Multiverse Fantasy (Goofiness Feigning Science)

[Mac1958]

Well, you're certainly entitled to believe that.

I don't claim to know The Answer. I'm definitely excited to see what we learn along the way.

But I still have my life to live and enjoy what I can.

OTOH, you believe in the Antibible. I do think Satan wrote one because it disagrees with everything that God ever said. For example, in this thread we have one universe vs. multiple universes. Wouldn't you say that those who came up with the multiverse didn't get together to say we're just going to contradict the Bible or God's word? Instead, they came up with it on their own?

I can say, with absolute certainty, that I have absolutely no idea.

Universe, Multiverse, Heaven, Hell, who knows. I probably won't in my lifetime, and I'm okay with that.
.

 

[james bond]

Well, you're certainly entitled to believe that.

I don't claim to know The Answer. I'm definitely excited to see what we learn along the way.

But I still have my life to live and enjoy what I can.

OTOH, you believe in the Antibible. I do think Satan wrote one because it disagrees with everything that God ever said. For example, in this thread we have one universe vs. multiple universes. Wouldn't you say that those who came up with the multiverse didn't get together to say we're just going to contradict the Bible or God's word? Instead, they came up with it on their own?

I can say, with absolute certainty, that I have absolutely no idea.

Universe, Multiverse, Heaven, Hell, who knows. I probably won't in my lifetime, and I'm okay with that.
.

Have you read the Bible? I don't think you have or if you have, then did not understand it. Maybe you didn't care to understand history, but for whatever reason you are here in this forum. Thus, you believe something, or have a worldview. What you believe is an afterlife, no afterlife, or maybe you're just que sera sera I don't know.

Here is what one of favorite people said for those in your situation. Just replace atheist with agnostic since you aren't a believer or one with faith in a religion:

 

[Mac1958]

Well, you're certainly entitled to believe that.

I don't claim to know The Answer. I'm definitely excited to see what we learn along the way.

But I still have my life to live and enjoy what I can.

OTOH, you believe in the Antibible. I do think Satan wrote one because it disagrees with everything that God ever said. For example, in this thread we have one universe vs. multiple universes. Wouldn't you say that those who came up with the multiverse didn't get together to say we're just going to contradict the Bible or God's word? Instead, they came up with it on their own?

I can say, with absolute certainty, that I have absolutely no idea.

Universe, Multiverse, Heaven, Hell, who knows. I probably won't in my lifetime, and I'm okay with that.
.

Have you read the Bible? I don't think you have or if you have, then did not understand it. Maybe you didn't care to understand history, but for whatever reason you are here in this forum. Thus, you believe something, or have a worldview. What you believe is an afterlife, no afterlife, or maybe you're just que sera sera I don't know.

Here is what one of favorite said for those in your situation. Just replace atheist with agnostic since you aren't a believer or one with faith in a religion:
View attachment 305922

I'm not an Atheist. They claim to have The Answer, too. That kind of thinking seems egotistical to me.

I'm agnostic. I admit that I don't know. And that's about it.
.

 

[james bond]

Well, you're certainly entitled to believe that.

I don't claim to know The Answer. I'm definitely excited to see what we learn along the way.

But I still have my life to live and enjoy what I can.

OTOH, you believe in the Antibible. I do think Satan wrote one because it disagrees with everything that God ever said. For example, in this thread we have one universe vs. multiple universes. Wouldn't you say that those who came up with the multiverse didn't get together to say we're just going to contradict the Bible or God's word? Instead, they came up with it on their own?

I can say, with absolute certainty, that I have absolutely no idea.

Universe, Multiverse, Heaven, Hell, who knows. I probably won't in my lifetime, and I'm okay with that.
.

Have you read the Bible? I don't think you have or if you have, then did not understand it. Maybe you didn't care to understand history, but for whatever reason you are here in this forum. Thus, you believe something, or have a worldview. What you believe is an afterlife, no afterlife, or maybe you're just que sera sera I don't know.

Here is what one of favorite said for those in your situation. Just replace atheist with agnostic since you aren't a believer or one with faith in a religion:
View attachment 305922

I'm not an Atheist. They claim to have The Answer, too. That kind of thinking seems egotistical to me.

I'm agnostic. I admit that I don't know. And that's about it.
.

