Is there a God?

[George-ananda]

there is the human consciousness and the subconscious. They work together to create detailed images and thought to align with what we can make sense.
In other words, its our minds doing the work. We see an image and we give it a story and it has meaning.

I'm aware of the above BUT, this can not explain such things as multiple independant sightings reported to lets say, the owner of an old hotel. The only explanation aethistic theories give is complete denial of any all paranormal phenomena of these types. And after decades of paranormal interest, I am well aware of the attempts at explanation.

I wouldn't think for a second that vampires are real, so why would I think ghosts are real?

Two unrelated subjects. One can easily be real and not the other.

 

[Warren Clark]

I don't think a hastily cobbled together crude picture is going to make it possible to cross an infinite number of seconds. I do appreciate the effort though. By the way without a key to the color code I am missing out on most of what was neat about the picture.

Red = Past Unknown
Orange = Past very little known
Yellow = Past little known
Green = Past/Present known
Blue = Future Unknown

Not that it matters because you think that if time were infinite it would be impossible to get from point a to point b. I understand your point, but let me clarify.
If time were infinite the amount of time it took for events to happen would remain the same. There would only be time to account for before and after said events. In this case, there would have to be accounted time for before the big bang and after the universe's demise. It would not be impossible to get from point a to point b as you are insinuating.

Yes I see how absurd it is to say beans did it. I and many of the greatest minds in all of human history think God makes more sense and in fact the only sense possible of our past. It is far more absurd to suggest that beans and God are equivalent concepts and then there fore the comparison is silly and a waste of time. It is referred to as an appeale to the absurd and is a falacy. If you can't see the difference between the validity of the two concepts I won't bother pointing it out. There is about as much reason to beleive beans did it as that the universe is oscillating so it's no suprise you adopted it.

The only difference between magic beans and God is what a ficticious book has to say about them.
Neither belong in science because they both belong in their perspective books.
The Oscillating Universe is at least a viable and scientifically deemed worthy theory.
Why do you thing we see scientists allow Oscillating Universe theory in science but not God?

He does. I do not get your approach. We do not know why most of reality does what it does or what it even is in many cases yet it exists. We don't know how God can be and yet you demand that science prove it. Science is a limited and narrow detector of reality. Most of reality is not known to science but I do not think you deny that love, astetic value, morality, or what exists on the bottom of all the oceans just on Earth just because science can't detect it or hasn't yet.

He created it is where it fits. Let me ask you something. You know that we have mathematics that describe how gravity works can you tell me why it works? Since I know you can't it must not exist by your odd logic.

Now you are just making assumptions based on nothing but what you might have been told without evidence.
There is math to describe gravity just as there is math to describe the speed of light or the creation of an atomic reaction. None of this math includes God. You cannot substitute a variable with God and say you have your answer.

The philisophic truth about time exists whether God does or not.
What are you talking about? It's symbol is representative of an abstract concept. There is no actual infinite in nature.

The very being of energy that cannot be created or destroyed is by definition infinite.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Define God. The answer is wholly dependent on your definition of God.

 

[Warren Clark]

You are full of every bad stereotypical example of a bad argument against God there is. The same book that has heaven also has Hell. It also has continuous self admitted failure and of the most serious kind. The testimony in the Bible is said by the greatest experts on evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf, and Lord Lynhurst) who said that the Bible meets every single standard of modern law and the historical method. They said along with many other experts that the Bible has every halmark of unmytholigised fact and honest testimony. Until you gain or produce someone with higher credentials I am going with them. Here is a link to their statements among many other respected master scholars: Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

I just got on my laptop which is slower than hell. Tomorrow I will get on my desktop and I will detail this out. I have yet to find anyone that can provide sustainable proof without being a crock that the Bible is accurate. Yet no one has been able to, I look forward to check out these "Master Scholars".
By the way, I have evidence and testimonies of curators who can show you that Jesus was not the first deity that was crucified and rose again... This all originated from older civilizations and parables. Infact, some people might even say it was Ancient Aliens. Maybe it was... you never know.
But until there is proof for certain. I will remain a skeptic.

