Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: spy66

Why must it exist?

Your inquiry isn't making a heck of a lot of sense. Why is infinity a requirement for human existence? I still don't follow.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: spy66

Why must it exist?

Your inquiry isn't making a heck of a lot of sense. Why is infinity a requirement for human existence? I still don't follow.

The infinite is required to exist du to the singularity that later become's Our universe exists. (The Properties within our universe form all living Things).

If the infinite does not exist. Our universe would not exists and neither would we.

Something must have always existed (being infinite) or nothing would exist. How can you logicaly argue against it?

A example of the only something that can be absolute infinite is: Abolute nothngness. That is a void of Space that is absolute empty.

Nothing = nothingness if you look it up.

Creation, perhaps yes. Biblical Genesis Creation? Nope!

originally posted by: amazing
Creation, perhaps yes. Biblical Genesis Creation? Nope!

Genesis Chapter one is practically the same as the Big Bang theory. At least to verse 8, if i am not mistaken.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: amazing
Creation, perhaps yes. Biblical Genesis Creation? Nope!

Genesis Chapter one is practically the same as the Big Bang theory. At least to verse 8, if i am not mistaken.

But then you have a literal interpretation of 7 Days and Adam and Eve. For many Christians that negates the Billions of years age of the Universe and Evolution. That's the problem.

originally posted by: edmc^2

OK - I'll take you for it and assume that you're a very scientifically knowledgeable person.

Explain to me please just how can a cockroach on the bathroom floor is able to fathom its existence.

I'm curious if you're just trolling around or too dumb to figure this out.

Calling you on it.

Sigh*... I was comparing those who can't see the design of our world to bugs on a bathroom floor thinking the tiles were created by random processes. Not sure why you're verbally attacking me, or anyone for that matter... The truth does not require insult to drive home its point.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Just because there is consistency in the natural world doesn't imply that it had a creator. It only says that there is some type of order. Self assembly is an example of order (I'm STUNNED that you still don't know this) and doesn't require intervention.

Entropy is ever increasing in the universe, how could order come from chaos? Can a hurricane blow throw a junk yard and manifest a Boeing Jet.... or anything intelligible for that matter? Randomness manifests destruction, not order. Think about it.

originally posted by: spy66
The infinite is required to exist du to the singularity that later become's Our universe exists. (The Properties within our universe form all living Things).

If the infinite does not exist. Our universe would not exists and neither would we.

Something must have always existed (being infinite) or nothing would exist. How can you logicaly argue against it?

A example of the only something that can be absolute infinite is: Abolute nothngness. That is a void of Space that is absolute empty.

Nothing = nothingness if you look it up.

This logic is harder to follow than Edmc2's.

How do you know that a void even exists? How do you know that this "void" never ends?

I argue against it, simply by saying it doesn't make sense. How can anything go on forever? There has to be a limit somewhere. But again, we don't know enough about the universe one way or another to make a judgement. I'm sure there could be several aspects of the universe that can be considered infinite. Energy, for example, although it is infinte in a different way. Eternal is a better word.

There is no evidence that "nothingness" ever existed. You can speculate all you want, but your guess is as good as mine as far as voids, nothingness, alternate dimensions or anything else.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Barcs

According to who? You? Please break down exactly what is illogical and unscientific about a finite universe without semantics and fallacies.

Actually - that would be an infinite space and time where the PHYSICAL universe is finite.

Infinity is the space in which the PHYSICAL / MATERIAL universe is expanding to. But since you have no concept of infinity, it's hard to explain it to you in plain English. Even harder scientifically.

You need to study up more.

I have to thank you, Ed. I love starting my day with a nice laugh. I almost lost my coffee, but it was worth it. Yes, I totally need to study more, so I can learn about all these fictitious things you talk about.

I understand the CONCEPT of infinity. You clearly just said that a finite universe is illogical and unscientific and then refused to even explain why. I guess it's just another lie to add to the pile of compost that is this thread. Don't stop on my account though. It's fun for me.