Well, Christians are ones who want to get to heaven and to do this one has to follow Jesus. We know this because of the Bible or God's autobiography was discovered. At first, we did not know and understand why we were here. Why is the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here? From there, people noticed how things worked on Earth and sometimes if things did not go there way, such as their crops coming in, then they would suffer. That they could die. They started to believe there was a power beyond humans. OTOH, there was a small group of people, you mentioned the word tribes, a tribe of people who did not believe in anything. Today, we seem to have the believers with their different religions and the atheists or non-believers seem to have risen in terms of their religion to explain a different way from the narrow gate vs wide gate (pearly gates of heaven) philosophy. There are no gates or no afterlife. Yet, that is not where the evidence is despite their teachings of uniformitarianism, ToE, or evolutionary thinking and history.

To me, Christians know there is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ. He is the metaphorical door and narrow gate. His way is difficult is we have to repent for our sins. You being a creature of sin that falls prey to temptation is evidence for God.

The other ways do not have the same reward despite claims of it. The atheist way disavows any of the paths and rewards, so it doesn't matter. The same with the agnostics. I don't know may as well be an ignorant path as it won't lead to heaven either. Jesus taught in the Book of Matthew that laziness, sluggishness, and not doing due diligence will lead to poverty. Agnoticism is that way. Anyway, good day.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, you're certainly entitled to believe that.

I don't claim to know The Answer. I'm definitely excited to see what we learn along the way.

But I still have my life to live and enjoy what I can.

OTOH, you believe in the Antibible. I do think Satan wrote one because it disagrees with everything that God ever said. For example, in this thread we have one universe vs. multiple universes. Wouldn't you say that those who came up with the multiverse didn't get together to say we're just going to contradict the Bible or God's word? Instead, they came up with it on their own?

I can say, with absolute certainty, that I have absolutely no idea.

Universe, Multiverse, Heaven, Hell, who knows. I probably won't in my lifetime, and I'm okay with that.
.

Have you read the Bible? I don't think you have or if you have, then did not understand it. Maybe you didn't care to understand history, but for whatever reason you are here in this forum. Thus, you believe something, or have a worldview. What you believe is an afterlife, no afterlife, or maybe you're just que sera sera I don't know.

Here is what one of favorite said for those in your situation. Just replace atheist with agnostic since you aren't a believer or one with faith in a religion:
View attachment 305922

I'm not an Atheist. They claim to have The Answer, too. That kind of thinking seems egotistical to me.

I'm agnostic. I admit that I don't know. And that's about it.
.

Well, Christians are ones who want to get to heaven and to do this one has to follow Jesus. We know this because of the Bible or God's autobiography was discovered..

ooh I am fascinated by this.

How was the Bible discovered?

 

[Questioner]

http://MultiverseFantasy.wordpress.com

The Eye of God

Helix Nebula NGC 7293

Only a few decades ago, Christophobes (atheists) claimed that the universe is SO LARGE that no creator would possibly have gone to such trouble and wasted so many resources to make this entire universe just for the benefit of us pathetic humans here on earth. It was preposterous, inconceivable, they said.

Now, exactly the opposite argument is being made, in order to counter advances in science. The Multiverse, *scientists* tell us, can counter the insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, which examines forty or more physical constants which are exquisitely precise, much to mankind's benefit. The physical constants are precise to an extent that would be statistically impossible without a Designer. Hence God's deniers came up with their fantasmagoric Multiverse.

______________________________________

Light is extraordinarily fast, 186,000 miles per second (871,875 times faster than sound). This not only makes radio communications virtually instant anywhere on the earth, but it also helps us see our surroundings in real time, unlike hearing. Moreover the energy derived from solar fusion is likewise extraordinarily high, proportional to the square of the speed of light. Slower light would mean much, much colder earth. Contrast this value for c with the speed of sound, a paltry 768 miles per hour. It is slow enough that we can hear the direction from which sounds originate. We can also enjoy music in stereo, only because our ears can differentiate between tiny differences in the time sounds arrive at one ear versus the other - differences as small as 1/10,000th of a second. Fine tuning of values for the electromagnetic constant, the electron-proton mass and charge ratios, strong and weak nuclear forces, among many others, defy naturalistic explanation. And so, intellectuals argue (with straight faces) that there must surely be an infinite number of "multiverses," all of which have different values for all these physical constants, and we just happen to be in the *right* universe, permitting our very existence.

Thus *intellectuals* have gone from one extreme, that our universe is much too large for any creator to have bothered with it, to the other, multiverses, an infinite number of universes. Most of them are like the three bears' porridge of the Goldilocks story, either too hot or too cold. Our universe happens to be just right. Just so science.

The gravitational constant is precise to within one part in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power. Who determined this impossible precision? Why it just picked itself, we are told. How simple.