I have said several times so far that it doesn't have to be but God is the actually the only candidate known. How can science (mere natural law) exist before nature in order to create nature?

Ive said before, science didn't exist until humans became conscious of their surroundings.
Natural Law was probably or most likely nothing like it is now before the Big Bang. Doesn't mean we should assume God did it.

What created nature must have existed outside of the nature he produced. It is simple cause and effect philosophy and has no exception real or theoretic.

You never did answer where did God come from? And you can't say he always was. Occam's Razor. You refuse to accept that time could be infinite. Something no scientist I have met would refute.

How can you physics exists before physicallity existed. Nothing produces nothing. We had nothing and yet now we have something. You say nothing exploded and created everything an infinate time ago by laws it created later and defy science and philosophy. I say we had God and nothing else then he created everything a finite time ago. That violates nothing except your delicate sensabilities.

You aren't reading me correctly or something...
There was never nothing. There was always something. In this case there was always energy.

But thats not good enough for you. You have to have God create the energy. Because Occam's Razor doesn't mean anything to you.
You are basically saying, "Who cares if the puzzle piece doesnt go to this puzzle, I am going to put it there anyway."

ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY!!!!!!!
Stop saying there was nothing, there was energy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't get a big bang from nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Holy mother of Zeus please stop saying there was nothing! Its a betrayal of science!

^That was my emotional pleaing for you to stop your circular logic that you are creating all by yourself.

If you could understand that there wasn't nothing, then I think we could move an inch further in this conversation.

However that will not stop your type of science is my religion personality from grasping anything no matter how fantastic or ever impossible and rejecting God no matter how likely or reasonable. It seems as they knew 5000 years ago that the decision to reject God is based in the heart and has very little to do with evidence.

5,000 years ago we were primitive idiots.
We didn't know our *** from our elbow compared to our knowledge today.
Most of that sentence was fragmented, so I am trying to piece what I can together.
Basically you think that beyond science there is God and I am rejecting God...
Well if that is what you believe I am sorry...
I don't reject God, The bible and everything that talks about God destroys itself with illogical content about immaculate conceptions.
Great stories but there is nothing real about a virgin birth. Sorry, no cigar.

Please pay close attention to this. I have said it several times so far and it has apparently not regestered. We do not in any way know that energy can't be created or destroyed. The only thing we know is that we do not know of anythingthat can do it. Whatever viability your energy point has is not as strong as the equally scientifically true but much more applicable fact that if the universe was infinately old then the energy would have dissipated by now. One of those laws is not quite true. Mine is stronger. Yours must have an exception, that is why I point out there may be something that can create or destroy energy in the 99% of reality we don't know anything about.

I am pretty much done arguing about this because you would have to be a fool to ignore one of the most important laws of physics.
And as I explained and the video explained as well, no the energy would not have necessarily dispersed if time was infinite. But you refuse to look at the evidence I have supplied with the lists of theories and laws that are already in place.
I can't debate with someone that ignores the most simple of facts.

Whether time is infinite or not is not a fact but a scientific quagmire.
Whether there is a God or not is not scientific, it is philosophical and theological, it has no room in science.

That was not the point. We may very well learn in the next ten years something that can create and destroy energy. Ignorance is not proof of anything but ignorance.

Hiroshima proved that energy is not destroyed but transfered; and that this release of energy was unimaginably destructive.

I guess I can agree to that. I hate tedium which is why I always got concepts faster and proofs slower than anyone else. None of that is relevant to the fact that crossing an infinate series of seconds is not even a logical question. Infinity when introduced into rationality is always in conflict. It blows up most math applications and introduces logical impossabilities like what is infinity times 2 or divided by 7. It has no actuall reality, it is an abstract concept only.

im not asking anyone to cross anything of infinity. I am saying pick a point "a" and then "b" from the infinite stretch of time. and then cross a - b and then we will work on b - c.

