Can the Universe Create Itself?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Dude, light a fatty and mellow out.

Yea.  Give your ego a rest.

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Johnny said:

 

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? 

 

 

 

Johnny, you make a number of logical points concerning the errors of science IMO. I think that comments concerning the errors of science should be tolerated here IMO, but not continued arguments, and of course all understand that it takes 2 or more to make an argument. Although this is the science vs religion discussion forum, extended arguments concerning religion are not well-tolerated here,  or in any discussion areas for that matter.  That's why we have the Lion's Den and Colosseum discussion areas. But if you don't stop and continue making creationist arguments here, not just antiscience arguments. and others respond to such postings, then both are to blame IMO.

 

After saying that, I will now address your points shown above.

 

1)  About half of scientists believe in God, according to recent poles, so  some of them have a bias toward religious ideas as well. And many have a bias toward mainstream theory, rather than alternative theories,  which should be expected.

 

2) As to why there is something rather than nothing, was a question asked by Stephen Hawking in one of his books. And of course he was a renowned scientist, and his question was serious. I thought his question was not a good one since I believe there is a simple answer to his question. -- That there is only one reality, and that's the only existence  there could be,  Everything in it, as well as the so-called laws of nature, are interconnected. Other scientists and religious folk disagree and believe in a fine tuned universe,  a spiritual world and God outside our dimensions,  multiverses and other ideas.   And as you mentioned above, simply nothing at all is not a possible state of reality, which I believe.

 

3) Although the Expansion of the universe and space is the mainstream theory of cosmology, it can be completely wrong. If you read the link I posted, there are almost countless other scientific explanations concerning the universe, how it functions, and how it began.

 

4) The laws of physics. If you look up the meaning of a "law" in physics, you'll find it means something that seems to always work in practice, but still can be wrong in the way it is worded, or in its equations if there are unknown exceptions to it.

 

5) The practice of Science is a method starting with speculation, then observations and testing; there are no theories involved in this method.  Theories are the conclusions of scientists, and some will always be wrong, but there will always be a correct scientific explanation whether known or not.

[Johnny]

13 hours ago, pantheory 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? 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I vowed to myself roughly 50 years ago, I will only accept things that made sense because I have sufficient evidence to back it up. I actually thought it would be a glorious adventure because I really tried to see what both sides had to offer. That made me face things I had to change my beliefs on myself which also led to me leaving groups and churches I had some good friends in. There's not much 'glory' being an outcast and facing that loneliness. Not trying to make this a woe-is-me story but dang, it's what it was. I was into health, exercise and political matters at the time and felt embarrassed that on the other matters such as we're looking into here, I really didn't know who was wrong or right. I was going to go with the one that sure had the evidence. Having done that, it became very clear, the atheistic side sure talked tough but it really had no science to back it up. Not to mention, it made no sense. 

 

I was with an engineering company for 20 years and I'm not an engineer, I just played one on my job. It must have been a good act because I had to solve problems they couldn't and had to design things to prove my point. Not just with my company, but the many around the world I visited. When doing this, there were many times I was told by engineers what I came up with, was not the problem. It took a lot to show I was right because I had to prove it. They had to actually SEE it. The stress level on that job at times was through the roof. I tried hard to see their side and to understand it because these were no dummies. They had degrees in engineering, I didn't. It's not like I wanted to be hard-headed and just disagree with them for the sake of disagreeing trying to make me look smart. I had to look hard at the issue not just make some flippant calls. It took a lot of work and under a lot of pressure to solve the problem and do it rather quickly even though these engineers had a lot of time to look at the problem before I got there because they couldn't solve it. 

 

The point I'm getting to is I don't see at all that this all just happened on its own. I don't have the evidence to make me think that it could. In life and certainly on that job, I had to realize when things came to be what I call a 'show-stopper' meaning don't continue down that path because it is not the solution and it would be a waste of time. I've actually been told in what I was trying to do by people who knew a lot more than I did about the issue, tell me it could not be done. They made sense but I was not sure so I didn't let up on it even though part of me was saying just stop. Only to find, there WAS a way after all. 