[By way of comparison, the universe is comprised of ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles. If you had fifteen spheres the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, full of sand, and there were one and only one chance to select a unique and specially marked grain in these fifteen solar systems full of sand, the probability of a man in a vehicle capable of navigating in the sand without any windows or any way of seeing his surroundings, would have to pick that grain on his first and only try. That is 1 chance in 10 to the 50th, my definition of "impossible." Compare that to the gravitational constant, precise to one part in 10 to the 1 followed by 120 zeroes.]

PROBLEM: The universe could not have created itself, from absolutely nothing. That would violate the first law and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes.

In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.

Clausius also stated the law in another form, referring to the existence of a function of state of the system, the internal energy, and expressed it in terms of a differential equation for the increments of a thermodynamic process. This equation may described as follows:

In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.

where delta E is the total energy of the universe, Q is the change in heat, and W is the change in work.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
How these values instantaneously changed from nonexistent to incomprehensibly massive has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.

PROBLEM: The second law of thermodynamics, as expressed by Rudolf Clausius:
The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium —the state of maximum entropy.
In other words, the entropy, or disorder, of a closed system constantly increases. Chaos can only increase within a closed system. The pretense of orderliness increasing dramatically after the Big Bang, to produce stars, planets, heat and light is the largest conceivable violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But who made these laws? Wellll, we are told, they simply made themselves. Talk about convenient.
How matter, energy, organization, elegance, physical laws, and the profound fortuitous interdependences which embrace and nurture mankind, moved uphill, against the forces of entropic degradation, has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.


The God Particle

Clearly this creation we call the universe had a creator, who is forever outside the purview of science. This is because science is restricted to what we can observe, understand, quantify, and explain. Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University, gave a lecture titled A Matter of Gravity. Professor Lennox elegantly responded to Richard Dawkins' clever ploy of asking "Who made God?" Said Lennox, "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He."
Precisely.
You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.
Alternative A is, shall we say, distasteful, unconvincing, and largely offered only because its proponents have an illogical aversion to Alternative B, which is at once elegant and compelling if incomprehensible. But then again, we are truly surrounded by things that are at the threshold of incomprehensibility, like invisible waves of varying types (frequencies) flying through the air, to our computers, smart phones, televisions, radios, ears, eyes, and grass.

Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University

TL;DR

Just another thread about pop scientism feigning "science"

Most of the actual scientific theories during the course of their development, whether Newton's or Einsteins would have been labeled "fantasies" or "goofiness" by the stupidity and bad logic of the 100 IQ, 6th grade reading level idiots merely mindlessly regurgitating what already "is" science according to popsci mass media and propaganda, rather then the qualities and processes by which it and the thinkers responsible for it worked and enabled it to become science to begin with.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I'm not an Atheist. They claim to have The Answer, too. That kind of thinking seems egotistical to me.
I'm agnostic. I admit that I don't know. And that's about it.
.

1. Make an educated guess based on what you do know. How hard is it to choose.
Nothing made everything, or Nature's God, specifically cited in our Declaration of Independence, made everything.
2. Doctors don't always know for sure, but they proceed based on what they see, and are overwhelmingly correct.
3. Seek answers from those intending to help you understand what you do not know.

A good friend of mine was a college atheist. His friend said "I pray you do not rest until you have seen the truth." That sent my friend on a quest for the truth. He was uneasy until he did discover.

Read any book you wish, from the hateful tirades of Richard Dawkins, to the reasoning of scholars as in The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell.

Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn and The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.

The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski.

I promise you compelling perspectives and insights you have never before considered or read.

I have extensive notes on every one of these books, and many more besides.

Wisdom exceedeth folly as far as light excelleth darkness. - The Holy Bible

 

[Vastator]

http://MultiverseFantasy.wordpress.com

The Eye of God

Helix Nebula NGC 7293

Only a few decades ago, Christophobes (atheists) claimed that the universe is SO LARGE that no creator would possibly have gone to such trouble and wasted so many resources to make this entire universe just for the benefit of us pathetic humans here on earth. It was preposterous, inconceivable, they said.

Now, exactly the opposite argument is being made, in order to counter advances in science. The Multiverse, *scientists* tell us, can counter the insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, which examines forty or more physical constants which are exquisitely precise, much to mankind's benefit. The physical constants are precise to an extent that would be statistically impossible without a Designer. Hence God's deniers came up with their fantasmagoric Multiverse.

