johnydon22:
Physics is struggling with questions pertaining the known universe still. So?

My point was that physicists will continue to work to find out, while some people we know will want an answer ASAP even if it is not yet there. The human mind is a funny organ because it cant stand ambiguity. But I already gave you a go ahead man! Continue and explain to us how things were 'before' everything. I'm honest enough to admit that I dont know. I mean I know there are many propositions but just so you know, I stand with the Brane Cosmology Model of a cyclic universe. I do have a feeling, like Lemaitre that this universe has been doing this big bang discotheque for quite a long time.

I have never argued that my speculations were true or an indisputable precise answer. You actually entertain a form of insecurity towards anything "God" that you took my answer as a direct argument to posit God.

The question that i responded to was a speculative one..

"Hey, what was God doing forever before creating the universe?"

and i answered

"This is a problem but there are ways you can look at this like this and that"

That was it.

Both the question and the answer were speculations, so this is not "God of the gaps" argument.

Gee dude! So what was he doing?

No we would not. Logic is a two edged sword, you just have to unhinge your mind and look at the broader picture.

Like i said, if i argued that God existed, you wouldn't win it. If i argue God doesn't exist you wouldn't still win it.

Logic can be used to arrive at the answer of God or not depends on how you employ it.

Please use logic to prove there is God. Dont use Godel's ontological logic, get a better one.

I wonder why i am trying to disturb myself anymore since obviously you don't even agree on the premise you replied.

All this trouble began just because I asked in a satirical way what God was doing before the big bang. You jumped on it and founded your own premise and now am facing the consequences. Gee. Instead of telling me where he was (time, dimensions etc), please answer the question directly and tell me what he was doing. Was he just hovering around enjoying a cool breeze? The mere suggestion that God decided to create a universe means he is imperfect. At the time he was alone he must have been missing something, which after some deep soul searching turned out to be a universe. "Aaargh, men, myself, Im missing a universe! " Im just guessing what he probably said.

LOL you still have a long way to go my brother.

To where brother?

You are wrong.

Then answer the similar questions above and we shall see

You are wrong again. This is where you keep limiting your argument

The bible is but a religious book, one of many and not even near the oldest. they all have arguments and claims for God, one can argue for a God that transcends every religious depiction or explanation.

Well what we have done here is to narrow down to the most famous God. Considering he has a support base of roughly 31 % of the global population. If you want we can increase the safety net to cover Allah who has quite similar qualities but to be fair, we can go with the former, just because he is more popular. You are putting in a lot of effort to appear neutral in regards to these gods to the point that your position has become vague. Simply choose one to work with, even if its just a private personal one and go with him, just give us his qualities. Sometimes it feels like am arguing with a wall.

Well i'm pretty sure the scientific community of the time felt this way when Rev Father Georges Lamaitre first proposed the theory of the premodial atom/cosmic egg which you now know today as the Big Bang theory.

He faced skepticism as any scientist does. What he did was simply look at data and come up with a suggestion, not a theory. It wasnt some out of body inspiration as the same conclusion would have been arrived at had he not come up with the idea. Frankly, I'm more impressed with Einstein and Hubble than with Lemaitre because the former two did burn serious calories figuring things than him who looked at what scientists had found and came up with a proposition. The name Big Bang is not even his. But I get you, feel free to speculate we might get an idea out of it

The beauty of science is the confidence it tackles imaginations that challenges it. Open minded bold speculations that are the starting points of its theories.

On point. Thats why I get mad when people who attend weekly sermons in their local church think they have the moral fiber to attack science that works its ass off to solve mysteries and problems that plague our world. F them! Only those who do though, most people are nice except a few religitards.

every other thing you said is non-sequitur to me.

Only if you dont know the kind of qualities that humans attribute to God and the other gods.

So you don't really understand the Big Bang cosmological model you so much depend on?
My question was: When you say Big Bang, what does this imply? Does this imply a universe that started from nothing or from something?

this is simply to show you the purview of ex nihilo and ex materia in science. Forget the language.

