Deep Sight:

Let's look at it this way.

You have in your hand a clump of fifty pebbles.

You begin to throw them all on the floor such that they form random patterns on the ground. Such as these dots below.
. . . .
. . , .
. . . . .
, . . .
. . .

You gather the pebbles and fling them on the floor over and over again, endlessly. They continue to form scattered random patterns of any description.

I realized this morning, that even if you fling those pebbles on the floor a zilliion zillion times, you will never, not in all eternity, have them form something like this:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And yet this is a fairly simple pattern. But it evinces great linear order, precision and structure. If you think this is a wrong argument, you try spending the rest of your life throwing pebbles randomly on the floor. If you ever come up with the square above, i will either give you $200, 000 or have you arrested as a con artist.

You will never get the square above.

This is why very complex patterns which show particular hallmarks of linear design, can scarcely be attributed to chance.

Na yarn wey I yarn one time wey done tey pass. E be like say na last year sef.

Is there any person who thinks that there is any possibility of arriving at the perefct square pattern through a process of chance.

What do we suppose is the likelihood then of such things as mere water crystals emerging with their given design from a process of chance?

Check these out -

No way by any chance the above formation will be arrive at. Oftenly when i see such, and remember how blinded one can get to arrive at a ignorant conclusion that this universe just pop out by chance or through an expansion of gases. Aint that a weird conclusion? Just saying. Just try running a pi series on a super computer and see the limit of science and human pride.
As a designer, i know how difficult it is to bring out new ones.
God is wonderful indeed.

Deep Sight thats a good argument but there is one possible refuttal so let me play the adversary. How do you know for sure that nature's (seemingly?) perfect pattern is not like that random set of pebbles? You are in the system so in your limited understanding you can say it can be likened to creating a perfect square. How do you know this is the most perfect possible presentation of nature and creation (it could be a random chance creating a random experience which you would consider so perfect only cos u know almost nothing on the cosmic scale)?

I have an answer but I know its not yours. Mine is Faith in a God who said so in Genesis. Thats why I know. what's yours as a half-way in Deist?

@ Deep Sight

What complex pattern showing hallmarks of linear design are you referring to?

Water crystals have those shapes due to physical laws.

Dear Deepsight! How body?
I see threads after threads where you have exchanges with the alleged atheists who claim that there is no creator. I read these threads with a smiles and bewilderment: Smiling at the funny arguments that there is no creator, yet bewildered in the fact that you continue to engage in such arguments when it’s very clear that science cannot disprove the existence of a creator; arguing with somebody who claims that science or freethinking leads to atheism is a waste of time. I stay away from such treads because I don’t want to be drawn into calling somebody insane. Anybody who tries to use science to prove that the universe has no creator or that there is no God is simply not a scientist for science is confined to the physical world, which is only a work of the creator and in which the creator does not reside. Any body who is an atheist simply chose to be; he cannot claim that his unbelief is the inevitable product of logical thinking or science.

Also claiming that free thinking will not lead to the acknowledgement of a creator is not only outrageous but totally misguided and terribly counter intuitive. It is the most primitive view I have ever encountered and it is completely “un-human.” Humans are called civilized because humans have the ability to logically trace any chain of events and anything that they encounter; they have the ability to observe and learn. Humans have observed nature and the first thing they found out is that there are inflexible laws that operate in nature. Thus by understanding these laws, humans are able to explain, or predict certain events. I.e. a doctor can predict to a certain extent the genotype of a child based on the genotype of the child’s parents. This studying of the laws of nature and application of the forces resulting from these laws to achieve great feats is what we call science. Thus science deals with laws that have been shown to be consistent and inflexible; science does not deal with chance, for in science chance does not and can never yield a consistent and an inflexible order such as that found in the laws of nature. Otherwise why spend energy and time learning the laws of motion? And would they be called laws if they operate arbitrarily or by chance? If science is an advocate of things happening by chance, why wouldn’t you, in a physics exam when you are asked to calculate the force that started the motion of a given object, say that the speed of the object and its direction is just guided by chance? Your teacher will simply tell you that your view is unscientific. Then the question arises: If some people can ague, yet defend such arguments as being scientific, that the whole universe which is perpetually in motion started by chance, why cant a student ague the motion of the object he/she was given to analyze in an exam started by chance? I.e. no external forces gave rise to the motion, or the forces that gave rise to the motion just appeared from nowhere or from the object itself. Even in elementary science, you can’t see a moving body and conclude that it started moving by chance or without an external force. You can’t see a car and claim that it started moving by chance or without an external force; such a claim is unscientific and unnatural for a human being. Any human being satisfied by such claims should better have his/her head examined because such claims are not worthy of a sound humanbeing.