______________________________________

Light is extraordinarily fast, 186,000 miles per second (871,875 times faster than sound). This not only makes radio communications virtually instant anywhere on the earth, but it also helps us see our surroundings in real time, unlike hearing. Moreover the energy derived from solar fusion is likewise extraordinarily high, proportional to the square of the speed of light. Slower light would mean much, much colder earth. Contrast this value for c with the speed of sound, a paltry 768 miles per hour. It is slow enough that we can hear the direction from which sounds originate. We can also enjoy music in stereo, only because our ears can differentiate between tiny differences in the time sounds arrive at one ear versus the other - differences as small as 1/10,000th of a second. Fine tuning of values for the electromagnetic constant, the electron-proton mass and charge ratios, strong and weak nuclear forces, among many others, defy naturalistic explanation. And so, intellectuals argue (with straight faces) that there must surely be an infinite number of "multiverses," all of which have different values for all these physical constants, and we just happen to be in the *right* universe, permitting our very existence.

Thus *intellectuals* have gone from one extreme, that our universe is much too large for any creator to have bothered with it, to the other, multiverses, an infinite number of universes. Most of them are like the three bears' porridge of the Goldilocks story, either too hot or too cold. Our universe happens to be just right. Just so science.

The gravitational constant is precise to within one part in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power. Who determined this impossible precision? Why it just picked itself, we are told. How simple.

[By way of comparison, the universe is comprised of ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles. If you had fifteen spheres the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, full of sand, and there were one and only one chance to select a unique and specially marked grain in these fifteen solar systems full of sand, the probability of a man in a vehicle capable of navigating in the sand without any windows or any way of seeing his surroundings, would have to pick that grain on his first and only try. That is 1 chance in 10 to the 50th, my definition of "impossible." Compare that to the gravitational constant, precise to one part in 10 to the 1 followed by 120 zeroes.]

PROBLEM: The universe could not have created itself, from absolutely nothing. That would violate the first law and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes.

In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.

Clausius also stated the law in another form, referring to the existence of a function of state of the system, the internal energy, and expressed it in terms of a differential equation for the increments of a thermodynamic process. This equation may described as follows:

In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.

where delta E is the total energy of the universe, Q is the change in heat, and W is the change in work.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
How these values instantaneously changed from nonexistent to incomprehensibly massive has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.

PROBLEM: The second law of thermodynamics, as expressed by Rudolf Clausius:
The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium —the state of maximum entropy.
In other words, the entropy, or disorder, of a closed system constantly increases. Chaos can only increase within a closed system. The pretense of orderliness increasing dramatically after the Big Bang, to produce stars, planets, heat and light is the largest conceivable violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But who made these laws? Wellll, we are told, they simply made themselves. Talk about convenient.
How matter, energy, organization, elegance, physical laws, and the profound fortuitous interdependences which embrace and nurture mankind, moved uphill, against the forces of entropic degradation, has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.


The God Particle

Clearly this creation we call the universe had a creator, who is forever outside the purview of science. This is because science is restricted to what we can observe, understand, quantify, and explain. Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University, gave a lecture titled A Matter of Gravity. Professor Lennox elegantly responded to Richard Dawkins' clever ploy of asking "Who made God?" Said Lennox, "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He."
Precisely.
You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.
Alternative A is, shall we say, distasteful, unconvincing, and largely offered only because its proponents have an illogical aversion to Alternative B, which is at once elegant and compelling if incomprehensible. But then again, we are truly surrounded by things that are at the threshold of incomprehensibility, like invisible waves of varying types (frequencies) flying through the air, to our computers, smart phones, televisions, radios, ears, eyes, and grass.

Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University

Multiverses are a way for non-believers to hypothesize God doesn't exist or is not necessary. At least, the opposition is trying to show evidence of no God.

The educated non-believers probably are able to twist the word of God the best. We have the top secular physicists believe in the multiverses, but they have no evidence. Stephen Hawking died without being able to demonstrate it and the theory of everything or unify quantum physics (metaphysics imo), with Newtonian physics.

If a person dies or a theory isn't demonstrated in a lifetime, i.e. around 100 years, then it's probably a false theory.

Furthermore, if there are infinite multiveses, then one of them must contain God .

There is no requirement for the existence of god, or a lack thereof in “Multi-verse “ theory. You get an “A”for your effort in trying to shoehorn Jebus into science though. And extra credit for your cut and paste savvy. Too bad none of it proves anything about the veracity of Christianity. But solid entertainment none-the-less...

 

[Vastator]

You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.

This is very true and to me the most logical argument for Intelligent Design. To not believe in some higher power is to think that the universe made itself out of nothing, which is a prosperous idea when you think about it.

No more preposterous than assuming some infinitely powerful being is responsible... Besides who is claiming the Universe made itself out of “Nothing”? Got a link? Shit... Humans can’t even demonstrate a “nothing”...

