Time did not begin with the Big Bang - Stephen Hawking

[james bond]

Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.

We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one. ...

Did he say so? The very old sentence "He cretated the heavens and the worlds" looks not like the people in former times had the impression god limited his creation to only one interpretation of reality. So why not different natural laws in different universes? The real astonishing thing is not this - the real astonishing thing is we are able to have ideas, which try to overstep the reality in which we live here. What we are not able to overstep: We are not able to think about a universe without any natural laws.

He created the heavens and earth our of nothing. It was creation ex nihilo. We found that it involved the five manifestations of all natural phenomena -- force (God), space, time, matter and motion. All had to be present at the same time in order for it to happen. Can you explain how your interpretation of reality happened using these manifestations?

People want me to support my statements using books since Darwin wrote one. Here is one -- The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. One of the reasons it states why humans want to eliminate God is that they hate God. They do not want to be be subject to God's laws and not be held accountable for their behavior. You can see some of this emotion in the stuff atheists write here.

 

[james bond]

That's a joke now, isn't it? For sure it's not Occams razor.

If you are going to make such a claim, then go ahead and follow it up with your "simpler explanation". And then we can scrutinize it.

God did it. Is that simple enough for you, Fort Fun Indiana? Can you explain yours in three words or less?

 

[james bond]

Forms and types are interchangeable.

Bullshit!
Types of Energy - Knowledge Bank - Solar Schools
Forms of energy
There are many different types of energy, which all fall into two primary forms – kinetic and potential. Energy can transform from one type to another, but it can never be destroyed or created.

Haha. I've already said I'm not going argue semantics with you and have moved on. You are still arguing semantics and from an elementary school website yet. Smart adults make cogent arguments based on their thinking and not from some definition. They expound on their thinking that follow the definitions. The definition is important when setting up ground rules, but we are way past elementary school. Besides, it is terribly boring to argue semantics and you act like you are smart or something, but you are not. You brain is still at elementary school level and your ignorance is showing.

 

[zaangalewa]

Why not? The math not only allows it, it seems to dictate it. You would have a tougher time explaining that our observable univerae is all there is or ever was, than otherwise. So you are wrong, that's actually not simpler. And it would be very silly for scientists to place such a limit on their own research. So you are doubly wrong.

We know there is only one universe because by definition and God said he only created one. ...

Did he say so? The very old sentence "He cretated the heavens and the worlds" looks not like the people in former times had the impression god limited his creation to only one interpretation of reality. So why not different natural laws in different universes? The real astonishing thing is not this - the real astonishing thing is we are able to have ideas, which try to overstep the reality in which we live here. What we are not able to overstep: We are not able to think about a universe without any natural laws.

He created the heavens and earth our of nothing. It was creation ex nihilo.

Or not. What changes nothing for Christians. The problem is a probnlem of philosophy and science. Of rationality adn experience. Of mathematics and reality. Perhaps we are able to find one day something what is not only physically nothing "before" the creation of the universe had happened. Who knows? I hope we will not crucify this what we perhaps might will find.

We found that it involved the five manifestations of all natural phenomena -- force (God), space, time, matter and motion.

Who is "we"? And your description makes not a big sense because [potential] "motion" is "force" too and matter is a kind of frozen form of energy too. And nowhere is "information". And in general this all is creation not creator. Sure we can see god in his creation - but I guess not directly. When we see god, then we see often how wonderful the real existing world is.

All had to be present at the same time in order for it to happen. Can you explain how your interpretation of reality

My what? My thoughts? Can I explain how I think? Not really, I guess. While I think I'm not able to watch me thinking.

happened using these manifestations?

I doubt about it makes a big sense what you said here with this manifestations.

People want me to support my statements using books since Darwin wrote one. Here is one -- The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God.

I don't take a look now at this. Perhaps later.

One of the reasons it states why humans want to eliminate God is that they hate God.

Why should someone hate god? Even the devil loves god.

