budaatum:


I think this is one of the most lame excuses for the existence of a god. In fact, I think it is more the excuse for the existence of millions of gods, since the universe is not one painting, but more like billions of paintings painted by millions of painters with millions more to paint in the small details like single planets and mountains and valleys and rivers and living things.
Then there is the problem of there being a god and therefore a god who created it, and another who created that god that created god ad infinitum.

What do you think?

The problem in the first paragraph of your logic is that you say the universe is a billion paintings. No. The universe is one.
There could be one painting, but a lot of elements. The people in it, the background, the meaning. Doesn't mean it was made by different people.

Your second paragraph. Who created God? In essence.
For the universe to exist today it had to have a beginning. We've gotten past that. There was a big bang. What caused the big bang, the start of it all? Something out of time and space (time started with the universe), something intelligent (creation works perfectly), something, something without a beginning and an end.
God, in essence.

budaatum:


But it does! And only fools will disregard reality and insist on sticking with should or shouldn't.

Laws are created by humans who don't always have all the information before them, and that is why we and our laws are not rigid.

An example is, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". Though I don't think you'd understand it as a 'law', because it doesn't sound like one.

That was as far as humans of the day and time were capable of understanding, but today we see and understand better such that some claim there was a big bang when God supposedly said "let there be light".

Think of "child" below to mean the entire human race over time, and you might see that we evolve into adults.

budaatum:


I do love that you said "there ought be".

It suggests you are aware that you can increase energy without increasing acceleration.

You are kind of out of the loop. I don't think you've been following. The discussion is about how the arbitrary cosmic speed limit of speed of light indicates we're in a simulation and it's likely an aspect of the processor speed

budaatum:


But it does! And only fools will disregard reality and insist on sticking with should or shouldn't.

Laws are created by humans who don't always have all the information before them, and that is why we and our laws are not rigid.

An example is, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". Though I don't think you'd understand it as a 'law', because it doesn't sound like one.

That was as far as humans of the day and time were capable of understanding, but today we see and understand better such that some claim there was a big bang when God supposedly said "let there be light".

Think of "child" below to mean the entire human race over time, and you might see that we evolve into adults.

Reed called em properties


Activist of dry convo says intelligence or laws or any other thing she gets from xyz online


U use same words in a different way


I say theres no universe, theres nonsense. We are into more than madness or greater madness, life is crazy, death cant fix it, whether or not i make it, damn it!

LordReed:


LMFAO! O my fucking Andromeda! Who cares what you think the universe should be like? These are the properties of the universe, your incredulity means nothing. You are just a phony I swear. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

budaatum:


But it does! And only fools will disregard reality and insist on sticking with should or shouldn't.

Laws are created by humans who don't always have all the information before them, and that is why we and our laws are not rigid.

An example is, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". Though I don't think you'd understand it as a 'law', because it doesn't sound like one.

That was as far as humans of the day and time were capable of understanding, but today we see and understand better such that some claim there was a big bang when God supposedly said "let there be light".

Think of "child" below to mean the entire human race over time, and you might see that we evolve into adults.

**The laws of Physics are NOT created by humans. Discovered not created!

Listen, in this our reality things don't suddenly change for no reason, or suddenly stop or start for no reason. When something starts acting abnormally we don't just gloss it over as just the way things are. We first acknowledge it is abnormal then look for possible reasons why the exception. Same applies to the relatively low speed of light. We ask ourselves WHY laws should suddenly change when you approach that speed!

budaatum:


That's true. In Yoruba land before the Bible, Obatala made the universe and created life and the earth.

In ancient Greece, Hesiod, in his Theogony begins with Chaos, a yawning nothingness out of which emerged Gaia (the Earth) and some other primary divine beings: Eros (Love), the Abyss (the Tartarus), and the Erebus.

The Koreans claim the world was created by the god Mireuk. While the Chinese say in the beginning was a huge egg containing chaos, a mixture of yin and yang — female-male, aggressive-passive, cold-hot, dark-light, and wet-dry. Within this yin and yang was Pan Gu, who broke forth from the egg as the giant who separated chaos into the many opposites, including Earth and sky.

Ancient Egypt claims that in the beginning, only a chaotic water existed called Nun. The sun god Ra appeared from a lotus flower and gave light to the universe. Ra created Shu, the air god, and Tefnut, the goddess of moisture. Those two gave birth to the sky goddess Nut and the earth god Geb. From them, the physical universe was formed.

The Celts claim that Once upon a time, there was no time and that was when there also was no gods and no man walked the surface of the land. But there was the sea, and where the sea met the land, a mare was born, white and made of sea-foam. And her name was Eiocha.”

Today, some claim a big bang done it in fact, though those who claim so don't tend to worship the bang.

So yes, people everywhere gave credit and worship to one who they were convinced was the maker of the universe, life and the earth. Just that people everywhere give that credit to the gods they believe in just like you do, since all the gods could not have created the same universe and life and the earth in the various diverse ways we are told they created. And some have learnt from all the myths and grown past that baby stage of believing.

