Science Proves Nature Was Created

[Thief]

You"ll have to restate the last post in a more coherent way. I'm not sure what you mean.

I thought I was to the point.....

science will point the way to the 'point' of singularity......
but it cannot go further.

place cause and effect up front.....
then decide....

Spirit first?....or substance?

 

[Milton Platt]

I thought I was to the point.....

science will point the way to the 'point' of singularity......
but it cannot go further.

place cause and effect up front.....
then decide....

Spirit first?....or substance?

Oh, I I get your drift now....
I have no idea what spirit is, tho. I have never seen or experienced whatever that would be unless you are renaming something else that. Since time and space for this universe began with the big bang, it is nonsensical to consider a "before". From our viewpoint in this universe the big bang was the only "first". Nothing in the big bang to do with "spirit" whatever that is supposed to be.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

The title is a bit of a play on words, but many seem to think of "nature" in terms of what now exists -sometimes as if it has always been that way.

However, what now exists was brought into being by a very specific process. It was created -even if in the broadest sense.

(The following ideas may not have originated with me, but they are interesting to consider, nonetheless.)

"During most of their lives, stars fuse hydrogen into helium in their cores, but the fusion process rarely stops at this point; most of the helium in the universe was made during the initial big bang. When the star's core runs out of hydrogen, the star begins to die out. The processes that occur during this period form the heavier elements.

Read more: Formation of Elements - Formation Of Elements - Burning, Stars, Helium, and Star - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/2412/Elements-Formation-Formation-elements.html#ixzz3jBrFgIPt
"

Something caused that which existed before the big bang (Pre-Big Bang Nature?) to become the big bang -which, in turn, became the elements, etc., which, in turn, became life -or, at the very least, became that which allowed physical life to exist.

The five elements present in all DNA are Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and
Phosphorus.

If evolution based on those elements was inevitable, it was only inevitable after those elements existed, and only due to the forces which brought them together in the necessary order inevitably doing so....
unless.... the formation of those elements was also inevitable.

If evolution was inevitable due to the nature of the big bang, and the universe is generally similar everywhere, we should expect life to be present in many places throughout the universe -at least eventually.

By inevitable, I mean certainty not requiring forethought, design, effort, etc. -at least at a certain point

If one considers God to be the creator of the heavens (universe), the worlds, the earth -essentially all that we can know -one ought not assume the point at which God did any specific thing -especially if it is not specified. Even if something is specified, one ought to acknowledge that one does not know the specifics about that.
Biblical scripture advises us to "prove all things" -so science, in its purest form -ought to be seen as an awesome tool to do so -not something to be rejected.

Scripture specifies that God did certain things after the heavens and earth were in existence (actually, "specifies" is not very accurate, as very few specific details are given, and much is often assumed buy the reader) -but we have no clue what was inevitable at what point -what would absolutely require forethought, design and action at what point to achieve what now is -and even science is far from knowing the nature of nature -especially before the Big Bang -well enough to know absolutely.

Many parts of the bible indicate that what now is was planned before it was initiated -so we ought not to scoff at the idea of inevitability even if we believe in a creator.
We, ourselves, can change what was otherwise inevitable -and make another thing inevitable.

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Luke 14:28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?

Your title of your OP was not just a play on words, as you claimed. Rather, it was downright false.

Science has proved no such thing as Creation from a Divine Source, like a god. Instead, we adhere to purely scientific and materialistic mechanations for how life began.

And that is, at first with the Big Bang, some 13.65 BYA, and then here on Earth some 3 BYA with abio-genesis, which began the Evolutionary Process, which was not guided by any sort of Teleology or god, but rather by the selective inheritance of desirable random genetic mutations.

As far as what happened before the Big Bang, well, we are nt sure. We have a couple different theories, wich I will not go into here. But some of us (I am an Astronomer) think that time itself was created with the Big Bang. Einstein proved that time is indeed aphysical entity. A very part of the Space-Time Continuum. Part of the "fabric" of Space Time.

So, if time was created WITH the Big Bang, we have no need to surmise what happened before it occurred. This is a difficult concept to wrap your head around, I know, since you are used to thinking of time as a linear, mere passing of events, and the notion of it being created as something physical seems counter-intuitive. I could elaborate more, but I doubt you really want to here it. LOL. But let me know if oyu do.

