Everything came forth from nothing?

[Cacotopia]

n

And you make yourself look sort of foolish and shoot your credibility in the foot when you state they were "fabricated lies".

You don't know what you are talking about, because you weren't there, and you never met the authors, and you don't know whether they were credible or not.

Neither were any of the authors that managed to quote Jesus without being there, relying on information they got from people that heard about it from 50 years ago through possibly several language barriers. Then continued to follow oral tradition through yet another language shift into Hebrew till it was finally transcribed in Ancient greek. Then translated into latin then edited twice by a group of men that were holier than thou, then translated again into english this all aside the way all languages evolve on their own, but we don't know which bible you are using either, and there are over 100 different versions of the bible, but you are calling me foolish. Okay.

 

[Spiderman]

n



Neither were any of the authors that managed to quote Jesus without being there, relying on information they got from people that heard about it from 50 years ago through possibly several language barriers. Then continued to follow oral tradition through yet another language shift into Hebrew till it was finally transcribed in Ancient greek. Then translated into latin then edited twice by a group of men that were holier than thou, then translated again into english this all aside the way all languages evolve on their own, but we don't know which bible you are using either, and there are over 100 different versions of the bible, but you are calling me foolish. Okay.

To state a historical document as fabricated lies is foolish.

If you would have said "In my opinion they are fabricated lies"....that would not look foolish.

But truth is, you simply don't know they are fabricated lies.

 

[LuisDantas]

The idea that there must be a guide or creator is not at all self-evident.

I can respect it as an aesthetical preference, but it can hardly claim to be demonstrable fact.

 

[viole]

Another thing, Apes share 99% similar DNA...but are we really all that similar?

More than that. We are apes.

I think you mean that we share 99% of our DNA with Chimps.

But to say that we share less than 100% DNA with apes is absurd, it would be like saying that we share less than 100% DNA with mammals. Which is meaningless, since we are mammals.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cacotopia]

Still not foolish it is highly probably that 99% of what they say jesus said is not accurate.

I would more listen to the Roman documentation of what they said Jesus (Joesephus(sp)) said, at least they actually kept physical records. There was an individual named Joesephus that has been mentioned in records but no "Jesus," so I am not even sure this Jesus character existed in the first place. And incredible feats thusly require incredible evidence to which you have none. Self resurrection, not natural.

 

[Polymath257]

so the energy that created the bang always existed?

Simply put, we don't know.

It may be that there was simply no 'before the Big Bang'. If time *started* at the BB, then the whole concept of causality is broken for that event.

It may be that the energy of the universe has always existed. In particular, there may have been a previous, contracting universe that 'bounced'. giving rise to the BB and our universe.

It may be that there is a multiverse with many distinct universes that 'bud off', with our just one of the many.

In the last two cases, time and energy go infinitely far into the past.

 

[Polymath257]

Anyway,
let's get to the real reason I started this thread. Did any of these: Nickel, iron, rock, silicon, , magnesium, aluminum, oxygen, other minerals, calcium, sodium, potassium, liquid water, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and other gases, always exist?

Did any of these exist without beginning?

If so, doesn't it take a leap of faith to believe that? Also, if they had to have a beginning, doesn't that mean they essentially came forth from nothingness?

Also, can we prove the theories about "Scientific mechanisms" that could cause living creatures to come forth from these elements or substances?

Each and every one of these substances 'had a beginning'. The elements, i.e, Nickel, Iron, Silicon, Aluminum, Oxygen, calcium, sodium, potassium, nitrogen all formed in the cores of stars from nuclear reactions. The hydrogen that those stars were originally made from came from nuclear reactions just after the Big Bang. I can go into more detail if you want about this. These elements were distributed away from those stars through supernova.

By the way, our Sun was a fairly late arrival: a couple of generations of stars came before it and the planets of our solar system were formed (including the Earth).

Liquid water is just water at a particular range of temperatures and pressures. Water is a very common compound in the universe and is made from hydrogen and oxygen. Carbon dioxide is another very common compound and is made from, guess...carbon and oxygen.

Rocks are generic accumulations of different crystals and so came about after the formation of the elements above.

So, yes, ALL of these had a beginning, and none of them 'came from nothingness'. Every single one of the ones you mentioned had precursors.

Finally, living things are made from these elements, so only became possible after those elements were formed. Life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions. Once the conditions on the early Earth were cool enough for liquid water to condense (steam already existed), life formed pretty quickly.

 

[Cacotopia]

Or we are a different reality of another universe in the multiverse.

 

[Cacotopia]

Elements aren't the base building blocks of the universe, I would say atoms but you can go to sub atomic particles and quarks and deeper down into quantum mechanics which I have no authority on the topic.

 

[Spiderman]

More than that. We are apes.

I think you mean that we share 99% of our DNA with Chimps.

But to say that we share less than 100% DNA with apes is absurd, it would be like saying that we share less than 100% DNA with mammals. Which is meaningless, since we are mammals.

Ciao

- viole

I meant to say chimps...they are apes...but chimps were specifically what I was referring to...thank you for correction

 

[URAVIP2ME]

n
Neither were any of the authors that managed to quote Jesus without being there, relying on information they got from people that heard about it from 50 years ago through possibly several language barriers. Then continued to follow oral tradition through yet another language shift into Hebrew till it was finally transcribed in Ancient greek. Then translated into latin then edited twice by a group of men that were holier than thou, then translated again into english this all aside the way all languages evolve on their own, but we don't know which bible you are using either, and there are over 100 different versions of the bible, but you are calling me foolish. Okay.

I find according to Scripture that Jesus' apostles were there such as John and Peter,etc.
Plus, Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning what was already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, Jesus' recorded words have corresponding cross-reference verses or passages all in harmony with what was already written down. That is why Jesus could use his logical reasoning in explaining the old written down Scriptures for us.