Ref:
https://list25.com/25-creation-stories-from-around-the-world/

https://theapeiron.co.uk/4-bizarre-creation-myths-that-will-make-you-question-the-origin-of-humans-114400f1c418

https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/celtic-creation-sea-foam-placenta-birth-universe-009635

The summary of your points is that people gave credit to someone regarding the origin of the universe and almost every part of the world even though there are many differences as to who that one is. You therefore contradict yourself on what you first said that God does not exist. Your argument is pointless. Try again

budaatum:
See what you describe as Science, lol, big bang, micro evolutuon, etc. Were they replicated in a lab too?

Science, the use of your senses, is a tool to seek understanding. A theory is first presented then further information is sought. An example is the world was flat until subsequent observation found it was not flat. Unfortunately, human senses are rarely and slowly used, so knowledge acquisition is gradual.

There was a time when 'Scientists' came up with a theory that states that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

Subsequent observation and theories have come up with alternative ideas like when God supposedly said "Let there be Light", there was a big bang then there was light. But you need to learn to separate hypothesis and theories from the observed facts. A scientist would tell you big bang is a theory, one of many.

You might want to start by observing how many science produced products you use today to plot how right human use of science profits you. Without it, humans can not possibly fulfil the command to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth", and therefore be blessed, and go to Mars and Jupiter and Uranus too,

Just observe a country like Nigeria to see how a negative attitude towards science holds us back because we would rather believe than scientifically 'use our God given senses'. But as this thread shows, eyes are opening, thank the Gods.

Is the big bang science theory science or not? Does science not assume the sun will always rise and set everyday? Does science not believe and assume that the laws of gravity will always be there? Is macroevolution not science?

What exactly is your point here?

OtemAtum:


In life there is always an assumed beginning to anything. The assumed beginning to EXISTENCE is the point where the big bang occured. That's the point you can use as the first term. Check the model very well, you will see a black shape at the centre of the model. That's the 'assumed beginning' at this instance.

Don't act like budaatum and other bastards repeating the same thing in vain for no reason by accusing me or almost all humans or all humans of not understanding the truth or reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!



No amount of insult and condemnation can change my reasoning concerning this!!!!!!!



My reasoning -which is not a choice- says that you are not meant to be appreciated for not being straightforward concerning this issue as WE had agreed that I consider the definition of existence as the property of something to possess limits so it(existence) neither has a beginning nor an end



Therefore,it is of no use telling me that I am wrong when I say you don't have to tell me anything about your model which supports this or that assumption about what my reasoning has determined concerning existence.


No analogy or illustration can change anything!!!!!



Whatever you consider as the truth doesn't change my reasoning!



If anyone says nobody can determine what reality is, that's his or her cup of wine!!!!!!



Spits........

budaatum:


Who told you an explosion created all the order we are seeing in the universe? On the flip side, is it impossible to conceive that when God is written to have said, "Let there be Light", there was a big bang of light?

Fact is, you want to argue your beliefs against the beliefs of others without recognising both sides are ignorant and neither of you actually know.

Science did tell us that everything in the universe used to be a singleton (infinitesimally small but infinity dense) which suddenly expanded/inflated 14.6billion years ago. Interestingly, it is consistent with Genesis. " In the beginning (from nothing) appeared through God the universe. The bible isn't a scientific book hence, it didn't explain how.

Unfortunately, I am speaking from a gnostic position based on my subjective experience of God and the little scientific knowledge I have.

An atheist have no basis of gnosticism except through an outright rejection of God. We have probably the same physical and logical data but different conclusions: the difference is this subjective experience!!

budaatum:


Evolution is nothing like you seem to understand it to be.

Consider the following.

My problem with this evolution of the solar system (even though I was describing evolution of living things) is that somehow, ENTROPY just seem to be reducing immediately after the big bang/inflation of the universe. This break every known physical law for entropy is ALWAYS increasing. Entropy can only decrease if an EXTERNAL constraining force compels entropy of the system to reduce.

In the beginning, there exist no single atom. After the big bang/inflation, neutrons, protons and electrons just found a way to order themselves as single units.

Its just like sand, gravel, lime, water are scattered over the earth with a high entropy. Some people (Dangote and the Bricklayer) brought these things together to make cement to build a house of lower entropy. Sand, gravel, lime and water ordinarily cannot build a house EXCEPT there exist an EXTERNAL force to the system.

Comprehende?

FatherOfJesus:
The logic of theist is nothing can exist without a creator. Going by this logic, who then created God?

Op, do forgive me for jumping into your thread without first addressing the question you pose. I wouldn't normally address such topics because, as you might have seen, they end where they end which tends to be nowhere at all, though knowledge and the seeds of thought are forever sown in the minds of those who bother to engage with such subjects. The pity is how few such as you who use their minds there are.

You say "the logic of theists", so I'll start by saying "some theists", and suggest the text that makes some come to such a conclussion is the following.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

A critical look would make one wonder as you've done, to my delight I dare say, so lets shall we, first however, let me categorically state that the text is a creation myth and just one of very many, and not original at that, but to it alone shall I refer on the assumption that 'Bible reader' is what you mean by "theists".