 

Now, what I see as show-stoppers, you all see that there can be a way after all, it just wasn't discovered yet and/or they are on that path. So what more can I add besides the odds of such things put it as impossible as impossible can get. 

 

Then to add insult to injury, I don't see this long time span your side needs to help you at all. I'll even go so far as to say the 2LT alone makes it all a moot point. You're not going to get order. You can say that it was not violated for only so long and at some point it kicked in somehow that stops all the further things you need. You're not going to get non-material information from material. Information only comes from intelligence. 

 

So, I do have to thank you all sincerely that this can happen, that people can express themselves. I haven't been banned yet says a lot of good about this forum. I mean that. I'm fine with things getting little 'rough around the edges' whether it towards me or by me, as long as it remains within the bounds of 'civility.' We're all human and have a reason for our beliefs. 

[pantheory]

Johnny, I like your ideas because you properly think IMO. Many Christians lack proper thinking and logic IMO. But there is no "our side" to any argument here. We all believe different things. The only thing we all have in common is that we were all once Christians, and generally have different beliefs now. I don't think you should use the word impossible either  in the context of science. Better wordings would be "implausible" in your opinion. Proselytizing religion is also not a bad thing IMO. But in this forum it should be done in the Lion's Den or Coliseum if you don't want to get spanked.

 

best of luck Johnny -- and hope you decide to stay with us.

[TABA]

Johnny, I appreciate you sharing some of your life story.  I respect and admire what you’ve accomplished.  You strike me as an interesting and articulate person.  I would give you more credit than you give yourself because I’m satisfied these accomplishments are due to your efforts and determination, and not some divine assistance. 
 

I’ve appreciated the exchanges you’ve had with our members and I hope you’ll want to stay around for a while for more.  Hopefully it will stay civil.  

[walterpthefirst]

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...

 

Johnny,

 

I'm not going to respond to anything anyone else has written.  So I'm responding only to the part of your post that is relevant to you and me.  

 

 

You seem to be implying that all scientists are biased against Christianity.  Which is why all of the world's scientists have supressed the fact that thermodynamics prove the creation.  You assume that all scientists are atheists or that they hold beliefs that are hostile to Christianity.  That there's a global scientific conspiracy by atheistic scientists to supress the truth.  

 

But this is not so.

 

There are thousands of scientists who are born-again Christians.  Here are three that I know of who are experts in thermodynamics. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Page_(physicist)

Page is an evangelical Christian who specializes in thermodynamics.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne (Deceased)

He was not only a physicist but also theologian and a priest.  He argued that the universe was finely-tuned for life and that the god of the bible was the creator and fine-tuner.  He has written many books on how science and religion are compatible.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennox 

Lennox has debated Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Christopher Hitchens, defending Biblical Christianity and strongly arguing that scientific evidence points to the hand of god.  These debates can be seen on YouTube.  Lennox has also written many books in defence of Christianity.  He has brought many people to the foot of the cross and they have become faithful servants and followers of Jesus.  He lectures at universities and colleges, always offering his audience the chance to accept Jesus into their lives, to be saved and to be born again of the holy spirit.

 

 

Johnny, why is it that none of these born again Christian scientists have won the Nobel prize for showing that thermodynamics proves the creation?

 

They can't be biased against the god, Jesus and the bible, can they?

 

And they must realize that thermodynamics proves the creation, mustn't they?

 

If thermodynamics does prove the creation, why haven't they published anything about it?

 

Why hasn't god used them to make the truth known about thermodynamics proving the creation?

 

Why is it that none of them have ever mentioned any scientific conspiracy to suppress this truth?

 

Please answer these questions.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[TABA]

This topic is locked, at least for now.  We are working on setting up a more organized dialog between our guest Johnny and one of our Ex-Christian members (to be determined).  More to come...

[TABA]

There is not going to be a more formal one-on-one debate between @Johnnyand an Ex-Christian, at least for now.  
 

However, at the request of its originator, this topic will remain locked.