Can the Universe Create Itself?

[pantheory]

8 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Thank you.

 

Good night.

 

Yeah, you stay up late. it's only 5 PM  here in L.A.  I usually go to bed 10-11 PM.

 

best regards,  Forrest

[Johnny]

I somewhat looked through the replies and if you feel I am out of place in what I have to offer, please let me know and I'll drop out. I say that out of respect that I am just now joining and admitting I haven't read everything but got the gist of it. 

 

I don't see how the universe can create itself unless there is a supernatural power to do it. 

 

From what I've dealt with, I get this as general replies about how we got creation all on its own:

1. They claim we don't know.
2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.
3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

4. They give science fiction to support their claims, not known science.

Here's how I see it...nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

 

There it is, very basic. 
 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Johnny said:

I somewhat looked through the replies and if you feel I am out of place in what I have to offer, please let me know and I'll drop out. I say that out of respect that I am just now joining and admitting I haven't read everything but got the gist of it. 

 

I don't see how the universe can create itself unless there is a supernatural power to do it. 

 

From what I've dealt with, I get this as general replies about how we got creation all on its own:

1. They claim we don't know.
2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.
3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

4. They give science fiction to support their claims, not known science.

Here's how I see it...nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

 

There it is, very basic. 
 

 

Hello Johnny.

 

Are you saying that our universe was created?

 

If so, how do you know that?

 

By faith or by some other means?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Oh btw, Johnny, I noticed that you seem to have cut and pasted most of your message.

 

Could you please provide a link to where you sourced this information from?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Johnny]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Hello Johnny.

 

Are you saying that our universe was created?

 

If so, how do you know that?

 

By faith or by some other means?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Yes, I'm showing the universe had to be created.

 

I know by what I gave. The 1LT and 2LT.

 

"By faith or by some other means?"

 

By the evidence I gave.

[Johnny]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Oh btw, Johnny, I noticed that you seem to have cut and pasted most of your message.

 

Could you please provide a link to where you sourced this information from?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

"Oh btw, Johnny, I noticed that you seem to have cut and pasted most of your message."

 

What link? I wrote it up. It's just basic thermodynamics. Are you wanting me to show links that back the laws up? I'm truly not following you. 

[walterpthefirst]

12 minutes ago, Johnny said:

"Oh btw, Johnny, I noticed that you seem to have cut and pasted most of your message."

 

What link? I wrote it up. It's just basic thermodynamics. Are you wanting me to show links that back the laws up? I'm truly not following you. 

 

My bad.  Please ignore what I said.

[walterpthefirst]

46 minutes ago, Johnny said:

Yes, I'm showing the universe had to be created.

 

I know by what I gave. The 1LT and 2LT.

 

"By faith or by some other means?"

 

By the evidence I gave.

 

Hello Johnny.

 

Actually, by invoking the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics you are showing that options 1, 2 and 3 are also viable.

 

Big Bang cosmology in it's currently accepted form is known as the Lambda Cold Dark matter model.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model The LCDM uses 1 and 2 LT to function.  If you read this Wiki page you will see that this model has nothing to say about about the observable universe beginning from nothing (ex nihilo) or about any kind of creation event.  Instead, it says this...

 

Historical development

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in 1964 confirmed a key prediction of the Big Bang cosmology. From that point on, it was generally accepted that the universe started in a hot, dense state and has been expanding over time. The rate of expansion depends on the types of matter and energy present in the universe, and in particular, whether the total density is above or below the so-called critical density.

 

So, the LCDM begins with a hot and dense state.  Just like the song.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REw5-_rpFDE As far as cosmology goes, the Big Bang is that hot, dense state and not anything that preceded it.  Therefore, since anything prior to this hot and dense state is currently unknown, option 1 applies and 1 and 2 LT are not violated. "They claim we don't know."