Glad to make you laugh because from the looks of it, you just don't know about anything.

Your answer to pretty much everything is - wait for it - "I don't know".

There's really nothing much to discuss with you because you just don't know what you're talking about.

Every post you come back with "we don't know", "I don't know" then pretend that everyone is wrong except you.

Now that's a laugh!

Your logic hasn't provided any evidence for your position. You posted a list of citations but never answered my inquiry as to which one of those citations was written as a scientific research paper. Not one of them substantiates your logic.

Your logic is faulty. Your conclusion is based solely on your opinion. The fact is that WE DO NOT KNOW and probably cannot know whether there is a creator, an alien civilization who programmed this universe as a game or whether it came into being all by itself. WE-DO-NOT-KNOW. Science has no test which can prove any of the options I mentioned. Your religion is another matter - you can believe whatever you want with no consequences. Science doesn't work that way.

Speculation is not evidence. It's only speculation.

BTW, the roach does indeed have self awareness. Its awareness, just like humans, is based on its neurological capabilities.
Beings in another star system may have neurological webs which far exceed that of humans. Then what? Did your creator short-change you??

Ok - let's look at my logic again then compare it to your logic:

My position as a Christian Theist is this:

Life can only come from pre-existing life.

The Atheist's position is one of the following:

Life came from nothing.
Life came from non-life.
To the clueless and inarticulate - "we don't know where life came from".

But basing my premise on known facts and scientific experiments, I can confidently say my position is confirmed because the evidence is supported by it. That is, that life will only come from pre-existing life.

In fact, even atheist has proven this to be true (even though they don't want to admit it).

Consider:

The Venter Project.

After almost 15 years of work and $40 million, a team of scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute says they have succeeded in creating the first living organism with a completely synthetic genome. This advance could be proof that genomes designed in a computer and assembled in a lab can function in a donor cell, eventually reproducing fully functional living creatures, that is, artificial life.

As described today in the journal Science, the study scientists constructed the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides from more than 1,000 sections of preassembled units of DNA. Researchers then transplanted the artificially assembled genome into a M. capricolum cell that had been emptied of its own genome. Once the DNA "booted up," the bacteria began to function and reproduce in the same manner as naturally occurring M. mycoides.

www.livescience.com...

So no doubt, the Venter team successfully created life from a pre-existing life. It can be repeated and duplicated many times over. This is just one proof of evidence to my premise.

On the flip side, the often repeated Urey / Miller experiment have FAILED to produce even a single life form from a non-living matter/chemicals. Hence, it's NOT a viable explanation as to where life came from. You can repeat this experiment over and over and the result will be the same. No Life from non-life.

That much is well established!

So your problem or the atheist problem is not with my premise, that life can only come from pre-existing life. No, but your problem is with the Origin of God.

Since atheists can't put God in a "petri dish" to "test", poke and pry, thus their attitude towards God is prideful.

[Psa 14:1 ASV] "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." And common sense and logic are thrown out and disregarded as nonsense.

But since it's impossible to create life from nothing or from non-living things, thus the ONLY logical conclusion one can arrive at is that the source of life must then be a pre-existing life. He must be an Always Existing Life. An always existing Being to be able to impart life.

An Always Existing Intelligent Life is the ONLY one that make sense.

It's not just my opinion either but the reality of how things are.

But you say "WE-DO-NOT-KNOW". Sure if you don't want to see the facts. And the facts point to Creation by an intelligent being.

Science has no test which can prove any of the options I mentioned

Of course. Science has no way of proving the existence of God because it's is LIMITED to what it can observe! But just because it can't PHYSICALLY observe God, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Quite to the contrary. We have ample evidence to show his existence. Hence, we have EVIDENCE WITNESS to his existence.

It's like knowing that a person was inside a building by virtue of the fact that the night light was lit. Although you didn't see the person, you know someone was there to turn on the lights on with the rest of the electrical appliances. You have the EVIDENCE of his presence. It's much like what FORENSIC SCIENTIST do.