I did mention this up there. At the primordial level, it would have to be ex materia.

Does scientific thesis exclude the possibility of God?

Its wrong to say scientific thesis excludes the possibility of God but its right to say God is excluded from all scientific explanations. He has never proved to be necessary because things work perfectly fine when he is excluded. Maybe he might be necessary for scientific explanations in the future but the chances are quite slim, empirically speaking.

TayserMahiri:


My point was that physicists will continue to work to find out,

Ok good.

while some people we know will want an answer ASAP even if it is not yet there.

You keep bringing these people that has nothing to do with the discussion into the discussion.

The human mind is a funny organ because it cant stand ambiguity. But I already gave you a go ahead man! Continue and explain to us how things were 'before' everything. I'm honest enough to admit that I dont know. I mean I know there are many propositions but just so you know, I stand with the Brane Cosmology Model of a cyclic universe. I do have a feeling, like Lemaitre that this universe has been doing this big bang discotheque for quite a long time.

So is the bolded the premise of this discussion?

Gee dude! So what was he doing?

Go back to the first reply you quoted then.

Please use logic to prove there is God. Dont use Godel's ontological logic, get a better one.

You don't see how funny this is? I mean you wrote this, it must have been funny if you proofread before hitting submit.

First: You said logic and God does not mix then goes ahead by yourself and provide an example of logical synthesis that mixes with God thereby contradicting your first assertion of God not mixing with logic.

secondly you ask for a logical model for God then by yourself hope to provide the options for me to choose from?

Do you get how funny it is now?

So would you like to have an argument over existence of God?

All this trouble began just because I asked in a satirical way what God was doing before the big bang. You jumped on it and founded your own premise and now am facing the consequences. Gee. Instead of telling me where he was (time, dimensions etc), please answer the question directly and tell me what he was doing. Was he just hovering around enjoying a cool breeze? The mere suggestion that God decided to create a universe means he is imperfect. At the time he was alone he must have been missing something, which after some deep soul searching turned out to be a universe. "Aaargh, men, myself, Im missing a universe! " Im just guessing what he probably said.

Ok

To where brother?

You'll see. I was you few years ago on this board. hahn, hopefullandlord and many others would tell you.

Then answer the similar questions above and we shall see

You already provided an answer that made you wrong without realizing it.

Well what we have done here is to narrow down to the most famous God. Considering he has a support base of roughly 31 % of the global population. If you want we can increase the safety net to cover Allah who has quite similar qualities but to be fair, we can go with the former, just because he is more popular. You are putting in a lot of effort to appear neutral in regards to these gods to the point that your position has become vague. Simply choose one to work with, even if its just a private personal one and go with him, just give us his qualities. Sometimes it feels like am arguing with a wall.

You are still limiting your argument, your conception so small. You cannot comprehend the concept of God outside religious thesis?

Amazing.

All right let me juggle you a bit. I'd argue for a Deistic God.

He faced skepticism as any scientist does. What he did was simply look at data and come up with a suggestion, not a theory. It wasnt some out of body inspiration as the same conclusion would have been arrived at had he not come up with the idea. Frankly, I'm more impressed with Einstein and Hubble than with Lemaitre because the former two did burn serious calories figuring things than him who looked at what scientists had found and came up with a proposition. The name Big Bang is not even his. But I get you, feel free to speculate we might get an idea out of it

And the story of Lamaitre was here to show you just how mere speculations are the starting points of most scientific theories. About the bolded, why do you like bringing forth useless information? How does the name "Big Bang" limit the validity of his pioneering position for the theory? Besides i have already provided the name his proponent came with.

On point. Thats why I get mad when people who attend weekly sermons in their local church think they have the moral fiber to attack science that works its ass off to solve mysteries and problems that plague our world. F them! Only those who do though, most people are nice except a few religitards.