From the text we can deduce two things, first, that there was a beginning when God is written to have created the heavens and the earth. And second, that it was formless and void, as in, it had nothing in or on it. Oh, and perhaps a third which would be that God is a lousy creator, since the earth was void and formless, but I'll admit that would be mere speculation on my part since void and formless does not necessarily mean lousy just as the bottle I create for the wine I intend to create would not be lousy just because I have not filled it with wine yet, but I hope you get the humour. One thing for certain is the text is not in the first person, as in God did not write it, because if God had written it it would likely go something like "In the beginning, I, God created the heaven and the earth", which is not the form the text is in, and which would make one ask, who the heck was there recording what God was doing at the time. An angel, perhaps? But would that not mean there were more, erm, things, or shall I say godlike things even before the beginning? The Bible reader might say, but of course, especially since there is text reporting things that happened long before the beginning we read of in the beginning, no pun nor error intended, but there we go circular I guess, right back to where you began asking what created all those God things including God, angels, where they dwelt, etc. and there, will I suggest, is the beauty of the text.

You see, it has made you question as it rightly should, and made an unbeliever of you as opposed to those you call theist who think they know it all though they merely believe the crap they pretty much do not understand, and don't you just love using the brain in your head and your mind just like Adam and Eve were written in the myth to have done, refusing not to test if they'd really die if they ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and mythologically thereby becoming the very first humans to use their own senses and becoming the first scientists in the process of their enquiry as opposed to merely believing they will surely die.

P.s. This is a recurring topic which I used to be rather fund of until I got bored of it, or rather, came to the conclusion that speculate is all we can do, but you'd find some of my previouses here.

Thanks op, for making those who would, use their minds and think. Please continue seeking and never ever become a believer, because as admirable as it may sound, emulating beings described as demons is so not admirable, as is written.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/11663600_20200604102351774_jpeg_jpeg0a6707a5c919e2761327fab9920679aa

budaatum:

I watched this twice when you first posted it and tried watching it again before this response but could only get to the 3:30 mark.

What I love about science is its ability to make one reflect. Its why the scientist in the video does not make the error the 'scientists' who wrote the Bible made. Unlike them, he states clearly at the beginning and all the way through "what we know for sure", and says when he's speculating, which he assures us is about anything 10^-13 seconds after time = 0, ("14 hours, after he was born", he called it), so I can't see why you'd present this as time = -1, as in prior to the big bang, unless you've suddenly gone religious on me and believe the gospel according to the youtube video you posted, which clearly would be a misunderstanding of said gospel since its presenter carefully separates what is known from speculation.

Do note that I am not myself claiming to know what existed prior to time = -1. Just that something tells me bangs do not come out of nothing, and most especially not big ones.

Yes but whatever that something is, science can not identify. Science also can not completely rule out a deity, but hasn’t found any evidence that one exists either. If science does find that a god exists, I dont know if it will be any of the gods people believe in today.

Science and physics can not prove a soul exists either, and nothing has proved that consciousness can exist outside the brain. So once the brain dies that’s probably it.

budaatum:

Their is one problem, which is that both sides claim their own 'science' (way of seeing and looking at things) is an authority.

"in the beginning" was written by humans who existed when it was written, and either way you look at it long before they came into existence. They used their senses to observe what they saw and wrote about it according to their understanding at the time.

We are not in the beginning no more but we too write our own big bang as an understanding of what we perceive now with our senses. And the mere fact we use telescopes is an indication of how far we've come.

The problem is "believing". It blinds the understanding and the learning acquired through understanding the supreme powers of the Word. Believers are like those who have heard there is treasure in a field but ask another to have faith and purchase it so they can share the reward with them.

Oh, poor people of this world.

I understand you very well. Each one can only really speak truly from his/her experiences with respect to the Divine. Science isn't necessarily nor expedient for finding God (intact not a requirement). We know God by grace and the fact that we choose to know the Truth and stand by it wherever it leads us.

I only have problems with those who scorn believers in God as Intellectually weak and inferior. I agree, most Christians aren't "readers" and seekers of knowledge but it doesn't mean that Atheists are intellectually superior.

I usually don't quarrel with gnostic Atheists. It could simply be their choice or the fact that science is their god. I have issues with the agnostics who claim not to know yet argue like they know everything to be known. An agnostics should at best be a seeker of the truth.