In addition, what you're trying to "test" is outside the reach of CURRENT SCIENTIFIC knowledge. But even at this stage we have models that we can implement to show evidence of God's existence. The fact that the universe is INTELLIGIBLE is just one of the many ways to show the evidence of God's existence. The other, from the Christian point of view, is the Bible. It reveals God's true nature and the reason why we're here and why he created the "heavens and the earth".

And since you don't recognize the Bible as an authority for explaining the existence of God then you're left with ""WE-DO-NOT-KNOW". Which in itself is not an explanation but a cop out.

""WE-DO-NOT-KNOW" if you don't want to admit that Logic and true Science are both POINTING towards God.

a reply to: cooperton

Sigh*... I was comparing those who can't see the design of our world to bugs on a bathroom floor thinking the tiles were created by random processes. Not sure why you're verbally attacking me, or anyone for that matter... The truth does not require insult to drive home its point.

My apologies then.

a reply to: edmc^2

Is your God alive?

If so then what life created your God as you say that life can only come from life?

Or is your God dead, undead????????? and if so how could a dead or undead thing create life if 'life only comes from life'?

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: edmc^2

Is your God alive?

If so then what life created your God as you say that life can only come from life?

Or is your God dead, undead????????? and if so how could a dead or undead thing create life if 'life only comes from life'?

Of course my God is Alive because He is the Living God who created "the heavens and the earth".

As the ultimate source of life, He always existed. He always existed with no beginning and end. He is infinite and eternal.

No one created him, but he created everything besides himself of course.

Of course my God is Alive because He is the Living God who created "the heavens and the earth".

As the ultimate source of life, He always existed. He always existed with no beginning and end. He is infinite and eternal.

No one created him, but he created everything besides himself of course.

So the big bang/universe/multiverse cant just happen but god can - fair enough - on that logic there is no point discussing it with you any further is there

originally posted by: johnb

Of course my God is Alive because He is the Living God who created "the heavens and the earth".

As the ultimate source of life, He always existed. He always existed with no beginning and end. He is infinite and eternal.

No one created him, but he created everything besides himself of course.

So the big bang/universe/multiverse cant just happen but god can - fair enough - on that logic there is no point discussing it with you any further is there

Of course, the "Big Bang" or the "Singularity" happened. There's no doubt about it. We have COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION as evidence of it.

So the question you need to ask is who "bang" the "Big Bang"?


Anyway thanks for participating.

a reply to: edmc^2

edit:

moved to another post below

a reply to: johnb

Now as to the existence or origin of God, there's only one logical answer - He Always was. He always existed. Otherwise it becomes an infinite regress of who created the creator of the creator of the creator.....of God.

Entropy is ever increasing in the universe, how could order come from chaos? Can a hurricane blow throw a junk yard and manifest a Boeing Jet.... or anything intelligible for that matter? Randomness manifests destruction, not order. Think about it.

The notion that entropy is "disorder" in the common linguistic sense is not accurate. I understand that it was taught in school that way (although now the textbooks have changed and do not use the word "disorder" as much). But it conveys the wrong idea.

Entropy is simply the measure of information not available - at least to us - for work. A spontaneous reaction will produce some energy that goes to the universe - in other words, the chemical bonds which are broken during the event produce energy that passes into the environment. Boltzman used the word "disorder" but was referring to a closed system that had multiple internal molecular levels which may or may not move internally. He considered a systsem "disordered" if the internal levels were moving or were dynamic. Unfortunately, that term stuck and was represented as a pile of bricks with no structure, or a messy closet. According to Boltzman, to have a perfectly "ordered" system, it couldn't be dynamic because nothing would move. Think of an ice cube - the crystal system is fixed in one place and as long as the ice cube remains at a certain temperature, the system doesn't move - it's a perfectly ordered system. Once the ice begins to melt, the internal crystal structure of the system begins to move - it becomes dynamic. The energy released in the process is simply the energy which held it together i.e. the bonding energy of the molecules in the crystal. So what happened to the energy? It's still in the universe - it's just not available to us.