 

[miketx]

That nebula in the OP, if that's what it even is very likely does not look like that up close. We don't know how the universe works and I can tell you that in space the speed of light is extremely slow. The only thing IMO that may one day open up the stars to us is a much greater understanding of physics. Some postulate the existence of many different membranes or branes, where physical laws are different than our own. For example in one brane the constant of C or the speed of light could be several thousand times the speed it travels at in our home brane, making star travel very attainable. Physics may very well take up to the stars in this way, some say.

 

[miketx]

You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.

This is very true and to me the most logical argument for Intelligent Design. To not believe in some higher power is to think that the universe made itself out of nothing, which is a prosperous idea when you think about it.

No more preposterous than assuming some infinitely powerful being is responsible... Besides who is claiming the Universe made itself out of “Nothing”? Got a link? Shit... Humans can’t even demonstrate a “nothing”...

Au contraire my friend. The democrats have shown us a huge nothing at the end of the Mueller travesty!

 

[Vastator]

You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.

This is very true and to me the most logical argument for Intelligent Design. To not believe in some higher power is to think that the universe made itself out of nothing, which is a prosperous idea when you think about it.

No more preposterous than assuming some infinitely powerful being is responsible... Besides who is claiming the Universe made itself out of “Nothing”? Got a link? Shit... Humans can’t even demonstrate a “nothing”...

Au contraire my friend. The democrats have shown us a huge nothing at the end of the Mueller travesty!

They showed us how to turn taxpayer money into noise..?

 

[miketx]

You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.

This is very true and to me the most logical argument for Intelligent Design. To not believe in some higher power is to think that the universe made itself out of nothing, which is a prosperous idea when you think about it.

No more preposterous than assuming some infinitely powerful being is responsible... Besides who is claiming the Universe made itself out of “Nothing”? Got a link? Shit... Humans can’t even demonstrate a “nothing”...

Au contraire my friend. The democrats have shown us a huge nothing at the end of the Mueller travesty!

They showed us how to turn taxpayer money into noise..?

Yeah, a bunch of whining titty babies crying for impeachment. A nothing burger. It was very noisy.

 

[james bond]

ooh I am fascinated by this.

How was the Bible discovered?

I don't have the complete story, as there's probably argument over it, but it came together in pieces. Here is a general guideline.

"The formation of the Bible began with the 10 Commandments
The earliest collection of written words from God was the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments form the beginning of the biblical canon. God himself wrote on two tablets of stone the words which he commanded his people:

“And he gave to Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). Again we read, “And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables” (Exodus 32:16, see also Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4). The tablets were deposited in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 10:5) and constituted the terms of the covenant between God and his people."

Here is the beginning -- Where Did the Bible Come From? | Zondervan Academic

Then came the Old Testament -- How Did We Get the Old Testament? | Zondervan Academic

Afterward came the Dead Sea Scroll and New Testament -- The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

 

[miketx]

But I still have my life to live and enjoy what I can.

OTOH, you believe in the Antibible. I do think Satan wrote one because it disagrees with everything that God ever said. For example, in this thread we have one universe vs. multiple universes. Wouldn't you say that those who came up with the multiverse didn't get together to say we're just going to contradict the Bible or God's word? Instead, they came up with it on their own?

I can say, with absolute certainty, that I have absolutely no idea.

Universe, Multiverse, Heaven, Hell, who knows. I probably won't in my lifetime, and I'm okay with that.
.

Have you read the Bible? I don't think you have or if you have, then did not understand it. Maybe you didn't care to understand history, but for whatever reason you are here in this forum. Thus, you believe something, or have a worldview. What you believe is an afterlife, no afterlife, or maybe you're just que sera sera I don't know.

Here is what one of favorite said for those in your situation. Just replace atheist with agnostic since you aren't a believer or one with faith in a religion:
View attachment 305922

I'm not an Atheist. They claim to have The Answer, too. That kind of thinking seems egotistical to me.

I'm agnostic. I admit that I don't know. And that's about it.
.

Well, Christians are ones who want to get to heaven and to do this one has to follow Jesus. We know this because of the Bible or God's autobiography was discovered..

ooh I am fascinated by this.

How was the Bible discovered?

It was written by old men who sat around and ate cheese and drank wine and thought men could walk on water. Then it was lost and discovered by Donald Trump in 1834.

 

[james bond]

http://MultiverseFantasy.wordpress.com

The Eye of God

Helix Nebula NGC 7293

Only a few decades ago, Christophobes (atheists) claimed that the universe is SO LARGE that no creator would possibly have gone to such trouble and wasted so many resources to make this entire universe just for the benefit of us pathetic humans here on earth. It was preposterous, inconceivable, they said.

