Zone1 “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”

[Dante]

Well, as a scientist who started out in life an atheist until I had God proven to and shown to me, and since I understand the linked article doesn't really offer their proof (have to buy the book), let me say this in a way easy to follow:

1. Nothing in the universe is eternal.

There exist theories that challenge that statement

The main theory proposing an eternal universe is the Steady State Theory, which suggests the universe is unchanging and timeless, with new matter continuously created to balance expansion. Other cosmological frameworks that allow for an eternal universe include the Cyclic Universe model, where the universe undergoes infinite expansions and contractions, and the concept of an eternal inflation within a multiverse

 

[Dante]

Well, as a scientist who started out in life an atheist until I had God proven to and shown to me, and since I understand the linked article doesn't really offer their proof (have to buy the book), let me say this in a way easy to follow:

• The cause of the universe is God.

I guess as a supposed scientist you can prove this to be true or give a scientific theory to back it up.

 

[Leo123]

Just science

What 'science' has created a living cell from primordial conditions? No one has EVER been able to make a living cell so how could the Universe come from nothing? Explain the mechanism. You can't. Even a living cell has thousands of mechanisms that work together which has obviously been designed, like the rest of our Universe.

 

[DonGlock26]

Are you even capable of what a scientific theory is and isn't?

Are you just going to cut and paste today?

 

[DonGlock26]

I guess as a supposed scientist you can prove this to be true or give a scientific theory to back it up.

You already have the Big Bang theory and DNA.

 

[Dante]

What 'science' has created a living cell from primordial conditions? No one has EVER been able to make a living cell so how could the Universe come from nothing? Explain the mechanism. You can't. Even a living cell has thousands of mechanisms that work together which has obviously been designed, like the rest of our Universe.

Take a science course somewhere.

We have observed the CMB:
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is residual radio energy left over from the early universe, an echo of the Big Bang that permeates all of space. This low-energy microwave radiation is the oldest light in the universe, emitted about 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled enough to become transparent. Its uniform temperature, with tiny variations, provides strong evidence for the Big Bang theory and is used by scientists to study the universe's composition and early history


With our current understanding of things (think of discoveries at CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC)) we are testing things. What we are finding and actually not finding is opening up new fields of research.


You mention "cells?"
Now we know:
Cells contain protons and electrons, which are subatomic particles that form atoms, the building blocks of all matter, including the biomolecules that make up cells. Protons are positively charged and, along with neutral neutrons, form the dense nucleus of an atom. Negatively charged electrons orbit this nucleus and are essential for chemical bonding and the cell's various biological processes

 

[Dekster]

"Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues



A book by two French authors that challenges a longstanding academic consensus is being published in Britain next week


In a striking challenge to the academic consensus, two French authors, Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies, argue that the latest scientific theories lead to only one logical conclusion: an all-powerful deity created the universe and all life within it.


The materialist narrative for the beginnings of the universe and life on earth is so full of holes, he and Bonnassies argue, that every modern scientific advance increases the strength of the case that a “creator” is the only rational explanation."

Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues

A book by two French authors that challenges a longstanding academic consensus is being published in Britain next week

www.thetimes.com

This is an interesting article about a new book. The authors are not the only people seeing evidnce in a creator in the Big Bang and DNA and the complexity of cellular bio-machines.
Back in the 19th century, materialists had Darwin's theory of evolution and a static universe model to support their beliefs.
But today, we have an expanding universe coming from a singularity and DNA storing complex data which points to a creator.

You (and he) can make whatever assumptions you want, but you will never have an answer while on this earth at least. That reality exists, however, does not imply anything other than reality exists.

 

[Dante]

You (and he) can make whatever assumptions you want, but you will never have an answer while on this earth at least. That reality exists, however, does not imply anything other than reality exists.

Who says It's a "he?"

 

[Dante]

Good gawd, back 7 years ago:

Ancient black hole lights up early universe​

16 February 2018

 

[Foxfyre]

"Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues



A book by two French authors that challenges a longstanding academic consensus is being published in Britain next week


In a striking challenge to the academic consensus, two French authors, Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies, argue that the latest scientific theories lead to only one logical conclusion: an all-powerful deity created the universe and all life within it.


The materialist narrative for the beginnings of the universe and life on earth is so full of holes, he and Bonnassies argue, that every modern scientific advance increases the strength of the case that a “creator” is the only rational explanation."

Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues

A book by two French authors that challenges a longstanding academic consensus is being published in Britain next week

www.thetimes.com

This is an interesting article about a new book. The authors are not the only people seeing evidnce in a creator in the Big Bang and DNA and the complexity of cellular bio-machines.
Back in the 19th century, materialists had Darwin's theory of evolution and a static universe model to support their beliefs.
But today, we have an expanding universe coming from a singularity and DNA storing complex data which points to a creator.

Well the universe either had a beginning or it has always existed and there is no such thing as a 'beginning' for it. If it began at some point there is the question of how which no human alive has the scientific knowledge to even begin to fathom. All they can do is come up with myriad 'scientific sounding' hypotheses with no means to test them.

If it has always been here, it does not rule out Spinoza's and Einstein's perceptions that random chance for so many things exceeds all reasonable odds of probability, and there is some kind of cosmic intelligence in the whole of it that is guiding the process.