Now back to “freethinking.”  It is the thinking that is free not that which is observed! You can decide however you want to interpret the laws of nature; this is freethinking. However the laws remain inflexible, adamant, and unchangeable. When in your freethinking you decide to consider the laws unnaturally flexible, then you are okay. This can only be achieved in the individual’s imagination; it is his perception that is faulty because the laws remain inflexible. This is actually what escapisim is; the individual fails to see reality and fails to acknowledge reality. Rather the individual believes in the illusions made up by his/her mind. For one who has any regard for reality will never question the inflexibility of the laws of nature. One of the basic laws of nature is that “for every action there is a reaction.” Thus every reaction is preceded by an action! This is one of the first things that mankind learned from observing the laws of nature. In every culture, nation or race, and no matter how primitive, this law of action and reaction is observed. Checkout the sayings (adages) of all the tribes, you will see this law expressed either as a proverb or as an adage. Even a child learns this before becoming an adult. Any body that sees a moving object instinctively will look to see the forces that keep the body in motion. No body will see an object (let’s say a stone) in his/her living room and conclude that it started existing there by chance. No body will find a consistent and intricate system like a pendulum clock and conclude that the whole system started by chance. Everybody knows that where there is consistent order, there was a "will" that gave rise to it and maintains it. Claiming that the order in an intricate system exists continually without an external force or external forces acting on the system is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and thus completely unscientific.

Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big bang! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed! This is obviously very true as science have observed. But keep in mind that we are dealing with the physical laws, since science only deals with the physical. And the Big bang is a physical event! Thus putting 1 and 2 together you arrive at the Truth that whatever created the physical world or matter that made up the physical world, is not physical since physically energy cannot be created and destroyed. Nor is it the big bang which is only a physical thing and hence, according to the first law of thermodynamics, cannot create energy. Is this not a proof that another dimension exist? A dimension which is non-physical and which science cannot explain? Thus we have to look for the origin of matter in a dimension not physical because in the physical dimension matter cannot be created or destroyed. Big bang is only a state in the existence of matter, which is nothing but condensed energy, and which perpetually goes through different stages or states- the four states of matter. I can elaborate on this if anybody wants me to.

Thus everybody instinctively knows that everything that exists in nature has a beginning and a creator. Even the whole physical world has a beginning and a creator. It is left for the observer (the free thinker) to decide on what the beginning or the creator is. One is not confined to believe that this creator is the Christian God or the Muslim Allah. But to argue that the universe has no creator is totally counterintuitive, unnatural for a human being, unscientific, and to my perception, unintelligent.

^^^ Now THAT is rational, deep in understanding and very scientific.

Please elaborate more on the big bang being just one state in four

Is there any person who thinks that there is any possibility of arriving at the perefct square pattern through a process of chance.

. . . . while I agree with your outlook into the impossibility of achieving this assignment without a divine intervention. . . .I nonetheless challenge your reality for impulsively concluding on an experiment that you have not conducted long enough to collect enough samples for elimination.

So, divinity apart, I will say it is possible, in physical theory, to achieve the perfect square.

Can you demonstrate this possibility as well?

Negro_Ntns:

  So, divinity apart, I will say it is possible, in physical theory, to achieve the perfect square.

nuclearboy:

^^^ Now THAT is rational, deep in understanding and very scientific.

