Science Proves Creation

Evidence: Nothing but God could could have created it because God means creator.

For example: if a law of nature created it, then that law of nature is God; the creator of everything. But a law of nature couldn't have created the universe because it doesn't explain what created the law of nature. And the same goes for everything else, like random quantum fluctuations, black holes, or any other Word.

God is The-Only-One who doesn't need to be created to exist because like atheists say: he is fantasy, imagination; nothing where everything comes from.

Maybe the universe wasn't created.. (here we go)
 
What created the singularity? That's a fantastic question! And you have no evidence that it was God.

Revealing a repressed motive? Where is the evidence for anything at this level and below? I would realllly like to know.

Should have just moved this thread to where it is ok to mention God. I am confused because it looks like so many people want to talk about this stuff.
 
it seems more like people want to point out to you how silly your logic is and how you should have posted this "stuff" in a different forum
 
Maybe the universe wasn't created.. (here we go)

Then why does it exist? You know that everything in the universe has a cause... so shouldn't the universe itself also have a cause?

All this stuff (like these letters)... caused by Nothing?
 
1. Then why does it exist?

2. You know that everything in the universe has a cause... so shouldn't the universe itself also have a cause?

3. All this stuff, caused by Nothing?

1. Does there have to be a why for something that always existed ?

2. Everything in the universe may have a cause but why would that mean that the universe itself must have a cause ?

3. No not caused by nothing. Not caused period.
 
Haha relax man.
But you have to admit that it looked like you did ;) Was funny too :p

:mad:. i try to use all these things when i get the chance. nuy yes, darwin himself wrote something similar. in essence, you called his thought illogical.
 
No man, you are missing the joke.. :eek:

shichimenshyo
it seems more like people want to point out to you how silly your logic is and how you should have posted this "stuff" in a different forum

John99
What logic would that be?

Enmos
LOL Exactly

Just thought it was funny :shrug:
 
1. Does there have to be a why for something that always existed ?

Yes, because the word something is a question. Some... thing. What thing?

2. Everything in the universe may have a cause but why would that mean that the universe itself must have a cause ?

If that little something called the universe is no-thing, then it doesn't need a cause because everybody knows that no-thing lasts forever.

Nothing has a cause because every cause must have a cause.
And something can't be anything but nothing because every something needs to consist of another something.
 
Yes, because the word something is a question. Some... thing. What thing?
:confused: The something that always existed.. :shrug:

If that little something called the universe is no-thing, then it doesn't need a cause because everybody knows that no-thing lasts forever.

Nothing has a cause because every cause must have a cause.
And something can't be anything but nothing because every something needs to consist of another something.
Please rephrase, this is meaningless rambling to me.. sorry
 
Nothing is eternal.
Except God, of course.

Nothing has a cause because every cause must have a cause.
Except God, of course.

Evidence: Nothing but God could could have created it because God means creator.
That's not evidence. That's circular reasoning.
Ok, let's look at this 'logical' process.

1) assumptions: God exists. God is ever lasting. God can create universes. the universe exists. we can observe the universe. The universe was created.
2) steps: Look inside the universe for something that could have created the universe. Find nothing.
3) Based on step 1, the universe was created. Based on step 2, nothing inside the universe can create the universe. Conclude that the only thing that could have created the universe was the thing we assumed in step 1 that could create a universe.
4) God created the universe because he can.

Nice circular logic. Very useful in figuring out how to build rockets and solve world hunger.


Let's try again, without the biased crap.
1) assumptions: the universe exists. we can observe the universe.
2) steps: observe the universe. Appears to be expanding. Appears to have a certain level of radiation everywhere. Appears that rules that apply on earth also apply on mars. Also seems that the same thing that holds up to the Earth keeps planets in motion around suns, and suns in motion around galaxy centers.
3) Since it is generally agreed that non-living matter does not change direction without direct application of force, and the matter all seems to the expanding from one location, it can be logically surmised that at one point, everything was there, and then something made it all move outward. This is backed up by the fact that physics largely seems to be universal, whether you live in Erie, Pa or Alpha Centuari. Since there is a close to uniform level of background radiation everywhere we look, it suggests that everything was given roughly (though not exactly) the same amount of energy at the time of the movement, and since it's all moving out from that one point, it looks very much like an explosion.
4) Conclusion: at one point, everything was at point X. Then point X exploded, and everything is expanding. What caused it to expand is currently unknown.

Wow. That seems much simpler. It skips a lot of assumptions, and fits nicely with the way the universe currently looks. There are still lots of questions to be answered, but no doubt they will be more informative and useful than "He-Man did it, and don't you dare ask him how or why, or you go to hell."
 
Ok. I watched the first part of the trailer.

It started rambling on about how if you believe in something then it exists.

Oh man. I was going to watch the vid, but on basis of this, didn't bother. James is right: belief does not equal reality.

Wait - I believe the notion that science proves creation is crap. Maybe there's something to the idea.
 
Revealing a repressed motive? Where is the evidence for anything at this level and below? I would realllly like to know.

I am not aware of any good evidence of what the pre-singularity was like. Of course, since time is indivisible from space, and the singularity theoretically contained all space, it also contained all time. So there wasn't a pre-singularity time as we would understand it as that would have to also be pre-time. The question is less "what was before this universe" and more "what is apart from this universe" - and there are an infinite number of possible options to choose from.

It might be God. Or it might be one of the other innumerable possibilities.
 
The universe is an ocean of energy where there are vortexes called galaxies and bubbles called planets.

James is right: belief does not equal reality.

Beliefs become reality. Your belief is that God does not exist, that's why God does not exist in your reality.

Except God, of course.

Of course, because he is nothing where everything comes from.

That's not evidence. That's circular reasoning.

The world is circular, that's why we have to use circular logic sometimes.

Appears that rules that apply on earth also apply on mars.

It would be illogical if they didn't.

Also seems that the same thing that holds up to the Earth keeps planets in motion around suns, and suns in motion around galaxy centers.

Gravity can't keep anything in motion, all planets would fall into the sun sooner or later, like the suns would fall into the center of the galaxy, and galaxies would fall into another singularity which explodes like a Big Bang.

3) Since it is generally agreed that non-living matter does not change direction without direct application of force,

Then how do you explain earthquakes (earth = "non-living") which change the direction of everything?

(forces are also "non-living")

and the matter all seems to the expanding from one location,

Matter does not expand, it moves through space.

Since there is a close to uniform level of background radiation everywhere we look, it suggests that everything was given roughly (though not exactly) the same amount of energy at the time of the movement, and since it's all moving out from that one point, it looks very much like an explosion.

Stars could have created that radiation, there is no need for a bang.

There are still lots of questions to be answered,

It doesn't matter how many questions you answer, the answers always keep creating new questions, until you realize that both questions and answers are just words.

but no doubt they will be more informative and useful than "He-Man did it, and don't you dare ask him how or why, or you go to hell."

Maybe more useful, but not necessarily more true.

Of course, since time is indivisible from space,

Time has nothing to do with space. Time is a thought and space is distance.

It might be God. Or it might be one of the other innumerable possibilities.

God is the only possibility. Just try to name one of those other innumerable possibilities and I'll show you that all of those are part of the universe, and therefore they didn't exist "before the universe".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top