God does exist.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
I think Enoch did a good job on explaining how physics represents the nature of God.

Governing implies accounting, which we know God does. Governing involves being invariant, which we know God is. He does not change. The strong force in physics adheres to invariant symmetry. This is the Proton (+) and the Neutron. The Neutron has two down quarks and one up. The Proton has two up and one down. Imagine the yin / yang for a moment, then consider the nature of two over one in balance. Now subtract the nucleus. Taking the neutron away, we have one proton (+) and one electron (-) in balance. This is hydrogen. At the onset of our universe, we were a sea of hydrogen in a state of high order and low entropy. Electron and proton in balance. Every other element is governed and bound by the Strong Force and invariant symmetry, which is a law holding the house together so to speak. The electron is governed or there would be total chaos. The settings on forces producing coalescence from chiral states of matter ensures that combinations form by adhesion, cohesion, repulsion and attraction. Laws are the result of design and engineering of each particle and element of creation. All of this is centered on the Strong Nuclear Force that is invariant (Never Changing). Apart from this force, the rest cannot hold together. Where do we find this in both Physics and the Bible? Father is Hebrew is Aleph (Strong) Bet (House). Alphabet is a hidden meaning of Aleph Bet (Father). Mother is Aleph Mem (Strong Waters). To me, this is Hydrogen as well as water itself. For combinations of information (Alphabet / DNA), you need a catalyst. Water is this immersion (Baptism) of the soul into the waters of life. Son is Bet Nun (House of Seed). What is produced by the letters of creation? WORD!

Speculative at best. Everything in that quoted selection can be reinterpreted a myriad of ways that have nothing to do with a god. Enoch is very good at cramming a round peg into a square hole. Will water still get through if we dumped some in? Absolutely. It's nowhere near a perfect fit, and it only fits as much as it does due to some spectacular mental gymnastics on Enoch's part.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
I think Enoch did a good job on explaining how physics represents the nature of God.

Governing implies accounting, which we know God does. Governing involves being invariant, which we know God is. He does not change. The strong force in physics adheres to invariant symmetry. This is the Proton (+) and the Neutron. The Neutron has two down quarks and one up. The Proton has two up and one down. Imagine the yin / yang for a moment, then consider the nature of two over one in balance. Now subtract the nucleus. Taking the neutron away, we have one proton (+) and one electron (-) in balance. This is hydrogen. At the onset of our universe, we were a sea of hydrogen in a state of high order and low entropy. Electron and proton in balance. Every other element is governed and bound by the Strong Force and invariant symmetry, which is a law holding the house together so to speak. The electron is governed or there would be total chaos. The settings on forces producing coalescence from chiral states of matter ensures that combinations form by adhesion, cohesion, repulsion and attraction. Laws are the result of design and engineering of each particle and element of creation. All of this is centered on the Strong Nuclear Force that is invariant (Never Changing). Apart from this force, the rest cannot hold together. Where do we find this in both Physics and the Bible? Father is Hebrew is Aleph (Strong) Bet (House). Alphabet is a hidden meaning of Aleph Bet (Father). Mother is Aleph Mem (Strong Waters). To me, this is Hydrogen as well as water itself. For combinations of information (Alphabet / DNA), you need a catalyst. Water is this immersion (Baptism) of the soul into the waters of life. Son is Bet Nun (House of Seed). What is produced by the letters of creation? WORD!

Speculative at best. Everything in that quoted selection can be reinterpreted a myriad of ways that have nothing to do with a god. Enoch is very good at cramming a round peg into a square hole. Will water still get through if we dumped some in? Absolutely. It's nowhere near a perfect fit, and it only fits as much as it does due to some spectacular mental gymnastics on Enoch's part.

edit on 7-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

You ask for evidence we present you call it speculative....

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Thank you. It's statements like this that at the end of the day back you into a corner. Isnt it possible that YOU are not understanding the text? if not why are you more capable of interpreting religious texts than myself? What you fail to grasp is that science really does not make the claim that it has all the answers. Science is the search for truth and answers not the claim it has them all. It adjusts as new EVIDENCE is found. That is not faith. Religion on the other hand relies solely on the infallibility of its holy books which have been translated from one language to another for centuries and reinterpreted by various groups to suit their particular needs. The text you quote now is not the original and may not even be close to the original meaning because its been handled solely by men the entire time. Not one of these books was written by god or jesus and your faith that It is the word of god as he presented it takes far more faith than interpreting the fossil record when I can still get access to the original fossils. Context is everything.

Its not that I am more capable, its that I care enough to study it not just take it at first glance.

How people use science as a argument to reject God i quite funny. Sicence at best start 10 -44 seconds Planck Time after first Light.

Scientific observational theory starts after creation.

reply to post by spy66


That post didn't even make sense. Could you try again, and maybe use more words this time so I at least have more context to work with?

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

You ask for evidence we present you call it speculative....

First of all, grammar. Punctuation. Periods. Learn to use them.

Second of all, your evidence:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

How does this qualify as anything other than garbage?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

That post didn't even make sense. Could you try again, and maybe use more words this time so I at least have more context to work with?

How can science reject a creator, when science begins after creation?

Everything science is about is what is formed within the singularity.