 

 

By not knowing what preceded the hot, dense state, this leaves open options 2 and 3.  Heat and density are impossible without space and time.  Heat is a kind of energy and in General Relativity matter and energy are equivalent.  Therefore, space, matter (as energy) and time could have existed 'before' the hot and dense state.  But nobody knows for sure.  General Relativity also uses 1 and 2 LT to function, so thermodynamics is not violated in this scenario either. That deals with option 2. "They start with space, matter and time already there."

 

 

Finally, since nothing is known about what preceded the hot, dense state, there remains the possibility that the observable universe has always existed in some form or another.  Since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, neither 1 or 2 LT would be violated by this possibility either.  That deals with option 3.  "They say that there was no creation since it always existed."

 

 

Ok, so if there was a creation event in which space, time, matter and energy were created from nothing, that would violate 1 and 2 LT.  Do you have any evidence, rather than arguments based upon thermodynamics, for such a creation event, Johnny?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Johnny, welcome to our forums.  I hope you will feel at home here.  Please feel free to browse all of our forums and offer whatever input, commentary, or responses you'd like.  However, also please keep in mind that proselytizing, witnessing, preaching, and all other forms of apologetics are restricted to the Lion's Den forum.  While we welcome and encourage lively debate among members, we also bear responsibility for those who may still be struggling with their deconversion process.  As you have approached us in a respectful manner, I invite you to continue in that commendable demeanor for as long as you'd like to stay with us.  We look forward to hearing more from you.

[pantheory]

14 hours ago, Johnny said:

I somewhat looked through the replies and if you feel I am out of place in what I have to offer, please let me know and I'll drop out. I say that out of respect that I am just now joining and admitting I haven't read everything but got the gist of it. 

 

I don't see how the universe can create itself unless there is a supernatural power to do it. 

 

From what I've dealt with, I get this as general replies about how we got creation all on its own:

1. They claim we don't know.
2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.
3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

4. They give science fiction to support their claims, not known science.

Here's how I see it...nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

 

There it is, very basic. 
 

 

Welcome to ex-christ Johnny. Glad to see you here, seriously. I always like people that show an interest in science. I, and many others here are pure atheists. Most of us laugh at the idea of God, and him being the creator from nothing. Many scientists like me are not just doubters, they think that belief in God and the spiritual world is the same as believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny, ghosts etc. I believe that all religions of the world relate to people that put family traditional values above logic and evidence. For instance, those who don't fully understand evolution, are certainly not fully educated IMHO. And yes, some of science theory is also science fiction IMO,. But the understandings of true science compared to religious beliefs, is like comparing the intellectual ability of an adult to a child IMO.

 

Advice, stay out of the Lions den and don't argue religion there unless you don't mind getting torn apart by us lions. But Arguing religion anywhere else can get you 86st.

 

Anyway, cheers, and hope you decide to stay awhile.  

 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, Johnny said:

I somewhat looked through the replies and if you feel I am out of place in what I have to offer, please let me know and I'll drop out. I say that out of respect that I am just now joining and admitting I haven't read everything but got the gist of it. 

 

I don't see how the universe can create itself unless there is a supernatural power to do it. 

 

From what I've dealt with, I get this as general replies about how we got creation all on its own:

1. They claim we don't know.
2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.
3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

4. They give science fiction to support their claims, not known science.

Here's how I see it...nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know, not with things we can't prove. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

 

There it is, very basic. 
 

 

Yes, the creation idea is simple -- God did it !  But science theory is less simple as you suggest.

 

Your quotes:

1. They claim we don't know.
2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.
3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

4. They give science fiction to support their claims, not known science.

 

You may not realize that there is mainstream science, and there  are almost countless other little-known alternative theories of science.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

1) Yes, mainstream science no longer claims to know how the universe began. But there are a number of alternative theories that can explain the beginning of the universe, as seen in the postings above.

 

2) No, not all mainstream theory starts with space, matter, and time already existing. Many or most Big Bang theorists think that the Big Bang event created all of these.

 

3) No, there are many mainstream versions of this.

 

4) Yes, if theories are wrong, one could certainly call it science fiction, but not of the classical variety , and again there are almost countless other science explanations, almost all of which are better than the God-did-it explanation IMO. 