Please elaborate more on the big bang being just one state in four

@nuclearboy

Thanks a lot. I will gladly elaborate further.

Science acknowledges the big bang as an event that gave rise to the formation of the universe in its present state. Contrary to popular opinions, science never said that the Big bang created the universe in terms of creating the materials that make up the universe. Just as on can say the freezing of water gave rise to the formation of ice blocks; this does not mean that the water was created by the freezing. The freezing is an event which caused the water to change its state; you can also say that the freezing state of water or frozen water is a state of the water. Water can exist in many states- liquid, solid, gas and etc. Actually matter can exist in four states: (1) Plasma state, (2) Solid state, (3) Liquid state, (4) Gaseous state. The change of state or stage does not imply the creation of a new substance(matter) but rather it is the same substance or matter, only that the molecules are rearranged. Thus it is the rearrangement of matter or the atoms of the substance that gives rive to a change of state. In Solids for example, the atoms are closely compacted atoms while in liquids the atoms loosely compacted atoms and in gasses the atoms are even more loosely compacted and etc. Also difference in temperature and entropy gives rise to this change of state or rearrangement of the atoms. Plasma state, for example, can only exist at extremely hot temperatures; while solids only can exist in a certain range of temperatures, gasses can only exist in certain range of temperatures, and liquids can only exist in only a certain range of temperatures.

The big bang or the stage that caused the big bang is the plasma state of all the matter in the universe. At this stage it is so hot, extremely and unimaginably hot that the whole universe and all the forces of nature(gravity, electromagnetic forces and etc) are united into one. Indeed the whole universe is condensed or contracted into an object even smaller than an atom; it is so hot that not even gases can exist. Every thing is united and contracted to an object smaller than the smallest nucleus. This is the primordial seed!! In time the temperature gets so hot and the universe contracts to a point unimaginable small and when it reaches the maximum point of contraction it exploded! This explosion is the big bang. Once this explosion occurred, the temperature reduced due to less contraction, and the universe then formed into hot gases or nebulae. Every explosion releases energy or pressure; this pressure caused the hot gas to move further apart and away from the center of explosion. As the gasses moved further away, temperature is reduced and consequently it got to a stage where the temperature is so reduced that dense nebulae can arise, and then consequently from the nebulae liquids and solids can form. As things cooled down, what we call laws or forces (which are nothing but intricate behavior of matter), can now arise. Thus gravity comes into play and many other forces; as the nebulae grow bigger they begin to attract. This is gravity or gravitational potential at work. Soon due to gravity suns, planets asteroids and etc resulted. And consequently groped themselves into solar systems; big bodies like our sun are able to exercise an attraction on smaller bodies and consequently capture them in its orbit. This is our solar systems were formed.

The pressure resulted from the big band is still pushing everything away. Thus the solar systems are moving away from each other; the universe is expanding. Science knows this; but does not know for sure where this expansion will lead. It is my perception that this expansion will continue till the solar systems are so far apart that the initial pressure that arose from the big band slackens. Then gravity will counter the expansion; the universe will start contracting. The contraction will continue; and as it contracts, due to friction, it will become hotter and hotter. Also the bodies will become bigger and bigger, consequently having ever greater attraction towards each other. Based on the law of Gravitational potential which states that “The rate at which two bodies attract each other is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square root of their distance” the bigger the bodies get(their masses) the more they pull each others and the closer the get to each other, the more they pull each other. Soon the universe will collapse, crash or contract into one hot spot. The extreme heat will contract the universe once again into a small invincible(to the physical eye) spot. The universe will return to being a primordial seed, which after a certain degree of heat and contraction will explode again into another big bang.

This circle of explosion, expansion, contraction, and collapse will continue. The big bang is the beginning of the explosion stage and not the creator of the universe. It is the same energy that passes through these four states; it heats up to become plasma, only to explode cool down to condense and become matter. Just like the same lake of water can freeze and condense into solid ice during winter; it also evaporates as gasses during hot summer.