10 -44 seconds Plank time after the Big Bang is as close to the beginnig of time science can make a theory.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


And you assume ive not studied the texts? I grew up in a very Irish Catholic family. I went to church 6 days per week, was an altar boy and went to Catholic school. I was enamored with the supernatural and mythological aspects of it and spent hours reading and questioning things in it of people who knew more than I. You know what all my studying and questing brought to me? Peace. Peace of mind. Because I was unburdened by an anachronistic book composed of multiple contradictory statements. Your assumptions and ego do you a great injustice. I am in no way trying to disrespect your faith. In fact I hope it brings you the peace you seek. I've found mine in the ability to see the world through new eyes and the Joy of seeking the truth. In that sense I don't think we are that different. May you be blessed with the light you seek.

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

And you assume ive not studied the texts? I grew up in a very Irish Catholic family. I went to church 6 days per week, was an altar boy and went to Catholic school. I was enamored with the supernatural and mythological aspects of it and spent hours reading and questioning things in it of people who knew more than I. You know what all my studying and questing brought to me? Peace. Peace of mind. Because I was unburdened by an anachronistic book composed of multiple contradictory statements. Your assumptions and ego do you a great injustice. I am in no way trying to disrespect your faith. In fact I hope it brings you the peace you seek. I've found mine in the ability to see the world through new eyes and the Joy of seeking the truth. In that sense I don't think we are that different. May you be blessed with the light you seek.

Most people who attend church don't actually study the text themselves, which I think we all agree is dangerous. For example you say there are contradictory statements in the Bible? I do not agree. I believe there are statements that might appear at first glance to be contradictory, but they are all normally verses pulled out of context.

reply to post by spy66

How can science reject a creator, when science begins after creation?

Just because there is an answer does not automatically mean yours is the right one. Your mistake is coming to the table with a poorly assembled explanation and nothing but speculation to back it up.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily call it "creation". That would require a creator, would it not?

Originally posted by spy66



How can science reject a creator, when science begins after creation?

Everything science is about is what is formed within the singularity.

10 -44 seconds Plank time after the Big Bang is as close to the beginnig of time science can make a theory.

Science does not "reject a creator" it simply does not entertain one because science deals with evidence, which there is none for a creator.

reply to post by paradox


again I will bring of Semiotic dimensions of the genetic code. This is something science will never be able to account for without the input of some form of intelligent life.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

again I will bring of Semiotic dimensions of the genetic code. This is something science will never be able to account for without the input of some form of intelligent life.

Never? Wow, I had no idea you were psychic!

If people had been asked a thousand years ago about genetic engineering, cloning, computer, cell phones, airplanes and touch screens...they would have said, "Never!" But guess what happened?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

How can science reject a creator, when science begins after creation?

Just because there is an answer does not automatically mean yours is the right one. And before you say it: the difference between your answer and mine is I can defend mine, you cannot. The simple proof is that if a scientist earning six figure salaries a year cannot definitively prove there is a creator, I doubt you can. There's a reason evolutionary theory is the most widely taught theory.

edit on 7-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What do you mean i can not defend my answer?

I can argue my answer to a point where you would have to reject on pure principal.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb
reply to post by paradox

 

again I will bring of Semiotic dimensions of the genetic code. This is something science will never be able to account for without the input of some form of intelligent life.

It's called evolution. Life itself is intelligent, it does not need an "input of some form." And if it did, where did that intelligent life (assuming you mean god) get its input? I assume you will ignore this question like you ignored my last.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by spy66



How can science reject a creator, when science begins after creation?

Everything science is about is what is formed within the singularity.

10 -44 seconds Plank time after the Big Bang is as close to the beginnig of time science can make a theory.

Science does not "reject a creator" it simply does not entertain one because science deals with evidence, which there is none for a creator.

I agree. That that is what sceience have said. But does that bear weight?

Originally posted by spy66


I agree. That that is what sceience have said. But does that bear weight?

Of course. Unless, of course, you have groundbreaking evidence that suggests the universe needs, let alone has a creator.

reply to post by truthseeker84


Thank you for that quote. It's a good read.

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by spy66


I agree. That that is what sceience have said. But does that bear weight?

Of course. Unless, of course, you have groundbreaking evidence that suggests the universe needs, let alone has a creator.

The reason science say that our universe doesnt need a creator, is becasue our universe is already set in motion by a creator. Our universe; the singularity is creating/forming as it expands.

The infinite back ground plays no role in what takes place within the singularity.
This was stated by the lead scientsts when Newton brough up the guestion om about the infinite static background.

And it is true. Our universe will do its cource no matter what scientific definitions we make up.

But to say that the infinite back ground plays no significant role is false. Our universe (singularity) would never have the ability to expand if it didnt play a role. It wouldnt even have been formed.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by spy66


I agree. That that is what sceience have said. But does that bear weight?

Of course. Unless, of course, you have groundbreaking evidence that suggests the universe needs, let alone has a creator.

The reason science say that our universe doesnt need a creator, is becasue our universe is already set in motion by a creator. Our universe; the singularity is creating/forming as it expands.

The infinite back ground plays no role in what takes place within the singularity.
This was stated by the lead scientsts when Newton brough up the guestion om about the infinite static background.

And it is true. Our universe will do its cource no matter what scientific definitions we make up.

But to say that the infinite back ground plays no significant role is false. Our universe (singularity) would never have the ability to expand if it didnt play a role. It wouldnt even have been formed.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

So what you're saying is you have absolutely no evidence. Gotcha.