Here you go again bringing in Religion into it. Pheeeew for once discuss without having to drag religion into it.

Only if you dont know the kind of qualities that humans attribute to God and the other gods.

That and this too is still non-sequitur to my discussion.

I did mention this up there. At the primordial level, it would have to be ex materia.

Do you now understand how ex materia and ex nihilo are reconcilable with science? You asked me to show how they can be reconciled, you have seen it.

Its wrong to say scientific thesis excludes the possibility of God but its right to say God is excluded from all scientific explanations. He has never proved to be necessary because things work perfectly fine when he is excluded. Maybe he might be necessary for scientific explanations in the future but the chances are quite slim, empirically speaking.

The bolded have given me everything i ask, the rest are still non-sequitur

Geofavor:

Okay, I think I get your stance now.

Your atheism is ambigous.

I was never the one to make confident remarks from a place of uncertainty all my life. For my atheism i'd rather use the word broad.

And i recognize "atheism" is the absence of belief in God, doesn't necessarily include witches and other supernatural mumbo jumbo. You can believe in the supernatural, but as long as you lack belief in God, you are atheistic still.

I'm not saying that i do though

It won't be bad if you create a thread explaining it.

or maybe i'd do a ask me anything thread

Tosinex:
There's no how you will get this without you paying close attention to what you see when you close your eyes to sleep. I said this because humans are nothing more than spirit being housed in a flesh which can only survive under some certain conditions upon the face of earth....

Brilliant perspective.

I have once had a discussion whether this universe is a simulation. If your position is correct then we are indeed in a simulation, our body just a means for our main form (spirit) to perceive and experience this plain. This has been a subject of many philosophical speculations.

Can we go deeper into this, i'd like to have a clearer explanation on why you believe we are in a matrix, the main reality is yet to be seen until our spirits leave their earthly containers.

Do you mind?

johnydon22:
Brilliant perspective.

I have once had a discussion whether this universe is a simulation. If your position is correct then we are indeed in a simulation, our body just a means for our main form (spirit) to perceive and experience this plain. This has been a subject of many philosophical speculations.

Can we go deeper into this, i'd like to have a clearer explanation on why you believe we are in a matrix, the main reality is yet to be seen until our spirits leave their earthly containers.

Do you mind?

yes until our spirit leaves this earthly container. Even though some people have idea of what is on the other side but never in the entirety not even in a large percentage of it. Truly there have been creatures before now, creatures beyond our imaginations, truly the world has existed before now, it's just our turn and time to feature in this whole structure. Yes there is a creator and there is a purpose, things just don't happen out of a big bang, if so there will have been some malfunctioning in the solar system, these things have been existing for millions of years (in our own yearly calculations). All these are works of a very intelligent creator. Even an earthly expert manufacturer knows it's products can only last for a certain period of time, and here is the universe still existing after many aeons. We are also meant to be like that but for what happened at the start of our inception into the whole structure

Tosinex:
yes until our spirit leaves this earthly container. Even though some people have idea of what is on the other side but never in the entirety not even in a large percentage of it.

these people how did they get to have the idea of what's on the other side? How do we verify their ideas are largely correct?

Truly there have been creatures before now, creatures beyond our imaginations,

Even in a biological sense, this is correct.

truly the world has existed before now, it's just our turn and time to feature in this whole structure.

Mind expanding more on this?

Yes there is a creator and there is a purpose,

How did we discover this purpose?

Did the creator let us know?

I'm curious also about what this purpose is..

Any idea?

things just don't happen out of a big bang, if so there will have been some malfunctioning in the solar system,

Examples of such malfunctions that should be if things just happened out of a Big Bang..

Any idea what sort of malfunction we should look out for?

these things have been existing for millions of years (in our own yearly calculations). All these are works of a very intelligent creator. Even an earthly expert manufacturer knows it's products can only last for a certain period of time, and here is the universe still existing after many aeons.