People encounter problems when they try to separate scientific energy from matter as being totally different things. Scientifically speaking, matter is condescend energy or matter is made up of energy. If one understands this, then he/she would stop saying things like “matter can be destroyed during nuclear reaction.” Matter can never be created or destroyed by man or any natural process. Matter only changes state; matter can change its state to plasma state where it becomes pure energy. 

Just like a cup of water cannot by itself change from liquid to solid(ice) or to gas without an external force, be it change in the external temperature or other forces; the physical universe cannot be going through these changes or stages without external force acting on it. The pressure from the planes above the physical plane is the external force that is perpetually acting on the universe, keeping it in motion. Behind everything lies the “will” of the creator who set creation in motion and maintains it with ever new power annually.

Everything material passes through the four stages of (1) birth or blossoming, (2) ripeness or maturity, (3) over-ripeness or old age, and (4) decay or death. Our physical bodies, our houses, our cars, the earth, our solar system and even the entire material universe. The stage of death or decay is where the object is dissolved to its original components or constituents which will re-unite in another way to be born again. Thus after death or decay comes stage (1) birth again. This is the eternal circle of everything that is material.

The big bang could be likened to stage (1)Birth of the universe, not birth or creation of the substance that make up the universe. At the point when the solar systems are formed could be likened to stage (2) ripeness. At a stage in its expansion, it goes into stage (3) over-ripeness; then when its contracting it is in stage(4) decay which will lead its death which is a point where everything has retuned to the primordial seed. Then once again it will be born—another big bang.

Thanks and remain blessed.

^^ Yep Bro, "And there was Light"

@justcool:

Thanks. I see where you are coming from.

Justcool thank you for the very illuminating essays. I have been educated and enriched thereby.

thehomer:

@ Deep Sight

What complex pattern showing hallmarks of linear design are you referring to?

Water crystals have those shapes due to physical laws.

And such laws which produce the intricately precise ornate patterns posted in the OP issue purposelessly and meaninglessly from nowhere? Do you really believe these things?

Such laws look products of chance to you? Are you sincere about this sir?

Deep Sight:

And such laws which produce the intricately precise ornate patterns posted in the OP issue purposelessly and meaninglessly from nowhere? Do you really believe these things?

What do you mean by "meaninglessly" Humans assign meaning.

Deep Sight:

Such laws look products of chance to you? Are you sincere about this sir?

Are you going for the fine-tuning argument here?

have you been able to review justcools posts above?

@justcool: That was a brilliant and enlightening post. Thanks!

@Deep Sight: Will you answer my question? ;-) [I see thehomer is employing an aspect of that argument already]

How do you know for sure, going by the reasoning in the OP, that this is the most perfect possible representation of creation (like the perfect square above)? For me, Im sure cos God said it was good/perfect. How do you know? Else it may as well have been a random occurrence. I argue in light of the OP.

@Deep Sight:

I suddenly realized something . We need to talk, if what I am thinking is so . Please mail me. You can use the same ol' address we used to use in thoze days . mavenbox_at_gmail_dot_com

Thanks in advance.

Deep Sight:

have you been able to review justcools posts above?

Yes I have. It was quite long and rambling and was also sprinkled with insults.

IF by your experiment you were trying to model the universe then your initial setup is very very wrong, for instance if say the center acted like a centrifuge all objects thrown in would be forced to the edge. Patterns would definitely change, no?

thehomer:

Yes I have. It was quite long and rambling and was also sprinkled with insults.

What you need to do is address the scientific posers he raised on the cosmological question.

Chrisbenogor:

IF by your experiment you were trying to model the universe then your initial setup is very very wrong, for instance if say the center acted like a centrifuge all objects thrown in would be forced to the edge. Patterns would definitely change, no?

In the first place you need to ask yourself whence the force arises? Why does it exist as opposed to nothingness for example?

Secondly, what guiding principles operate to set out the ornate intricacy of water crystals and how is it possible that those principles are impervious to the resultant patterns?

thehomer:

Yes I have. It was quite long and rambling and was also sprinkled with insults.

