Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: SuperFrog

I was hoping you would bring something better to argue With than Ben and teller...to be honest.

Or a youtube cartoon which miss the Whole point of who God is (And by filming God laying dead under the Wheel). I understand that moste People dont grasp the concept of God when they watch something like this..... Because non of them actually explains anything. If it was this simple there would probably only have been one poste about religion.... and not hundres of them.

The cartoon dont actually desmiss the existence of God when they also have God in the cartoon. What the cartoon does say is that those two are not aware that they just ran him over With the plain. This cartoon actually makes fun of the Atheists and God at the same time.


Religion and the bible are also two different Things. Religions is man's concept of his or her understanding of what is written.

When it comes to who wrote genesis. All i know is that Chapter 1 and 2 were not written by the same Author. I know that the Romans and the Catholic Church have made changes to the book(s). So when People read the Bible they should take that into account.

a reply to: VictorBloodworth

It was the day after the rapture. All war and conflict had ended and the athiest population if earth were now at peace. And they all lived happily ever after. Thee end.

The sad part about this story is that the rapture is made up along with the rest of theists myths. The good news.. as long as we keep progressing in our knowledge of the universe, the myths of past cultures will fall to the side (as always) and be viewed by our descendants as a curious stumbling block in our evolution.

originally posted by: spy66
I was hoping you would bring something better to argue With than Ben and teller...to be honest.

It's Penn, and I don't see why use of ad-hominem?! They bring good questions and did their fair share of research regarding Bible.

originally posted by: spy66
Or a youtube cartoon which miss the Whole point of who God is (And by filming God laying dead under the Wheel). I understand that moste People dont grasp the concept of God when they watch something like this..... Because non of them actually explains anything. If it was this simple there would probably only have been one poste about religion.... and not hundres of them.

The cartoon dont actually desmiss the existence of God when they also have God in the cartoon. What the cartoon does say is that those two are not aware that they just ran him over With the plain. This cartoon actually makes fun of the Atheists and God at the same time.

Tripping the Rift was fun to watch... and that particular episode is more a joke about people believing in creationism, witch is really absurd. Image of God is no different then renascence artist giving their version... Bit of fun... and what we would miss if there was no religion... but again, just a joke...

originally posted by: spy66
Religion and the bible are also two different Things. Religions is man's concept of his or her understanding of what is written.

When it comes to who wrote genesis. All i know is that Chapter 1 and 2 were not written by the same Author. I know that the Romans and the Catholic Church have made changes to the book(s). So when People read the Bible they should take that into account.

So, we have a book that people here take literary... specifically creation part... and now you tell me that there are more then 1 author for first 2 chapters. Note, we still have Torah, where first 5 books originated from, so these parts did not change much, revision was more for later parts, excluded lots of sexual contest... ]

Couldn't we agree that 2 authors means, it as really written by man, product of human imagination? Which is kind of point I did with reading beginning and pointing at all illogical things... It just does not make sense, science shows us its wrong and there is NO single piece if evidence that points to creation...

Note, this whole discussion will get obsolete as soon as hypothesis of abiogenesis gets proven through experiments. There are few good research that might get us there, and once we cross that bridge, another research released just last year - that many young stars have 'life making ingredients', meaning life is more then possible to spread across galaxy... and we most likely are NOT alone...

www.independent.co.uk...

Reply to: SuperFrog

So, we have a book that people here take literary... specifically creation part... and now you tell me that there are more then 1 author for first 2 chapters.

Yes that is what i am saying... Genesis Chapter 2. is written by a imposter. Lord God is not thee God of Genesis.

I dont expect that you actually ready my first reply when i mentioned this.

- God didnt mention how man (male and female) were formed in Gensis Chapter 1. Lord God explains how he did it in genesis Chapter 2. If Lord God did create man, than that man was a hybrid.



- If science figures it out how life was formed it would be a great progress The Properties for all life was formed when the singularity was formed.

Couldn't we agree that 2 authors means, it as really written by man, product of human imagination?