<------- A -------------------- B ---------------------- c ------->


infinity is the opposite of 0 as well. zero isn't even a number though. Its the absence of quantity. but if you go to the absence of quantity you will find the opposite to be unending quantity. Infinite.

I am a little of both. Currently I am reading a bio of Mother Theresa, The Science of God by Schroedder, a secular history of OT warfare, and a generic history of the NT. I keep one in each place I frequent. However I regard science as only one narrow band among many by which reality may be detected or examined. I lost my religious fervor for science when I spiritually met Jesus and it was a much better fit when transferred to him.

I don't know if i consider science my religion. Its really just a tool. My religion would art I think. Just the replication of what we see and being able to portray in a detailed way. I find it hard to show other people exatly how something makes you feel... its fustrating. its just how interestingly the mind works.
I love and science and art for this reason... science is what explains art and art is what explains science.... so to speak.

 

[Warren Clark]

Define God. The answer is wholly dependent on your definition of God.

Its up to you whats God?

 

[Warren Clark]

Actually if I claimed I know God exists for a fact then proof is necessary. If I say that his existance is likely or highly probable then I only have to demonstrate that. For example prophecy is one method. One example of the over two thousand is that the destruction of Tyre was predicted in detail including names and circumstances by God hundreds of years before it was completed. That if true and examples like it make an undeniable argument for the likely existance of God. Why don't we conclude that obviously science can't solve the issue and doesn't even make God less likely and see if the Bible can help out. Can you defend a lack of belief in the Bible?

This is where we have an unclear problem...
When you make the claim to the existence of something, the burden of proof is completely reliant on the one making the claim of existence.

If I had a box, and I said there was a spoon in the box, I would have to prove that there was a spoon in the box.

As an atheist. I recognize there is a universe. I don't claim there is a God.
You as a theist claim there is a universe and a God.
There is no reason to make such claims, so why do you?


Our science has taken claim for many things people claimed credit to God for.
Such as the tide, and the seasonal and daily cycles.
The bible reads like a realistic fiction. Where the characters and places seem plausible but the events are absurd. Its common in fables.
Why should I still believe in fairy tales?
Should I really believe that a donkey spoke or a army brought a city down by tooting their horns? Or that God would purposely kill every first born of an entire civilization?

This stuff has no place in reality.

 

[1robin]

This is where we have an unclear problem...

When you make the claim to the existence of something, the burden of proof is completely reliant on the one making the claim of existence.

I will answer this shorter post first and then backtrack. Historical claims are different than scientific claims. Historical claims are defined by probability. Short of going back in time and photographing something (and even that might not be proof) there is no absolutes in history. What is done is to define a reasonable likely hood of occurrence. As far as events in ancient history go, the Gospels for instance are as historically reliable as it gets. If you were right for instance I would have to go and get Caesar so he could be questioned or everything about him in text books would have to be removed. Yet it isn't removed because the burden of proof is different with historical claims. I make a claim to probability of occurrence not to absolute knowledge. No absolute proof is required because no absolute claim is made. I need only supply evidence as to why I think it is a reliable conclusion that the Bible is approx. 95% accurate.

If I had a box, and I said there was a spoon in the box, I would have to prove that there was a spoon in the box.

That is a claim to absolute knowledge and there for must have absolute proof. Once again you are comparing two unequal things.

As an atheist. I recognize there is a universe. I don't claim there is a God.
You as a theist claim there is a universe and a God.
There is no reason to make such claims, so why do you?

It is a little ridiculous to suggest that 1/3 of the people on earth and many of the greatest minds in human history faithfully believe in something that has no evidence. It is also a little insulting. The existence of God is not a matter of fact it is a matter of faith. By the way most of what you believe is faith as well, we just admit it. For example can you prove that the universe was not made 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. No? Can you prove that the universe is equally rational at all points in space and time. No? Yet you operate as if that is true. So your belief that it wasn't is faith based. Same with about 95% of what you believe.