Movement is required for everything, including life, to exist. Entropy has really nothing to do with destruction or chaos. Entropy is better thought of as phase changes than end in a system at equilibrium.

As far as the universe is concerned, heat death in its original form doesn't describe what we know today about the fate of the universe. From here, we'd have to go into the mathematics which is really the purview of particle physicists who reside on the science forum.

Spend some time researching entropy. It's a very interesting area of research.

a reply to: edmc^2

[

And since you don't recognize the Bible as an authority for explaining the existence of God then you're left with ""WE-DO-NOT-KNOW". Which in itself is not an explanation but a cop out.

Look, you don't understand scientific evidence and scientists can't test for something that has no data. The WE-DON'T-KNOW is the most honest answer in this whole thread because it doesn't attempt to substitute opinions and speculation for genuine hard evidence.

The fact is - you don't know either although you're having a hard time admitting it. You're drawing a conclusion from anything and everything that even mildly supports your case. But at the end of the day, you have no evidence.

originally posted by: amazing
Creation, perhaps yes. Biblical Genesis Creation? Nope!

Semantics perhaps?

But if you really want to know. It's Biblical Genesis Creation. Yes indeed.

Notice what Genesis says:

[Gen 1:1 NKJV] 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Notice what Science says:

"Evidence of a beginning"

The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

Consider a few more:

Professor of astronomy David L. Block wrote:

“That the universe has not always existed—that it had a beginning—has not always been popular.”

Now:

“Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, that “the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.” – reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997

“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.” – Robert Jastrow

Penzias, who shared in the discovery of background radiation in the universe, observed:

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.”

“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot

There's no other ancient book in existence today that accurately agree with the scientific evidence of a beginning.

And it's quite sad that people are not even looking into these things with deep interest and appreciation.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

[

And since you don't recognize the Bible as an authority for explaining the existence of God then you're left with ""WE-DO-NOT-KNOW". Which in itself is not an explanation but a cop out.

Look, you don't understand scientific evidence and scientists can't test for something that has no data. The WE-DON'T-KNOW is the most honest answer in this whole thread because it doesn't attempt to substitute opinions and speculation for genuine hard evidence.

The fact is - you don't know either although you're having a hard time admitting it. You're drawing a conclusion from anything and everything that even mildly supports your case. But at the end of the day, you have no evidence.

Sure. I will agree with you wholeheartedly .... if... there's no evidence. But the fact that we have evidence of intelligence in the universe is not an excuse to disregard it. Just because it doesn't conform to a preconceived notion that no one created it hence the answer must then be "WE-DO-NOT-KNOW".

To me this the height of laziness, the unwillingness to look at things with an open mind and see where the evidence leads one to.

""WE-DO-NOT-KNOW" is an honest cop out. You keep saying that I don't know. You're wrong. Like I already said, I've considered the evidence and lead me to an always existing Creator - God.

You and atheist on the other hand and for the most part "DON'T-KNOW" because you refuse to know.

You keep a blind eye to facts presented even it's scientifically proven to be a viable explanation.

I have the evidence but since "you don't know", you have no evidence to present.


So again, my simple question:

Which one fits the fact based on verifiable evidence?

That life can only come from pre-existing life.

or

Your position - whatever it is.

Explain why?

You can exclude God from your explanation if you want to. Pls don't cop out.

The Word of man may be creation itself, that places us far from no-thing, infinity might not be real only an idea of reality, if we are really in existence and not just tuned into the addiction thought of it, then we are something, then infinity cannot exist as the continual loop is not an infinity, as we could be the re-harvest of thought, before God, infinity, consciousness, that at some point will develop, beyond the current transformer pop it into your head dimension for you to think it ?