Zone1 God Explained

[ding]

That's because..........the Big Bang is dismissed by the laws of physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed...........from NOTHING. If nothing is what you have........nothing is all that you will ever have. -0- x-0- = What? Your big bang? Can't stand to have your ass handed to you by the Laws of Physics?

For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the created rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Romans 1:19-25

 

[Clyde 154]

You've just falsified the big bang theory. I'm sure dozens of people around the world agree with you.

Truth/facts do no depend upon the personal opinions of others. Applied Science does not require a "Consensus" opinion........it simply requires the support of the Laws of Physics. Again..........present the experiment that proves the Big Bang "idea/theory" to be a fact supported by the Laws of Physics. Where did the Cosmic Egg........that exploded come from? When there is no physical observations possible, Prima Facie evidences are now considered.........until the objective evidences that prove different are introduced. Thus far........the creation model found in the book of Genesis offers far more Priam Facie support than does the idea/theory that NOTHING caused the energy resulting in the Big Bang.

Is the theory of the Big Bang.........supported by any prima facie evidence beyond the reason of doubt........Hardly. The Law of Causality more than falsifies the Big Bang.........one does not have to search beyond the Laws of Physics to doubt the theory of a self creating universe. Present the Law of Physics that disproves creation via design instead of CHAOS as suggested by all those who blindly support evolution from nothing. This like suggesting that all you need do is detonate a thermonuclear devise to create something instead of destroying the basic elements that surround the detonation. What? If the cities of Hiroshima/Nagasaki are left alone for billions of years.......this chaotic destruction will result in the formation/evolution of human life? Facts of nature/physics have the tendency to repeat themselves in a consistent manner. Theories do not possess the facts to be called a LAW. Thus, you will not find the Law of Evolution.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. You skipped a couple of points. Which effectively means you think those points support my assertion.

The universe popping into existence hardwired to produce intelligence is so improbable that it could have only been intentional.

No need to discuss every silly point.

 

[ding]

No need to discuss every silly point.

Do you even listen to yourself?

 

[BULLDOG]

The cosmic background radiation which are the remnants of massive amounts of mutually annihilated paired particles is the best evidence of the universe popping into existence.

I am unaware of that particular theory. I suppose there might be something to it, but not being any more informed than you are, I'll rely on the thoughts of those who are experts in the field over some anonymous poster.

 

[ding]

I am unaware of that particular theory. I suppose there might be something to it, but not being any more informed than you are, I'll rely on the thoughts of those who are experts in the field over some anonymous poster.

I am extremely more informed than you.

And clearly you are not relying on the experts if you believe the universe did not pop into existence.

 

[BULLDOG]

I am extremely more informed than you.

And clearly you are not relying on the experts if you believe the universe did not pop into existence.

I'm not sure how the big bang theory differs from the pop into existance theory you mention. Perhaps you are right. When the experts in the field come to a consensus, and make it clear what that consensus is, I will certainly give them more credence than any other source I can think of right now.

 

[BreezeWood]

According to the Laws that govern this physical reality there must have been a beginning point.

there are equilibrium's and cyclical events there need not have ever been a beginning.

 

[BreezeWood]

Rather than arguing against the universe being created from nothing, you should be arguing for it. As it perfectly matches the account in Genesis.

- not everyone is so gullible to use a fallacy to support a fallacy ... except maybe clyde.

 

[ding]

I'm not sure how the big bang theory differs from the pop into existance theory you mention. Perhaps you are right. When the experts in the field come to a consensus, and make it clear what that consensus is, I will certainly give them more credence than any other source I can think of right now.

They have. I just explained it to you.

 

[BreezeWood]

They have. I just explained it to you.

is it called the genesis bang .... from nothing.

 

[there4eyeM]

Agreed. The Big Bang theory is based upon "hearsay"........so is the The Theory of Evolution. Neither can be proven as a fact according to the Laws of Physics. Thus......the pseudo science called theoretical science...... The 1st rule of real science is "observation", the next rule of science, facts are "reproducible" via application of consistent experimentation. A Theory is simply "philosophy" dressed up like science. Just as Carl Sagan quoted, "theoretical science" is a WAY OF THINKING.