Our science has taken claim for many things people claimed credit to God for.
Such as the tide, and the seasonal and daily cycles.

First science did not produce anything. Gravity produces tides and gravity has no rational explanation. I do not claim God specifically cause the tide but indirectly he created gravity which science can't even explain that does cause tides. Second I do not defend what people say but only what the Bible says. Science has not proven a single claim in the Bible incorrect, which is truly remarkable. The proposition of God if false and the details concerning him are so preposterous if untrue that if they were not true the Bible should have died in the cradle. It is only the fact that the Bible's claims are so remarkably accurate that has led billions to believe in spite of the fact it is such an outrageous claim.

The bible reads like a realistic fiction. Where the characters and places seem plausible but the events are absurd.

Actually every single event and person in the Bible that has been able to be verified (over 25,000 to date) has been perfectly accurate. With the exception of a few scribal errors like adding a zero to a number of troops the Bibles historical claims are so reliable that it is used as a primary historical resource by even secular archeologists. It has proven them wrong time and time again. If you will give specific claims instead of generalized complaints with no foundation then they can be debated.

Its common in fables.
Why should I still believe in fairy tales?

People far more qualified than you and me put together (I will supply quotes if necessary) say that the Bible especially the Gospels have zero indicators of myth or fable. In fact the ones who wrote it would have known if it was a lie and they suffered their whole lives and many died defending what they would have known was false if you were right. That makes no sense.

Should I really believe that a donkey spoke or a army brought a city down by tooting their horns?

If you can check every claim that is verifiable and it is 100% accurate than a great deal of faith can is justified where they can't be. The Bible is too big to discuss in depth I suggest we use the Gospels and the most picked on prophecy in the Bible (Tyre's destruction as I have recently defended it and am familiar with it) and see if it is accurate. There is no way to verify Balaam's talking donkey.

Or that God would purposely kill every first born of an entire civilization?

Actually it was far fewer people than you think for many reasons. You are going to have to settle on an issue or two if you actually want to find out. I have offered my suggestions. There is no value at all in generalized sweeping assertions based in emotion that you can't possibly know the truth concerning.

This stuff has no place in reality.

Now that is a claim to absolute knowledge and does require absolute proof. Have at it. You twisted your own noose as they say.

 

[PolyHedral]

I will answer this shorter post first and then backtrack. Historical claims are different than scientific claims. Historical claims are defined by probability.

As are scientific ones. The only difference is that science normally has more evidence available, and can do experiments more easily.

Please remember that even if the Gospels are impeccable historically, it is actually more likely that aliens lied to the authors than God exists - the latter requires rewriting all of natural science, from physics upwards. The former does not, and fits in with almost all existing evidence.

 

[MD]

Please remember that even if the Gospels are impeccable historically, it is actually more likely that aliens lied to the authors than God exists - the latter requires rewriting all of natural science, from physics upwards. The former does not, and fits in with almost all existing evidence.

Wouldn't qualia and self organization suggest that atleast some aspects of natural science have to be rewritten?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Its up to you whats God?

Then this debate can't have an answer as each person will answer dependent on their definition of God with no regard for others definitions nor a community or cultural definition. What is the point of debating whether my apple is better or worse than your orange?

 

[PolyHedral]

Wouldn't qualia and self organization suggest that atleast some aspects of natural science have to be rewritten?

Only if qualia is metaphysical. We already take into account self-organisation.

 

[MD]

Only if qualia is metaphysical. We already take into account self-organisation.

Whatever qualia are they aren't purely physical. They can be another property of the universe.

