PROOF of Nature's God

[PoliticalChic]

Everything occurs in cycles, even universes. We are currently in a growth cycle in this one ( still expanded ). Relatively soon, about 125 million years from now, this universe will begin to contract ( beginning of the death cycle, if you still believe in death, it is actually just change. ). This stage of universes vary greatly, but usually lasts around about 1.2 billion years. Once this process establishes the akasha field ( heaven for some ) then the Big bang is retriggered and the whole process of physical life begins over again. Unfortunately most people can't even comprehend an occurrence with such extended time tables. Their minds simply cannot even begin to grasp the concept. Life is best that without any fears. Fear holds you back from realizing your own potential, as well as that of others.

What is the scientific principle that states, proves, documents that matter can come from nothing????

Aside from the lies in your post, you dolt???

Dennis Prager writes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



Isn't it amazing that science, the supposed enemy of biblical religion, now accepts the very same order of the creation of the universe and of life on earth, as the order described in Genesis????
And this from folks living in a desert, three millennia ago....


Yet....over half of Democrats subscribe to Secular Totalitarianism....
....go figure.

 

[Hollie]

Marxist scientists hate religion because they are Marxist, like the Democrats.

1. Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.
2. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrew 11.1
3. If religious belief places the human heart in the service of an unseen world, the serious sciences have since the great revolution of the 17th century done precisely the same thing. Physicists have placed their faith in the idea that deep down the universe is coordinated by a great plan, a rational system of organization, a hidden but accessible scheme, one that when finally seen in all its austere elegance, will flood the soul with gratitude.
4. Our atheistic scientist friends, Harris or Hitchens, observe that many do not appear to be true in terms of contemporary science, i.e., Muhammad flying to Jerusalem on a horse named Borak. Hitchens alertly notes that “horses do not and cannot fly.” And many of us in the faith community concur, and, in fact, reserve the right to decide which aspects of tradition are eternal truths and which are assigned to the allegory category. Or…must we be responsible to endorse every line as absolute and literal truth?
   1. Should not the same requirement be assigned to the atheist scientists? Especially, as so many aspects of science, like everything else in life, one must accept on faith.
   2. By what standard might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not? ‘It may well be that "religious faith," as the philosopher Robert Todd Carroll has written, "is contrary to the sum of evidence," but if religious faith is found wanting, it is reasonable to ask for a restatement of the rule by which "the sum of evidence" is computed.’ Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos It seems that for our atheistic-scientists, there is only one rule: “My way or the highway.” Sure doesn’t sound like science.

View attachment 674218

Why flail your Pom Poms for Disco'tute quacks unless you want to embarrass yourself?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

#24: David Berlinski​

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

 

[Stann]

I have read and taken notes on books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Bo Jinn, David Berlinski, and many others. It is noteworthy that a fellow atheist professor at Oxford said of The God Delusion, "Richard Dawkins' book makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Decades ago, atheists professed their "science" that the universe is far too vast for God to have made it just for us. Harumph. Then came the statistical science and obvious inferences from The Anthropic Principle, first propounded by Brandon Carter. It clearly shows that the elegance underlying matter, energy, and what I call profound fortuitous interdependencies implies, requires, indeed demands a designer.

Stymied by science, atheists came up with the precise opposite of a universe too small. They switched to the Multiverse fiasco. "There are an infinite number of universes and we just HAPPEN to live in the 'right' one." (wink, nudge)

How accommodating of science, always "correcting itself."
There is ZERO evidence of universes outside our own, and obviously there can never be any such evidence. But desperate atheists say desperate things, with straight faces, and their acolytes follow them and giggle their professed superiority.

No, there CANNOT be multiverses because absent the values and conditions in THE universe, nothing can form much less exist. So their whole pretension is anti-scientific nonsense but that is all they have and they WILL NOT admit it. Evil is like that.

"Sin has many tools but the lie is the handle that fits them all." - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Even chemical engineers should be scientific, you ended your triad talking about sin. Not very scientific, which negates most of what you said

 

[BackAgain]

My Dear Friend, I have messaged you proper arrangements for a personalized, autographed book to be sent where you wish. Anyone else is welcome to the same courtesy.

Damn it! Having heard about this book only earlier today, I already ordered it! Now, I see your post!

 

[Stann]

What is the scientific principle that states, proves, documents that matter can come from nothing????

Aside from the lies in your post, you dolt???

