Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

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

Our absence of knowledge regarding the creation of the universe does not equate to proof of a divine creator. It simply means we don't know - we can't know - what lead to the creation of matter and space. You can buy into fairy tales all you want, nobody will stop you. Ultimately, what you believe doesn't matter, but please, don't try to pass off this heap of s*** as factual evidence of god; it's childish.

We have discovered certain universal laws through physics, laws that tell us how our universe operates. We believe the universe is expanding, we believe that all of the matter in our universe could be compacted into the size of a walnut. When it comes to creation theories regarding our universe, physics is uncovering more and more proof that we're actually living in a simulation; that none of this is real. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter how the universe came to be, does it? Somebody coded our universe's laws and let the rest of it run its course. We're insignificant biological programs trapped in the simulation, like a really advanced sims game. We created god to explain the things we couldn't understand. We don't need god anymore.

On the contrary! My "knowledge regarding the creation of the universe" is not a "fairy tale". It's based on sound understanding of the fact. Just as believing that life can only come from pre-existing life is a fact!

On the other hand, stating that "nothing creates something" is in my opinion and understanding of true science is a "fairy tale".

How else can you describe something coming from "nothing"?

A Fairy tale!

Now if you can scientifically prove to me that "life can only come from pre-existing life" is false, then you sir / madam is a genius.

As for this:

it doesn't really matter how the universe came to be, does it?

Yes it does! A great deal.

Basic to the understanding the purpose of something, is to know where it came from, who made it.

I'll leave it at that.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: edmc^2

Is the Big Bang considered life?

Who said the big bang is life?

it's not. It's a theory of how the universe began.

originally posted by: edmc^2

And the Bible is not the only source for evidence that life or the universe was a creation by God.

Creation or nature also gives us evidence.

Fantastic. Then how about you show us some of that evidence within nature that proves creation by God. Because all you've done so far is talk about how "the evidence is all around us" but then spend the entire time attacking atheists and claiming to know how they think and talk about what they believe as if you'd know.

Then you include small clips of cosmological theory which you clearly don't understand and then misrepresent what they are saying the same as you do atheists in general.

Proving someone else or their theory incorrect does not prove you or your theory correct as a result. You must still prove your theory independently of some alternative.

Why don't you prove yours then??

super nice thread, I love the way you presented yourself with arguments through out this thread.

It is hard to imagine infinity creator, many people are stuck with question, if god created us, who created him?
We were all there at some point, but some of us contemplated this and have come out of. Our human perception is limiting and we are so used to it, that the prospective of infinity, absolute creator is so out of the box that it just does not compute for common man or especially science it is illogical. But it appears only so, when you are stuck with measuring reality with our senses even though we are not our senses, that is part of the illusion which all spiritual text write about. We are that which is not hearing, seeing, touching, etc...we are ALL that which just IS. And with meditation we can recognize that. And you can label it whatever you like (atman, soul, awareness, conciousness). Again, this is just our prospective which we use for easier understanding but creator is totally outside of this but at the same time everything is happening in IT!

Maybe it would help with imagination if we compare creator to the sky or air. Sky is without attributes, everything is just happening in the sky. We see birds, clouds...whole earth and us are in the sky. Sky is everywhere but nowhere at the same time. We are ALL dependent of it and IN it! Yet you cannot see it, you cannot feel it. But from the sky comes wind, which nature is opposite from the sky. Sky appears to us as static, immobile "thing". But wind is the most movable/mobile and it starts and disappears in the sky. And nothing affect the sky it is totally unrelated to anything, but it encompass everything.

Basically any attribute you stuck to creator is just for our amusement or imagination for better understanding. But reality is so far from words or language as earth is from the sky.

I bet only a few will get the true meaning of this statements because it is contradictory. But remember, god and human prospective are the same and with precise filter what is and what is not you can get to the real meaning.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

And the Bible is not the only source for evidence that life or the universe was a creation by God.

Creation or nature also gives us evidence.

Fantastic. Then how about you show us some of that evidence within nature that proves creation by God. Because all you've done so far is talk about how "the evidence is all around us" but then spend the entire time attacking atheists and claiming to know how they think and talk about what they believe as if you'd know.

Then you include small clips of cosmological theory which you clearly don't understand and then misrepresent what they are saying the same as you do atheists in general.

Proving someone else or their theory incorrect does not prove you or your theory correct as a result. You must still prove your theory independently of some alternative.

Why don't you prove yours then??