Either way, big boss or vast cosmic intelligence, we have a reasonable argument for intelligent design.

 

[DonGlock26]

Well the universe either had a beginning or it has always existed and there is no such thing as a 'beginning' for it. If it began at some point there is the question of how which no human alive has the scientific knowledge to even begin to fathom. All they can do is come up with myriad 'scientific sounding' hypotheses with no means to test them.

If it has always been here, it does not rule out Spinoza's and Einstein's perceptions that random chance for so many things exceeds all reasonable odds of probability, and there is some kind of cosmic intelligence in the whole of it that is guiding the process.

Either way, big boss or vast cosmic intelligence, we have a reasonable argument for intelligent design.

A static universe pointed towards no need for a creator. The expansion of the universe disproved that. Darwin’s theory pointed towards no need for a creator. DNA and the complexity of the cell points toward design.

 

[Dante]

Are you just going to cut and paste today?

It is not all a c&p and it is inevitable to c&p when passing on what is already known

 

[DonGlock26]

Take a science course somewhere.

We have observed the CMB:
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is residual radio energy left over from the early universe, an echo of the Big Bang that permeates all of space. This low-energy microwave radiation is the oldest light in the universe, emitted about 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled enough to become transparent. Its uniform temperature, with tiny variations, provides strong evidence for the Big Bang theory and is used by scientists to study the universe's composition and early history


With our current understanding of things (think of discoveries at CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC)) we are testing things. What we are finding and actually not finding is opening up new fields of research.


You mention "cells?"
Now we know:
Cells contain protons and electrons, which are subatomic particles that form atoms, the building blocks of all matter, including the biomolecules that make up cells. Protons are positively charged and, along with neutral neutrons, form the dense nucleus of an atom. Negatively charged electrons orbit this nucleus and are essential for chemical bonding and the cell's various biological processes

CMB proves the Big Bang theory.

 

[Dante]

Well the universe either had a beginning or it has always existed and there is no such thing as a 'beginning' for it. If it began at some point there is the question of how which no human alive has the scientific knowledge to even begin to fathom. All they can do is come up with myriad 'scientific sounding' hypotheses with no means to test them.

If it has always been here, it does not rule out Spinoza's and Einstein's perceptions that random chance for so many things exceeds all reasonable odds of probability, and there is some kind of cosmic intelligence in the whole of it that is guiding the process.

Either way, big boss or vast cosmic intelligence, we have a reasonable argument for intelligent design.

Confusing or conflating theories and hypotheses? Science deniers are so simple minded.

Intelligent design is lacking intelligence and it's design is as flawed as a house of cards

 

[Dante]

CMB proves the Big Bang theory.

Does it really? Fully?

 

[DonGlock26]

You (and he) can make whatever assumptions you want, but you will never have an answer while on this earth at least. That reality exists, however, does not imply anything other than reality exists.

I look at it as a pendulum. The BB and DNA swung it towards creation.

 

[DonGlock26]

It is not all a c&p and it is inevitable to c&p when passing on what is already known

You’ve just been cut and pasting.

 

[DonGlock26]

Does it really? Fully?

Read your own post.

 

[Dekster]

I look at it as a pendulum. The BB and DNA swung it towards creation.

I look at it as I will never know the unknowable and am okay with that. Time is a purely human construct in which beginning and endings are measured. We are conditioned to look for patterns and call it "design". Even science is predicated on human observation. It would be impossible for us to strip the human out of our viewpoint. I say what I always say, if religion has value and adds to your life, go for it; if not, then don't. Totally up to each person.

 

[Darkwind]

Well, as a scientist who started out in life an atheist until I had God proven to and shown to me, and since I understand the linked article doesn't really offer their proof (have to buy the book), let me say this in a way easy to follow:

1. Nothing in the universe is eternal. Even light suffers entropy.
2. Anything that has an ending had a beginning.
3. If everything in the universe has an ending, then the universe had to have a beginning.
4. Nothing exists without a cause. Something caused everything in the universe that exists, to be there.
5. The universe is full of mind, consciousness and intelligence, as proven by mankind.
6. There is no known process whereby consciousness comes from unconsciousness, and intelligence comes from mindlessness, therefore, all finite qualities in the universe (including mind, consciousness and intelligence) had to have been caused/created/begun by some unlimited fount for these qualities.
7. The cause of anything is deemed to have created it. Since the universe was created, it too had to have some cause. Since the universe is intelligent, then the supreme cause of the universe must have been supremely intelligent too.
8. Take away the mind, the consciousness, the wisdom, and the cause of the universe could be some inert action--- a hiccup in the branes between two different dimensions--- but when you add in the MIND, you now have a mindful creator with a purpose--- ie: God.

• The cause of the universe is God.
• God must be a supreme personality with an unlimited mind since he has given a very finite piece of his personality and consciousness to us.

There is a 'first mover' theory that is applied to Newton's law of motion.

In a perfect vacuum:

The law of motion states that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an outside force. It also states that an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

In the Beginning....


Nothing moved. There was nothing—the perfect void.


The universe is in constant motion, and utilizing the logic you clearly laid out, there had to be an outside force that acted upon the universe and put it in motion.

Science.