Well there you go, Shadeyinka! Now I know your first big problem and why this argument has been total bunkum. Let's go through your post, shall we? (By the way, apologies for all the late responses. I'm kind of pursuing something big IRL so please pray for me )

shadeyinka:

If Theists have taken your kind of position, I think Atheists would have cried fowl

Chicken, capon! What a goose!
Don't mind me, i'm just crying fowl laugh

@red
fowl= any bird
foul= bad, under-handed or awful
Free vocabulary lesson, you're welcome, but you have to admit I was right to mock you

Anyways, on a more serious note, when atheists state their single viewpoint on this site, most theists do more than cry foul! They insult, insinuate, preach and condemn. They have been known to wilfully distort the truth and they declare atheists to be "dishonest" without reasonable explanation. You remain lower than a dog turd in my eyes until your apology is made.

asserting the "no one knows" position of agnostics and probably want everyone to take the same stance with you

Shadeyinka, I frequently describe myself as an agnostic atheist. This is because I both do not believe the assertion that gods exist AND I admit I have no way to know if they do or not. Pay attention to my use of the words believe and know! They are different things! I, along with many others, define a/theism as a belief or lack of belief in god(s). Additionally, a/gnosticism is about knowledge i.e knowing about the existence or non-existence of god(s). For example, a christian who follows Pascal's wager, (A doubting Thomas) is in fact an Agnostic Christian!

Thus, are you asserting that, despite the definitions I have provided above, I cannot be both atheist and agnostic, hmm?

I honestly believe that a true Agnostic need not take sides either with either the Theists nor the Atheists; for both the Atheists and the Theists take a gnostic position

1> You have committed a No True Scotsman fallacy (look it up).
2> There is no such thing as "a fake agnostic". One is either agnostic about X, Y or Z, or one is not. The word has a very simple meaning: It comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which simply means "knowledge" and "a" which means "without". It has nothing to do with belief and is not restricted to religious knowledge. E.g. I am agnostic about alien visitation I.E I don't know.
3> A person may both be atheist AND agnostic. I demonstrated this above. I do not believe in god(s) BUT I do not claim to KNOW there is/are no god(s).
4> You have continuously proven yourself to be an ignoramus, seeming to be lacking even the ability to use a dictionary.
5> Quad Erat Demonstradum!

Unfortunately, agnostics come here feigning atheism and use science as a bases (basis............write out 100 times) to knock down Theism

This is another mistaken generalisation. As far as I have witnessed for close to one year on this forum, most atheists don't use science to knock down theism if only because most professed theists do not understand how the scientific method works and seem impervious to any explanation. Thus, some atheists use history, some prefer philosophy and so on. Mine mostly depends on who I'm engaging in argument.

It is logically possible to find the truth if one desires

It may be. We don't know. All we can seem to assert is that the truth may be out there. That's why we keep looking. (Well, some of us. Others are crouched on their knees in dark candle lit rooms, believing in and practicing magic rituals)

"I don't know" seems to be a path of easy escape for anyone who refuse to exercise the use of simple logics logic

You could not be more wrong. One of the people on this site professing to know things that they cannot possibly know is YOU! "I don't know" is the path to exploration, inquiry, mystery and eventually, DISCOVERY. Pretending you know an answer is just delusion. Supporting your delusional answer with more delusion only succeeds in proving you are deluded.

Get some basic integrity!

Let's pick some issues between Atheists and Theists

Sure, Let's do that.

1. Theists: God created the universe
Atheists: The universe created itself

OK. FIRST OF ALL, you've committed a false dichotomy fallacy! We have many more options than that:
A> God created the universe
B> The universe created itself
C> The universe always existed
D> The big bang was just one of many big Bangs
E> A steady state universe
F> Eternal Inflation Level II Universe
G> Oscillating universe
H> A computer simulation universe
I> A holographic universe
J> A multi-dimensional universe
Bla Bla Bla...

SECOND OF ALL, the way this simplistic argument is posed reveals an inherent weakness in the theist view, besides not understanding atheism.

Theist thought is so imbued by the idea of a god figure that even when expressing their version of the atheist view, they can not help but replace their god with another power image, in this case: The Universe.

I do not recall ever hearing an atheist state the "univese created itself" as an axiom. I personally only use that clause to counter theists' special pleading, argumentum ad ignorantiam riddled "God created himself" argument. The universe is not an entity, a personality, or replacement for a god. It is a material place, subject to elemental forces of nature, apparently immeasurable in dimension and in Newtonian time. It currently defies total and complete understanding by the practice of science, and especially religion, but as science has only been free to investigate reality for a mere four hundred years at best, it has revealed a great deal in a relatively short time just how and what those elemental forces have produced. Much is yet to be gleaned but this does not negate the value of what has so far been discovered.

Even Lemaitre, the catholic priest who mathematically created the original concept of the big bang pointedly warned the Vatican not to publicly use his theory as proof of biblical creation. He understood one was a mathematical scientific theory and the other to be a belief!

2. Theists: The universe has a beginning
Atheists: The universe always existed

You have now committed the strawman fallacy (are you keeping score?)! You can not know either assertion. I think science currently leans towards the universe having an origin but that says nothing about the cosmos. Universe is local time and local creation. From what or where no one can actually say!

Your numbers 3, 4, 5 have thus, all been addressed. Conclusion: They are bunkum/garbage.