OK, but first, tell me this - do atheist believe that the "universe came from nothing" or to quote Prof. Hawking:

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.

If so, where did I "misrepresent what they are saying the same as you do atheists in general"?

If you can't point it out, then you have no grounds for your accusation.

As for my evidence, it's right in the OP:

Since there's no proof that "something came from nothing", then the opposite must be true: "something from something".

Hence, life begets life is true and an undeniable fact.


If you disagree, then prove me wrong since I already proven that the atheist view is wrong and impossible.

Again with the presumption you can speak for the other side of this debate.


No scientifically minded person says it all came from "nothing". We say we don't comprehend / understand what was before what we see.

I am not convinced you understand your God at all. I think you are pretending to. Because so far you cant even comprehend a simple concept. eg..... Us thinkers say we don't know 1% of what there is to know.

VS ...... You say you know everything there is to know.

originally posted by: edmc^2

No. You aren't just going to start asking me questions and draw this all out in an endless thread where instead of You proving God it ends up being me defending Atheists the whole time or trying to deflect everything you don't know about scientific theory.

Like I already pointed out. Disproving scientific theory or Hawking's opinions or Krauss's cosmology still wouldn't prove what you claim even if you could prove those theories to be incorrect.

You claimed Proof of God within Nature being all around us then wasted the entire time talking about everything but that alleged proof.

I promise you this though. You prove what you said you can prove and then I'll answer your questions, how's that. But here's a hint just to help you out. When talking about Krauss and "Nothing" it's different than if you were talking about Socrates and "Nothing". Roll that around a bit while you work on providing proof of your claim.

originally posted by: UniFinity
super nice thread, I love the way you presented yourself with arguments through out this thread.

It is hard to imagine infinity creator, many people are stuck with question, if god created us, who created him?
We were all there at some point, but some of us contemplated this and have come out of. Our human perception is limiting and we are so used to it, that the prospective of infinity, absolute creator is so out of the box that it just does not compute for common man or especially science it is illogical. But it appears only so, when you are stuck with measuring reality with our senses even though we are not our senses, that is part of the illusion which all spiritual text write about. We are that which is not hearing, seeing, touching, etc...we are ALL that which just IS. And with meditation we can recognize that. And you can label it whatever you like (atman, soul, awareness, conciousness). Again, this is just our prospective which we use for easier understanding but creator is totally outside of this but at the same time everything is happening in IT!

Maybe it would help with imagination if we compare creator to the sky or air. Sky is without attributes, everything is just happening in the sky. We see birds, clouds...whole earth and us are in the sky. Sky is everywhere but nowhere at the same time. We are ALL dependent of it and IN it! Yet you cannot see it, you cannot feel it. But from the sky comes wind, which nature is opposite from the sky. Sky appears to us as static, immobile "thing". But wind is the most movable/mobile and it starts and disappears in the sky. And nothing affect the sky it is totally unrelated to anything, but it encompass everything.

Basically any attribute you stuck to creator is just for our amusement or imagination for better understanding. But reality is so far from words or language as earth is from the sky.

I bet only a few will get the true meaning of this statements because it is contradictory. But remember, god and human prospective are the same and with precise filter what is and what is not you can get to the real meaning.

Nicely put UniFinity.

The wonderful thing about our "mind" is that it's NOT bound by the physical (brain). No, but it's able to travel, beyond space and time. We can fathom the farthest reaches of the universe and don't get a headache. You know why?

The answer is spiritual. There's a spiritual part of man that is not bound by material reality. Thus, people like Einstein, Hawkings, et al are able to come up with amazing theories and equations about the universe.

But the ultimate answer is here:

[Gen 1:27 KJV] 27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

We possess the attributes of God, hence we can ponder the universe. We are "made" in his image.

Think how profound is that simple statement.

In other words, of all God's creations, he made man/woman is his image. Giving them attributes that they can use to unlock and understand the very heavens he created.

There's more, but I'll just leave it here.