Two different outhors With two totally different creations means that there is something fishy going on... I have never denyied that. That is why i am saying that; who ever brought in Lord God is a imposter... probably.

originally posted by: rossacus
We have now proved through DNA that evolution as a whole exists, not 1 man's version of it.

Be careful what dribble you quote in future

Since you brought up the subject of dribble...

The fraudulent concept of 'junk DNA' only confirms that Darwinism is in fact a con, a ruse, and one of the greatest scientific hoaxes ever created.

Despite Darwinian assumptions to the contrary, DNA not only proves that Darwin was wrong, but it also shows that evolution is quite literally impossible.

So if “junk DNA” is really active and functional DNA, how come scientists have been so wrong and did not know this before? The reason is the Darwin Conspiracy. The Darwin Conspiracy fabricated the phony “junk DNA” idea in order to hide the fact that human DNA is very different from ape DNA. Atheists desperately need 98% of human DNA to be junk or else “ape to human evolution” gets demolished for reasons we will explain below.

These two discoveries proved “ape to human evolution” was impossible because the DNA of apes and humans are so different that the discrepancies could not be accounted for by evolution. The DNA differences contradicted “ape to human evolution.” This means that as early as the 1960's, DNA tests proved Darwin was wrong.

In 1972, the Darwin Conspiracy temporarily saved “ape to human evolution” theory from extinction by fabricating the phony concept of “junk DNA.” Faced with the fact that 98% of ape DNA is vastly different from human DNA, the Darwin Conspiracy very cleverly decided to label that 98% of the DNA as “junk DNA” and therefore the ape to human DNA differences had no relevance. The Darwin Conspiracy is insidious and very clever and always mixes truth with their lies so that their lies are more believable.

Aren't the atheists clever? By creating the baloney about “junk DNA,” the Darwin Conspiracy was able to successfully neutralize the fact that 98% of ape and human DNA are not similar and this kept the creationists from using those DNA differences as ammunition to attack “ape to human evolution.” So the next time any Darwinian tells you “the genetic matter of apes and humans are 99% identical,” you know this is a Darwin Conspiracy lie.

THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS EXPOSES THE "99% IDENTICAL" CLAIM IS A LIE

“For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function. Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.”

The ID position has now been largely vindicated and the Darwinist position debunked.

www.uncommondescent.com...

That is why Darwinians concocted the phoney concept of “junk DNA.” By claiming that human and ape DNA is “98% junk DNA,” they could ignore as much as 98% of the DNA that did not match up by claiming it did not count because it was junk. The science of genetics has recently made major discoveries that refute “ape to human evolution” and prove Darwin was wrong – because of this, atheists are on the warpath and there is currently a huge battle being fought over whether there really is “junk DNA.”

For decades, atheists have claimed that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 99% identical. But here is the secret – when atheists make the “99% identical” claim, they are only referring to "encoding DNA" which is a mere 2% of human DNA – they are not including the other 98% because they have labeled that as “junk DNA.” If you include “junk DNA,” then ape and human DNA are only 30% similar or identical.

The huge problem atheists are faced with is the fact that most parts of human “junk DNA” is not at all similar to ape “junk DNA.” Therefore, if “junk DNA” has function, then evolution theory is refuted because it simply cannot explain the vast differences between ape and human “junk DNA.” The differences are so great that it is impossible for humans to have evolved from apes, just as it is impossible to make a Ferrari from the parts of a Volkswagen.

DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong

...Jonathan Wells exposes their claim as an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence, relies on illegitimate theological speculations, and impedes biomedical research. In The Myth of Junk DNA, biologist Jonathan Wells exposes their claim as an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence, relies on illegitimate theological speculations, and impedes biomedical research.

Far from consisting mainly of junk, the genome is increasingly revealing itself to be a multidimensional, integrated system in which non-protein-coding DNA performs a wide variety of essential biological functions. If anything, the genome actually provides evidence for intelligent design, not against it. After reading this book, your view of the genome—and of the people who claim to represent science while they misrepresent the evidence—will never be the same again.

