Science Proves Nature Was Created

[Thief]

I see desperation.

It's not a discussion you can plant in a petri dish.
all you can do is think about it.

 

[David M]

but it is the base and foundation of science.
deny cause and effect and science is no longer your support.

No, its not the base and foundation of all science. It has not been so for a long time.

 

[Thief]

No, its not the base and foundation of all science. It has not been so for a long time.

you will have to expand on this.

If cause and effect are disassociated.....then no experiment can be decisive.

 

[Yerda]

the entire universe is moving.
it's been moving since the beginning.

That is if we assume there was a beginning.

science takes you to the beginning and cannot do more.

As best I can tell certain cosmologies speculate that the currently expanding region we find ourselves in can be regressed back to a singularity. I'm not sure that this means that there is a beginning. Most physicists I've heard speak on the matter have no issue with speaking of before the big bang or even of other universes/regions of inflation.

substance does not move of it's own volition.

I'm assuming by substance, you mean matter. Is that right?

Someone....set all of this in motion.

Maybe it has always been in motion.

Why is a Spirit cause any more meaningful than an eternal universe?

How can Spirit cause anything?

 

[Thief]

That is if we assume there was a beginning.

As best I can tell certain cosmologies speculate that the currently expanding region we find ourselves in can be regressed back to a singularity. I'm not sure that this means that there is a beginning. Most physicists I've heard speak on the matter have no issue with speaking of before the big bang or even of other universes/regions of inflation.

I'm assuming by substance, you mean matter. Is that right?

Maybe it has always been in motion.

Why is a Spirit cause any more meaningful than an eternal universe?

How can Spirit cause anything?

Some many questions!

Theoretical physicists have all kinds of problems.
Infinity is one of them.

So picture it....yes you can...
All that the universe may be collapsing into one location.
The numbers are extreme....mind boggling.

but it ends with ONE location......no secondary point is allowed.
a secondary would induce distance and infinity.
and even though movement might be hard to discern.....time does not exist until some thing DOES move.

Nothing moves of it's own volition.
I don't believe substance is 'self' starting.

Spirit first.

 

[Yerda]

Some many questions!

Theoretical physicists have all kinds of problems.
Infinity is one of them.

So picture it....yes you can...
All that the universe may be collapsing into one location.
The numbers are extreme....mind boggling.

but it ends with ONE location......no secondary point is allowed.
a secondary would induce distance and infinity.
and even though movement might be hard to discern.....time does not exist until some thing DOES move.

What I am suggesting is that perhaps motion and time extend back into the past indefinitely.

Nothing moves of it's own volition.
I don't believe substance is 'self' starting.

What is substance?

Spirit first.

Why anything first?

 

[Thief]

What I am suggesting is that perhaps motion and time extend back into the past indefinitely.

What is substance?

Why anything first?

oh please....what is substance?
perhaps some meditation would work for you.

In the scheme of regression.....motion goes all the way back to the beginning.
See Genesis.

 

[Yerda]

oh please....what is substance?
perhaps some meditation would work for you.

Perhaps it would. Is there a reason you didn't answer the question?

In the scheme of regression.....motion goes all the way back to the beginning.
See Genesis.

I've read Genesis.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How can Spirit cause anything?

By choosing the way the material domain turns out.

 

[Thief]

Perhaps it would. Is there a reason you didn't answer the question?

I've read Genesis.

Why anything first?

In the scheme of regression....it all goes back to the beginning.
at that point...
you either see substance as a 'self' starting item (and I don't believe you will).....OR
you will find the Lord God about to snap His fingers and bring it all to 'light'
so to speak

 

[Yerda]

Why anything first?

In the scheme of regression....it all goes back to the beginning.
at that point...
you either see substance as a 'self' starting item (and I don't believe you will).....OR
you will find the Lord God about to snap His fingers and bring it all to 'light'
so to speak

Ok. I don't share your view but now I can see where you are coming from. Thanks.

 

[Yerda]

By choosing the way the material domain turns out.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

 

[Thief]

Ok. I don't share your view but now I can see where you are coming from. Thanks.

you didn't say what your view might be.....how it differs from mine

 

[Yerda]

you didn't say what your view might be.....how it differs from mine

As far as beginnings go I'm more partial to the idea that the universe is eternal and in perpetual motion. There is no rest.

 

[Milton Platt]

The title is a bit of a play on words, but many seem to think of "nature" in terms of what now exists -sometimes as if it has always been that way.

However, what now exists was brought into being by a very specific process. It was created -even if in the broadest sense.

(The following ideas may not have originated with me, but they are interesting to consider, nonetheless.)

"During most of their lives, stars fuse hydrogen into helium in their cores, but the fusion process rarely stops at this point; most of the helium in the universe was made during the initial big bang. When the star's core runs out of hydrogen, the star begins to die out. The processes that occur during this period form the heavier elements.

Read more: Formation of Elements - Formation Of Elements - Burning, Stars, Helium, and Star - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/2412/Elements-Formation-Formation-elements.html#ixzz3jBrFgIPt
"

Something caused that which existed before the big bang (Pre-Big Bang Nature?) to become the big bang -which, in turn, became the elements, etc., which, in turn, became life -or, at the very least, became that which allowed physical life to exist.

The five elements present in all DNA are Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and
Phosphorus.