Who directly experienced the BIG BANG.........the FIRST EXAMPLE of life evolving from dead matter, Who experienced the creation of the earth, the moon or the stars?

Theoretical Science at best........is based upon nothing but Prima Facie evidence, but somehow forbids those who believe in creation from basing their faith upon Prima Facie evidence. Strange indeed.

The "big bang" is based upon what can now be observed from that event, so it is direct experience, just not complete and admits as much.

 

[there4eyeM]

We absolutely do know the universe popped into existence and we absolutely do know it is hardwired to produce intelligence. You keep crying for evidence of God, well here it is.

There may have been a point at which the "universe" suddenly began and there may be some pre-existent source of all that. Jumping in with the undefined term "God" in order to label that possibility may be comforting, but can hardly be expected to be accepted by others. Above all, this is because the term has been so poorly used for so long that it hardly has significant usefulness. In fact, what we witness as the common concept of "God" has more similarity to Father Christmas than an author of all and everything.

 

[ding]

There may have been a point at which the "universe" suddenly began and there may be some pre-existent source of all that. Jumping in with the undefined term "God" in order to label that possibility may be comforting, but can hardly be expected to be accepted by others. Above all, this is because the term has been so poorly used for so long that it hardly has significant usefulness. In fact, what we witness as the common concept of "God" has more similarity to Father Christmas than an author of all and everything.

The implausibility of a universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence is more than "jumping in with the undefined term "God." It is an indication of intention.

But let me define "God" for you so that there is no confusion when I use this term. God is transcendent; incorporeal. God is every extant attribute of reality. God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness, infinite goodness and every other extant reality of existence. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes.

God gives reality to the universe, and makes it not merely a hypothetical or possible universe, but an actually existing universe. He does not supply energy, as a match does to an explosive, he supplies reality. God supplies this reality equally to every part of the universe — all events at all times and places.

So, no. My perception of God isn't anything at all like Father Christmas.

God is "Mind" or "Consciousness without form." The physical world is composed of mind stuff. It's the constant presence of mind which created a life breeding universe so that beings that know and create would arise.

 

[BreezeWood]

"jumping in with the undefined term "God." It is an indication of intention.

least we forget ...

primordial earth -

is not the origin of life for its own environment rather became so from the universe over millennia of time and began as simple molecules that evolved eventually into a metaphysical, physiological substance defined by its own unique spiritual content that causes the physiology to dissipate when removed.

as defined the universe itself is the origin of life and is heavenly polytheistic for its metaphysical components regardless a pinnacle of all that matters.

- and has never spoken to a desert dweller or anyone else.

 

[there4eyeM]

The implausibility of a universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence is more than "jumping in with the undefined term "God." It is an indication of intention.

But let me define "God" for you so that there is no confusion when I use this term. God is transcendent; incorporeal. God is every extant attribute of reality. God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness, infinite goodness and every other extant reality of existence. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes.

God gives reality to the universe, and makes it not merely a hypothetical or possible universe, but an actually existing universe. He does not supply energy, as a match does to an explosive, he supplies reality. God supplies this reality equally to every part of the universe — all events at all times and places.

So, no. My perception of God isn't anything at all like Father Christmas.

God is "Mind" or "Consciousness without form." The physical world is composed of mind stuff. It's the constant presence of mind which created a life breeding universe so that beings that know and create would arise.

The definition of "God" is interesting. How it jibes with Christian trinitarian doctrine is unclear.
The first statement of the post is a huge ontological jump. One must project human concepts of plausibility onto the situation and then accept that intention is inherent.

 

[Clyde 154]

there are equilibrium's and cyclical events there need not have ever been a beginning.

Simply prove your hypothesis via applying the Laws of Physics........or not. OR NOT will be your choice, because you can't sustain your claim by application of factual LAW.
Why do you never prove your statements? You can't. The Laws of Physics state....with no ambiguity......your stated hypothesis is falsified by the physical Law of Causality...aka, the Law of Cause and Effect. All things physical require a CAUSE. This Law has never been falsified.