The Myth of Junk DNA

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Of course, there's much more evidence supporting my position but the above is a good starting point.

I would disagree, would you mind providing some more that isn't from the Bible?

That would be impossible.

All creationists who claim they have proof, end up just holding a Bible aloft and saying "here is the proof"..

It's the same thing every time.

Just once, I'd love to see some actual, physical evidence presented by a creationist that dose not involve him/her presenting the bible its self as said evidence.

However this will never happen.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Let's continue the discussion. you said:

I am an atheist. I do not consider atheism to be my worldview and I don't know many atheists that would. Atheism is my stance on belief in god(s) and that's all it is. I do not have any positive belief, as you assert, that "nothing created the Universe". You are creating a straw man and, in your OP, creating a false dichotomy. Even if you prove that what Krauss and Hawking have to say is indeed illogical it does NOTHING to validate the Christian view or even a general deistic creator. Falsifying the physicist answer does not imply you have proven your own alternative, not by a long shot. Setting up a "if I prove this false than I prove X true" argument is bad logic plain and simple.

Although I agree that atheist come in many different forms and hold different reasons for being one, they share a common belief. A belief in evolution and in a non-existent God. Hence, I cited the works of the two well-recognized atheists: Hawking and Krauss, to prove my point. They are not a "straw man" in my OP but to illustrate what happens when one uses philosophy as a means to circumvent what science can't explain. They lose credibility and become illogical in their thinking. The sad part is, the listening public is taken in along with them. In addition, it's not "false dichotomy" to bring the two views together since my contention is to show and prove that the view I hold is the only one that makes sense and logical. And since the atheist view as stated by Hawking's and Krauss' (in regards to origins) are both illogical and self-contradictory, thus, the alternative is Creation. It's the true explanation of why we exist. And if two world-renowned scientists with names like Hawking and Krauss are unable to come up with a logical explanation, what makes your explanation better than theirs? I doubt you can do better or even outdo them. But for the sake credibility, let's take a look at your explanation.

In response to my question that, 'Life can only come from Life / Life can only come from pre-existing life'?

You said:

1) There is ample evidence that the chemical reactions which produce life can arise naturally without any supernatural interference. Experiments have produced amino acids and other building blocks necessary for life. Given that all of the reactions within organisms ever observed has been entirely natural there is no reason to imply a supernatural component.

2) Even if it were the case that life can only come from other life that only proves that there must be some progenitor to life that stretches back to the very beginning of the Universe. It does not establish that there is anything supernatural about this thread of life.

3) This line of thinking leads to an infinite regress OR the God believer must engage in a fallacy of special pleading so that the existence of a LIVING God does NOT have to come from any other form of life. This is similar to the special pleading in the Cosmological argument, stating that all things need causes but then saying God needs no cause. Saying all life comes from other life, so there must be a God and then turning around and saying this God doesn't need to have come from other life is a fallacy.

Ok, if not supernatural, what or who then is the "progenitor to life that stretches back to the very beginning of the Universe"?

If not "nothing" since you "do not have any positive belief, (as I asserted) that "nothing created the Universe", who then? What's your alternative? Is it "blind chance event"? If so, then you're back to nothing. In fact, that's what I believe you attempted to show by saying:

1) There is ample evidence that the chemical reactions which produce life can arise naturally....

Sure, I totally agree, IF, that's a big IF there's someone or an intelligence was behind it. But remove the agency, the result will be non-life. So in the case of the Urey/Miller experiment you cited, if we remove Urey and Miller from the equation, will the "building blocks" for life suddenly appear? Of course not. Nature won't do it for you unless you insert yourself in the process. So in the scheme of things, who do you think then correspond to Urey/Miller (in nature) when life was created?

Was it "blind chance" or a freak accident? It can't be "nothing" because as you said, "I do not have any positive belief, as you assert, that "nothing created the Universe". So what or who then?