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, so if there was a creation event in which space, time, matter and energy were created from nothing, that would violate 1 and 2 LT.  Do you have any evidence, rather than arguments based upon thermodynamics, for such a creation event, Johnny?

 

Bumped for Johnny's attention.

[Johnny]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Johnny, welcome to our forums.  I hope you will feel at home here.  Please feel free to browse all of our forums and offer whatever input, commentary, or responses you'd like.  However, also please keep in mind that proselytizing, witnessing, preaching, and all other forms of apologetics are restricted to the Lion's Den forum.  While we welcome and encourage lively debate among members, we also bear responsibility for those who may still be struggling with their deconversion process.  As you have approached us in a respectful manner, I invite you to continue in that commendable demeanor for as long as you'd like to stay with us.  We look forward to hearing more from you.

Well thanks. If there was something that was too 'forward' then please let me know. I mean I do have to state my case and show it, which also means defend it too. I don't think you want people that cave in to the slightest bit of pressure. Truly, I am trying to be respectful. Just understand in doing that I do have the right to make my case in a civil way. I also want to be treated fairly. I hope it all works out for everyone and none of them being offended.

[Johnny]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

My bad.  Please ignore what I said.

Thanks for clarifying.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, Johnny said:

Just understand in doing that I do have the right to make my case in a civil way. I also want to be treated fairly.

We are a fair and cordial community.  Treat us with respect and we'll reciprocate.  The Prof thy Mod hath spoken.

[Johnny]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Actually, by invoking the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics you are showing that options 1, 2 and 3 are also viable.

1. They claim we don't know.

2. They start with space, matter, and time already there.

3. They say there was no creation since it always existed.

 

1) Then you're going by what we don't know and ignoring what we know. You're into science fiction

 

2) You're starting with it all there already. How was it there? You are proving nothing for creation. 

 

3) You never show it it can be eternally there by getting around the 2LT.

 

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Therefore, since anything prior to this hot and dense state is currently unknown, option 1 applies and 1 and 2 LT are not violated. "They claim we don't know."

 

Again, you are ignoring what we know. If I said 2 + 2 equals anything but 4, and then claim that can be true because we don't now everything yet, which is true, we don't, that is still not an explanation to me although you may find it suitable. I don't determine such matters for people for them. 

 

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

That deals with option 2. "They start with space, matter and time already there."

Again, how was it just there? How could it be always there and got around the 2LT? You have to ignore what we know for sure and say we really don't know. 

 

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Finally, since nothing is known about what preceded the hot, dense state, there remains the possibility that the observable universe has always existed in some form or another.  Since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, neither 1 or 2 LT would be violated by this possibility either.  That deals with option 3.  "They say that there was no creation since it always existed."

Then you're into science fiction. We have no science for that so how can science fiction be debated? Anything could be said. I'm not making fun of this position, I'm just stating that there is no way I can debate against science fiction and ask for evidence of it. I'm merely going by the evidence we have, That evidence we know and have no doubts about. I don't even see how laws can come about later from chaos. None of it makes sense to me. 

 

The whole big bang is unscientific. Itself is a supernatural event.

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny,

 

1) Then you're going by what we don't know and ignoring what we know. You're into science fiction.

 

This is false.  I have already explained exactly what we know.  We do not know that the universe began.  That's why the LCDM model does not mention or try to explain a creation event.  Please go back and re-read the Wiki page I linked to about this.

 

2) You're starting with it all there already. How was it there? You are proving nothing for creation. 

 

You are repeating your earlier mistakes, Johnny.  Science does not employ proofs.  Please go back and re-read the links I posted that explain why science does not use proofs.  You also repeating your claim that the universe was created.  I have already demonstrated that relying on the laws of thermodynamics does not 'prove' that the universe came into existence.  Please go back and re-read where I explained this to you,  9 hours ago.  If you need any help I'm happy to give it.