6. Theists: The DNA is a kind of computer code. It requires an Intelligent Programmer.
Atheists: The program of the DNA came about by pure statistical accident of chemical reactions

[s]Theists: Given infinite number of arrangements of the alphanumeric characters, can a computer code be created?
Atheists: [/s]

It is about time you got it into your thick head that atheists hold no dogmatic opinion on DNA. You might want to talk to a biologist. What can easily be discovered is this (any biological website can and WILL tell you the same): DNA is a chemical reaction
just like every other chemical reaction known to mankind

"The core argument of Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in a Cell, written in advocacy of intelligent design, is this: DNA is a code and a computer instruction is a code. Since computer code requires an intelligent designer, and DNA is a code, it follows that DNA is a product of, or is controlled by, an intelligent designer."
https://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when_code_not_code

This argument has no foundation if one does not accept its basic premise: that DNA is a code, that computer instruction is a code, and that the term "code" is applicable in exactly the same way to both uses.

In short, you are committing an equivocation fallacy: the word "code" is used one way for systems like computer programming or the Morris code, an d in a completely different way for biology. For this reason, your number 7 is completely INVALID.

I have explained enough and shown (via links) enough to illustrate why this DNA drivel is DOA (Dead On Arrival) and is one of the most debunked and/or derided theist arguments. But knowing you, you'll continue to ask that inane question till the end of time because you are invulnerable to reason.

9. Theists: Consciousness/Awareness requires the personality to be able to feel both discomfort and pleasure and volition. Chemicals cannot cause this

Have you never seen people turn aggressive under the influence of alchol or drugs? Altering their emotions and making them take decisions without their full control?

When my brother drinks, he becomes more intelligent, good looking, and great at singing, but some people turn nasty. A drunk guy once punched my bro in the mouth in the middle of a beautiful rendition of "Africa" by Toto at a karaoke bar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTQbiNvZqaY

Looking back, I think the chemicals affected his consciousness and his ability to enjoy great music.

A Design needs a designer until it can be shown that the converse is possible. In a design, we see interrelated systems that can't exist without the other e.g. key and padlock, house and roof

"A DeSiGn NeEdS a dEsIgNeR" and things that occur naturally do not. What's your point? You are also makingthe Begging the Question fallacy (still keeping scores, huh?). Design does not need a designer, it may need an observer. Designs occur in chaotic systems but if no one is there to notice, who will call it a design?

You don't need to believe in anything other than, "there is a Prime Mover/Source of everything"

I don't need to believe in that either. Why in the world would I believe in such nonsense without evidence?

There are many gods one creator

How in the f*ck would you know this?

Gods are in higher dimensions

Again, how in the f*ck would you know this?

An agnostic should be a seeker of truth and must refrain from taking gnostic positions

You mean positions like:
1> A design needs a designer?
2> You need to believe there is a prime mover (A source for everything?)
3> There are many gods but only one creator?
4> Science has three dimensions but gods live in higher dimensions?

LOL. Oh kerist... the whole kit and caboodle of unfounded claims, faulty logic and unevidenced assertions by shadeyinka! This is the most idiotic drivel I have yet run accross on this site. My IQ dropped three points by just sitting here next to it.

As I said earlier,.... what a goose! Actually my uttering of "capon", a fat, pompous neutered cockerel is a much better picture of this entire posting. Fowl play indeed!

Cc. LordReed, Martinez39, Vic2Ree, budaatum, CAPSLOCKED

budaatum:

This is very untrue, Shade. We do not know anything about the "beginning of the universe", and all just speculate that God said, big bang, there is, and we believe according to our personal biases. The only thing we do know for certain is there is, we then all try to convince the other to accept our own version of how it came about.

An intelligently honest person would say "I don't really know how the universe began".

Every Scientific investigation shows that the universe had a beginning.

The difference is that no one really know how it got formed at the beginning

Christians say GOD created it!
Atheists say the Universe created itself from nothing.

Both the Atheists and the Christians have no Empirical Evidence to validate there assertion

budaatum:

No I hadn't heard of it, but I'm not surprised. I've always said creationism and big bang are myths. We learn in Egypt that however much you think you know it is just impossible that you know it all. Hear there arrogance:

"By discovering how fast the cosmos was expanding, scientists were able to essentially apply their equation in reverse to trace everything back to the beginning."

My Lord, are they not lying? Are they lying intentionally? What instrument did they use to measure the expansion of the universe? Doesn't it sound like the one hakeem wants to measure a god?

I expect this to shift as much ground as Ptolemy did and Copenicus and Galilleo, and then some hundred years later its psychological effect takes hold.

emperorharry

yes that’s beauty about science. We’d come out and say sorry about what we told you before. at least it’s better than claiming you know all things mean while you know nothing.

The methuselah star is 14.5 billion +- 0.8 billion. Remember that in age prediction you can’t get the accurate age only range. Journalists will only go for the 14.5 billion years so that their paper will sell.

budaatum:

No I hadn't heard of it, but I'm not surprised. I've always said creationism and big bang are myths. We learn in Egypt that however much you think you know it is just impossible that you know it all. Hear there arrogance:

"By discovering how fast the cosmos was expanding, scientists were able to essentially apply their equation in reverse to trace everything back to the beginning."

My Lord, are they not lying? Are they lying intentionally? What instrument did they use to measure the expansion of the universe? Doesn't it sound like the one hakeem wants to measure a god?

