Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist?

[paarsurrey]

What's your understanding of the words, "natural" and "supernatural?" Don't give a definition from a lexicon, please.

Whatever God/Allah/YHVH has created is working under rules set for it by Him, these rules are perceived by us humans as nature or natural, I understand. Right?

Regards

 

[rational experiences]

O earth.
A planet.
It's atmosphere.
Gravity a law says science. Life on earth the only accepted creation thesis. Where the experience gravity is realised.

And then pretends the laws of his science appraisals human would exist when if only nothing existed first?

The thinker thinks words to argue to con to gain a confused reasoning to gain support to do something he says is natural but also super.

As his personal status is conjurer of the supernatural as a scientist.

To supersede what science as men first said was God in science originally and be greater personally as a theist human in machine gain of the term God. Human personality condition only.

God science claim is stated natural as everything includes the status natural also.

So he added super into the claim to supersede natural.

As personal motivated human want exists first to motivate want of reasoning.

So science has to first conclude by just men of science that no God term should be used. As just conscious humans using human consciousness the same status. A human.

To own new said science thesis. New sciences he says are not about any God. So he gave self permission just as a human to ignore natural. The status taught natural was God also.

As the term God created owns creation was stated against the theist human liar. As a rational science status.

Even though all first men in science themes was only about the gods. Science now wants to pretend it is not science history. As said by men.

So they have to convince you first no God status is acceptable for their new theories.

Even the God theist is applying that status himself. As his belief to know God is to supersede God.

If no God is said as a science acceptable term then a theist quote is no creation either and means the intent.

Modern science versus God science with a twist. Secretly giving new science terms to his status also about God.

We were warned science was theoried about destruction of mass only and never owned a thesis for the presence of form.

The maths thesis was how to remove convert mass by destructive conversion it was never about why mass was present.

Theories told a story how to achieve the converted outcome as their story.

The status then lied claiming after the conversion then all new forms in natural began. Yet natural already existed.

The idea conversion destruction equalled new form was the newly acquired power which owned no form itself. As it was a super power.

In other words science tried to convince humanity we began as converted energy. In that moment.

Claiming humans the God in the moment of burning energy formed.

One by one science Gods were found as each energy substance in earths mass to try to give it an overall calculus to anti it's existence into nothing as modern research.

As not until all factors can conclude the highest mass owned natural substance would maths predict all substances could be removed in one reactive moment to equal nothing itself.

To state one God. One moment and all bodies to react together in one caused human science cause.

As one highest mass as the same substance as compared to.less mass lower energy substances would give the biggest greatest most destructive reaction.

Which science claims is a nothing guaranteed moment.

God was stated to be self presence and personal ownership in any body type so science owned no status anywhere as just a human.

It was human law who stated it.

 

[gnostic]

Whatever God/Allah/YHVH has created is working under rules set for it by Him, these rules are perceived by us humans as nature or natural, I understand. Right?

Wrong.

Much of what scriptures (I am much more familiar with Abrahamic texts, and non-Abrahamic texts, west of ancient Sumer/Babylonia, so that would include texts from Egypt, Ugarit, Greece, Rome, Celtic British Isles, Scandinavia; I am less familiar with Persia and east of Persian, eg Vedic/Hindu, China and Japan) say about nature, are wrong, especially their creation stories.

The point is the Abrahamic texts - Tanakh, Bible & Quran - have include passages that clearly are “not natural”, especially when it write about god, angels, demons, jinns, miracles, resurrection and afterlife, heaven and hell.

These scriptures, when describing nature are also often scientifically flawed, inaccurate, or outright incorrect. The authors and editors of these scriptures demonstrated just how little they understand nature and the mechanisms of natural phenomena.

If the descriptions are inaccurate or incorrect, then how can you possibly say that your deity set up the rules of nature, when the authors themselves have no understanding how nature really work?

So no, you are not “right”.

 

[paarsurrey]

Wrong.

Much of what scriptures (I am much more familiar with Abrahamic texts, and non-Abrahamic texts, west of ancient Sumer/Babylonia, so that would include texts from Egypt, Ugarit, Greece, Rome, Celtic British Isles, Scandinavia; I am less familiar with Persia and east of Persian, eg Vedic/Hindu, China and Japan) say about nature, are wrong, especially their creation stories.

The point is the Abrahamic texts - Tanakh, Bible & Quran - have include passages that clearly are “not natural”, especially when it write about god, angels, demons, jinns, miracles, resurrection and afterlife, heaven and hell.