So you see, what you said is no better than what Prof. Hawking and Prof. Krauss stated. It's self-contradictory, even illogical. For if we carefully think about it, "amino acids and other building blocks necessary for life" are NOT life but just "building blocks" for life. Left on their own, without any intelligence and guidance they will not properly combine. 'Blind chance event' is not able to accomplish what an intelligent being can accomplish. Even if you allow time! Billions of years of an unguided event cannot and will not create a single organic living cell. To claim otherwise is the hallmark of "blind faith". There's no known evidence (scientific or otherwise) to support it. In fact, life is so complex and sophisticated, that no intelligent human being (in the past or present) is ABLE to create life from the so-called "building blocks necessary for life". We can, however, CREATE life from pre-existing life with no problem! So what now?

Designer gene anyone?

BTW, saying that

...there must be a God and then turning around and saying this God doesn't need to have come from other life is a fallacy.

doesn't prove that there's no God. But your statement can also be applied to your case - if you believe that nature created you, who then created nature?

Continuing...Law requires a law-giver.... You said:

The natural laws are descriptive, they are not actual laws written down somewhere but are merely descriptions of how nature is observed to behave. The Speed of Light is not a prescriptive law written down by some heavenly congress, it is a description of the speed that light travels at. Gravity is not a law written down somewhere, it is descriptive, it describes how objects with mass behave in regards to each other.

Exactly what I said in the OP:

"Furthermore, how can a law be a creative medium if all it does is predict and describe what naturally happens?"

But our world-renowned atheist scientist (Hawking) said otherwise:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Law of Gravity by way of "spontaneous creation" is the reason " why the universe exists, why we exist".

But can law exist without a lawmaker or a lawgiver?

The answer is, unquestionably NO! Law requires that a lawgiver / lawmaker exist. Else, no law can exist by its own will. Yet, atheists seem to not get this, be it, Hawking, Dawkins or Krauss. And you seem to have the same frame of mind. You seem to think that laws must be written in order for it to be a (descriptive) law. And that someone should write it down to become a law. That's preposterous, it's just not true. In fact, no one knows what gravity is.
...

...

Even Newton and Einstien didn't know what it was. But we can describe and predict what it does by means of mathematical equations. So again, the question is:

Can law exist without a lawmaker or a lawgiver?

Science, logic, human experience from time immemorial testify and empathically say absolutely NOT!

Laws exists because of a lawgiver / lawmaker.

F = ma, E = mc2 cannot and will not exist if there was no intelligent mind behind it.

But if you believe otherwise, you have "nothing" to back you up.

Which leads me to your last statement to what I said:

'Intelligence requires a mind...'

Again this seems based on the assumption that intelligence exhibited by organisms on Earth is somehow special, magical or beyond the bounds of natural evolution. I simply do not see how this claim can be made without already assuming there's something so extraordinary about intelligence that it requires some other kind of mind to explain its origins.

And again this falls victim to the special pleading fallacy above. If mankind's intelligence requires a God, than God's intelligence requires an UBER-GOD above him.

One thing that amazes me about atheist is their propensity to use fallacious argumentative words. They love to use it and I often find them hiding behind it so as not to answer a direct question.

Words like "fallacy of special pleading, special pleading fallacy, straw man, equivocation fallacy, etc"

But why is it a "fallacy of special pleading" to state a fact? 'Intelligence requires a mind' is a factual and accurate statement that can't be refuted. There's nothing "magical" or "special" about it. It's just the fact of life! Hence, to say otherwise IS "special pleading fallacy".

In other words, if we make a claim there's intelligibility in a jet engine by virtue of a mind behind it, then claim that the mind who thought of it doesn't require one, then that is a clear case of "special pleading fallacy". You Titen-Sxull, to use your MO, is the one asking for an exception to the rule.

Now, why is that?

So, clearly you did not provide a logical and clear answer to my questions.

a reply to: edmc^2

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

How can someone state this when they dont know what nothing is?

Nothing is related to nothingness. How does gravity work in a Void Of Space that is absolute empty of anything/something?
Such a Space is a absolute constant. There is no gravity in such a Space, because it is absolute neutral.