Im going to Chime in with my thoughts, purely as i feel some of your opinions may be flawed.

first their is a negative undertone in your post regarding death, and the fact that after death there is nothing and furthering that, the fact if someone didn't create us then why should we exist.

let me expand why i feel the above thoughts are flawed.. first we exist much the same way as dolphins, elephants etc. we were fortunate enough to be at the right part of the evolutionary chain when there were a relatively small number of things trying to eat us, so got a little smarter, cooked some food and got big brains..

but, to presume that in this infinite Universe we are the only creatures seems a little self centred, in fact, the very existence of a Devine creator in whatever format he exists surely suggests there is at least A being if not multiple beings that exist on or in this Universe... the LOGICAL question would be, what created himither then? as one would presume everyone agrees you cannot get something from nothing, at very least there would be an exchange of power?

with regards to death, do you feel a cows life is pointless or a fish? just because we can argue this, does not really change the fundamentals that we are in fact meat bags like them, floating around on a rock like them around a big ol' ball of burning gas.


your post reads like a fear and a very human desire to want to be more important in the universe than just being here enjoying life then dying...

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
Again with the presumption you can speak for the other side of this debate.


No scientifically minded person says it all came from "nothing". We say we don't comprehend / understand what was before what we see.

I am not convinced you understand your God at all. I think you are pretending to. Because so far you cant even comprehend a simple concept. eg..... Us thinkers say we don't know 1% of what there is to know.

VS ...... You say you know everything there is to know.

Who said, I "you know everything there is to know"? I didn't say that. I said 'understanding is relative'.

It means there's no END. There's ALWAYS something to learn/know.

That goes with my God. If I compare it to a book, I probably just know the very first word of the very first paragraph of the first chapter of a 1000+ chapter book. There's so much to learn.

As for:

No scientifically minded person says it all came from "nothing"

Can you then explain to me what Hawking meant when he said this?

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.

ciao everyone. got to go. till tomorrow.

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
So to recap. You understand what other Men told you to think about your God. Ok Dokey.

Seems rather ironic to me that you just described Darwinism perfectly...

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

Science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded. ~ Australian biologist Michael Denton

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

a reply to: edmc^2
OK you really need to stop referencing Steven hawking. He is talking about his black hole theory.

Every bit of garbage you spit comes from 1 guy (forget his name) ...quite a following in texas. Just think for yourself. Do you genuinely believe you would have this warped view on the universe without exposure to a prehistoric book, religious leaders or forced indoctrination from your parents? If you believe that then I truly do feel sorry for you
Your clearly intelligent but like most religious people, completely retarded when drawing conclusions/ weighing evidence. I don't blame you as it is not your fault, but you must realise you did not have these views until told what to think right? You heard a charasmatic person and believed his interpretations right? Once you realise this is the case you can move on and think objectively. Saying evidence is all around, not stating any evidence and genuinely feeling that statement is evidence in itself is concerning. You must realise that if anyone else did this you would judge them as illogical/bat shet crazy. I ask that you apply the same standards to your own rationale.

But thankyou for starting the thread. Hasn't been a bible bashing thread in a while now, we were all getting worried...

originally posted by: rossacus
you must realise you did not have these views until told what to think right?

Surely you must realize that much of what you just said equally applies to Darwinism...

Whats ironic is that the creation model is actually far more scientific and less religious than evolution is.

Darwinism is nothing less than a MASSIVE form of mind control masquerading as true knowledge.

The truth is there is no debate, it's an open/shut case when observed through the lens of historical fact: The 'evolution theory' is purely a political weapon used to shut down Man's awakening to his true potential which began with the spread of the revelation of Christ as the promised Savior which all the world was waiting for... Now look around you: illiteracy/ignorance is up, 'science' is faked to serve Global politics and transnational corporations... Socialists needed evolution as the backbone to sell their world-view and evolution needed Socialism to force it into the public mind via compulsory learning and media support.

Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution

Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.

Darwinist Propaganda Techniques

"Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

His theory of evolution was the result of the spread of Kabbalistic occult science in Europe following the Reformation and through the masonic Alta Vendita, a conspiracy to subvert the Christian faith and replace it with the anti-Christ Kabbalistic world order. Darwinism and its occult science set the foundation for technocracy, or, the scientific dictatorship currently enveloping the world.

Illuminati Agents – Series V

In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.

Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam

a reply to: Murgatroid
DNA isn't measurable. We see evolution of virus' and bacteria all the time. Stop getting quotes from religious websites. Reactivating dorment genes in chickens in embryos created scales and teeth, proving they evolved from reptiles/dinosaurs. This stuff is basic stuff, easily measureable and most importantly can be replicated.

It's hilarious that religious websites over use the word fairytale, as though they are petty from all the fairytale abuse they have received over the years.
It's truly concerning when people believe this stuff.

a reply to: Murgatroid
We didn't evolve? Is that what you are saying? Cats didn't evolve from a common ancestor, god created all types. Nk such thing as convergent evolution?