@thehomer
Insults!!! I wasn't aware that I insulted anybody, neither was that my intention. Kindly show me where and how I insulted anybody so that I can apologise and learn from my mistakes.


@Deepsight, nuclearboy and InesQor
Thanks for your compliments.

Okay Deep Sight you dont want to mail me. Should I spill the beans here?

ach. Blackmail! Am at a weddin. Will contact u shortly

justcool:



@Deepsight, nuclearboy and InesQor
Thanks for your compliments.

Wow I'm surprised and impressed with ur posts above how u extensively dealt with the subject. Yes the posts were long but were informative /educative. I prefer to learn from this kind of epistles than read short ones that lack substance

toba:

Wow I'm surprised and impressed with your posts above how u extensively dealt with the subject. Yes the posts were long but were informative /educative. I prefer to learn from this kind of epistles than read short ones that lack substance

@toba
You are very kind; I'm flattered. Thanks

Deep Sight:

What you need to do is address the scientific posers he raised on the cosmological question.

I'll just respond to both posts.

justcool:

@thehomer
Insults!!! I wasn't aware that I insulted anybody, neither was that my intention. Kindly show me where and how I insulted anybody so that I can apologise and learn from my mistakes.

. . .

The insults were not direct but implied from your posts. I'll mention them as I respond to them.

Deep Sight:

In the first place you need to ask yourself whence the force arises? Why does it exist as opposes to nothingness for example?

Secondly, what guiding principles operate to set out the ornate intricacy of water crystals and how is it possible that those principles are impervious to the resultant patterns?

Not me its you who has to state your case I was merely pointing out that you probably left out some things important to resolving your initial question. In fact throwing the balls involve a force already so if try and clean up your initial question so we can get what you are driving at.
As for the water crystals, again the burden of proof is on you. If you have discovered why they are like that pray tell us. Then we can go over it to see if your analysis was as a result of the data you have, and your model provides the most predictability. It is not in my place to start explaining to you because as of now I do not know. If you do tell us and give us your model equation such that we can use it in explaining all other similar phenomena. If what you have are just conjectures, beliefs and possibilities then I am afraid your claims would be summarily dismissed without debate.

justcool:

Dear Deepsight! How body?
I see threads after threads where you have exchanges with the alleged atheists who claim that there is no creator. I read these threads with a smiles and bewilderment: Smiling at the funny arguments that there is no creator, yet bewildered in the fact that you continue to engage in such arguments when it’s very clear that science cannot disprove the existence of a creator; arguing with somebody who claims that science or freethinking leads to atheism is a waste of time.

If this was a reference to a recent thread, my own opinion was that critical thinking generally leads to a non-belief in a God.

justcool:

I stay away from such treads because I don’t want to be drawn into calling somebody insane. Anybody who tries to use science to prove that the universe has no creator or that there is no God is simply not a scientist for science is confined to the physical world, which is only a work of the creator and in which the creator does not reside. Any body who is an atheist simply chose to be; he cannot claim that his unbelief is the inevitable product of logical thinking or science.

What evidence do you base your belief in a God on?

justcool:

Also claiming that free thinking will not lead to the acknowledgement of a creator is not only outrageous but totally misguided and terribly counter intuitive. It is the most primitive view I have ever encountered and it is completely “un-human.”

This is one of the implied insults.

justcool:

Humans are called civilized because humans have the ability to logically trace any chain of events and anything that they encounter; they have the ability to observe and learn. Humans have observed nature and the first thing they found out is that there are inflexible laws that operate in nature. Thus by understanding these laws, humans are able to explain, or predict certain events. I.e. a doctor can predict to a certain extent the genotype of a child based on the genotype of the child’s parents. This studying of the laws of nature and application of the forces resulting from these laws to achieve great feats is what we call science. Thus science deals with laws that have been shown to be consistent and inflexible; science does not deal with chance, for in science chance does not and can never yield a consistent and an inflexible order such as that found in the laws of nature.