Now, exactly the opposite argument is being made, in order to counter advances in science. The Multiverse, *scientists* tell us, can counter the insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, which examines forty or more physical constants which are exquisitely precise, much to mankind's benefit. The physical constants are precise to an extent that would be statistically impossible without a Designer. Hence God's deniers came up with their fantasmagoric Multiverse.

______________________________________

Light is extraordinarily fast, 186,000 miles per second (871,875 times faster than sound). This not only makes radio communications virtually instant anywhere on the earth, but it also helps us see our surroundings in real time, unlike hearing. Moreover the energy derived from solar fusion is likewise extraordinarily high, proportional to the square of the speed of light. Slower light would mean much, much colder earth. Contrast this value for c with the speed of sound, a paltry 768 miles per hour. It is slow enough that we can hear the direction from which sounds originate. We can also enjoy music in stereo, only because our ears can differentiate between tiny differences in the time sounds arrive at one ear versus the other - differences as small as 1/10,000th of a second. Fine tuning of values for the electromagnetic constant, the electron-proton mass and charge ratios, strong and weak nuclear forces, among many others, defy naturalistic explanation. And so, intellectuals argue (with straight faces) that there must surely be an infinite number of "multiverses," all of which have different values for all these physical constants, and we just happen to be in the *right* universe, permitting our very existence.

Thus *intellectuals* have gone from one extreme, that our universe is much too large for any creator to have bothered with it, to the other, multiverses, an infinite number of universes. Most of them are like the three bears' porridge of the Goldilocks story, either too hot or too cold. Our universe happens to be just right. Just so science.

The gravitational constant is precise to within one part in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power. Who determined this impossible precision? Why it just picked itself, we are told. How simple.

[By way of comparison, the universe is comprised of ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles. If you had fifteen spheres the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, full of sand, and there were one and only one chance to select a unique and specially marked grain in these fifteen solar systems full of sand, the probability of a man in a vehicle capable of navigating in the sand without any windows or any way of seeing his surroundings, would have to pick that grain on his first and only try. That is 1 chance in 10 to the 50th, my definition of "impossible." Compare that to the gravitational constant, precise to one part in 10 to the 1 followed by 120 zeroes.]

PROBLEM: The universe could not have created itself, from absolutely nothing. That would violate the first law and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes.

In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.

Clausius also stated the law in another form, referring to the existence of a function of state of the system, the internal energy, and expressed it in terms of a differential equation for the increments of a thermodynamic process. This equation may described as follows:

In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.

where delta E is the total energy of the universe, Q is the change in heat, and W is the change in work.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
How these values instantaneously changed from nonexistent to incomprehensibly massive has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.

PROBLEM: The second law of thermodynamics, as expressed by Rudolf Clausius:
The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium —the state of maximum entropy.
In other words, the entropy, or disorder, of a closed system constantly increases. Chaos can only increase within a closed system. The pretense of orderliness increasing dramatically after the Big Bang, to produce stars, planets, heat and light is the largest conceivable violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But who made these laws? Wellll, we are told, they simply made themselves. Talk about convenient.
How matter, energy, organization, elegance, physical laws, and the profound fortuitous interdependences which embrace and nurture mankind, moved uphill, against the forces of entropic degradation, has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.


The God Particle

Clearly this creation we call the universe had a creator, who is forever outside the purview of science. This is because science is restricted to what we can observe, understand, quantify, and explain. Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University, gave a lecture titled A Matter of Gravity. Professor Lennox elegantly responded to Richard Dawkins' clever ploy of asking "Who made God?" Said Lennox, "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He."
Precisely.
You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.
Alternative A is, shall we say, distasteful, unconvincing, and largely offered only because its proponents have an illogical aversion to Alternative B, which is at once elegant and compelling if incomprehensible. But then again, we are truly surrounded by things that are at the threshold of incomprehensibility, like invisible waves of varying types (frequencies) flying through the air, to our computers, smart phones, televisions, radios, ears, eyes, and grass.

Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University

Multiverses are a way for non-believers to hypothesize God doesn't exist or is not necessary. At least, the opposition is trying to show evidence of no God.

The educated non-believers probably are able to twist the word of God the best. We have the top secular physicists believe in the multiverses, but they have no evidence. Stephen Hawking died without being able to demonstrate it and the theory of everything or unify quantum physics (metaphysics imo), with Newtonian physics.

If a person dies or a theory isn't demonstrated in a lifetime, i.e. around 100 years, then it's probably a false theory.

Furthermore, if there are infinite multiveses, then one of them must contain God .

There is no requirement for the existence of god, or a lack thereof in “Multi-verse “ theory. You get an “A”for your effort in trying to shoehorn Jebus into science though. And extra credit for your cut and paste savvy. Too bad none of it proves anything about the veracity of Christianity. But solid entertainment none-the-less...