Lastly, quoting the bible for anything having to do with science is pointless, as it is a book of fiction and mythos. NOT science. To do so is like reading a Chemistry book for a lesson in Philosophy. That is: pointless, useless. Apples and Oranges.

Hope this helps.

 

[Etritonakin]

Your title of your OP was not just a play on words, as you claimed. Rather, it was downright false.

Science has proved no such thing as Creation from a Divine Source, like a god. Instead, we adhere to purely scientific and materialistic mechanations for how life began.

And that is, at first with the Big Bang, some 13.65 BYA, and then here on Earth some 3 BYA with abio-genesis, which began the Evolutionary Process, which was not guided by any sort of Teleology or god, but rather by the selective inheritance of desirable random genetic mutations.

As far as what happened before the Big Bang, well, we are nt sure. We have a couple different theories, wich I will not go into here. But some of us (I am an Astronomer) think that time itself was created with the Big Bang. Einstein proved that time is indeed aphysical entity. A very part of the Space-Time Continuum. Part of the "fabric" of Space Time.

So, if time was created WITH the Big Bang, we have no need to surmise what happened before it occurred. This is a difficult concept to wrap your head around, I know, since you are used to thinking of time as a linear, mere passing of events, and the notion of it being created as something physical seems counter-intuitive. I could elaborate more, but I doubt you really want to here it. LOL. But let me know if oyu do.

Lastly, quoting the bible for anything having to do with science is pointless, as it is a book of fiction and mythos. NOT science. To do so is like reading a Chemistry book for a lesson in Philosophy. That is: pointless, useless. Apples and Oranges.

Hope this helps.

The play on words/shameless baiting was that what we call "nature" WAS definitely created.

The title made no claim of an intelligent creatOR, but was to point out that things such as the elements have not always existed, but were brought into being by a specific process -only AFTER which did they lend themselves to the emergence of life as we know it.

NATURE WAS CREATED. It was brought to to existence. That qualifies as having been created.

You say "If time was created with the Big Bang" -and your use of "created" there is similar to my usage in the title.
I agree that what I call universal time would have begun when the universe began to be other than the original singularity it was thought to have been -but I can't imagine that the singularity -which seems to have been essentially an executable which became our universe -could have come to exist without a process causing it to be that exact singularity which became this exact universe which caused exactly us (if you believe we're were produced by it alone).

So -while what I call universal time is referenced from the singularity -when it began to interact as it obviously had the potential to do -time itself could be said to exist before that, if there was some interrelationship of things which brought the singularity into existence -essentially packaged it and executed it.
I'm not sure if there is a term for what might be external to the universe -or before it -but if there is something other, then the universe could be seen to be a second hand in relationship to an hour hand, etc., etc.

If you feel like explaining time in more detail, please do. I think more in terms of broad concepts than specifics -but I like to learn specifics.

While the bible is not technically a science textbook -and quoting it as scientific proof of this or that (which I do not believe I did, and know I did not intend to do) might be incorrect, even those who believe it to be mythology or fiction could benefit from considering what is written therein -just as many have benefitted from reading science fiction and used that to create a different reality.

Some biblical stuff that is scientific or seems rather "sci-fi"

If you throw your bread on the water, it will return to you after many days.
Perfectly true spiritually as well as scientifically.

Causing lions to eat straw like an ox -we might be able to do that quite soon.

Flying saucers. Just a sweet ride, but even our governments plan for a possible alien invasion.

Placing one's personality into a different body with increased capabilities, etc., etc.

I'm definitely not saying the bible is fiction -but I do understand why many believe it is.

The bible is many things. There are some parts which are as quotes from God himself -but even then an ancient intelligence attempting to begin to explain things to complete newbs. Other parts are poetry --history -genealogy -a collection of wise sayings, etc., etc., -but nary a science textbook.

My point to believers was that ignoring that which science proves to be true can not be a bad thing -and that we could have no clue what God was doing before man existed, especially from a few extremely vague words summarizing an eternity -the meaning of which is rarely agreed upon.

 

[Etritonakin]

I thought I was to the point.....

science will point the way to the 'point' of singularity......
but it cannot go further.

place cause and effect up front.....
then decide....

Spirit first?....or substance?

It certainly will go no further if it will not consider that a further could exist -but considering the possibility of a further could help in understanding the singularity -even if is later rejected. If the singularity had potential......

 

[Saint_of_Me]

My point to believers was that ignoring that which science proves to be true can not be a bad thing -and that we could have no clue what God was doing before man existed, especially from a few extremely vague words summarizing an eternity -the meaning of which is rarely agreed upon.