Do you think then the universe has no end?

Does this also imply to you that perpetuity connotes design?

We are also meant to be like that but for what happened at the start of our inception into the whole structure

I'm curious to know how this happened..

johnydon22:
these people how did they get to have the idea of what's on the other side? How do we verify their ideas are largely correct?

Even in a biological sense, this is correct.

Mind expanding more on this?

How did we discover this purpose?

Did the creator let us know?

I'm curious also about what this purpose is..

Any idea?

Examples of such malfunctions that should be if things just happened out of a Big Bang..

Any idea what sort of malfunction we should look out for?

Do you think then the universe has no end?

Does this also imply to you that perpetuity connotes design?


I'm curious to know how this happened..

The human mind is very powerful, and it's a very large receptor of things going on beyond the physical. One will need to train up the mind and also exercise it to receive from the beyond, I've been in a situation where I only need to think it for it to happen physically within short space of time, It doesn't come easy. If an observers mind is not as equally trained or exercised to understand what the other person is doing, such observer will only continue to doubt and negate the observations (In this case in the Christiandom we are meant to rely on faith, just believe it and it will be), A one good mind is great, but when it turns two, things will begin to happen sporadically.



YES



Its our time to feature in this whole thing because the creator keeps expanding in creations. The universe keeps expanding because it has life, anything that doesn't have life depreciate, but there's life in the universe and it's eternal and that's why it keeps expanding.



The purpose of creation is to the glory of the creator, look around you and see how beautiful things are, look at the night skies, look at the horizon, look at the fountain of waters, look at the glowing mountains, have you seen lately how beautiful the children of men are, these are to the glory of the creator, all these apart from how man has degraded his immediate environment.. We all also have our different purposes which will be openly or secretly coded to our understanding and expected of us to walk its course.


There can't be any malfunctioning because the universe didn't come out from a big bang. For instance if you take a huge plane and blow it off in the air, the components will scatter all over and there will be activities and after a while they will all resided and there won't be any more activities.




The Universe has no end, it will keep expanding.

The creator created us in its image and likeness(ability), He is light and so we are light, our body can reflect light, I hope you remember Moses face upon the mountain, yes this is how it's meant to be, but that kind of light or let me say Glory, it's not the one we can get from the sun or from our electric bulb, it's the one we can only get from the creator itself. If I should stand just for an hour in that light, by the time I com out my whole body will just be shining light like the sun. Well, I can't begin to explain what happened from the inception, because the creator is a very intelligent being, and he understands everything better and I don't want to start entering into the scriptures now.

johnydon22:

I was never the one to make confident remarks from a place of uncertainty all my life. For my atheism i'd rather use the word broad.

And i recognize "atheism" is the absence of belief in God, doesn't necessarily include witches and other supernatural mumbo jumbo. You can believe in the supernatural,. but as long as you lack belief in God, you are atheistic still..

I'm not saying that i do though

or maybe i'd do a ask me anything thread

I'd like another thread to be dedicated to this. So, please do. The texts in red need rigorous consideration, as I don't think 'atheistic' is the word that describes such persons.

Geofavor:

I'd like another thread to be dedicated to this. So, please do. The texts in red need rigorous consideration, as I don't think 'atheistic' is the word that describes such persons.

Such a person is sorely atheistic.. You don't need a thread, i will clarify that here.

What is God?

What is the relationship between God and Supernatural?

What is an atheist..

If you have a complete grasps on these three concepts you'd get the point immediately

johnydon22:


Such a person is sorely atheistic.. You don't need a thread, i will clarify that here.

Okay. But this is your opinion.

What is God?


What is the relationship between God and Supernatural?

Tell me.

What is an atheist..

Please tell me, and kindly be definitive.

If you have a complete grasps on these three concepts you'd get the point immediately

Actually, I do. But I understand that views concerning these subjects vary. We continue to learn everyday; so, apart from mine, I like seeing things from others' perspective as well.