Haha . You are so confused that you do not know about how people came to know God. It was not a fairy tale, but that which kings held important. Moreover, you do not even know that we are in Religion and Ethics forum. This is the Multiverse fairy tale of the atheist scientists. These are intelligent people who are screwed up beyond belief. If anyone needs to burn for eternity, it is these dregs of society. We had one of the kick off recently not being able to demonstrate the theory of everything. Let Stephen Hawking suffer AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!, as my music teacher used to say when we were practicing and became tired.

 

[Hawkins]

It means even science needs a "God" whose name is multiverse (which is not falsifiable) in order to make science itself sound. Some theories also advocate that we can't possibly discover everything from inside our own universe. We need to go outside (which we can't) in order to discover all possible truths.

That said. The only way for humans to get to a truth lying outside our reach (in terms of space and time) is by means of a God, if He exists and knows.

 

[james bond]

It means even science needs a "God" whose name is multiverse (which is not falsifiable) in order to make science itself sound. Some theories also advocate that we can't possibly discover everything from inside our own universe. We need to go outside (which we can't) in order to discover all possible truths.

That said. The only way for humans to get to a truth lying outside our reach (in terms of space and time) is by means of a God, if He exists and knows.

I like it. The false science makes the physicists like God in trying to explain how we can be when we should not be here, i.e. metaphysics.

 

[Syriusly]

ooh I am fascinated by this.

How was the Bible discovered?

I don't have the complete story, as there's probably argument over it, but it came together in pieces. Here is a general guideline.

"The formation of the Bible began with the 10 Commandments
The earliest collection of written words from God was the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments form the beginning of the biblical canon. God himself wrote on two tablets of stone the words which he commanded his people:

“And he gave to Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). Again we read, “And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables” (Exodus 32:16, see also Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4). The tablets were deposited in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 10:5) and constituted the terms of the covenant between God and his people."

Here is the beginning -- Where Did the Bible Come From? | Zondervan Academic

Then came the Old Testament -- How Did We Get the Old Testament? | Zondervan Academic

Afterward came the Dead Sea Scroll and New Testament -- The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

ooh I am fascinated by this.

How was the Bible discovered?

I don't have the complete story, as there's probably argument over it, but it came together in pieces. Here is a general guideline.

"The formation of the Bible began with the 10 Commandments
The earliest collection of written words from God was the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments form the beginning of the biblical canon. God himself wrote on two tablets of stone the words which he commanded his people:

“And he gave to Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). Again we read, “And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables” (Exodus 32:16, see also Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4). The tablets were deposited in the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 10:5) and constituted the terms of the covenant between God and his people."

Here is the beginning -- Where Did the Bible Come From? | Zondervan Academic

Then came the Old Testament -- How Did We Get the Old Testament? | Zondervan Academic

Afterward came the Dead Sea Scroll and New Testament -- The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

So the Bible was not 'discovered' - it was written down by humans.

You could argue that Moses 'discovered' the 10 commandments- but that is a tough argument if you also believe God spoke directly to Moses.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are merely a collection of religious writings by a rather small sect- which we did discover long after the Bible as we know it was discovered.

The Old Testament supposedly was written by divinely inspired writers- and is more in the sense a history- again not 'discovered' in any sense.

The New Testament again supposedly was the recollections of those who encountered Jesus.

In all cases- they were written down by humans- whether or not they were divinely inspired- well there is no way to prove that either way.

 

[Syriusly]

http://MultiverseFantasy.wordpress.com

The Eye of God

Helix Nebula NGC 7293

Only a few decades ago, Christophobes (atheists) claimed that the universe is SO LARGE that no creator would possibly have gone to such trouble and wasted so many resources to make this entire universe just for the benefit of us pathetic humans here on earth. It was preposterous, inconceivable, they said.

Now, exactly the opposite argument is being made, in order to counter advances in science. The Multiverse, *scientists* tell us, can counter the insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, which examines forty or more physical constants which are exquisitely precise, much to mankind's benefit. The physical constants are precise to an extent that would be statistically impossible without a Designer. Hence God's deniers came up with their fantasmagoric Multiverse.

______________________________________

Light is extraordinarily fast, 186,000 miles per second (871,875 times faster than sound). This not only makes radio communications virtually instant anywhere on the earth, but it also helps us see our surroundings in real time, unlike hearing. Moreover the energy derived from solar fusion is likewise extraordinarily high, proportional to the square of the speed of light. Slower light would mean much, much colder earth. Contrast this value for c with the speed of sound, a paltry 768 miles per hour. It is slow enough that we can hear the direction from which sounds originate. We can also enjoy music in stereo, only because our ears can differentiate between tiny differences in the time sounds arrive at one ear versus the other - differences as small as 1/10,000th of a second. Fine tuning of values for the electromagnetic constant, the electron-proton mass and charge ratios, strong and weak nuclear forces, among many others, defy naturalistic explanation. And so, intellectuals argue (with straight faces) that there must surely be an infinite number of "multiverses," all of which have different values for all these physical constants, and we just happen to be in the *right* universe, permitting our very existence.

