasures) for behaviors that benefit those who are selling the religion.

You just agree to die as your part of the negotiations to secure those rewards. That tends to work well for the seller, (no customers coming back looking to void the contract), less well for the buyer.

 

[anynameyouwish]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

It was God as the architect and Jesus as the creator. It wasn't god. That is who got you so screwed. He is the sky fairy or "the prince of the power of the air.". You cannot help but pay homage to him and recognize him as "god."

god wants you to believe in singularity or an invisible particle with infinite temperature and infinite density can exist in nature. Math proves you cannot have infinite anything in this world because one can't divide by zero. For example, 5/5 = 1 or 5 x 1 = 5. That works. However, 5/0 = undefined. Because 5/0 = n, but n x 0 = 5 is impossible. Only God or the creator can divide by 0. This is the kind of things in nature that you don't understand. The "god of the world and prince of the power of the air" has fixed you but good.

"Only God or the creator can divide by 0."

no he can't.

because he doesn't exist

What doesn't exist is millions and billions of years old Earth. It would not last that long. We've already had a global flood and the evidence is there for deepest oceans and the highest mountains. Earth's surface is 3/4 water. There are buried underground civilizations and underwater ones, too. It means you will end up in a Lake of Fire for just insulting God. We know God can n x 0 = 5 because he can create 5 items so n x 0 + 5 = 5 . That works with anything, apples, oranges, eggs, atheists, creationists, etc.

It's hilarious that you claim God doesn't exist. It means you get the hot, hot, hot consequences. Why do you think burns are one of the most painful injuries? Also, why do people want to avoid pain in this world? Pain relief is the biggest selling drug. There is some good evidence right there.

I truly hope there is a god...

because if the god of the bible exists you and trump and limbaugh and hannity are all going to go join roger ailles in hell.

 

[progressive hunter]

well they do say its based on faith,,,

now lets look at the evolutionist theory,,,

they think that everything on the planet came from a rock and that T-rex magically turned into a chicken along with a whole list of other magical things and call it a scientific fact when ZERO evidence,,,

so which one do you think is nuts???

....so. I'm asking YOU NOW--final--give me a detailed creation theory--about a paragraph is ok
...also, if you believe in creation, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Energizer--which is a lot more unbelievable than evolution

I never said I did and is why I said "they" say its based on faith,,,

but the evos do claim one animal changing magically into another as a scientific fact with no proof,,,

so you don't or do believe a fully formed human just appeared/or ''came to be''/etc??

theres no proof one way or the other,,,just like theres no proof we came from primates or a sponge in the ocean,,,

....so you don't want to answer the question!!!!!!! = I know why you don't want to answer = you don't believe in creation

I did answer it,,,

 

[james bond]

..you have been brainwashed big time
''consequences''' hahahahahah--what would those be?
hahahhahahahahaha
I'M SO SCARED hahhahahahahahahahaha

The consequences are pain and suffering and reaping what you sow. The Lake of Fire does not sound pleasant at all. If you believe in millions and billions of years, then I think you learn about it first hand by watching a rock to see if it lasts that long. If it crumbles, then you get another to baby sit. That seems about your level. Fire and sulfur isn't good for Christians' health so following the greatest commandment is best for us ..

 

[james bond]

I truly hope there is a god...

because if the god of the bible exists you and trump and limbaugh and hannity are all going to go join roger ailles in hell.

There is a god, but that is "the god of the world and prince of the power of the air" or Satan. He's the one who has tricked you in going down the wrong path and believing what you believe. It's like you have to repent in order to shake it. Not an easy task. The righteous God gave you free will to choose and the commandment to not put false gods before him. The atheists and their scientists have put the fake science of evolution above him and it will mean doom for their religion and followers.

 

[james bond]

“‘Look, he is coming with the clouds,’ and ‘every eye will see him, even those who pierced him’; and all peoples on earth ‘will mourn because of him.’ So shall it be! Amen.” Revelation 1:7

Jesus is Lord. The Bible says the proof for most people is after you die and "every eye will see him." It means everything will be settled on Earth.

That trumps the atheist who said everyone past, present, and future had to see the proof when it was already written down by God thousands of years ago.

ETA: I dunno, but could this mean that we won't be multi-planetary? Jesus is coming to the Earth as far as I know. People won't be able to escape him like they can't escape gravity.

Thats a scam that many religions pull: there are rewards (carnal pleasures) for behaviors that benefit those who are selling the religion.

You just agree to die as your part of the negotiations to secure those rewards. That tends to work well for the seller, (no customers coming back looking to void the contract), less well for the buyer.

You're confusing Islam with Christianity. What I was discussing was the proof that harmonica and other atheists crave. All they have to do is repent and have faith in God, the real one. However, your god of the world, Satan, has led you down the wrong path and continues to trick you. Thus, I explained how God said already that the proof will be given on Earth after you die. It makes sense to me. While what you believe does not. Satan has screwed up your common sense faculties.

 

[Hollie]

“‘Look, he is coming with the clouds,’ and ‘every eye will see him, even those who pierced him’; and all peoples on earth ‘will mourn because of him.’ So shall it be! Amen.” Revelation 1:7

Jesus is Lord. The Bible says the proof for most people is after you die and "every eye will see him." It means everything will be settled on Earth.

That trumps the atheist who said everyone past, present, and future had to see the proof when it was already written down by God thousands of years ago.

ETA: I dunno, but could this mean that we won't be multi-planetary? Jesus is coming to the Earth as far as I know. People won't be able to escape him like they can't escape gravity.

Thats a scam that many religions pull: there are rewards (carnal pleasures) for behaviors that benefit those who are selling the religion.

You just agree to die as your part of the negotiations to secure those rewards. That tends to work well for the seller, (no customers coming back looking to void the contract), less well for the buyer.

You're confusing Islam with Christianity. What I was discussing was the proof that harmonica and other atheists crave. All they have to do is repent and have faith in God, the real one. However, your god of the world, Satan, has led you down the wrong path and continues to trick you. Thus, I explained how God said already that the proof will be given on Earth after you die. It makes sense to me. While what you believe does not. Satan has screwed up your common sense faculties.

You have made no case that your gods are the real gods. Like the overwhelming majority of religionists, you simply accepted the gods of convenience which are the culturally predominant gods. If you were Hindu, you would be throwing your Hindu gods at me.

It’s pretty simple. Your religion and your gods are mere happenstance - a matter of parentage and place of birth.

 

[Andylusion]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Well we agree on one thing.... you have theories. Lots of theories. Tons of unprovable, unsupportable, never ending, and many not even scientifically accurate theories.

But you do have theories. So I will grant you that.

it has a lot more facts than the creationists' ''theory'' , that's for sure

And that is a statement which ironically, is entirely opinion.

 

[harmonica]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing

Well we agree on one thing.... you have theories. Lots of theories. Tons of unprovable, unsupportable, never ending, and many not even scientifically accurate theories.

But you do have theories. So I will grant you that.

it has a lot more facts than the creationists' ''theory'' , that's for sure

And that is a statement which ironically, is entirely opinion.

evolution deals with DNA/etc--those are facts
please--please give me the facts of creation of man