Nothing is a void of Space that would be a absolute constant and absolute neutral. Such a Space would never change randomly or by chance = Spontainously. For such a Space to create a change it would have to be intelligent and have the ability to create a change by it self. Of course if such an action tok Place it would probably look like it happened spontainiously.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness

Nothingness: www.thefreedictionary.com...

Empty space; a void.

a reply to: spy66
What is experienced in deep sleep? Do any 'things' appear?

Imagine just for a moment that deep sleep is like a tv which is not turned on - the screen is empty - there is nothing appearing on the screen.
When the tv is switched on it is like waking up in the morning - the once empty screen is now full of moving image.


Right here and right now there is an empty screen (nothing) full of moving image (everything).
The screen is constant and neutral - it has to be there prior to any image and is the unconditional space which allows existence to appear.

a reply to: spy66
Look right now at what can be seen, listen to what can be heard.
Now look to see what is seeing - the seer will never be seen! Listen..........can you hear what is hearing? The hearer will never be heard!
Can any 'thing' be found when looking or listening for that which is seeing and hearing?

'What we are looking for is what is looking.' St. Francis of Assisi.

a reply to: edmc^2

A belief in evolution and in a non-existent God.

Sorry but I know from experience this isn't true. I've spoken to atheists who think human beings were bio-engineered by aliens so not ALL atheists accept evolution.

Also not all atheists claim that God doesn't exist. For me it depends on what God we're talking about. If we're talking about some highly speculative or ill-defined God, or a deistic God, than I can't say whether I believe that God doesn't exist BUT I can say that I disbelieve in that God. That's all atheism is, disbelief and a disbelief is NOT a belief. With that said you can find some atheists who hold to a Strong Atheist or Gnostic-Atheist position where they claim to KNOW there are no gods or believe there are no gods. When it comes to the idea of gods in general I am an agnostic-atheist, I don't know whether or not there is a God, I am unconvinced and thus do not believe.

When it comes to specific God concepts, like Zeus, or Yahweh, I am much more certain that these gods do not exist.

And since the atheist view as stated by Hawking's and Krauss' (in regards to origins) are both illogical and self-contradictory, thus, the alternative is Creation.

That's exactly what a false dichotomy is, you've pretty much just defined it. There are not only two options. You can't set up the issue as Christian God vs. Atheist Science as if those are the only two and then claim that by disqualifying the atheist side you thus prove the Christian side more sound. That's simply not how logic works.

If so, then you're back to nothing. In fact, that's what I believe you attempted to show by saying:

See here's the thing, it is the position of Hawking and Krauss that the Universe can arise from nothing. What they mean when they say nothing is not actually NOTHING in the abstract sense. Now I don't particularly like the whole Universe from Nothing model which is why I pointed out that you are attacking two scientists as if they are the only representatives of atheism or science out there. Their view is not representative of all atheists.

We know that our Universe began its present expansion about 14 billion years ago but that's as far back as we've been able to look. In my personal opinion the Cosmos or reality if you will was NEVER at a state of NOTHING. When I talk about nothing here I mean the abstract concept humans have of the absence of anything and everything, I mean ABSOLUTE NOTHING (which is NOT the kind of Nothing Krauss is talking about). I don't think absolute nothing was ever the state of affairs or ever could be, it's simply impossible for there to have ever been a state of nothing, it's a concept and nothing more.

Now you and me probably agree that there never was absolute nothingness, because you believe there was a God there, I assume, in the void and I believe that the Cosmos, reality, always existed in some form. Nothing is impossible, there has only ever been something.

So no I do not hold that life came from nothing. I hold that life arise naturally from chemical processes which, as I said, is all that life is made of. Every lifeform on Earth is just interacting organic components, there need not be any ghost in the machine to make it work.