 

[1robin]

Red = Past Unknown

Orange = Past very little known
Yellow = Past little known
Green = Past/Present known
Blue = Future Unknown
Not that it matters because you think that if time were infinite it would be impossible to get from point a to point b. I understand your point, but let me clarify.
If time were infinite the amount of time it took for events to happen would remain the same. There would only be time to account for before and after said events. In this case, there would have to be accounted time for before the big bang and after the universe's demise. It would not be impossible to get from point a to point b as you are insinuating.

Thanks for the color code clarification. I am a little less confident in science than you are but generally agree with the lines codes. As far as point a and b are concerned it is irrelevant. This is the actual issue. To mathematically represent what I am saying we must start at what we know. We know that this second (now = X) exists. If time is infinite as you say then it started at X - infinity. That never allows time to begin. No matter where you stop time actually started an infinite time before that. It as I have repeatedly said makes the math blow up and renders nonsensical conclusions. It almost always does this any time it is used. That is why infinity is only an abstract concept and not a physical reality. It is impossible to get here if you started infinitely long ago. You for some reason are assuming that happened anyway and instead trying to concentrate on a fixed point that you created on an impossible time line. You are discussing the details of a thing that can't exist. I have stated this in about a dozen ways so far but you are so committed to the idea it makes no difference. It is fast becoming the scholarly conclusion that time can't possibly be infinite. It is almost always just conceded in professional debate. Facts do not overcome an emotional commitment to an idea and I will no longer debate this issue as there is no use.

The only difference between magic beans and God is what a fictitious book has to say about them.

Once again a claim to absolute fact unlike my claims. And so unlike my claims you must provide absolute proof.

Neither belong in science because they both belong in their perspective books.

I do not care what science deems relevant or not. Science is not the full measure of reality. It is only one narrow band concerning the ways reality is detected and understood. It is not a holy grail, it is not almighty, and it certainly is not sacred. It is full of the same fallible people that any other demographic is. It is also full or arrogant people who make grant money by inventing exiting fantasies and calling them science.

The Oscillating Universe is at least a viable and scientifically deemed worthy theory.

So a theory without a single shred of evidence is viable but the most scrutinized and cherished Book in human history with literally tens of thousands of lines of evidence is out. Like I said it is not an evidence issue it is a preference issue.

Why do you thing we see scientists allow Oscillating Universe theory in science but not God?

I can't believe you had to ask this. Scientists deal with the natural. God is supernatural and scientists have no access to him one way or the other. By the way many of the greatest scientists in history and a large portion of the ones who actually began fields of science were believers. A list of Christian/theist scientists contains most of the greatest names in science. Any scientist who says God does not exist is a fact, is a fool and should not be allowed out of the lab. Fortunately most are honest enought to say they can prove it one way or the other.

Now you are just making assumptions based on nothing but what you might have been told without evidence.

What are you talking about? Everything I said is accurate.

There is math to describe gravity just as there is math to describe the speed of light or the creation of an atomic reaction. None of this math includes God. You cannot substitute a variable with God and say you have your answer.

Math has no access to God. Science is not the father of all reality. Most reality exists outside of known science. I do not share your faith that science is omnipotent and am getting a little frustrated with the assertion.

The very being of energy that cannot be created or destroyed is by definition infinite.