These scriptures, when describing nature are also often scientifically flawed, inaccurate, or outright incorrect. The authors and editors of these scriptures demonstrated just how little they understand nature and the mechanisms of natural phenomena.

If the descriptions are inaccurate or incorrect, then how can you possibly say that your deity set up the rules of nature, when the authors themselves have no understanding how nature really work?

So no, you are not “right”.

I asked one to give one's own understanding of the word " nature/natural ", but one did not provide. Right?
Is one confused, please?

Regards

 

[rational experiences]

Natural. Pre exists a human.

Reason to use a God word natural is to teach a human theist that every other body already pre existed so a human could not believe they were the creator.

As we had dominion over all things reasoning.

Humans formed egos which contradicts spirituality.

 

[gnostic]

I asked one to give one's own understanding of the word " nature/natural ", but one did not provide.

And I gave you examples of what are not natural, because you wrote the following

Whatever God/Allah/YHVH has created is working under rules set for it by Him, these rules are perceived by us humans as nature or natural, I understand.

I was addressing this part (in bold) of your reply.

If you believe in both Bible and Qur’an equally, like about Adam being created directly from dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur’an), then transforming non-living dust or clay, then that’s not natural.

Talking animals (eg serpent, donkey, birds, ants) occurred in both scriptures (like stories about Eve, Balaam, Solomon), also not natural.

According to the Quran, Solomon could speak to ants, and ants could speak Solomon. Such things are only happened in myths, fables and fairytale, and in modern times, through fictions, children books, comics, cartoons and tv or film animation. Naturally, such a thing couldn’t happen.

If your god have set rules to nature, then things like above, are actually defying natural laws.

 

[paarsurrey]

And I gave you examples of what are not natural, because you wrote the following



I was addressing this part (in bold) of your reply.

If you believe in both Bible and Qur’an equally, like about Adam being created directly from dust (Genesis) or clay (Qur’an), then transforming non-living dust or clay, then that’s not natural.

Talking animals (eg serpent, donkey, birds, ants) occurred in both scriptures (like stories about Eve, Balaam, Solomon), also not natural.

According to the Quran, Solomon could speak to ants, and ants could speak Solomon. Such things are only happened in myths, fables and fairytale, and in modern times, through fictions, children books, comics, cartoons and tv or film animation. Naturally, such a thing couldn’t happen.

If your god have set rules to nature, then things like above, are actually defying natural laws.

One's information of religions is not correct, needs to be much improved.
Right?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

One's information of religions is not correct, needs to be much improved.

One?

Only one?

Tried a whole bucketloads of them.

Examples, some earlier patriarchs (including Noah) lived 900-plus years, hence more defying of natural law.

Mass-extinction by global flood, during 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age, another defying natural law.

I know that Muslims believed that Quran indicate a large regional flood is most likely, but then it would make building a huge vessel like the Ark, POINTLESS! If Noah was a prophet, then it would have been much more easier to move his family to safer location (eg by walking) than building a time-consuming Ark, hence the pointlessness of the Quran’s version about the Flood.

The Tower of Babel episode, where one moment, everyone were speaking in one language, then in the next instance, they were all speaking countless different languages, is another example of fantasy that defy reality.

There are lot more examples, like stopping and restarting the Sun during battle between Israelites and Amorites in Joshua (book); Jesus exorcising demons; resurrection, afterlife. All of them defying reality.

 

[rational experiences]

In natural human life body and presence not any universe don't you say first gas heavens fills in the space void. That across a space plane totally filled our heavenly position is the highest in creation?

Don't you scientist also quote I name the bodies I observe as the universe. A state. A science statement. States.

If you looked out just into space you would observe one only body given one only word or name by yourself a human and say but description in observing says nothing exists.

Yet in your self possessed human science mind you prove you no longer think rationally.

Which is why the destroyer human man preaching exists in bible reasoning against scientists. Just humans.

 

[rational experiences]

A human equal is human reasoning balanced and about balances.

Highest science.

No rich man speaks any truth.

O earth owned everything and it was free.
O earth owned it's heavens. Free life.

No value or evaluation and no rich man.

Rich men today gave self a false inherited power position of making choices and enforcing that choice unnaturally upon equal humanity.

Claiming equal human life owns no rights as equal humans to their human form human.

We were given the warnings about human lies.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist?

I understand it cannot. Right, please?

___________
With thanks to friend @PruePhillip post #244

If the Universe could not create itself when it did not exist then it must have a Creator. This is exactly what God/Allah/YHVH has claimed and there is no other claimant with reasons. It make Him " Evident" needing none else.
Right?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

If the Universe could not create itself when it did not exist then it must have a Creator.