 

3) You never show it it can be eternally there by getting around the 2LT.

 

I have already explained that since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, an eternally-existing universe is a valid concept.  You are consistently tripping yourself up by asserting that the universe began to exist.  Science does not tell us that nor does it make that claim nor does it prove this.  I have already given you reasons for all of these things.

 

Again, you are ignoring what we know. If I said 2 + 2 equals anything but 4, and then claim that can be true because we don't now everything yet, which is true, we don't, that is still not an explanation to me although you may find it suitable. I don't determine such matters for people for them. 

 

And again you seem to be claiming that science 'knows' that the universe began to exist.  But science does not 'know' this.  Science theorizes that this might be so, but currently there is no evidence to support that theory.  That is why the LCDM (which incorporates Big Bang theory) does not say that the universe began from nothing.  The LCDM begins with the universe in a hot and dense state.  It says nothing at all about the universe coming into existence.  Please go back and re-read the Wiki page about the LCDM.

 

Again, how was it just there? How could it be always there and got around the 2LT? You have to ignore what we know for sure and say we really don't know. 

 

Once again, Johnny.  We do not 'know' that the universe began to exist.  Science theorizes that it might have, but that's all.  You are mistaken in thinking that science knows that the universe came into existence.

 

Then you're into science fiction. We have no science for that so how can science fiction be debated? Anything could be said. I'm not making fun of this position, I'm just stating that there is no way I can debate against science fiction and ask for evidence of it. I'm merely going by the evidence we have, That evidence we know and have no doubts about. I don't even see how laws can come about later from chaos. None of it makes sense to me. 

 

The whole big bang is unscientific. Itself is a supernatural event.

 

No, this is false.  Please go back and re-read the Wiki page about the LCDM.  You will see that everything there is science and not science fiction.  Therefore, there is no need for you to debate against science fiction.  That is because I am confining myself strictly to the science.

 

 

Now I'm going to ask you to do something for me please, Johnny.  Here is what I asked you 9 hours ago.

 

Ok, so if there was a creation event in which space, time, matter and energy were created from nothing, that would violate 1 and 2 LT.  Do you have any evidence, rather than arguments based upon thermodynamics, for such a creation event, Johnny?

 

Please read the first sentence carefully.  Do you understand what it means?  It means that thermodynamics is only violated if the universe began to exist from nothing.  So, apart from the bible do you have any evidence (not arguments relying on thermodynamics) that this happened?  That the universe came to exist from nothing?  If so, please show me.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Johnny]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

Advice, stay out of the Lions den and don't argue religion there unless you don't mind getting torn apart by us lions. But Arguing religion anywhere else can get you 86st.

Oh, "torn apart," wow. How dare I step into the lion's den where science fiction runs supreme. How dare I have sense to think creation didn't come about on its own. What was thinking? For sure, the smart people think it just happened and there are some good theories how it happened and all of them are science fiction, NOT known science. THEN, how silly of me to think this creation that somehow happened on its own ALSO gave the universe unreal fine-tuning for life on earth. How silly can I be to have impossible odds and not think they 'just happened' like that from chaos that had space, matter, time just there too. Whatever became of me. And life, forget about the law of biogenesis that life only comes from life, that happened on its own also but they just don't know how, they're working on that one too. I need to forget about even the simplest life anyone can even come up  with has odds that make it slam dunk impossible!!! But still, why should I let that stop me, you smart people have it all figured out but just can't quite come up with the evidence. Then....this life not only came in many different forms, and many of them depended upon each other, they replicated themselves. Sure they did and until they could they just died off and started all over again until they did. But that wasn't good enough for MERE CHANCE, no, it wanted then go from asexual to sexual. How can anyone doubt that? 

