Looncall
Well-Known Member
Please explain what you mean by energy. This makes no sense if the usual scientific term is meant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tell me why God doesn't exist, and I'll tell you why your'e wrong.
- Thread starter Pozessed
- Start date
Please explain what you mean by energy. This makes no sense if the usual scientific term is meant.
Prove to me that there isn't a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars.
All of them.
So what?
The laws of science seem to come from conscious thought because they match, like a puzzle. When they are made NOT to match bad things happen.
What on earth does this mean? Can you explain to me how a set of physical laws not "match"?
Nuclear fusion
Ice cream sundaes!
I like the "name random things" game, too... but do you feel like answering my question?
Nuclear fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Extreme...difficulties" means bad things. If it does NOT mean bad things then you are right I am wrong. OK?
I really don't see the point you're getting at. How is nuclear fusion relevant to this discussion?
We may be working from different meanings for "they match", so maybe you can start from before that.
Match means complementary and dependable. The power of the natural world is many different attributes, but they work together. I call working together matching. They all work together to make completeness. Complete like a puzzle. Did you ever make a puzzle? It's good to have the picture to copy. To know God is to know the picture before the pieces are put together.
:bunny:
I guess I just don't understand your point. Any set of things will "match" itself; if it didn't then it would be a different set of things, and *that* set would match itself.
The second part of what you said just sounds like an assumption that the universe was an intentional act, but so far, you haven't given any reason that I can see to make this assumption.
No! There is only ONE set of "things" but they ALL match. Everything in the universe belongs in the universe. I find that kind of amazing. When people try NOT to fit in or when they try to fit in that which is not harmonious, then you get bad stuff. I use to be able to stand on my hands upside down. But alas, not any more.
I'm still comfused by what you mean. I see two possibilties for what you mean by "everything in the universe belongs in the universe":
- "everything in the universe is in the universe." This would be a tautology, a completely unremarkable observation, and useless for inferring God.
- "I have figured out criteria for what 'belongs' in the universe and everything in the universe meets them."
Which is it? Or are you making a bunch of unsupported assertions?
Short version: what does "they all match" mean? What does it mean to "match" in the way you're using the term?
Real is complete with all the aspects existing. Everything matches. "There's nothing new" Ecclesiastes 1:9 There will be nothing more added to the universe. If anything be taken away, it would collapse I suspect.
I still have absolutely no clue about what you're trying to say.
Because the universe is not lacking anything at all it is evidence that there was God who made it.
The only thing seriously lacking in the World is cooperation. Atheists say it is not a big deal that gravity, and all forms of energy are cooperating together to sustain the vast universe. But people who have minds and should have serious reason for cooperating can't do it. For peace and plenty for all MIND can't do it. But unmind, nonmind or whatever it is CAN.
The only thing seriously lacking in the World is cooperation. Atheists say it is not a big deal that gravity, and all forms of energy are cooperating together to sustain the vast universe. But people who have minds and should have serious reason for cooperating can't do it. For peace and plenty for all MIND can't do it. But unmind, nonmind or whatever it is CAN.
Last edited:
You've still lost me. I can't even make sense of what you're arguing to the point that I can even tell whether I agree with you or not.
I don't believe.....
Let me try something: how would one tell whether the universe was "lacking anything at all"? Lacking for what?
It is not lacking for activity. All tools and substances are present for everything that is needed for everything. Is that not amazing?
What do you want?
I think you can not think of anything you want that is not possible to have (with enough effort, resources and time).
Last edited:
Arrgh. It's like we're speaking different languages.
When you talk about how the universe isn't "lacking" anything, I take this to mean something like "the universe has everything it needs to be the way it's supposed to be." Is this what you mean?