That circular reasoning and confirmation bias, paarsurrey.

This is exactly what God/Allah/YHVH has claimed and there is no other claimant with reasons. It make Him " Evident" needing none else.

More of the same fallacies.

Plus a claim cannot be evident of itself, hence the circular reasoning.

You are just making excuse, so that YOU don't have to provide evidence, which is evasive and dishonest.

And if you go to ask others to provide evidence, that would be shifting the burden of proof...hence more dishonesty.

 

[rational experiences]

If a man as a human standing on earth wants to theory he cannot give the identity supreme being a name.

Reason as a man human would in human ego claim dominion over everything.

Which a human theist man did and does.

So science by human analogy said an eternal form was first.

Stating by explanation it always existed. Still had existed. Still exists. Always will exist.

So he says eternal owns its natural will.

Then you would quote that body advised me it has a womb inside of its body. The will change given to a term presence of God.

Inside the womb is a destroyed self body of Multi gods removed.

I will say the God body removed is all bodies. As one form a human theist.

How All was referenced about created bodies existing. Title ALL.

Then the theist would state all bodies are one.

Symbolic and not a number.

O A he would say the alpha forms Multi all of one God form. Created.

All forms are alpha.

Then he would state in self man living presence the spirit the breaths within which I exist living is the greatest form.

AH breaths alpha breaths from two.

Hydrogen.
Oxygen.

All things one God man's life. Allah.

Then he is meant to say and human life is lived by two equal humans.

As the human is within all things too.

Human man. Human woman.

As a human theist.

If you don't when science is the ism that said equal conditions for equal life and human continuance then you have to ask why. Today in changed life.

For sacrificed Jews it was Moses.
For sacrificed Muslims it was Muhammad.
For sacrificed Christians it was Jesus and so forth.

Then as the wombs creation keeps changing you would predict that when it changes new man life sacrificed would occur and new teachings would occur.

All statements past and future acceptable notification.

You would observe human life imbalanced. Asking where your own holy father self was. Sacrificed in God states your answer.

As you peruse the event of imbalanced human spirits.

Your advice you chose science over life.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can the universe create itself when it does‘t exist?

That depends on what existence is. Maybe it doesn't exist and is only conceptual. Does existence even make sense? Why should anything exist at all?

 

[rational experiences]

If a human is already deceased does the state for a human creation exist?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That depends on what existence is. Maybe it doesn't exist and is only conceptual. Does existence even make sense? Why should anything exist at all?

If you suggest the existence may not exist, and it is only conceptual, what and/or is it that is conceptualizing existence?

Existence exists because nothing does not exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If a human is already deceased does the state for a human creation exist?

Everything exists, nothing does not exist.

Time does not exist as a real entity, it is just a matter of existence continuing to exist that is measured by proxy, moon cycles, earth rotation, pendulum swings, atomic resonations, etc..

 

[rational experiences]

Everything exists, nothing does not exist.

Time does not exist as a real entity, it is just a matter of existence continuing to exist that is measured by proxy, moon cycles, earth rotation, pendulum swings, atomic resonations, etc..

The thesis is about a dead human versus living human theists.

Is the deceased human correct or the living theist?

If dead does creation exist...no.

You talk about a Dead human coming back. Creation does not exist for a dead human. Ignored.

Teaching is against a theist which was philosophical.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If you suggest the existence may not exist, and it is only conceptual, what and/or is it that is conceptualizing existence?

Existence exists because nothing does not exist.

Ben D, I'm not proposing a mental process. I'm saying first of all that existence makes no sense in terms of cause. You can always ask what causes the cause, recursively. Since existence cannot have a cause it makes no sense. What does make sense? Concepts. They make sense, so perhaps there is no existence. Perhaps everything is actually conceptual, like numbers or like fractals or math functions or order. If you look at all of the numbers, they have infinite complexity, because there is no last number. All information is somewhere in the number line. Absolutely every form or pattern is representable in the various relationships between the numbers in the number line, and that would be where the universe actually is. It could simply be that every action we have, every day, every moment is part of number, part of order. To us things appear to be changing, but that could simply be a trick of perspective.

As a theist this makes sense, too, because concept is where we interact with God. God is invisible, and conceptually we interact with God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The thesis is about a dead human versus living human theists.

Is the deceased human correct or the living theist?

If dead does creation exist...no.

You talk about a Dead human coming back. Creation does not exist for a dead human. Ignored.

Teaching is against a theist which was philosophical.

Well I agree with your points, but the soul of a dead human being still exists, and every atom of the body of a dead human still exists, nothing has gone missing.