 

Here's a fun topic for you evo smart people, We have human sexual reproduction (HSR). We know a whole lot about it. Many of us experimented with it. Since you believe in goo-to-you evolution, give a logical explanation with proof of how HSR came about. Here's an example: We had this asexual something that got here by a natural creation that's impossible, the universe formed by some other impossible feat, it gave life by some other impossible feat and somehow gave another impossible feat of an asexual something that eventually mutated a bump, another asexual something eventually mutating a hole, this went on and on of umpteen years, and by mere chance somehow mated from the sexual organs that somehow formed by mere chance not even knowing they were needed so that.........it eventually led to HSR. Sure it's going to be a LONG story and I can't imagine how it could be possible but since you evo smart people believe it, you better have a good explanation. I don't want theories that answer nothing, I want a logical story with proof to back it up. Since you claim it all came about naturally, then give your natural explanation.

 

Of course, just ignore that, I don't want to come across as too "preachy." And God forbid, be unscientific.

 

"Most of us laugh at the idea of God, and him being the creator from nothing."

 

Yes, laugh, laugh like there's no tomorrow. Laugh!!! I'm laughing too how this creation happened that you're all so smart about that can't even get around BASIC science. Then, as I showed above, it gets much worse from there. 

 

I"m seeing nothing new. I'm seeing science fiction. I'm seeing you YEARN to do all you can to hide from reality as you proclaim to follow reality. At least some of you are honest about it....

 

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.

 

Now there's something, but if Dawkins only had the proof.

 

Richard Dawkins’ commentary on the origin of the universe: “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That's why it's interesting. It's got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe."

 

---Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

 

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

 

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

You, "But the understandings of true science compared to religious beliefs..."

 

How can you keep a straight face saying that? It does not matter, really. I'm not out to set people straight. I'm just saying things and they make up their own minds on just like I do. We are responsible for us. 

 

[Johnny]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

This is false.  I have already explained exactly what we know.  We do not know that the universe began.  That's why the LCDM model does not mention or try to explain a creation event. 

Why bring it up? I've had many others bring this up as if it helps the creation explanation. Do you want me to get into how ridiculous the whole big bang theory is? What good what it do? The subject is creation and it will come to that you don't know. 

 

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I have already demonstrated that relying on the laws of thermodynamics does not 'prove' that the universe came into existence.

What is to reread? I showed already then  you're into science fiction. I can't argue against science fiction. I can't argue against with other Christians about the Trinity who accept three 100% gods make one 100% god. Once things go into the realm of what we don't know that somehow changes it all to make it so, there's nothing much I can add. 

 

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I have already explained that since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, an eternally-existing universe is a valid concept.  You are consistently tripping yourself up by asserting that the universe began to exist.  Science does not tell us that nor does it make that claim nor does it prove this.  I have already given you reasons for all of these things.

Got it, it somehow didn't interfere with the laws I gave. It was there eternally and the 2LT just kept usable energy going for eternity and just when it all formed the universe, THEN the 2LT kicked in winding down the universe to a heat death, even though it was there for eternity. How silly of me. 

 

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

And again you seem to be claiming that science 'knows' that the universe began to exist.  But science does not 'know' this. 

I said we know this by science. We know those laws. I concluded...."We know these laws and have NO doubts about them."

 

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The LCDM begins with the universe in a hot and dense state.  It says nothing at all about the universe coming into existence.  Please go back and re-read the Wiki page about the LCDM.

As I put, you will start with it all there already. Need I get into again how you just skipped the 2LT and now somehow it was working when the universe was done? And I loved how it all just came about when it all expanded and gave fine-tuning for life on earth that is impossible to honest people for that to happen, but it 'just happened' that way too.

 

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

You will see that everything there is science and not science fiction.

It was there eternally with no explanation how? What science is that? It expanded somehow WAAAAAAY beyond the speed of light and then formed all these galaxies and ours when the 2LT does not permit any order. How did this order get there from chaos? 

 

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Ok, so if there was a creation event in which space, time, matter and energy were created from nothing, that would violate 1 and 2 LT.  Do you have any evidence, rather than arguments based upon thermodynamics, for such a creation event, Johnny?