I expect this to shift as much ground as Ptolemy did and Copenicus and Galilleo, and then some hundred years later its psychological effect takes hold.

They didn't lie my dear buda, they used calculations so it could be imprecise. They do allow for the imprecision that's why the star's age has an error margin of 800 million years.

We may not be able to measure god but surely a working god's effects can be measured.

budaatum:

No I hadn't heard of it, but I'm not surprised. I've always said creationism and big bang are myths. We learn in Egypt that however much you think you know it is just impossible that you know it all. Hear there arrogance:

"By discovering how fast the cosmos was expanding, scientists were able to essentially apply their equation in reverse to trace everything back to the beginning."

Do not trust anything written on the internet, there is a lot of fake news flying around.

The Methuselah star is not older than the alleged age of the universe, according to big bang theory. It is one of the oldest for sure, but does not contradict the the theory.

I am not saying the big bang must be right, but in this case it is a fake news, propagated by people who want to invalidate a scientific theory by unscientific means.

By the way, the big bang theory is a theory. At the moment it is confirmed by most observations and experiments about the universe. If scientists find new evidence that the theory is false, they will discard the theory and formulate new ones.

That's how science works. No one, except religious people, want the particular theory to be right or wrong.

EmperorHarry:
Who else is aware of this discovery?


Cc budaatum,hakeem4,LordReed

No I hadn't heard of it, but I'm not surprised. I've always said creationism and big bang are myths. We learn in Egypt that however much you think you know it is just impossible that you know it all. Hear there arrogance:

"By discovering how fast the cosmos was expanding, scientists were able to essentially apply their equation in reverse to trace everything back to the beginning."

My Lord, are they not lying? Are they lying intentionally? What instrument did they use to measure the expansion of the universe? Doesn't it sound like the one hakeem wants to measure a god?

I expect this to shift as much ground as Ptolemy did and Copenicus and Galilleo, and then some hundred years later its psychological effect takes hold.

budaatum:

I'm not a novice to any of this so don't assume I've no knowledge whatsoever. Even you call it "best explanation", and accept that it is "speculation", so you can hardly expect me to claim it as my knowledge, and you definitely can not be asking me to believe it! I don't do believe!

What we have is the best assumptions from "careful collation of data" very long after the fact, out of which we have "provided the best explanation", which is exactly the same way ("careful collation of data" as we could at the time within the confines of our ability to collate it), we got "God done it in 6 days then rested". It is precisely for this reason that the big bang theory is described as "the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe", and not "this is exactly how the universe came about". The fact that it is "prevailing" is no reason to claim that's what happened, and the best scientists will always qualify with "as best as we know". None of the models exactly explain how any of it began, just what happened after it had begun, and that really is saying quite a lot about what is not known.

I am surprised you are talking like this. You are beginning to sound like a theologist. It is only theologist that claim to know exactly how the universe began, no scientist claim that. What scientists have are various postulations and guesses. No one can know exactly how the universe began, because no one witnessed it and there is no observable data before the universe began or even after it began (that is even if it had a beginning in the true sense of the word). What scientist are fairly confident of is what happens long after the beginning from their interpretation of observable data.
You cannot compare that with the postulation by theologists of "God did it" or since it exist it must have been created by someone" without any supporting evidence or data whatsoever.
To the theologists, all uknown obsevations stop at God did, while with the scientists vigorous debates and arguments ensures and the most widely acceptable explanation for "observable data" wins, albeit temporarily until a better explanation comes along or new data that does not conform to old explanation is observed. Einstein and Bohr debated quantum mechanics 3 times and in the end Einstein was "wrong" and Bohr was "right" and today quantum mechanics rules the microscopic world.
It is a travesty to put the big bang Theory in the same league with the "God did it" hypothesis.

budaatum:

Lol! So, because the student returns empty handed, we are to assume the table had nothing on it!? What if the student was being lazy or just stupid and didn't pick up anything from all the things that were on the table? Is it not truer that it is the student's hand that is empty which says nought about whether there is something or nothing on top of the table? But that's beside the point.

Nothing is not something! Nothing is absolutely nothing, not tables, not spaces, not heads, not student's hands, just nothing. Hence, nothing can be empty, because nothing is nothing.

Empty things are 'somethings' - tables, spaces, heads, student's hands - that have nothing inside or on top of them. A something with nothing in it is empty.

The student just brought one of the "so called" things on the table: emptiness. Can you see from this that it doesn't fit. Something cannot be Nothing and Nothing cannot be something!

In case you don't still understand: a table cannot be 100% full. If nothing is something, it means that the total Something on the table must include the nothing. The student thus brings that something called Nothing: can't you see that this is a contradiction and logical fallacies!

I think this case is closed.

Your Quote::

Sorry, but "science" does not say there was nothing before the big bang! If there was nothing before the big bang, there would be nothing to go bang for starts, and " empty space" is still something, a space with nothing in it.

It is the universe as we know it that a beginning is claime

budaatum:

I see what you did there, jumping from my "emptiness is a property of something", to your, "emptiness has properties". I hope you see the jump.