Geofavor:
Okay. But this is your opinion.

Ok

Tell me.

The relationship between Man and Nature. God by definition is a supernatural being therefore supernatural is the plain in which God exists not God itself. This implies the relationship between God and supernatural is just like that of man and natural.

Please tell me, and kindly be definitive.

Someone who doesn't believe in God(s) (No more no less)

Actually, I do. But I understand that views concerning these subjects vary. We continue to learn everyday; so, apart from mine, I like seeing things from others' perspective as well.

Disbelieving in God doesn't necessarily mean disbelief in the supernatural plain. Dragons if they exist are natural beings, disbelieving there are no dragons doesn't mean you do not believe the natural plain exists.

You can believe in another plain (supernatural) that is not nature. Believe in spirits, witches, chakra, spirits eyes and everything but as long as you lack belief in a God(s) you are by every definition an atheist.

Only that most atheist extend their disbelief to supernatural applying the same arguments as they do God.

I.e: I said Most not all

Do you understand now?

johnydon22:
Ok

The relationship between Man and Nature. God by definition is a supernatural being therefore supernatural is the plain in which God exists not God itself. This implies the relationship between God and supernatural is just like that of man and natural.

Someone who doesn't believe in God(s) (No more no less)



Disbelieving in God doesn't necessarily mean disbelief in the supernatural plain. Dragons if they exist are natural beings, disbelieving there are no dragons doesn't mean you do not believe the natural plain exists.

You can believe in another plain (supernatural) that is not nature. Believe in spirits, witches, chakra, spirits eyes and everything but as long as you lack belief in a God(s) you are by every definition an atheist.

Only that most atheist extend their disbelief to supernatural applying the same arguments as they do God.

I.e: I said Most not all

Do you understand now?

Almost.

By God, you mean a supreme being, right? As in, one that supersedes over the other beings in that "supernatural plain?"

Yeah, most atheist extend their disbelief to the supernatural not all. I have a better understanding of what atheism is. Thanks.

Geofavor:
Almost.

By God, you mean a supreme being, right? As in, one that supersedes over the other beings in that "supernatural plain?"

Yes?

Una weldone o!
Still on this god matter? Smh

johnydon22:
Ok good. You keep bringing these people that has nothing to do with the discussion into the discussion. So is the bolded the premise of this discussion?

Go back to the first reply you quoted then.


You don't see how funny this is? I mean you wrote this, it must have been funny if you proofread before hitting submit.

First: You said logic and God does not mix then goes ahead by yourself and provide an example of logical synthesis that mixes with God thereby contradicting your first assertion of God not mixing with logic.

secondly you ask for a logical model for God then by yourself hope to provide the options for me to choose from?

Do you get how funny it is now?

So would you like to have an argument over existence of God?



Ok


You'll see. I was you few years ago on this board. hahn, hopefullandlord and many others would tell you.


You already provided an answer that made you wrong without realizing it.


You are still limiting your argument, your conception so small. You cannot comprehend the concept of God outside religious thesis?

Amazing.

All right let me juggle you a bit. I'd argue for a Deistic God.




And the story of Lamaitre was here to show you just how mere speculations are the starting points of most scientific theories. About the bolded, why do you like bringing forth useless information? How does the name "Big Bang" limit the validity of his pioneering position for the theory? Besides i have already provided the name his proponent came with.

Here you go again bringing in Religion into it. Pheeeew for once discuss without having to drag religion into it.


That and this too is still non-sequitur to my discussion.

Do you now understand how ex materia and ex nihilo are reconcilable with science? You asked me to show how they can be reconciled, you have seen it.


The bolded have given me everything i ask, the rest are still non-sequitur

Sounds like finally we have a common understanding.

Tosinex:
if so there will have been some malfunctioning in the solar system, these things have been existing for millions of years (in our own yearly calculations).

Even an earthly expert manufacturer knows it's products can only last for a certain period of time, and here is the universe still existing after many aeons.