I don't know how to make it any clearer, it had to be supernatural. There's natural, the out natural laws are based from. They prove as I showed in the laws I gave, creation cannot happen naturally. Naturally lost 100%. We only have one choice left, creation happened supernaturally. Now, to you, naturally still won. 

 

It was done supernaturally, and when it was ALL DONE, we were left with naturally, in which we discovered that laws of nature. Those laws of nature prove our origin had to be done supernaturally. 

 

"that would violate 1 and 2 LT."

 

They were not violated, they haven't even come into affect yet until creation was done. 

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

It means that thermodynamics is only violated if the universe began to exist from nothing.  So, apart from the bible do you have any evidence (not arguments relying on thermodynamics) that this happened?  That the universe came to exist from nothing?  If so, please show me.

I did that. I did that. I did that.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

Oh, "torn apart," wow. How dare I step into the lion's den where science fiction runs supreme. How dare I have sense to think creation didn't come about on its own. What was thinking? For sure, the smart people think it just happened and there are some good theories how it happened and all of them are science fiction, NOT known science. THEN, how silly of me to think this creation that somehow happened on its own ALSO gave the universe unreal fine-tuning for life on earth. How silly can I be to have impossible odds and not think they 'just happened' like that from chaos that had space, matter, time just there too. Whatever became of me. And life, forget about the law of biogenesis that life only comes from life, that happened on its own also but they just don't know how, they're working on that one too. I need to forget about even the simplest life anyone can even come up  with has odds that make it slam dunk impossible!!! But still, why should I let that stop me, you smart people have it all figured out but just can't quite come up with the evidence. Then....this life not only came in many different forms, and many of them depended upon each other, they replicated themselves. Sure they did and until they could they just died off and started all over again until they did. But that wasn't good enough for MERE CHANCE, no, it wanted then go from asexual to sexual. How can anyone doubt that? 

 

Here's a fun topic for you evo smart people, We have human sexual reproduction (HSR). We know a whole lot about it. Many of us experimented with it. Since you believe in goo-to-you evolution, give a logical explanation with proof of how HSR came about. Here's an example: We had this asexual something that got here by a natural creation that's impossible, the universe formed by some other impossible feat, it gave life by some other impossible feat and somehow gave another impossible feat of an asexual something that eventually mutated a bump, another asexual something eventually mutating a hole, this went on and on of umpteen years, and by mere chance somehow mated from the sexual organs that somehow formed by mere chance not even knowing they were needed so that.........it eventually led to HSR. Sure it's going to be a LONG story and I can't imagine how it could be possible but since you evo smart people believe it, you better have a good explanation. I don't want theories that answer nothing, I want a logical story with proof to back it up. Since you claim it all came about naturally, then give your natural explanation.

 

Of course, just ignore that, I don't want to come across as too "preachy." And God forbid, be unscientific.

 

"Most of us laugh at the idea of God, and him being the creator from nothing."

 

Yes, laugh, laugh like there's no tomorrow. Laugh!!! I'm laughing too how this creation happened that you're all so smart about that can't even get around BASIC science. Then, as I showed above, it gets much worse from there. 

 

I"m seeing nothing new. I'm seeing science fiction. I'm seeing you YEARN to do all you can to hide from reality as you proclaim to follow reality. At least some of you are honest about it....

 

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.

 

Now there's something, but if Dawkins only had the proof.

 

Richard Dawkins’ commentary on the origin of the universe: “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That's why it's interesting. It's got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe."

 

---Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

 

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

 

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

You, "But the understandings of true science compared to religious beliefs..."

 

How can you keep a straight face saying that? It does not matter, really. I'm not out to set people straight. I'm just saying things and they make up their own minds on just like I do. We are responsible for us. 

