In a universe where creationists defend how nothing comes from nothing

a reply to: andre18

Eh? Did you not say that the bing bang was a creationist tool and evidence to prove God?

I responded to the post as this is not the case for all creationists. As for your quote, well what I am saying is creation does not require the big bank theory as evidence for it.

Regards

a reply to: andre18

How can a universe that they state is infinite "always was and always is" implode on it self?

What force can force a universe that is infinite to implode?

a reply to: drevill

I don't understand what I was suppose to infer from your re-posting of those verses. Either way, I look forward to your fuller response.

andre18 and drevill both of you are currently existing yes? Arguing about things before either of you existed is sort of moot other than a game devised to chase each others tails over.

If you believe in god you give god: legs, and a mouth... but refuse to give god an understanding nature through your own cognitive dissonance.

If you don't believe in god, then those giving god legs and a mouth makes god exist. I'm sure that's quite confounding.

The same way the nature of the universe and black holes are really moot to our present moment to moment existence, and exist and don't exist at the same time... so is the invalidity of arguing whether a god exists or not... because both of you are correct, and how effectual or ineffectual this god is depends solely upon the individual considering it.

a reply to: spy66

Perhaps thinking of it as more turning over itself infinitely is less inconceivable?

originally posted by: drevill
a reply to: andre18

Eh? Did you not say that the bing bang was a creationist tool and evidence to prove God?

You're generalising. Some creationists defend the big bang, some don't. If you don't then this topics not really relevant to you. Simple.

I responded to the post as this is not the case for all creationists.

I didn't say it does for all - again, there's a decent majority who simply say, before the big bang, where we don't know what happened before there was no space and time there's god outside of it all. But now we've found with the latest scientific findings that the big bang isn't the end, but a friction between space that might have been a reoccurring happening for hundreds of trillions of years.

As for your quote, well what I am saying is creation does not require the big bank theory as evidence for it.

Yes, i understand for you it doesn't. But you, can not say for all of creationism what it requires because like everything else in the world, it is a collection of opinions with no ultimate all encompassing rule or belief.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: andre18

How can a universe that they state is infinite "always was and always is" implode on it self?

What force can force a universe that is infinite to implode?

The timeline for its existence is infinite.

The force would be gravity.


Even if the universe burns itself out gravity will eventually pull everything back to a central point until it becomes unstable and explodes again.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy



Right this is my third darn attempt to write this. Stupid brain.

Ok

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. This is the whole universe and the earth and most of the planets etc within. . However the earth has not yet been moulded, as it is without form and its void.

He said let there he said let there be light on the first day. Now obviously we would disagree on time lengths but at creation of the universe I the secular world light was created, however initially could not go anywhere until the universe had cooled.

Second day he sorted put the sky/atmosphere on earth

Third day he arranged land and seas/rivers and planted vegetation. This vegetation has not yet grown. Genesis chapter two confirms this. Additionally, photosynthesis can occur through thermal radiation and not just the sun but we also have the initial light source mentioned previously. Also in today's world we have things such as bamboo than grow In today's climate at around 3 foot a day. The climate back then was different and although detrimental to humans a higher co2 level today will increase growth rates of most plants. So they can accelerate or slow down. If the co2 was higher, then Oxygen would have been lower, however there are people today living at altitudes of 4000 meters. At that level the oxygen is 60% of that at sea level. People live at 7-8000 meters above sea level without adverse affects.

Fourth day he gives a light In viewable space for season and days and times. He created two great lights, sun and moon. The moon reflecting light to earth. He also made the stars.

However these are not cosmic stars they are the Angels. Psalm 148 supports this as does Genesis 2 as it states that all the heavens and everything in them were created. Ezekiel 28 mentions a day that a particular cherub was created, and the Bible has several references to the angles as stars.

The fifth day water animals and flying animals were created.

The sixth day land animals and humans created.

Regard

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: andre18

How can a universe that they state is infinite "always was and always is" implode on it self?

What force can force a universe that is infinite to implode?

The timeline for its existence is infinite.

The force would be gravity.


Even if the universe burns itself out gravity will eventually pull everything back to a central point until it becomes unstable and explodes again.

Any solid evidence that what you say is actually what really happeneds?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: andre18

How can a universe that they state is infinite "always was and always is" implode on it self?

What force can force a universe that is infinite to implode?