Emptiness is an adjective. The archaic definition of adjective is "can't stand alone". You have to add a bold noun like space to prop up emptiness, and that space is something, a measurable something at that. Unless you want to claim your space has no lenght and breadth.

When the word emptiness is used, absolutely nothing, is implied, inside of a quantifiable something, which can be measured Mrs Dawkins.

Let's start from your premises:

budaatum:

Sorry, but "science" does not say there was nothing before the big bang! If there was nothing before the big bang, there would be nothing to go bang for starts, and "empty space" is still something, a space with nothing in it.

It is the universe as we know it that a beginning is claimed for. Human knowledge just doesn't go further than that.

It started with:
Empty Space= Something

If you won't accuse me of changing meaning, it can be rephrased as
Emptiness = Something

Empty/Emptiness is an adjective or a verb
Something is a noun

Scientifically, emptiness means devoid of matter. Matter is always value noun. Emptiness is thus a description of absence of substance/thing.

It's not possible to stretch the argument beyond that and still make any sense.

Except your argument is like: "zero" means strictly "no giraffe"! Then,

budaatum:

Sorry, but "science" does not say there was nothing before the big bang! If there was nothing before the big bang, there would be nothing to go bang for starts, and "empty space" is still something, a space with nothing in it.

It is the universe as we know it that a beginning is claimed for. Human knowledge just doesn't go further than that.

I would have preferred that you quoted me fully and in context! So, no singleton was mentioned!?

Empty space is still something!?
Prove it!

How has NO-THING and SOME-THING be/mean the same?

budaatum:

He accuses atheist of nothing from nothing belief. Did this thread not start with that idea being debunked? Are you in fact, not the one claiming some creator came from nothing preceeding it!? Is the argument not that something always precedes something?

He accuses atheists of something from nothing.

The argument is that something always come from something.

What idea was debunked here where you cited yourself?

budaatum:
I cite buda. Something had to exist to go bang (assuming there was a bang). It must have been a big thing that existed, hence big bang. And even if there were no bang and gods did it. They'd have had to have existed in order to create what didn't exist. And something must have existed to create the gods themselves, and something must have existed to create whatever created whatever created the gods, and something must have existed to create whatever created whatever created whatever created the gods, and something must have existed........ad infinitum.

That did not get to the root of the matter which I presented again.

9inches:
In short, when was the beginning of "something"?

budaatum:
Are you in fact, not the one claiming some creator came from nothing preceeding it!?

Not my exact word, but yeah...kinda. Although, there's problem with your word "preeceding". My sister preceded me but I did not come out of my sister. Got it?

"beget", "Come from" or other variants could properly fit.

"Nothing preceding (comes from) Something" means, that Something is

1. timeless... right?
2. always there... right?
3. ever existing... right?
4. self existing... right!?

budaatum:

I cite buda. Something had to exist to go bang (assuming there was a bang). It must have been a big thing that existed, hence big bang. And even if there were no bang and gods did it. They'd have had to have existed in order to create what didn't exist. And something must have existed to create the gods themselves, and something must have existed to create whatever created whatever created the gods, and something must have existed to create whatever created whatever created whatever created the gods, and something must have existed........ad infinitum.

buda cited.

So which/what was the first "big [some]thing" that started the rest? Did Buddha say what it was and what it was made of? In short, when was the beginning of "something"?

Philosophically and theologically, if something came into existence at a certain point in time, that is, if it had a beginning, then there needs to be a cause, an explanation, for why it came to be. But if something exists outside of time, like God, then it does not need an explanation for its beginning, because it does not have one.

So, the question of who created God would be nonsensical, because it amounts to asking “who created an uncreated being?”

budaatum:

Yes, I do want to ask you a question Two very simple ones, or at least, your opinion.

Please explain to me why I should believe, the creation story in this list.

And please explain to me why I should believe the creation story in the one more link.

OK..
You want me to convince you in any, right ?...
I won't convince you on any !
Live your life with what you felt is best for you !
Live your life with the non- believe you have held on to !
Just continue with it......I won't try to convince you & I will never do that...

But below ,is MY findings that there MUST be someone that has the power to make the world we live today....

MY EVIDENCE ;
There are three (3) things I have always wanted a SUBSTANTIAL answer(s) for in life ;

1-Time
2- How life ACTUALLY started &
3-The creation of the earth & other heavily bodies..

I'm a "seeker" ,if you get my drift....

Now,let's start with time & life ..

Science never have a prove of how time started .. Go read all science article you know about evolutionary trends,no science study shows how time started ! ( big bangs come to mind,but you know what ? ...just read below on how flawed it is )

If life started 3.5 billions of years ago,then ,certainly things & life process must has being since 7.5 Billions of years !
Life can't just start 3.5 billions of years !
There must have being a life that has lived before 3.5 billions of years ....
Hence,we were told "lower" animals evolved to bigger animals...great.
In my study of metamorphosis of insects....I got to understand that a maggot,which could be a younger fly,cannot metamorphosized to a cockroach !