Some aspects of science do apply some principles of chance and understanding these principles involves knowledge gained by understanding probabilities.

justcool:

Otherwise why spend energy and time learning the laws of motion? And would they be called laws if they operate arbitrarily or by chance? If science is an advocate of things happening by chance, why wouldn’t you, in a physics exam when you are asked to calculate the force that started the motion of a given object, say that the speed of the object and its direction is just guided by chance? Your teacher will simply tell you that your view is unscientific. Then the question arises: If some people can ague, yet defend such arguments as being scientific, that the whole universe which is perpetually in motion started by chance, why cant a student ague the motion of the object he/she was given to analyze in an exam started by chance?

This is a straw man argument with a bad analogy. No one makes this argument.

justcool:

I.e. no external forces gave rise to the motion, or the forces that gave rise to the motion just appeared from nowhere or from the object itself. Even in elementary science, you can’t see a moving body and conclude that it started moving by chance or without an external force. You can’t see a car and claim that it started moving by chance or without an external force; such a claim is unscientific and unnatural for a human being. Any human being satisfied by such claims should better have his/her head examined because such claims are not worthy of a sound humanbeing.

This statement ended with another one of the implied insults. Also, are you speaking of the universe here? Because, this would imply a time line and a mass outside of it. And do you have evidence for this line of reasoning?

justcool:

Now back to “freethinking.”  It is the thinking that is free not that which is observed! You can decide however you want to interpret the laws of nature; this is freethinking. However the laws remain inflexible, adamant, and unchangeable. When in your freethinking you decide to consider the laws unnaturally flexible, then you are okay. This can only be achieved in the individual’s imagination; it is his perception that is faulty because the laws remain inflexible. This is actually what escapisim is; the individual fails to see reality and fails to acknowledge reality. Rather the individual believes in the illusions made up by his/her mind. For one who has any regard for reality will never question the inflexibility of the laws of nature.

I hope you do realize that the statements you've made above actually apply more to miracles and similar phenomena.

justcool:

One of the basic laws of nature is that “for every action there is a reaction.” Thus every reaction is preceded by an action! This is one of the first things that mankind learned from observing the laws of nature. In every culture, nation or race, and no matter how primitive, this law of action and reaction is observed. Checkout the sayings (adages) of all the tribes, you will see this law expressed either as a proverb or as an adage. Even a child learns this before becoming an adult. Any body that sees a moving object instinctively will look to see the forces that keep the body in motion. No body will see an object (let’s say a stone) in his/her living room and conclude that it started existing there by chance. No body will find a consistent and intricate system like a pendulum clock and conclude that the whole system started by chance. Everybody knows that where there is consistent order, there was a "will" that gave rise to it and maintains it. Claiming that the order in an intricate system exists continually without an external force or external forces acting on the system is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and thus completely unscientific.

Again, what is the scope of this argument? Is it limited just to objects within the universe or does it also constantly apply to the entire universe?

justcool:

Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big bang! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I wonder who makes this claim.

justcool:

Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created.

Do you have any convincing evidence for this alternate dimension you're proposing? Plus, you've just contradicted yourself. You stated that energy cannot be created nor destroyed yet you claim this energy was created you only proposed an alternate dimension to make up for this.

justcool:

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed! This is obviously very true as science have observed. But keep in mind that we are dealing with the physical laws, since science only deals with the physical. And the Big bang is a physical event! Thus putting 1 and 2 together you arrive at the Truth that whatever created the physical world or matter that made up the physical world, is not physical since physically energy cannot be created and destroyed. Nor is it the big bang which is only a physical thing and hence, according to the first law of thermodynamics, cannot create energy.

Have you considered that objects like the universe may simply exist?

justcool:

Is this not a proof that another dimension exist? A dimension which is non-physical and which science cannot explain? Thus we have to look for the origin of matter in a dimension not physical because in the physical dimension matter cannot be created or destroyed. Big bang is only a state in the existence of matter, which is nothing but condensed energy, and which perpetually goes through different stages or states- the four states of matter. I can elaborate on this if anybody wants me to.