They do not want to be be subject to God's laws

No one is able to create or to destroy energy for example. But everyone is able to be a murderer. It exist different degrees of freedom and the "first bible", the "first word of god" is the "opus dei", is his creation - and in his creation, in his nature, his sun shines for everyone and his rain falls for everyone.

and not be held accountable for their behavior.

Everyone is responsible in the eyes of the Lord - but not everyone is responsible for the behavior of other people.

You can see some of this emotion in the stuff atheists write here.

Godless people of all religions and beliefs are doing terrible things. Atheists too. Why should they not have the right to speak nonsense, when everyone else has this right too? But not every atheist is godless only because of a lack of belief in god. There will be sometimes reasons for - so who am I to doubt in the will of god? I am sure: Everyone has always all chances, until the last moment of life - perhaps even longer.


favorite song of Stephen Hawking

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God did it. Is that simple enough for you, Fort Fun Indiana?

Yes, but its not simple enough for you. You aren't content to point at everything and say "god did it". You also have to claim he did it a certain way that contradicts all the evidence. Get it straight, pal.

 

[james bond]

Who is "we"?

We are creation scientists and I.

And your description makes not a big sense because [potential] "motion" is "force" too and matter is a kind of frozen form of energy too. And nowhere is "information". And in general this all is creation not creator. Sure we can see god in his creation - but I guess not directly. When we see god, then we see often how wonderful the real existing world is.

You don't understand the five manifestations of natural phenomena. Look it up. It's by Herbert Spencer, the survival of the fittest guy. What creation scientists theorize is they had to happen all at once by God (force) for any of it to work. Can you explain how it happened?

The rest does not make much sense. Pick something you want to discuss if it's important.

 

[zaangalewa]

Who is "we"?

We are creation scientists and I.

"Schöpfungsnaturwissenschaftler?" Such a word makes in the German language not a big sense. Sure has everything to do with everything. And still only spirtual beings are able to do natural science with methods of perceptions, thoughts and languages including mathematics. But natural science on its own is only able to study the material components. In natural science a first cause is without cause, that's why it is a first cause. If a transzendent world caused a first cause - let me call this "wonder" - then natural science is not a way to find out whether this wonders are able to be true or not true.

And your description makes not a big sense because [potential] "motion" is "force" too and matter is a kind of frozen form of energy too. And nowhere is "information". And in general this all is creation not creator. Sure we can see god in his creation - but I guess not directly. When we see god, then we see often how wonderful the real existing world is.

You don't understand the five manifestations of natural phenomena.

I understand what you say. I think this "manifestations" make not a big sense in context natural science. Cern tests in the moment for example differences in the half-life-time period - better to say: in something what's comparable with this idea - of some particles and their antiparticles, which could explain why today matter exists and anti-matter not exists, because we do not understand in a satisfying way what kind of asymetric structure took care for the 1,000,000,001 part of matter which met once 1,000,000,000 parts of anti-matter. Where are you able to place such a research in your system of manifestations?

Look it up. It's by Herbert Spencer, the survival of the fittest guy.

The survival of what? Don't use expressions of the theory of evolution for human societies. I fear without the values of serios religions would survive in human societies only intrigant and violent male idiots - what would lead to their own extinction.

What creation scientists theorize is they had to happen all at once by God (force) for any of it to work. Can you explain how it happened?

How what happened? The discussion "creation vs evolution" is for me a very strange discussion. Only a very little thought in this context: Creation is able to create evolution - but evolution is not able to evolve creation. This shows both expressions are different and are not easily comparable.

The rest does not make much sense. Pick something you want to discuss if it's important.

I fear nothing makes for members of the US-American culture any sense what fits not with the own opinions and indoctrinations. That's why it makes not a big fun to "discuss" with people of your culture. You never will change any of your opinions - except you are forced to do so - and your opponents will never change their opinions too. That's a result of your political sytem "the winner takes it all". I prefer the system "live and let live".