A maggot can only metamorphized to an adult fly because it's the younger of that insect....
Then ,why tell me that prokaryotes can metamorphozied to an adult human ....
Experimentally,it's not proven !!then why should you & I believe that ...

A feotus & zygote of a human can only metamorphized to adult human ,even in cases of genetic mutations...
Now,science did not prove life processes to me...
Then I went to the book of Genesis ,to see how life started in the book.....
One,it provided an evidence to me that like actually begets like...
A sheep can only beget a sheep ! A human can only beget a human ! A cockroach can only beget a cockroach no matter how evolved the cockroach would be !
Even in 3.5 billions of years to come,a cockroach can only beget a cockroach !

Now,the puzzle of how human came is solved for me ; human were created & was not as a product of evolution some 4.5 billions of years ago !

Now ,more on time,the Bible made it clear that " in the beginning..... " hence,life & time must have being existing before the the world was created ?
Now,the question, what is that life ??....
Again,on the study of the Bible ,I was made to understand that the "life" before creation is ageless & timeless !
Oh,the "life" did not exist some 5.6 billions of years ago ....no,the "life" has existed without age & time .The "life" has no beginining & no ending....The "life " don't "evolve" from anything to to another ....
Then those that wrote the Bible,how would they have known that a being existed without age & time ?...where they there ?..no they were not there ..then how did then know ...they are PEN WRITERS !! ......
Can't the pen writers forge & write what they were never told ??...you MUST be found worthy ,Holy & Righteous before you're qualified as a pen writer of the words of the ageless & timeless Being...

Can't I fake it ?? He sees your heart & knowns your actions in & out !
Can't the ageless & timeless Being lie to human ? ...He respect His word more than His name .

Now,I think I can have a starting point of how life came to be....a supernatural being must have done that !
Something cannot just come out of nothing !
Their must be a designer of a design...

Now,how was the orderly earth & other heavenly bodies formed ?
big bang ! Yea,big bang ! That cosmic event that mark the beginning of time & how the universe was formed ...
But ,I really want to study these big bang theory of how the universe was formed ...
Where did the gas came from that exploded to form the earth ?..don't tell me from nowhere !
How is that possible ?..are they talking about spontaneous generation that has being proven very wrong in biology ..yea, abiogenesis.

But the matters are non living...but it does support living things .... Yea,the big bang structured it so ! ..


A huge explosion that structured the earth ,the planets & other heavenly structures the way they are Yes,it happened some 5.6 billions of years ago !
And many more astrophysics "madness "...
Is that an evidence to me ? Certainly no ! And you ? ..I guess you will roll on the floor with laughter reading that....
A such a powerful explosion cannot produce an orderly & arranged heavenly bodies...that one rises in the day & another at night ! An explosion cannot make such process possible....

OK,let me try the Bible again...
I was meant to understand that the earth & the heavenly planets were CREATED !
They were just as a function of a powerful explosion..
And the moon & sun to set at night & day on our planet ? An ONLY orderly arranged work would have done that....
Who did it ,then ? In the Bible,I was meant to understand that an ageless & timeless Being did it ...
Am I that " gullible " ? ..maybe ,maybe not.
But it only confirmed my believe that a huge explosion can't just mark the creation of the universe ...The universe must have being a well thought out architectural masterpiece from someone that has the power to do that & create....and the Bible proved it so .

And lastly,my personal experience !

I think these is the fundamental part of why I strongly believe that there is a supernatural being that could influence ,& also have the power that natural science will never explain....

Is that an evidence ? No & yes !
No,to natural science that needs test & mere observations.....

Yes,to people that could "look ",but these time,with an open mind .It goes way beyond natural science that changes situation to fits a theory ...it goes beyond that.


It could not be an evidence to you,for me, I care less,you go ahead & live with your life....


Good night & do have a wonderful sleep....

budaatum:

Energy did not bring the universe into existence. To say so is to adopt theistical language and imply energy is some sort of creating force, which is anthropomorphised into a 'who' which encourages the insertion of the gods. I suggest it is more accurate to say, 'energy was expended in bringing the universe into existence', and is therefore a consequence of the universe coming into existence, as opposed to it's driving force.

There's nothing to say that, a condition came about whereby built up pressure (which is part of the system itself, and not external to it), of existing materials prior to conversion to the current state, created a condition whereby energy was expended, which resulted in the big bang (waste material like that exhausted during combustion), and the formation of universe as we know it.

Effectively, the universe, albeit in a state prior to its current known state, is eternal, as in, it has always existed in some form or the other from which the current state has evolved.

There therefore is no beginning, per se, but a beginning of the current state of existence which proceeded from the previous state, which might have proceeded from a previous state and so on. Who says regressions must be finite?


If any one quotes me on this, you better make sure you know what I'm saying, if anything, as far as you are concerned.
I'd respect you more if you say it's rubbish!

I am speaking from the angle of the much spoken about influencer of the big bang which was how our universe is said to have began. An external immense energy source caused the big bang and you are busy saying rubbish

Yeah I said it. You are saying rubbish and you know it