No it isn't proof of such a dimension. Actually, such a dimension would keep creating energy and matter in this universe which would make the universe either keep keep warming up as it expands or at least keep the temperature stable but, what has been discovered is that as the universe expands, it cools. And such spontaneous energy generation would be noticed.
And lastly, this would actually violate the first law of thermodynamics because this energy is being spontaneously created.

justcool:

Thus everybody instinctively knows that everything that exists in nature has a beginning and a creator.

Psychologists and other scientists have shown that such instinctive knowledge can be false.

justcool:

Even the whole physical world has a beginning and a creator. It is left for the observer (the free thinker) to decide on what the beginning or the creator is. One is not confined to believe that this creator is the Christian God or the Muslim Allah. But to argue that the universe has no creator is totally counterintuitive, unnatural for a human being, unscientific, and to my perception, unintelligent.

This is yet another implied insult. But, why do you assume that there must be some alternate entity out there "outside" of the universe sitting around creating the universe?

justcool:

@nuclearboy
. . .

The pressure resulted from the big band is still pushing everything away. Thus the solar systems are moving away from each other; the universe is expanding. Science knows this; but does not know for sure where this expansion will lead. It is my perception that this expansion will continue till the solar systems are so far apart that the initial pressure that arose from the big band slackens. Then gravity will counter the expansion; the universe will start contracting. The contraction will continue; and as it contracts, due to friction, it will become hotter and hotter. Also the bodies will become bigger and bigger, consequently having ever greater attraction towards each other. Based on the law of Gravitational potential which states that “The rate at which two bodies attract each other is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square root of their distance” the bigger the bodies get(their masses) the more they pull each others and the closer the get to each other, the more they pull each other. Soon the universe will collapse, crash or contract into one hot spot. The extreme heat will contract the universe once again into a small invincible(to the physical eye) spot. The universe will return to being a primordial seed, which after a certain degree of heat and contraction will explode again into another big bang.

If you're stating that the universe keeps cycling, then why introduce a God?

justcool:

This circle of explosion, expansion, contraction, and collapse will continue. The big bang is the beginning of the explosion stage and not the creator of the universe. It is the same energy that passes through these four states; it heats up to become plasma, only to explode cool down to condense and become matter. Just like the same lake of water can freeze and condense into solid ice during winter; it also evaporates as gasses during hot summer.

People encounter problems when they try to separate energy from matter as being totally different things. Matter is condescend energy or matter is made up of energy. If one understands this, then he/she would stop saying things like “matter can be destroyed during nuclear reaction.” Matter can never be created or destroyed by man or any natural process. Matter only changes state; matter can change its state to plasma state where it becomes pure energy. 

Just like a cup of water cannot by itself change from liquid to solid(ice) or to gas without an external force, be it change in the external temperature or other forces; the physical universe cannot be going through these changes or stages without external force acting on it. The pressure from the planes above the physical plane is the external force that is perpetually acting on the universe, keeping it in motion. Behind everything lies the “will” of the creator who set creation in motion and maintains it with ever new power annually.

You are now introducing mysterious agents and dimensions into the equation. Do you have evidence for these alternate planes? How many are they? What exactly does this creator do? Is he tweaking the physical laws for maintenance?

justcool:

Everything material passes through the four stages of (1) birth or blossoming, (2) ripeness or maturity, (3) over-ripeness or old age, and (4) decay or death. Our physical bodies, our houses, our cars, the earth, our solar system and even the entire material universe. The stage of death or decay is where the object is dissolved to its original components or constituents which will re-unite in another way to be born again. Thus after death or decay comes stage (1) birth again. This is the eternal circle of everything that is material.

The big bang could be likened to stage (1)Birth of the universe, not birth or creation of the substance that make up the universe. At the point when the solar systems are formed could be likened to stage (2) ripeness. At a stage in its expansion, it goes into stage (3) over-ripeness; then when its contracting it is in stage(4) decay which will lead its death which is a point where everything has retuned to the primordial seed. Then once again it will be born—another big bang.

Thanks and remain blessed.

So why introduce a God if you feel the universe keeps cycling?