Thus *intellectuals* have gone from one extreme, that our universe is much too large for any creator to have bothered with it, to the other, multiverses, an infinite number of universes. Most of them are like the three bears' porridge of the Goldilocks story, either too hot or too cold. Our universe happens to be just right. Just so science.

The gravitational constant is precise to within one part in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power. Who determined this impossible precision? Why it just picked itself, we are told. How simple.

[By way of comparison, the universe is comprised of ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles. If you had fifteen spheres the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, full of sand, and there were one and only one chance to select a unique and specially marked grain in these fifteen solar systems full of sand, the probability of a man in a vehicle capable of navigating in the sand without any windows or any way of seeing his surroundings, would have to pick that grain on his first and only try. That is 1 chance in 10 to the 50th, my definition of "impossible." Compare that to the gravitational constant, precise to one part in 10 to the 1 followed by 120 zeroes.]

PROBLEM: The universe could not have created itself, from absolutely nothing. That would violate the first law and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes.

In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.

Clausius also stated the law in another form, referring to the existence of a function of state of the system, the internal energy, and expressed it in terms of a differential equation for the increments of a thermodynamic process. This equation may described as follows:

In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.

where delta E is the total energy of the universe, Q is the change in heat, and W is the change in work.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
How these values instantaneously changed from nonexistent to incomprehensibly massive has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.

PROBLEM: The second law of thermodynamics, as expressed by Rudolf Clausius:
The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium —the state of maximum entropy.
In other words, the entropy, or disorder, of a closed system constantly increases. Chaos can only increase within a closed system. The pretense of orderliness increasing dramatically after the Big Bang, to produce stars, planets, heat and light is the largest conceivable violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But who made these laws? Wellll, we are told, they simply made themselves. Talk about convenient.
How matter, energy, organization, elegance, physical laws, and the profound fortuitous interdependences which embrace and nurture mankind, moved uphill, against the forces of entropic degradation, has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.


The God Particle

Clearly this creation we call the universe had a creator, who is forever outside the purview of science. This is because science is restricted to what we can observe, understand, quantify, and explain. Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University, gave a lecture titled A Matter of Gravity. Professor Lennox elegantly responded to Richard Dawkins' clever ploy of asking "Who made God?" Said Lennox, "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He."
Precisely.
You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.
Alternative A is, shall we say, distasteful, unconvincing, and largely offered only because its proponents have an illogical aversion to Alternative B, which is at once elegant and compelling if incomprehensible. But then again, we are truly surrounded by things that are at the threshold of incomprehensibility, like invisible waves of varying types (frequencies) flying through the air, to our computers, smart phones, televisions, radios, ears, eyes, and grass.

Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University

Multiverses are a way for non-believers to hypothesize God doesn't exist or is not necessary. At least, the opposition is trying to show evidence of no God.

The educated non-believers probably are able to twist the word of God the best. We have the top secular physicists believe in the multiverses, but they have no evidence. Stephen Hawking died without being able to demonstrate it and the theory of everything or unify quantum physics (metaphysics imo), with Newtonian physics.

If a person dies or a theory isn't demonstrated in a lifetime, i.e. around 100 years, then it's probably a false theory.

Furthermore, if there are infinite multiveses, then one of them must contain God .

There is no requirement for the existence of god, or a lack thereof in “Multi-verse “ theory. You get an “A”for your effort in trying to shoehorn Jebus into science though. And extra credit for your cut and paste savvy. Too bad none of it proves anything about the veracity of Christianity. But solid entertainment none-the-less...

Haha . You are so confused that you do not know about how people came to know God. It was not a fairy tale, but that which kings held important. Moreover, you do not even know that we are in Religion and Ethics forum. This is the Multiverse fairy tale of the atheist scientists. These are intelligent people who are screwed up beyond belief. If anyone needs to burn for eternity, it is these dregs of society. We had one of the kick off recently not being able to demonstrate the theory of everything. Let Stephen Hawking suffer AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!, as my music teacher used to say when we were practicing and became tired.

Many kings held many gods to be important.

Why am I not surprised that you are one of those supposed religious people that gets off on fantasizing about people who don't believe in your fairy tales burning forever?