I understand that most believers hold to a creatio ex nihilo, God willing things into existence from absolute nothing. But you cannot demand that atheists ALSO must believe in a creatio ex nihilo. You know, I am sure, that when Krauss and Hawking talk about nothing they do not mean ex nihilo.

will the "building blocks" for life suddenly appear? Of course not.

Of course they will. The experiment specifically recreates NATURAL conditions of the early Earth. Human beings have wind tunnels that can simulate hurricane winds, yet hurricanes are natural phenomenon that don't fall apart when we remove the experimenters. The implication of agency is simply not necessary and is even less so when it is a supernatural agent, something that has never been demonstrated to exist.

Left on their own, without any intelligence and guidance they will not properly combine.

Why not? This is just an empty assertion that seems entirely based on the assumption that there is some ghost-in-the-machine that makes living things tick. But life is just chemistry and functions completely within the bounds of what nature is capable of given the right ingredients and enough time. Life does not become this special supernatural thing that NEEDS an intelligent creator just because you assert it so or want to make an argument from your own incredulity.

We can, however, CREATE life from pre-existing life with no problem! So what now?

This is actually an argument AGAINST intelligent design. It sounds like what you're saying is, "when we try to do it we fail, when nature tries to do it it succeeds". I mean what you just said sounds like you're claiming life is too complex to have been designed.

The missing variable in our experiments is time and that is the secret to evolution, life is an example of bottom up trial and error over millions of years.

if you believe that nature created you, who then created nature?

The thing is I don't have to disprove the possibility of a creator nor did I set out to do so. This is one of your main issues, you seem to think that atheists don't want there to be some greater being or higher power. I would love to have someone prove there is a God definitively and hopefully end religious dispute forever so that we human beings could get on with our society and stop arguing over whose mythology is best. But that's the thing, the burden of proof is on believers and so far there's no good reason to believe in a God.

Even your whole argument boils down to "if these atheists are wrong about the origin of the Universe than I can insert my creator"... that's not how it works.

But can law exist without a lawmaker or a lawgiver?

At best what you've shown here is that Hawking misused the word law. Of course without the context of the quote I can't really say in what way Hawking is using the word. It sounds to me like he's saying the fundamental nature of reality itself makes the emergence of a Universe inevitable.

Even if, for some reason, I was to grant your absurd point here what have we established? That there is a celestial court? A celestial congress? There are so many directions one could go, even in the direction of a Simulated Universe, no God required. All you are doing is leap-frogging from some out of context Hawking quote to use a bad argument from the 18th and 19th century that, at best, proves a deistic Watch-Maker god or a celestial congress.

And of course Hawking and Krauss are not the only atheist scientists to argue against...

a reply to: namelesss

The 'passage of time' cannot equal the immediacy of the synchronous manifestation (to Consciousness) of Now!

You're basically arguing the same thing as Zeno's paradox. Do you know Zeno's paradox?



What Zeno's paradox tries to assert is that, because infinity exists between, or within, all things, we cannot move, as it would take an infinite amount of time to move between two points.


...


What you and Zeno fail to realize is that, because infinity does exist, it must also mean that everything within it also exists, including the will to move to another point within infinity, or the ability to meet the immediacy of "now".

You are so focused on the singularity of everything, that you fail to see the plurality of everything.

Here:

Think of it like there is an infinite set [] and within that set, everything exists.

So...

Everything = [everything]

Everything is the set, like a group of people are made up of people who are the group.

That is, yes, infinity exists, and yes, everything is within this moment... but so is will. Will does have to meet the synchronicity of "now", and it does, because it is the synchronicity of now unto infinity.

Achilles can win the race so long as he is willed to do so.

You will the manifestation before the "now" and within the "now" and after the "now" unto infinity.

You cannot make one thing be everything while simultaneously making everything not be the one thing, which is what you're trying to do. You are trying to say "now" is everything but everything is not "now".

What I am saying is that everything is, was, and will be, "now", forever.

Ephesians 4:4-6
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


1 Corinthians 15:20-28
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Everyone needs to become what they will be. We were willed from God and fell out of line of his will, so now we are here, until we will become.