There are ancient manuscripts available so Not matter the language Bible translations prove themselves.
Sure there are some paraphrased versions out there but they are Not translations.
Also, since the apocryphal books are out of harmony with the harmonious '66' Bible books is why those apocryphal books simply exclude themselves as being part of the Bible.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Simply put, we don't know.
It may be that there was simply no 'before the Big Bang'. If time *started* at the BB, then the whole concept of causality is broken for that event.
It may be that the energy of the universe has always existed. In particular, there may have been a previous, contracting universe that 'bounced'. giving rise to the BB and our universe.
It may be that there is a multiverse with many distinct universes that 'bud off', with our just one of the many.
In the last two cases, time and energy go infinitely far into the past.

I find according to Psalms 90:2 there was simply a ' before the Big Bang ' because according to that Psalm the everlasting God existed, and according to Isaiah 40:26 it was God who supplied His power, His strength, in other words, His abundant energy to create the visible realm of existence. So, No the universe did Not always exist.
The invisible realm of existence existed first before the material realm.
So, true ' time and energy go infinitely far into the past ', that is why eternity is placed in our hearts for each day we can count we can count endlessly both forwards and backwards forever and ever.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That doesn't explain the nature of god's energy just its function and the use of it.
What is the energy supplied by god?

True, Psalms 104:30 does Not explain the nature of God's energy, but that Isaiah 40:26 connects God having great 'power' and 'strength' thus to me power and strength indicates abundantly powerfully strong dynamic energy.
As I mentioned before we don't see the powerful energy emitted from a Power Plant grid but we see the effects from it and the function it provides, so to me we see the effects of God's powerful energy as even observed in the universe.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Define nothing. Is nothing a quantum vaccuum. Or is it the absolute of not one thing.
Seems to me at the singularity the laws of physics breakdown. I dont think anybody knows enough at that point what was going on in there.
Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning
So i take it on faith, since i cant do the math myself that these guys really know whats going on.
Since there must be an absolute beginning that throws the cosmological argument back in play. Round and round we go.
cosmological argument - Google Search:
Then there is the issue of time
Time and the Big Bang – Exactly What Is Time?
So if there was no time and no place before the big bang then they reason something indeed comes from nothing and its all in the realm of philosophy because no one knows as of yet.
Personally i think the cosmological argument is still alive.

By saying there was 'No time and No place before the Big Bang' is that provable or just Not known by them.
I find ' time ' is in our hearts, ' eternity ' is in our hearts, because for each second we can count we can count both forwards and backwards endlessly forever and ever.
To me, No need to go ' round and round ' because according to Isaiah 40:26 God supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create and start the Big Bang.

 

[Ibni Abbas]

I found the analogy to answer the question :


Al Nabi SAW is Al Khatamun Nabiyyin SAW , He SAW is not but started .

 

[ecco]

I'm not promoting the Bible and I think much of the Bible is asinine and goes against my conscience....Why do you keep insisting on bringing up the Bible when I've already stated that I don't believe in it, trust it, or follow it?!?!

PopeADope is starting his own religion.

He is taking those parts of christianity in which he believes, combining them with those parts of science in which he believes and dismissing everything else.

He will have many followers because he can convince people of the validity of his beliefs, as can be seen from this forum.

 

[ecco]

I believe God is a spirit that speaks to the hearts of people of all faiths. I believe every Religion has some truth and some errors.

I believe God wants to be a hidden mystery for now, but does sometimes speak to a select few people...

OK, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs.

...and on occasion does work miracles, that have converted atheists, baffled Doctors, baffled scientists, and been medically documented and verified.

Oh no. You just went from stating your beliefs to making BS assertions in the middle of one sentence.

Do you think repeating assertions makes them real? It doesn't.
Do you think repeating assertions makes others believe them? It doesn't.

I've asked, more than a few times, for you to provide evidence for your nonsensical claims. But you haven't been able to do that. Ask yourself why you can't back up your claims.

 

[ecco]

You would not have seen even one instance of medical documentation. None. Zero. Zip. Ziltch.
Any documented before and after pictures? Nope. None. Zero. Zip. Ziltch.

There were no contra naturam cures. None. Zero. Zip. Ziltch.

-

The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church. They use skeptics on the committees, the rules are geared to control for remission. They screen our remission. They are required to use only the best medical evidence, to consult the doctors of the patients and they cannot make decisions without obtaining the medical records of those doctors. They do examine the patients. It does have to be proven that the people were sick beforehand! they will only choose a case when they cannot find a naturalistic explaination.
Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracel acceptence.

The above quote comes from Scientific Evidence for Miracles page 1: examination of the Lourdes rules for miracel acceptence.. (www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html).

Do you realize that, to substantiate your position, you just posted the comments and opinions of an anonymous person running a website? His comments and opinions carry as much weight as your comments and opinions.

PopeADope, your really need to research you "supporting sources" before blindly copy/pasting from them.


ETA: Will you be posting from here next?
The Flat Earth Society (//theflatearthsociety.org/)

 

[ecco]

Neither were any of the authors that managed to quote Jesus without being there, relying on information they got from people that heard about it from 50 years ago through possibly several language barriers. Then continued to follow oral tradition through yet another language shift into Hebrew till it was finally transcribed in Ancient greek. Then translated into latin then edited twice by a group of men that were holier than thou, then translated again into english this all aside the way all languages evolve on their own, but we don't know which bible you are using either, and there are over 100 different versions of the bible, but you are calling me foolish. Okay.

I've often wondered who transcribed the 5000 words of the Sermon on the Mount so accurately.