You are starting to worry me. I will go through this one last time.
This is what we know:
1. We do not know of a law or force of nature that allows or can force the destruction of or the creation of energy.
2. We do not know what or how much we do not know and so this is very far from an absolute knowledge.
3. Since science only covers a narrow band of reality it is very possible (infinitely more so than oscillations of the universe) that something outside the realm of almighty science (of which most reality is in) contains something that can create and destroy energy.
4. There is another law in nature (in fact the most immutable law of all) called thermodynamics that says energy seeks complete dispersion given time. If you are right and time is infinite (besides being impossible) then energy would have completely dispersed as well as matter.
5. Energy is not even approaching complete dispersion and therefore time nor energy can be infinite in duration.
6. The science you selected based on preference does not include any other force or reality outside science and therefore is not a fact. The science I used has no need to account for anything outside of science unlike yours and therefore is far more reliable.
I am getting a little frustrated because you are cherry picking science or emphasizing some science over others based on a predetermined position and not logic. This is very common in secular science. Biology has a LAW that prohibits life from spontaneously arising called abiogenesis. Yet they simply ignore their own science and say it does anyway because emotional pre commitments force them to, even though logic and reason prohibit that. That is why I have a less than sacred and omnipotent view of scientists that you seem to have. You seem to be doing what they do, allowing your conclusion to determine the facts instead of the other way around.
Here is a summary:
1. You have clung to a theory (oscillation) which has not a scrap of evidence for it.
2. You have rejected the Bible which has more evidence for it than you can possibly even examine in your lifetime.
3. You have assumed that the law of conservation of energy is almighty and determines all reality.
4. You have dismissed or ignored a more substantial law (thermodynamics) which says that if infinite energy should be completely dispersed.
5. You have insisted that time is infinite even though it is philosophically impossible and mathematically indeterminable.
7. You have used a false line of reasoning about a minor story about a donkey to condemn the most studied and believed book in human history.
8. You have unjustifiably impugned a few words in the Bible and then condemned the other 750,000 words it contains based on that false conclusion concerning at most a hundred words.
9. You have repeatedly suggested that if God can't be defined by Lord science then he does not exist. That is is simply false as well as being illogical.
10. You have asserted that even though God is a perfect fit for what we know concerning what created everything that he is less likely than theories that either have no evidence at all or ones that additionally are impossible.
11. You insist your claims are based on fact when science its self is largely faith based. It is based on faith that the universe is universally rationally intelligible. It also assumes among about a million other things that reality is what our sense say it is. If science actually restricted itself to its own standard for truth in that only things that can be observed or reproduced are true then 90% of it is faith based.


Is it any wonder I see bias as predominant in your position and not reason?

I am currently trouble shooting a Heads up Display for an F-15 gun sight using a 2 million dollar test set that includes a rubidium gas oscillator among many other high tech devices. I am no stranger to and a fan of science but I do not worship at it’s alter.

 

[PolyHedral]

Whatever qualia are they aren't purely physical. They can be another property of the universe.

They might be emergent from purely physical phenomena.

 

[MD]

They might be emergent from purely physical phenomena.

Doesn't that imply magic?

 

[PolyHedral]

Doesn't that imply magic?

Why would it imply magic?

 

[MD]

Why would it imply magic?

Creating something non reducible, non material and purely subjective just from the arrangement of objective particles to me implies magic. It suggests that matter in certain arrangements is capable of creating anything completely different from itself.

 

[PolyHedral]

Creating something non reducible, non material and purely subjective just from the arrangement of objective particles to me implies magic. It suggests that matter in certain arrangements is capable of creating anything completely different from itself.

If qualia are emergent phenomena of matter configurations, they are reducible and only appear subjective from the inside.

 

[MD]

If qualia are emergent phenomena of matter configurations, they are reducible and only appear subjective from the inside.

They are objectively reducible, subjectively they're irreducible. They arise spontaneously from matter configurations, there isn't a particle of red or particle of pain. And in a purely objective, physical universe subjectivity should not be able to exist.

 

[1robin]

I just got on my laptop which is slower than hell. Tomorrow I will get on my desktop and I will detail this out. I have yet to find anyone that can provide sustainable proof without being a crock that the Bible is accurate. Yet no one has been able to, I look forward to check out these "Master Scholars".
By the way, I have evidence and testimonies of curators who can show you that Jesus was not the first deity that was crucified and rose again... This all originated from older civilizations and parables. In fact, some people might even say it was Ancient Aliens. Maybe it was... you never know.
But until there is proof for certain. I will remain a skeptic.