 

 

"Oh, "torn apart," wow. How dare I step into the lion's den where science fiction runs supreme. How dare I have sense to think creation didn't come about on its own. What was thinking? For sure, the smart people think it just happened and there are some good theories how it happened and all of them are science fiction, NOT known science. THEN, how silly of me to think this creation that somehow happened on its own ALSO gave the universe unreal fine-tuning for life on earth. How silly can I be to have impossible odds and not think they 'just happened' like that from chaos that had space, matter, time just there too. Whatever became of me. And life, forget about the law of biogenesis that life only comes from life, that happened on its own also but they just don't know how, they're working on that one too. I need to forget about even the simplest life anyone can even come up  with has odds that make it slam dunk impossible!!! But still, why should I let that stop me, you smart people have it all figured out but just can't quite come up with the evidence. Then....this life not only came in many different forms, and many of them depended upon each other, they replicated themselves. Sure they did and until they could they just died off and started all over again until they did. But that wasn't good enough for MERE CHANCE, no, it wanted then go from asexual to sexual. How can anyone doubt that? 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Of course you understand that I think religion today is like believing in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Greek mythology, etc. As I said before, science theory is not always right  but there is usually logic to it, where all religions are based upon family traditions with little or no logic or intellectual considerations involved.

 

Fine tuning is a problem with some models of physics and religion. But in other models of physics the idea of fine is only imagined. In this model there is only one way reality can all fit together, everything is interconnected and this is the only reality that could ever be.

 

There are many possible ideas concerning how life could have come from non-life. But none of these hypothesis can yet be considered theory. That doesn't mean that at least one of these theories could ultimately be correct. What I don't like about these theories is that in my opinion there was not enogh time 3 billion years for the simplest life to have evolved IMO. I consider Panspermia theory as a possible answer.

 

Sexual evolution was a good invention of nature, that's about it.

 

There is a simple scientific answer to everything, but many are not mainstream -- but no guarantees as to their validity.

 

If you want a logical scientific explanation to anything just ask. You can find my "logical" scientific answer to how the universe began to the present day, it's explained in my postings on this thread.

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

So, it's all from the supernatural.  Where did the supernatural come from?

[walterpthefirst]

Johnny,

 

You seem to think that the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe was created.  But here's an interesting historical fact.  Until the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) in 1965, the scientific community held that the universe was eternal, having always existed.  After the discovery of the CMB the Big Bang theory was adopted by science.  However, the three laws of thermodynamics were all formulated before 1912. 

 

 

So, if the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe was created, why didn't scientists say that they proved the creation after 1912?

 

If thermodynamics proves the creation, why did scientists hold that the universe was eternal from 1912 up until 1965?

 

If thermodynamics had already proved the creation after 1912, why did science adopt the Big Bang theory in 1965?

 

If thermodynamics prove creation why have no scientists won the Nobel prize for this discovery?

 

If thermodynamics prove the creation, why hasn't this ever been in the news?

 

 

 

Please answer these questions.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Astreja]

10 hours ago, Johnny said:

Do you want me to get into how ridiculous the whole big bang theory is?

 

Johnny, have you actually studied physics?  I have.  It's been a while, but I can actually comprehend the explanations provided by astrophysicists.  The available evidence indicates that at very least there appears to have been an expansion of... something or other.  Measurements indicate that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old.

 

Beyond that, I see no point whatsoever in attempting to provide you with the science education you apparently missed out on.  My experience with creationists is that we knock ourselves out sourcing peer-reviewed papers and explaining high school physics, chemistry and biology, and you just shit on our efforts and whine "Nuh-uh!  My god did it and the Bible says so, so there, nyaah!"

 

Fucking waste of time to try to enlighten people who are just going to throw out our information and go back to their Bible vomit.

[Johnny]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Johnny,

 

You seem to think that the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe was created.  But here's an interesting historical fact.  Until the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) in 1965, the scientific community held that the universe was eternal, having always existed.  After the discovery of the CMB the Big Bang theory was adopted by science.  However, the three laws of thermodynamics were all formulated before 1912. 

 

 

So, if the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe was created, why didn't scientists say that they proved the creation after 1912?

 

If thermodynamics proves the creation, why did scientists hold that the universe was eternal from 1912 up until 1965?

 

If thermodynamics had already proved the creation after 1912, why did science adopt the Big Bang theory in 1965?