Difference is Darwin is measurable which the advances in DNA knowledge.

There you go again...creationist model is more scientific. You would not be able to state 1 single argument to back that up, a statement that everyone will agree with with scientific foundations. Not 1 single 1. Yet you will still repeat the same vague child like comment.

Let me try it....evolution is more divine than god. Wow, that felt great, now I truly understand why religious nuts do it all the time. If this understanding proof of god....well yes it is. Wow...converted within a paragraph. ..cheers man...living like this is so much easier.

Just read your sources...lmao. hitler within the first paragraph..priceless. he believed in god you plonker.

Didn't the illuminati create religion to keep everyone in check, but your source states the illuminati wants to destroy religion, the one tool that has blinkered the masses for centuries into doing their bidding ( if they exist). T&C issues coming your way soon with such rubbish.

Please don't watch the matrix as you are easily susceptible and it may destroy your life.

"Life comes from pre-existing life"

If this statement is wrong and unprovable, then my entire belief crumbles.

This isn't what makes your belief crumbles. The big bang isn't what makes your belief crumbles.

This is what makes your belief crumbles.

originally posted by:
edmc^2

Since God is UNCREATED, therefore He has no beginning and has no end. He always existed. Otherwise the alternative is, he was created, which regresses to an un-ending question of who created the creator of God.

There's no other answer - but that he is what He is, Uncreated.

To help you contemplate - think of the concept of infinity. We have it mathematics and sciences. So when we say an infinite number, it means as it says, no beginning and no end.

This is what makes your belief crumbles.

Assuming that only those two options were the only possible options, started the unraveling. This is because there is a third option. That is, "The universe always existed." And since you've explained infinity already, no need to explain it twice. And since the universe has no beginning, there is no need for a creator.

"God created something" vs "Nothing created something"

a reply to: edmc^2

Ok. By your silence in answering me back I must conclude that you either can't or won't provide that proof you claimed to have. It shouldn't have been too much for me to ask you to provide evidence for the claims you made and said you could prove but apparently it was too difficult for you and I guess too much for you to even answer me back at all. I would even accept an "I don't know" if that was all you had to offer as that would at least be honest.

But before I go I'd also like to point out another flaw in your argument is your opposition to Hawking or Krauss using metaphysics or philosophy as answers for things. They of course would say that it's not philosophy or metaphysics at all but science, which would be correct since they would then show you the science behind why they said what they said. But for now, let's just assume they did use philosophy as an answer. My question for you to think about is:

Why is it that you would refuse to accept a philosophical argument from either of them but accept a theological argument from the Bible or of your own ideas??? If the idea of using theology or philosophy can't be trusted coming from them, why is it ok for you to use it as if by simply changing the origin of the idea presented somehow changes whether or not that idea is true or not???

As for me explaining what Krauss means by "Nothing" I guess you'll just have to figure it out on your own. It's really not that difficult and he explains it quite clearly many times. You're either making it more complicated than it needs to be or you're not listening to what he's saying.

originally posted by: rossacus
Stop getting quotes from religious websites.

Once again, what you just said equally applies to evolution...

Darwinism is as religious as it gets.

In fact, I don't have enough faith to believe in the 'Cult of Evolutionism'...

Nor does one need to study or understand the 'Gospel according to Darwin' in order to see that it is in fact a scam.

a reply to: edmc^2
Something does not come from nothing. The word 'from' implies time - as though nothing was and then something was.
There is only what there IS - forget time - forget any idea of before or after - what is there?

Seeking in time for answers to what actually IS - is ridiculous. We have to work with what there actually is to find out what is.

So what is there?

There appears to be something that might be labelled the physical - that which is seen, smelled, tasted, heard - what is appearing now could be named the physical world - colours, patterns, sound, texture. But what is seeing the appearance?

It can be realized, by actually looking, that there is nothing looking. No thing can be found when looking to find what is looking - seeing what there is to see (or hear) happens but no seer can be found.

a reply to: Murgatroid
At what point does Darwin ism say it knows everything or the truth, all it does is explain a process, something you clearly are unable to understand.

At what point does Darwin ism threaten you that not believing in it would cause your eternal soul to suffer?

What percentage of income does Darwin ism require from a believer?

Where is you local Darwin ism shrine to pay homage to the saviour?

Darwinism at no point tries to dictate your actions, your thoughts or how to love /kill other, it merely explains a process with a high degree of certainty.

You clearly have no concept of what a religion represents compared to a scientific theory.