Parallelism is on the bottom rung concerning arguments against God. It is very rarely used. I just saw Dr James White destroy a poor guy who tried to use it in a debate a couple weeks ago. It is more in the domain of the completely inaccurate Zeitgeist genre. For example it's crowing jewel is Horus's parallels with Christ. Let's take a look at just the details that are said to be the same, not the thousands that are not:
Christ v/s Horus
Born Dec 25th (Best guess) v/s Born "Epagomenal Days" which is in Aug
3 Kings and a star at birth v/s No star and no kings
Claimed to be savior v/s Not a savior
Became teacher at 12 v/s Did not become a teacher
Baptized at 30yrs v/s Never baptized, however thrown in water often
Called "the truth, the light, and the lamb" v/s Never called any of those
Christ was crucified by the Romans and rose after three days
v/s
The deathless and timeless Egyptian god Horus symbolizes both power and wisdom. Worshiped in the form of the all-revealing 'eye', Horus is still very much a part of tattoo designs and an extensively studied and interpreted ancient symbol. This son of Isis and Osiris remains synonymous with strength.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/egyptian-god-horus.html

I’ve said before, science didn't exist until humans became conscious of their surroundings.
Natural Law was probably or most likely nothing like it is now before the Big Bang. Doesn't mean we should assume God did it.

I was not assuming God based on what we do not know but rather on what we do know. You are rejecting based on what we do not know in spite of what we do know. Big difference. Claiming anything about the "time before" the big bang is not only complete fantasy but runs against modern science.

You never did answer where did God come from? And you can't say he always was. Occam's Razor. You refuse to accept that time could be infinite. Something no scientist I have met would refute.

So something as relatively trivial as time is infinite but God can't be. Strange double standard you have there. In fact whatever created the universe must be eternal. There can't be an infinite regression of causes for the same reason there can't be an infinite regression of seconds. His (or whatever created the universe) eternal status is not just the simplest conclusion it is the absolute logical imperative, unlike concerning time. Your claiming concerning scientists is about as far from truth as possible. The greatest scientist in human history (Newton) as well as these that follow disagree with you:
Hartle–Hawking boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.
Your claims have all but disappeared from professional debates on time.

You aren't reading me correctly or something...
There was never nothing. There was always something. In this case there was always energy.

No there was not. I can't keep beating my head on the wall. The issue you subscribe to is all but gone in modern physics, it was always impossible in philosophy, and is mathematical nonsense. Believe what you wish.

ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY!!!!!!!
Stop saying there was nothing, there was energy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can't get a big bang from nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Holy mother of Zeus please stop saying there was nothing! Its a betrayal of science!

Saying something that is actually impossible happened in big letters and even with quotation marks does not make it any less impossible.

^That was my emotional pleading for you to stop your circular logic that you are creating all by yourself.

I am never going to grant a point based in logical lunacy.

If you could understand that there wasn't nothing, then I think we could move an inch further in this conversation.

I wish you would stay in the realm of the possible and quit venturing into fantasy.

5,000 years ago we were primitive idiots.
We didn't know our *** from our elbow compared to our knowledge today.
Most of that sentence was fragmented, so I am trying to piece what I can together.

They were just as intelligent as we are today. The only difference is they did not have as much experience to draw on. In many ways they did more with what they had than we do with what we know. At least they did not look for the nearest camera on which to display the almighty omnipotence so prevalent in modern academics. I do not see how inventing ways to kill ourselves as fast as possible is any "smarter" than any time in the past. For every positive we invent a negative to offset it. Your positions are very arrogant.

Great stories but there is nothing real about a virgin birth. Sorry, no cigar.

Once again a pathetic claim to absolute knowledge. Let's see if you can suspend the rhetoric and double standards long enough to provide the proof that is actually required of you for claims like this and that you falsely required of my claims.

I am pretty much done arguing about this because you would have to be a fool to ignore one of the most important laws of physics.

Not only you but actual scientists ignore them constantly at any time that that is convenient. I give up. The double standards and mere assertions masquerading as proofs are tiresome and unprofitable. Believe what you wish. Even if it defies science and logic.