And again, although will is infinite, although it is everything, it is willed as the plurality of everything (which becomes, or is manifest, as spectra or sets of infinities.)

Also, look into entangled particles, how changing one particle causes an instant change within the other. (Time is instant and infinite, depending on what is willed, while what is willed depends on how the will/spirit was translated/measured/willed to be.)

a reply to: edmc^2

I am Christian myself but all of your questions can be explained by science. Evolution is a valid thought process, the universe exploding from a singularity makes sense. From combined gases, not from nothing.

However all of this came about, I believe God orchestrated it, and to me, take away God, you take away everything. But that doesn't need to be the solution for everyone. Other solutions fit just as well. Belief is my choice, not a path taken because it makes the most sense or because it's the easiest.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: namelesss

The 'passage of time' cannot equal the immediacy of the synchronous manifestation (to Consciousness) of Now!

You're basically arguing the same thing as Zeno's paradox. Do you know Zeno's paradox?

Yes, I am, and his logic is unassailable!
If the logic says that what you see is not reality, we have to disregard our senses as ultimate arbiters of reality!
No one has ever disproved/refuted Zeno's logic.
A paradox is a sure sign of an error in the assumption!

What Zeno's paradox tries to assert is that, because infinity exists between, or within, all things, we cannot move, as it would take an infinite amount of time to move between two points.

You cannot ever begin to 'move'!
'Motion' is logically and scientifically impossible.
Why do you persist in it's 'support'?
Belief?

What you and Zeno fail to realize

Oh, this is going to be interesting...

is that, because infinity does exist,

I hear a 'belief', an imaginary construct.
Knowledge = experience, and you have no knowledge of anything 'infinite/eternal'!
Such nonsense is an imaginary notion, an imaginary mathematical entity.
Only the 'word' exists, it has no associated concept, as most words.
Like the word 'nothing', meaningless!

How many 'photons' exist in the entire Universe?
Might as well be an infinite number, for all intents and purposes, but hardly literally!
How many electrons in a filled Olympic sized pool, filled with them?
Might as well be 'infinite', metaphorically, of course, as theoretically, every one can be counted!
I'm sorry, but just because 'you say so' is not the foundation for any refutation that you might attempt.

it must also mean that everything within it also exists,

I am the first to say that everything exists!
Here! Now!

including the will to move to another point within infinity, or the ability to meet the immediacy of "now".

That is just the vanity of the imagination! 'Will', 'free' or otherwise, 'choice'... is no more than the vanity of the imagination! The ego! Impossible, otherwise!

There is One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality!
'Will' and 'choice' imply a 'you' that is not a figment of the imagination, actually 'changing' the Universe, usually according to your own comfort zone!
All imaginary ego, all impossible otherwise!
To completely and fully define anything, one must include the entirety of the Universe!
To 'change' any moment, ever, with that magic 'will'/'choice', you will have to alter the entire Universe!
All ultimate babbling insane ego!

You are so focused on the singularity of everything, that you fail to see the plurality of everything.

Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One!
That is what the ego/imagination/thought does! It IS a dualistic thing! Every thought is a duality imposed on the Singularity by the limited Perspective, nature of 'thought'!
All 'limitations' exist in/as 'thought/imagination!

Think of it like there is an infinite set [] and within that set, everything exists.

There is a 'set' in which everything exists, it is called The Universe!
It is not 'infinite'.
Count the 'electrons'!

Everything = [everything]

Yup! *__-

Everything is the set, like a group of people are made up of people who are the group.

That is, yes, infinity exists, and yes, everything is within this moment... but so is will. Will does have to meet the synchronicity of "now", and it does, because it is the synchronicity of now unto infinity.

All 'past' (imagination/memory) and all 'future' (imagination/memory) exist in the imagination/memory, and everything, including your stroll down memory lane is taking place (being perceived) Here! Now!

Achilles can win the race so long as he is willed to do so.
You will the manifestation before the "now" and within the "now" and after the "now" unto infinity.