 

If thermodynamics prove creation why have no scientists won the Nobel prize for this discovery?

 

If thermodynamics prove the creation, why hasn't this ever been in the news?

 

 

 

Please answer these questions.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

You think that scientists have no bias You think they just go with the evidence only despite their beliefs. Look how I put basic science just on creation alone and you'll some go with it was always there. Another person in another topic wrote...

 

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

--Simply because nothing is not a possible state of reality."

 

It is not a reality to them therefore it's not so throw out anything that gets in their way like the laws I gave. As I already showed, you'll do this with everything. You'll disregard the evidence not only on creation, but on what follows. 

 

Rather than going on repeating myself, I can't argue against science fiction of something just already there with no explanation how and then it also was somehow not bound by the 2LT but once it did this miracle expansion and the miracle of forming the whole universe miraculously fine-tuned so life can be on earth, etc, what more do you want me to say? 

 

Do you want me to post the umpteen sites and vids showing the big bang flaws? Do you think that would effect you all? 

 

Me previously...

Oh, "torn apart," wow. How dare I step into the lion's den where science fiction runs supreme. How dare I have sense to think creation didn't come about on its own. What was thinking? For sure, the smart people think it just happened and there are some good theories how it happened and all of them are science fiction, NOT known science. THEN, how silly of me to think this creation that somehow happened on its own ALSO gave the universe unreal fine-tuning for life on earth. How silly can I be to have impossible odds and not think they 'just happened' like that from chaos that had space, matter, time just there too. Whatever became of me. And life, forget about the law of biogenesis that life only comes from life, that happened on its own also but they just don't know how, they're working on that one too. I need to forget about even the simplest life anyone can even come up  with has odds that make it slam dunk impossible!!! But still, why should I let that stop me, you smart people have it all figured out but just can't quite come up with the evidence. Then....this life not only came in many different forms, and many of them depended upon each other, they replicated themselves. Sure they did and until they could they just died off and started all over again until they did. But that wasn't good enough for MERE CHANCE, no, it wanted then go from asexual to sexual. How can anyone doubt that? 

 

Here's a fun topic for you evo smart people, We have human sexual reproduction (HSR). We know a whole lot about it. Many of us experimented with it. Since you believe in goo-to-you evolution, give a logical explanation with proof of how HSR came about. Here's an example: We had this asexual something that got here by a natural creation that's impossible, the universe formed by some other impossible feat, it gave life by some other impossible feat and somehow gave another impossible feat of an asexual something that eventually mutated a bump, another asexual something eventually mutating a hole, this went on and on of umpteen years, and by mere chance somehow mated from the sexual organs that somehow formed by mere chance not even knowing they were needed so that.........it eventually led to HSR. Sure it's going to be a LONG story and I can't imagine how it could be possible but since you evo smart people believe it, you better have a good explanation. I don't want theories that answer nothing, I want a logical story with proof to back it up. Since you claim it all came about naturally, then give your natural explanation.

 

Of course, just ignore that, I don't want to come across as too "preachy." And God forbid, be unscientific.

 

"Most of us laugh at the idea of God, and him being the creator from nothing."

 

Yes, laugh, laugh like there's no tomorrow. Laugh!!! I'm laughing too how this creation happened that you're all so smart about that can't even get around BASIC science. Then, as I showed above, it gets much worse from there. 

 

I"m seeing nothing new. I'm seeing science fiction. I'm seeing you YEARN to do all you can to hide from reality as you proclaim to follow reality. At least some of you are honest about it....

 

“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.

 

Now there's something, but if Dawkins only had the proof.

 

Richard Dawkins’ commentary on the origin of the universe: “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That's why it's interesting. It's got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe."

 

---Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

 

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

 

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

You, "But the understandings of true science compared to religious beliefs..."

 

How can you keep a straight face saying that? It does not matter, really. I'm not out to set people straight. I'm just saying things and they make up their own minds on just like I do. We are responsible for us. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Dude, light a fatty and mellow out.