Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then you have the people who steadfastly do not accept the bible. It has been said of these people they believe a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
Same thing.Then you have the people who steadfastly do not accept the bible. It has been said of these people they believe a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 747 in its wake.
Naw, that would 3 tornadoes, a flash flood, a solar radiation storm and a pack of rats...
Really, you want to play the goofy ideas game? Ok, here goes-
Christianity is the belief that a virgin woman gave birth to a baby in a barn. After the baby grew up, he turned water to wine, walked on water, and fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. He was declared the savior.
So the people decide to nail the savior to some wood so their sins wouldn’t matter anymore. When he died, they threw him in a cave, sealed the cave with a giant rock. When they went back to his tomb, the body was gone, but an angel told them he was with god in heaven.
Now really, is that any crazier than the Universe being formed by a Big Bang?
Fair enough. Christianity is not my concept of a higher power. But if it works for you, then I have no issue with it.
Fair enough. Christianity is not my concept of a higher power. But if it works for you, then I have no issue with it.
If the big bang and abiogenesis were demonstrated by the scientific method, then it would be different. However, it can't. The atheists believe it on faith as this is what happened for the universe and Earth to be here. All you have is a claim that it happened, but no evidence. There isn't a even detailed explanation. BTW, I found the multiverse theory was debunked. One hypothesis was the multiverse could have spawned another universe.
Christians get their panties in such a wad over this, and I don’t understand why. Divine creation is based on pure faith with no scientific bases. The Big Bang is simply a theory postulated by scientist, but there is no hard evidence for it. Neither will ever be proven, and I’m ok with that.
It's nothing that a woman would bother to read for more than 3 seconds before her drying out like the Sahara, and I say that from a very conservative perspective, to rather inferior specimen and barely literate idiot, whether from an evolutionarily or a philosophical perspective.Garcon certainly wasted a lot of time blathering his hatred above before leaving to "read up on string theory." Wow, that's impressive.
You enjoy laughing, laugh at your fellow Leftists:
People's Republic of California
Democrat Insanity - Trump Derangement Syndrome
You can't address a single fact presented in the OP, so you simply blather about how brilliant YOU are and how stupid anybody else is should they deign to disagree with you. How petty and childish of you. You add nothing to the discussion in any manner. To my Ignore List you go.
Christians get their panties in such a wad over this, and I don’t understand why. Divine creation is based on pure faith with no scientific bases. The Big Bang is simply a theory postulated by scientist, but there is no hard evidence for it. Neither will ever be proven, and I’m ok with that.
Your errors are many and endlessly repeated by your fellow atheists, who truly have their panties in a wad just as you do. You can believe whatever you want, but will you please stop your mendacious remarks. They are unintelligent and anti-scientific. They are offensive and intentionally so, just as Richard Dawkins and others like him spew venom continuously.
Scientific evidence of Nature's God include, but is assuredly not limited to:
1. The Anthropic Principle
2. The evidence of the Big Bang as described in the First Sentence of the First Book of the Holy Bible
3. Historical and archaeological evidence originating in the Holy Bible and repeatedly verified by countless scholars in countless books and papers
4. Countless personal experiences and observations that have been well documented in books and papers.
I suggest you read The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski and Illogical Atheism by Bo Jinn and The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day.
There is more science than you can digest in a month. I took copious notes on each of them as well as copious notes on silliness written by Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, who claimed to be scientists.
"Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan
I get it, you’re a Christian and therefore just assume that the Bible is factual. If it works for you, great. There is ZERO scientific evidence of God, much less any evidence that the universe was created by him.
BTW- I am not an atheist, nor did I ever claim to be. I do in fact believe there is a higher power, and my only justification for that belief is the ongoing and historical presents (sic) of a higher power felt by human beings.
There could be other universes outside of our universe. Like a lava lampWho knows! None of us.
Great stuff for those of us who are curious, though. Neat stuff.
Yep. Who knows, we may have come out the ass end of a black hole in one of them.There could be other universes outside of our universe. Like a lava lampWho knows! None of us.
Great stuff for those of us who are curious, though. Neat stuff.
There could be other universes outside of our universe. Like a lava lamp
Satan blew up stars making that nebula, when we fell. Particles did not exist as we know them, before death.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
Jesus would have remained under the earth, in the tomb, had Jesus not obeyed the Unseen Father God perfectly. That is the hell that Jesus talks about. Parable were spoken to keep defiled religious people from arguing with Jesus. Matthew 13 : 13, KJV.It wasn't goofy, but you're entitled to your opinion.
The evidence of a virginal birth is evidence for the Holy Spirit or God. Joseph was witness that Mary was still a virgin despite giving birth. That is the supernatural. The key learning of why it was important was that the Baby Jesus was born without sin. Everyone else was born of the flesh and blood that was tainted by Adam's sin and would die. Now, how did the people who read about this back then been able to verify it? The birth was written by different authors and it was prophecized, so there were important people waiting. If the event was false or didn't happen, then what was prophecized to them was false. They would see that it didn't happen, but history shows that it did.
Something supernatural today is you being alive. We have the supernatural with the natural. Your life spirit or God's breath is what keeps you alive. Once it is gone from your body, then it will die and no one can bring you back. Your life spirit was created through normal conception and not a birth by the Holy Spirit. As for the rest, the other big deal was Jesus shed blood and died for our sins. That gave us a chance to live again and have an afterlife that Adam and Eve had. We will be reborn again into a new flesh and bone like the resurrected Jesus, so we can live forever.
As for the big bang, it cannot happen because quantum particles of singularity cannot happen in a void where there is no space and time. We have no evidence as the CMB doesn't support it.
Bottom line is what my hero Blaise Pascal said as:
View attachment 307316
The Lake of Fire is prophecy and prophecy is allegory and metaphor. We don't know exactly what it entails, but it's not pleasant. It was for Satan and his followers, but the human followers with their perfect bodies destroyed and spiritually dead bodies by itself could cause some grief.
As for the atheist, their end may as well be the end of the world as one just dies and that's all folks. No belief in Jesus which violates God's one command to us. What's weird is other believers such as Christian Scientists and JW do not believe in Jesus either. Also, Catholics may believe in Jesus, but call their Pope Holy Father or the name of God the Father.
And when all is said and done; if you accept the premise of 1 entity that is eternal with no beginning or end, why does the concept of the multiverse seem so unreasonable....given that BOTH are essentially theoretical without concrete proof outside of us humans contemplating what our brains wonder about? Just asking.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
That's too wack to commentJesus would have remained under the earth, in the tomb, had Jesus not obeyed the Unseen Father God perfectly. That is the hell that Jesus talks about. Parable were spoken to keep defiled religious people from arguing with Jesus. Matthew 13 : 13, KJV.
.If the big bang and abiogenesis were demonstrated by the scientific method, then it would be different. However, it can't. The atheists believe it on faith as this is what happened for the universe and Earth to be here. All you have is a claim that it happened, but no evidence. There isn't a even detailed explanation. BTW, I found the multiverse theory was debunked. One hypothesis was the multiverse could have spawned another universe.