Sorry, vain assertions insupportable by science or philosophy!

You cannot make one thing be everything while simultaneously making everything not be the one thing, which is what you're trying to do. You are trying to say "now" is everything but everything is not "now".

Nope!
Everything, every moment of Universal existence is perceived Now! Here!
Not any perception takes place otherwise than Now!

What I am saying is that everything is, was, and will be, "now", forever.

Your error is conflating the literally 'timelessness' of Now, with some cumulative string of nows somehow equaling more than 0!
If moments (Planck moments) were beads, and strung on a string, all together they would still be a timeless synchronicity! A Singularity!
A Planck moment is too 'small' to have any 'duration/time'!
And certainly no 'time' means no 'motion' to explain!
The 'was' and the 'will be' (of imagination and Tralfamadorian fame) is subsumed in the 'chrono-synclastic infundibulum' of Now!

Snipped for lack of value in a philosophic/science discussion.
'Beliefs' are imaginary, and exist, also, in the Now!

Everyone needs to become what they will be.

Now we are degrading into cheap bumperstickers! *__-
Everyone is what they are! Now! And Now! And Now!

We were willed from God and fell out of line of his will, so now we are here, until we will become.

Now we are drifting off into 'Belief-land', Imaginationville, where neither science nor philosophy are welcome.

And again, although will is infinite, although it is everything, it is willed as the plurality of everything (which becomes, or is manifest, as spectra or sets of infinities.)

I really don't think that you can support all that, logically, scientifically.
The Reality that 'manifests' to each and every unique Conscious Perspective (Soul) is manifested only to the limitations of Perspective!
Conscious mind must perceive the quantum information field for any 'Reality' to manifest to Consciousness!
If it is not perceived, it does not exist!
Everything that exists is perceived!
We see no 'sets of infinites', we see apples and dreams!

Also, look into entangled particles, how changing one particle causes an instant change within the other. (Time is instant and infinite, depending on what is willed, while what is willed depends on how the will/spirit was translated/measured/willed to be.)

Instant and infinite are opposite terms, and you are magically conflating them by stirring with your 'will wand' as some sort of magic 'emulsifier'.
Immediate = timeless!
No amount of 'timeless' moments can = 'time', and an 'infinity' of it!

"You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds."
-Robert A. Wilson

when i think about these things i like to focus on the big bang, because really thats sciences version of the creation myth right?

to examine this logically you find that you cant because logic only exists in our universe. space and time, cause and effect, all our physical laws and the concepts we take for granted like logic itself were created in the big bang.

god is fine solution imo, and since it is utterly impossible to know about anything outside of the universe, let alone before it existed the truth literally doesnt matter.

a reply to: edmc^2

Have you every consider eternity? that all that has been created was really always been in existence.

a reply to: namelesss

What gives consciousness the ability to imagine?

What is desire? What is aging? What is growth?

Why does everything appear plural, if it isn't?

What gives the ego its ability to distinguish itself apart? What is the ego?

All that you keep saying is, "no, ego!", and I don't think you even know what that means.

If you are basing your logic off of the bible, maybe you have never heard of the Council of Nicaea.

Every single word that you hold to be true, was 100% fabricated and altered. They don't even deny that they CHOSE which books to include in the bible, due to it containing too much information for the people aka slaves. After knowing this, how the hell can you still take the bible for its word?

They are telling you it is a lie, yet you still believe it? Fascinating....

a reply to: edmc^2

In response to my question that, 'Life can only come from Life / Life can only come from pre-existing life'?

your own deity contradicts that assertion.

let me be clearer here: the deity you defend in this thread is the sole exception to the rule that apparently mandates his existence. life must come from life, unless that life is god. therefore god.

its a self-perpetuating fallacy.

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

Even Newton and Einstien didn't know what it was. But we can describe and predict what it does by means of mathematical equations. So again, the question is:

Can law exist without a lawmaker or a lawgiver?

yes. take the four fundamental forces of the universe for example. no conscious agency was or is responsible for these forces.