Dennis Prager writes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



Isn't it amazing that science, the supposed enemy of biblical religion, now accepts the very same order of the creation of the universe and of life on earth, as the order described in Genesis????
And this from folks living in a desert, three millennia ago....


Yet....over half of Democrats subscribe to Secular Totalitarianism....
....go figure.

I temperature explain life in the world as we know it to you in the simplest terms that I could. You can accept or reject them, everything in life is a choice.

 

[Hollie]

What is the scientific principle that states, proves, documents that matter can come from nothing????

Aside from the lies in your post, you dolt???

Dennis Prager writes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



Isn't it amazing that science, the supposed enemy of biblical religion, now accepts the very same order of the creation of the universe and of life on earth, as the order described in Genesis????
And this from folks living in a desert, three millennia ago....


Yet....over half of Democrats subscribe to Secular Totalitarianism....
....go figure.

It's obvious why you and Prager should avoid science matters and stick to religious appeals. It would be helpful if you learned about the terms you use.

The term “Big Bang ” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Your notions about the ''Big Bang'' mimics the erroneous nonsense spewed by the ICR and similar ID'iot creationer ministries. There was no ''Big Bang". The creationist notion that the universe had a beginning unique to a location in space, (or an entity), is the remnant of an imaginative description by physicists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dennis Prager writes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”



Isn't it amazing that science, the supposed enemy of biblical religion, now accepts the very same order of the creation of the universe and of life on earth, as the order described in Genesis????
And this from folks living in a desert, three millennia ago....


Yet....over half of Democrats subscribe to Secular Totalitarianism....
....go figure. life in the world as we know it to you in the simplest terms that I could. You can accept or reject them, everything in life is a choice.

I temperature explain life in the world as we know it to you in the simplest terms that I could. You can accept or reject them, everything in life is a choice.

"I temperature explain..."

I already described you as a dunce....proof was unnecessary.




One of us understands science, and the other is you.


There is no "choice" about scientific proof.


Did I mention that you are a dunce?

It bears repeating....you're a dunce.

 

[BreezeWood]

I have read and taken notes on books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Bo Jinn, David Berlinski, and many others. It is noteworthy that a fellow atheist professor at Oxford said of The God Delusion, "Richard Dawkins' book makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Decades ago, atheists professed their "science" that the universe is far too vast for God to have made it just for us. Harumph. Then came the statistical science and obvious inferences from The Anthropic Principle, first propounded by Brandon Carter. It clearly shows that the elegance underlying matter, energy, and what I call profound fortuitous interdependencies implies, requires, indeed demands a designer.

Stymied by science, atheists came up with the precise opposite of a universe too small. They switched to the Multiverse fiasco. "There are an infinite number of universes and we just HAPPEN to live in the 'right' one." (wink, nudge)

How accommodating of science, always "correcting itself."
There is ZERO evidence of universes outside our own, and obviously there can never be any such evidence. But desperate atheists say desperate things, with straight faces, and their acolytes follow them and giggle their professed superiority.

No, there CANNOT be multiverses because absent the values and conditions in THE universe, nothing can form much less exist. So their whole pretension is anti-scientific nonsense but that is all they have and they WILL NOT admit it. Evil is like that.

"Sin has many tools but the lie is the handle that fits them all." - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

- and you believe everything is solved by the desert religions ....

 

[Stann]

What is the scientific principle that states, proves, documents that matter can come from nothing? The fundamental law of the universe is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It's form can be altered, but it is always exists. And yes you can view the Big bang as the equivalent to God creating the universe if you wish to see that entity in that light. But involving a deity in the process, takes away from the real truth of the process.

 

[Stann]

"I temperature explain..."

I already described you as a dunce....proof was unnecessary.




One of us understands science, and the other is you.


There is no "choice" about scientific proof.


Did I mention that you are a dunce?

It bears repeating....you're a dunce.

You sound like a petty child. You are very foolish.

 

[Stann]

I have read and taken notes on books by Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Bo Jinn, David Berlinski, and many others. It is noteworthy that a fellow atheist professor at Oxford said of The God Delusion, "Richard Dawkins' book makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."

Decades ago, atheists professed their "science" that the universe is far too vast for God to have made it just for us. Harumph. Then came the statistical science and obvious inferences from The Anthropic Principle, first propounded by Brandon Carter. It clearly shows that the elegance underlying matter, energy, and what I call profound fortuitous interdependencies implies, requires, indeed demands a designer.