The Law of Causality states: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous Cause. The Universe is a material effect that requires, by its physical nature, an adequate Cause to the effect known as the physical universe. You cannot provide a Cause to the effect known as the Physical Universe.....thus your subjective BS retort based upon Nothing objectively provable. Attempting to declare the existence of eternal "perpetual self sustained energy". The Universe "must be" eternal....really?

Another assumption/conjecture......falsified by the Laws of Physics. Physical Law, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the Universe, matter and energy is in a state of decay, its exhausting energy, not self regenerating energy. Hell.........even your theory about radioactive decay in dating, falsifies your BS. What you are suggesting with your subjective hypothesis is much akin to the false idea that the universe is basically a "perpetual self fueling physical machine".

Simply present your evidence of any perpetual machine having ever existed in this reality. Attempt to suggest this idea to anyone who is the least bit educated in the Laws of Applied Science.......they will laugh in your FACE.


There can be only ONE answer provided by Logic and Reason. The Physical Universe had a Superior (to nature) Supernatural CAUSE. The reason that the physical laws that govern this universe can't explain their own origins..........the inferior can never supercede the superior. There are no such animals as Super Natural Laws.......thus the natural can't quantify or measure the supernatural.

 

[ding]

The definition of "God" is interesting. How it jibes with Christian trinitarian doctrine is unclear.
The first statement of the post is a huge ontological jump. One must project human concepts of plausibility onto the situation and then accept that intention is inherent.

It jibes pretty well with trinitarian doctrine; God is truth, God is love.

Everything about this universe screams purpose and intent. So, no, it is not a huge leap. Life and intelligence are literally written into the fabric of matter; i.e. the structure of matter.

Plausibility or potential are not human constructs; they exist independent of man much like logic and truth exist independent of man.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Law of Causality states: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous Cause.

sort-of ... not so for holio's genesis bang ... kiss of jesus.

writing a novel isn't the priority for everyone to post a reply, try it someday - clyde.

- the cyclical bb transfers matter to energy and energy to matter as an absolute, cyclical rotation through the intermediary - moment of singularity ... thus the bang when the transfer is from energy to matter - than the compaction of matter to energy.

 

[Clyde 154]

sort-of ... not so for holio's genesis bang ... kiss of jesus.

writing a novel isn't the priority for everyone to post a reply, try it someday - clyde.

- the cyclical bb transfers matter to energy and energy to matter as an absolute, cyclical rotation through the intermediary - moment of singularity ... thus the bang when the transfer is from energy to matter - than the compaction of matter to energy.

Writing? You, most likely have read some of my by-lines.......in ignorance.

So............you do accept the universe as being created by a Super Natural Cause..........you have no Objective Facts or Laws of Physics that refutes the Creation narrative in Genesis?

Again.......a simple question, another BS hypothesis falsified by the Laws of Physics? Cyclical BB TRANSFER of Matter into Energy? What caused the "effect" you are speculating about.......where did the MATTER come from? Nowhere/Nothing? LMAO Again.......you don't accept the Laws of Thermodynamics?

If you are going to parrot information from the WWW..........at least parrot something that does not self contradict. You can have thousands, millions, billions of CIRCLES in your hypothesis (circular logic)..........but there had to be a CAUSE for the 1st CYCLICAL effect. Who or what CAUSED this first event out of the billions? You are suggesting that the Laws of Physics do not apply to your logic? Is this not a belief in something SUPER (superior) to Natural (nature)? You have just confessed to believing in the SUPERNATURAL.....if the Laws of Physics do not apply.

When did you OBSERVE this cyclical effect? Let me speculate, offer some conjecture that explains your gift of being able to parrot information from the net. Astral Projection. You projected your essence a supposed billions of years.......some 13 billion years in the past and viewed the big bang taking place......right after you watched the last universe implode......creating a new cosmic egg of energy from its mass? Again the question is...........Can you provide the objective, reproducible, consistent facts in evidence to declare the BB or Darwinism as LAWS of PHYSICS? WWW. parroting of idea's do not count as facts in evidence.......its PHILOSOPHY pretending to be factual. A way of thinking.........in your case........CIRCULAR.