What you need to understand, is when say a bomb explodes, there's no energy being lost - the energy of the bomb changes into another form being released. And in the same basic way, when a static universe fluctuates and implodes, (for reasons know one really knows yet) that's not implying that the implosion is a death or beginning of anything but the energy state changing form.

Most people think of death and birth as a real end to life force, but that's simply just energy transferring from one state to another. And so there's no reason why the universe can't be in constant implosion for infinity every 50 billion years constantly changing its state of energy from one form to another. Now what's really the question is why does the universe change at all. My best guess is an effect of other universes in a larger multiverse pull at each other gravitationally, causing fluctuations that in tern cause universes to implode into existence. What fluctuation caused the first universe to birth into being? No idea.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: andre18

How can a universe that they state is infinite "always was and always is" implode on it self?

What force can force a universe that is infinite to implode?

The timeline for its existence is infinite.

The force would be gravity.


Even if the universe burns itself out gravity will eventually pull everything back to a central point until it becomes unstable and explodes again.

Any solid evidence that what you say is actually what really happeneds?

The answer is yes.

The question is; how good are you at math because you will need to be pretty good at math to understand the answer fully.

a reply to: drevill

We're all familiar with the Creation story found in Genesis. I fail to see what it is that you're getting at by repeating it though.

What's your point???

a reply to: mOjOm

It's a reply to someone that questioned something regarding the order

Cheers

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: andre18

How can a universe that they state is infinite "always was and always is" implode on it self?

What force can force a universe that is infinite to implode?

The timeline for its existence is infinite.

The force would be gravity.


Even if the universe burns itself out gravity will eventually pull everything back to a central point until it becomes unstable and explodes again.

Any solid evidence that what you say is actually what really happeneds?

The answer is yes.

The question is; how good are you at math because you will need to be pretty good at math to understand the answer fully.

OK. so what you are saying is that the evidnce lies in a Math Equation?

Mmm ok. So the eqution has been tested to be solid? It is not missing anything?


Give it to us, so we can take a look at it.

a reply to: spy66

Sure it is easy enough to find. I will post the link to the paper here.


I am not afraid to say the maths are beyond me. If I tried to falsify it, it would be like pigeons playing chess.

a reply to: drevill

I understand what was said in the earlier parts of Genesis. Earth was 'formless and void' and there was light [different than the light of stars]. I understand all that. It doesn't negate my points. It doesn't change the implications of Day 3 & 4.

Also the time discrepancies are not a part of my argument, only the order in which things are said to have occurred. Let's say each Day was millions of years. I'm fine with that right now...

Third day he arranged land and seas/rivers and planted vegetation. This vegetation has not yet grown.

No. That's absolutely not what Genesis says. I already demonstrated this. It does not say it was planted but not growing. It says fruit trees were producing fruit. This implies years of growth. All this on Day 3.

Hence my argument and the glaring issue with science. Plant life is growing for years frozen and without sunlight. That's precisely the implication since it explicitly states all stars are made on Day 4.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Genesis chapter two confirms this.

I am open to that argument. I'd appreciate you exploring that more with me. Denying what Genesis clearly says on Day 3 & 4 isn't going to fly with me tho..

Additionally, photosynthesis can occur through thermal radiation and not just the sun

What do you think the surface of Earth would look like void of any stars in the Universe?

I challenge you to attempt to grow from seed a fruit tree, in a completely dark room with freezing temperatures, and not only have it grow... but grow long enough to maturation in order to produce fruit. I would love to see that accomplished. Not just to prove me wrong here, but also because I'm an avid gardener.

but we also have the initial light source mentioned previously.

Yes, but that light source is not the light from stars. The Sun and all stars are made on Day 4. This is a different light source. Some metaphysical light perhaps.

originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: Grimpachi
originally posted by: spy66

Grimpachi: OK. so what you are saying is that the evidnce lies in a Math Equation?
Mmm ok. So the eqution has been tested to be solid? It is not missing anything?
Give it to us, so we can take a look at it.

Golden ratio: 1.6180339

a reply to: vethumanbeing

That's not an equation, it's a number. I'm familiar with phi but why do you bring it up here??? What's it supposed to show exactly???

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing
That's not an equation, it's a number. I'm familiar with phi but why do you bring it up here??? What's it supposed to show exactly???

Thanks for asking! Its not an equation; its a number that describes the repetitive nature of creation (its an algorithm).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Grimpachi already posted what he needed to for what was asked of him

Unless you're taking the opportunity to make a tangential point?