Stymied by science, atheists came up with the precise opposite of a universe too small. They switched to the Multiverse fiasco. "There are an infinite number of universes and we just HAPPEN to live in the 'right' one." (wink, nudge)

How accommodating of science, always "correcting itself."
There is ZERO evidence of universes outside our own, and obviously there can never be any such evidence. But desperate atheists say desperate things, with straight faces, and their acolytes follow them and giggle their professed superiority.

No, there CANNOT be multiverses because absent the values and conditions in THE universe, nothing can form much less exist. So their whole pretension is anti-scientific nonsense but that is all they have and they WILL NOT admit it. Evil is like that.

"Sin has many tools but the lie is the handle that fits them all." - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Jesus had knowledge that few people ever have. When he said, " My father's kingdom is not of this Earth. " What do you think he meant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, there was no universe or matter prior to the "Big Bang."

Try to stop lying..

1. One of those interesting focal points of our time is the Big Bang theory...the conjecture about the origin of the universe.

Before same, there was "nothing"....."nothing" in the exact and specific meaning of the term: not anything... not a thing.

2. The idea serves as a jumping off point for several views....
....the theological, which posits that God created all;
...the scientific, a search for truth and knowledge about all things;
...and those of an atheistic bent, determined that they can show that natural laws are responsible.




No matter how many times you call Obama God, Jesus or the messiah, it won't alter the scientific belief that there was no universe prior to the event called the Big Bang.




But.....if you didn't believe and parrot lies, you couldn't be a Democrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You sound like a petty child. You are very foolish.

Let's just say I'm somewhere between you and 'educated."

I will expose every lie you attempt to impose.

 

[Mac1958]

Faith is one thing, and can have significant value. On the other hand, convincing yourself that you somehow "know" The Answer, one way or the other, is the ultimate in hubris.

Such people have a profound lack of fundamental humility. And for those who claim to be "Christian", that seems like the perfectly wrong temperament to carry through life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Faith is one thing, and can have significant value. On the other hand, convincing yourself that you somehow "know" The Answer, one way or the other, is the ultimate in hubris.

Such people have a profound lack of fundamental humility. And for those who claim to be "Christian", that seems like the perfectly wrong temperament to carry through life.

So you would condemn this sort of nonsense from a Leftwing "scientists"?


...... the Leftist astrophysicists will make the absurd claim.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist andcosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?

And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.




Nothing frightens Leftists more than religon.

I've seen your posts.....you believe it because your masters tell you to believe it.

 

[Mac1958]

So you would condemn this sort of nonsense from a Leftwing "scientists"?


...... the Leftist astrophysicists will make the absurd claim.


There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist andcosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?

And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."



Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."



The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.




Nothing frightens Leftists more than religon.

I've seen your posts.....you believe it because your masters tell you to believe it.

Scientists call them "theories".

People like you don't, because you lack the requisite self esteem and (try to) cover it up with cartoonish hubris.

I don't know The Answer. If you think you do, good for you. You've illustrated my point vividly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Scientists call them "theories".

People like you don't, because you lack the requisite self esteem and (try to) cover it up with cartoonish hubris.

I don't know The Answer. If you think you do, good for you. You've illustrated my point vividly.

So you are willing to accept what is clearly nonsense.....that the universe came into existence out of nothing.....accept it on faith....

......but use pejoratives about real faith, the one that was essential in the founding of the nation?


But....you are the same poster who believes in punishing thought crimes......

Pretty much a Nazi view, isn't it.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Scientists call them "theories".

People like you don't, because you lack the requisite self esteem and (try to) cover it up with cartoonish hubris.

And of course EVERY "scientific theory" is valid and demonstrable, right?

It's SO simple. Just listen to the all-wise Left. They gave us Maxine Waters, the current abysmal public education fiasco, AOC, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden, the perfect president for every Democrat.
You continue to spam and derail this thread. It's the premier Leftist tactic, along with lying.

 

[Mac1958]

And of course EVERY "scientific theory" is valid and demonstrable, right?

Of course not. Who told you that? Hannity? Tucker? What a weird question.

My post was on topic. If you also think you "know" the answer, I'm not surprised.

We see the same degree of intensity in Islam. Birds of a feather.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course not. Who told you that? Hannity? Tucker? What a weird question.

My post was on topic. If you also think you "know" the answer, I'm not surprised.

We see the same degree of intensity in Islam. Birds of a feather.

So you agree that Leftist 'scientists' are simply spokespersons for their religion, Marxism?