If evolution based on those elements was inevitable, it was only inevitable after those elements existed, and only due to the forces which brought them together in the necessary order inevitably doing so....
unless.... the formation of those elements was also inevitable.

If evolution was inevitable due to the nature of the big bang, and the universe is generally similar everywhere, we should expect life to be present in many places throughout the universe -at least eventually.

By inevitable, I mean certainty not requiring forethought, design, effort, etc. -at least at a certain point

If one considers God to be the creator of the heavens (universe), the worlds, the earth -essentially all that we can know -one ought not assume the point at which God did any specific thing -especially if it is not specified. Even if something is specified, one ought to acknowledge that one does not know the specifics about that.
Biblical scripture advises us to "prove all things" -so science, in its purest form -ought to be seen as an awesome tool to do so -not something to be rejected.

Scripture specifies that God did certain things after the heavens and earth were in existence (actually, "specifies" is not very accurate, as very few specific details are given, and much is often assumed buy the reader) -but we have no clue what was inevitable at what point -what would absolutely require forethought, design and action at what point to achieve what now is -and even science is far from knowing the nature of nature -especially before the Big Bang -well enough to know absolutely.

Many parts of the bible indicate that what now is was planned before it was initiated -so we ought not to scoff at the idea of inevitability even if we believe in a creator.
We, ourselves, can change what was otherwise inevitable -and make another thing inevitable.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Luke 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?

something did exist before the big bang.....the singularity......
whatever causative agent may have been involved in the formation of the singularity, or anything that may have existed before that, there is no rational reason to fill the knowledge gap with a deity. We simply do not (and probably cannot) know what was before the singularity. Quotes from the bible impart no more actual knowledge of these subjects than do quotes from the Qua ran, or Harry Potter.

 

[Thief]

As far as beginnings go I'm more partial to the idea that the universe is eternal and in perpetual motion. There is no rest.

ok...I can go with that much....

but observations indicate the universe is expanding.
that leans to the notion of a central starting point.
the calculations are steep....hard to grasp...
but the appearance of a beginning is there.

the part I don't get .....yet....
the speed of the expansion is increasing!
as if the initial 'bang' was only moments ago!

 

[Thief]

something did exist before the big bang.....the singularity......
whatever causative agent may have been involved in the formation of the singularity, or anything that may have existed before that, there is no rational reason to fill the knowledge gap with a deity. We simply do not (and probably cannot) know what was before the singularity. Quotes from the bible impart no more actual knowledge of these subjects than do quotes from the Qua ran, or Harry Potter.

but I say it stands to reason.
substance is NOT 'self' starting.

you might as well throw all of science down the toilet.....

you must be firm on the notion.....an object at rest will remain at rest....
until 'something' moves it.

at the point of singularity....there is no other explanation.
Spirit first.

 

[Etritonakin]

something did exist before the big bang.....the singularity......
whatever causative agent may have been involved in the formation of the singularity, or anything that may have existed before that, there is no rational reason to fill the knowledge gap with a deity. We simply do not (and probably cannot) know what was before the singularity. Quotes from the bible impart no more actual knowledge of these subjects than do quotes from the Qua ran, or Harry Potter.

One purpose of this thread was to get people to think in terms of this reality having come about as a process -that our universe is not all there is to reality -that is was not the beginning of reality.
For the creationists, this was in hopes that they stop thinking in terms of a near-instantaneous creation of all things. For others, that they acknowledge that the reason life was possible was that the singularity was of such a precise nature that it produced the elements which lend themselves perfectly to the emergence of physical life -that life would not then (in the absence of creative influence after the singularity) be a random accident after the singularity, but an inevitability due to the nature of the singularity -regardless of whether it was intended or not.

There is much of all sorts of evidence for a deity, but as for what preceded the singularity.... that might be the last place to easily find evidence of a deity -especially as relying on purely physical/scientific evidence at this point would be like examining a tiny speck on the body of a deity -and concluding there was no evidence for one. The God of the bible is described as being the one by whom all things consist -so all things would eventually be found to be evidence of that deity.

If not, then so be it, from a scientific perspective.

We have enough to think about after the singularity -but the singularity may eventually even prove to be plural (humor intended) -which would make the multiple universe folks happy -and that which preceded it like a vine growing from some other thing -producing universes like fruit -but we're just not there yet.

 

[Thief]

oh but we are there....

the singularity would be 'the Word'.
further description won't help.

as soon as a secondary is allowed.....infinity....and the rules of reality....
all came forth.

I think of the rules of reality as the 'firmament' mentioned in Genesis.
reality has no 'real' or 'tangible' EFFECT...unless there are rules.

The 'form' of this world came much later.

If Genesis seems confusing...
Picture yourself as God....yes you can....
and you are introducing yourself to an intelligent old man of eighty years
who came up unto the mountain to meet his God.

and he wants to know how all of this came to be.

Can you actually explain it to him?

The effort became known as the book of Genesis.
It's way to brief.
The terms are sketchy at best.

you really have to think about it.

 

[Yerda]

ok...I can go with that much....

but observations indicate the universe is expanding.
that leans to the notion of a central starting point.
the calculations are steep....are to grasp...
but the appearance of a beginning is there.

the part I don't get .....yet....
the speed of the expansion is increasing!
as if the initial 'bang' was only moments ago!

It's all a mystery.