What kind of malfunction?

How do you know the universe should have ended by now, and not later?

TayserMahiri:


What kind of malfunction?

How do you know the universe should have ended by now, and not later?

I totally forgot about that guy, I will be replying his comment .. Thanks for reminding me seff

Tosinex:

The human mind is very powerful, and it's a very large receptor of things going on beyond the physical. One will need to train up the mind and also exercise it to receive from the beyond, I've been in a situation where I only need to think it for it to happen physically within short space of time, It doesn't come easy. If an observers mind is not as equally trained or exercised to understand what the other person is doing, such observer will only continue to doubt and negate the observations (In this case in the Christiandom we are meant to rely on faith, just believe it and it will be), A one good mind is great, but when it turns two, things will begin to happen sporadically.

This doesn't follow in terms of objectivity though.

An objective reality is whether you believe it or not, if something doesn't exist, no matter how great your faith is that it does, it still doesn't.

My question was; How did the people who know about this other side, how did they do it?

And how do we, ordinary people who are not fortunate enough to know this verify that their knowledge is correct and not some form of pious fraud?

Its our time to feature in this whole thing because the creator keeps expanding in creations. The universe keeps expanding because it has life, anything that doesn't have life depreciate, but there's life in the universe and it's eternal and that's why it keeps expanding.

OK.

Just so we are on same understanding; your reason why the universe is expanding is because it has life.

Ok.

The purpose of creation is to the glory of the creator, look around you and see how beautiful things are, look at the night skies, look at the horizon, look at the fountain of waters, look at the glowing mountains, have you seen lately how beautiful the children of men are, these are to the glory of the creator, all these apart from how man has degraded his immediate environment.. We all also have our different purposes which will be openly or secretly coded to our understanding and expected of us to walk its course.

Beauty connotes design?
Of what importance is this glory to the creator?

There can't be any malfunctioning because the universe didn't come out from a big bang. For instance if you take a huge plane and blow it off in the air, the components will scatter all over and there will be activities and after a while they will all resided and there won't be any more activities.

This isn't really my question, i asked: Since you think a malfunction would suggest that the universe was rather uncreated, what sort of malfunction should we expect in this regard to verify this of which absence of proves the universe was indeed created by God?

The Universe has no end, it will keep expanding.

To an extent we agree.

The creator created us in its image and likeness(ability), He is light and so we are light, our body can reflect light, I hope you remember Moses face upon the mountain, yes this is how it's meant to be, but that kind of light or let me say Glory, it's not the one we can get from the sun or from our electric bulb, it's the one we can only get from the creator itself. If I should stand just for an hour in that light, by the time I com out my whole body will just be shining light like the sun. Well, I can't begin to explain what happened from the inception, because the creator is a very intelligent being, and he understands everything better and I don't want to start entering into the scriptures now.

This answer did not touch the question asked. You may want to try again..

enilove:


There is nothing like "big bang". It is simply telling people that there was a creator , that caused the big bang , but denying existence of God.

It is inverably saying that this universe came into existence by chance , which is not possible.

The Bible recorded an event that took place in Egypt about 3, 000 years ago. The Bible says God divided the Red Sea into 2 parts for about 12 hours for the Israelites to escape death from Pharaoh the king in Egypt. It says that the Egyptians perished in that sea.

Who can divide a Sea and rivers if not the Creator that knows in and out of how the Sea came into existence?

How come historians didn't record this happenening?

johnydon22post=67302403:
Yes?

going By The Ex Materie Theory,it State That The Universe Was Created From Something, Yes? Maybe This Could Be Remnant From The Previous Universe Or It Could Be God Afterall. But I SomeTimes Believe There Was Someting Bigger Before The Bang,something That Gave Rise To The Existance Of God. Everything Cant Just Come From Notting U Know.I Would Like Ur Opinion On This,and Also Did U Study Philosophy