I agree with half of this, in that ignoring science is a bad thing.

But as far as you asking what god was doing before the big bang, well, nothing, I think, since he doesn't exist. Except in your head, that is.

But maybe this is the time to ask you for your definition of god? Do you believe in a personal, biblical, Yahweh-type god?

Also, the bible can barely be trusted to have accurate quotes--even true quotes from mere men. Many parts of it are pure fiction. Most of the alleged quoted from Jesus in the synoptic gospels ans especially form John's gospel are pure fabrication, he never said them. (are you familiar with the Jesus Seminar and their findings?) LOL.

So, thins being said, begin true, I am interested, just for laughs, to hear which parts of the bible you thing are actual words from ol' Yahweh's mouth?

Also, do you agree that the Yahweh of the OT is one of the more loathsome characters in all of literature? Being a tyrannical mass-murderer and all?

Thank you.

 

[Etritonakin]

I agree with half of this, in that ignoring science is a bad thing.

But as far as you asking what god was doing before the big bang, well, nothing, I think, since he doesn't exist. Except in your head, that is.

But maybe this is the time to ask you for your definition of god? Do you believe in a personal, biblical, Yahweh-type god?

Also, the bible can barely be trusted to have accurate quotes--even true quotes from mere men. Many parts of it are pure fiction. Most of the alleged quoted from Jesus in the synoptic gospels ans especially form John's gospel are pure fabrication, he never said them. (are you familiar with the Jesus Seminar and their findings?) LOL.

So, thins being said, begin true, I am interested, just for laughs, to hear which parts of the bible you thing are actual words from ol' Yahweh's mouth?

Also, do you agree that the Yahweh of the OT is one of the more loathsome characters in all of literature? Being a tyrannical mass-murderer and all?

Thank you.

We definitely disagree, but that is understandable.

My specific definition of God (without a complete, extremely lengthy and specific description which would change as I learn, anyway) -is "I AM"

That is to say... that which originally was able to say I AM -or was always able to say I AM in some sense -and that "I AM" both is and caused all that was afterward -being both that which could act and that which could be acted upon -but primarily that/who which could initially act.

"Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist"

If that smacks of evolution, I'm cool with that. Both creation and evolution exist -it is just a matter of which happened when. As I see it, they are both aspects of the same thing.

From what we know of what we call evolution, self-awareness as humans know it resulted from a specific arrangement of "natural" things. I just don't think we were the first self-awareness.

God would essentially be who and what self-evolving or self-rearranging together -an awareness making more/other of itself for itself to be aware, etc. -but at what point any of that is/was/could be irreducible I have no idea.

I believe the following words were from God
(H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhı̂ym)
-given to Isaiah to record.... (There are many words used to refer to God...Elohim, Jahova, etc... and God is essentially an "us" -even though they are in agreement -but more on that later, perhaps)

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Evidence for that is in the extremely accurate outline of human history recorded in biblical prophecy.

Though God does not necessarily need a mouth, as such -I believe this was spoken by God as focus was drawn by the burning bush....

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I do not believe God is loathsome for his life and death decisions, because the overall plan outlined in the bible makes those actions quite understandable.

Just as certain things can apply to us -due to our nature -which cannot apply to other life forms -so it is with God and man.

I am very excited to leave this present existence -I smile when I think of loved ones who have passed. I'm cool with God killing.

SBT -Can science resurrect those it has killed?

 

[Thief]

It certainly will go no further if it will not consider that a further could exist -but considering the possibility of a further could help in understanding the singularity -even if is later rejected. If the singularity had potential......

I would say the potential was there.....
it resulted in a 'bang'!
so to speak

 

[Thief]

Oh, I I get your drift now....
I have no idea what spirit is, tho. I have never seen or experienced whatever that would be unless you are renaming something else that. Since time and space for this universe began with the big bang, it is nonsensical to consider a "before". From our viewpoint in this universe the big bang was the only "first". Nothing in the big bang to do with "spirit" whatever that is supposed to be.

I say spirit....is that part of you responding to these posts.

Before the 'bang' makes no sense in a lot of ways.
for example.....we call it a 'bang'....but...
for the sound wave to move as we know sound.....you need an atmosphere.

the initial 'bang'.....made no sound at all

 

[Revoltingest]

Seeing the thread's title, I decided to ask Science what it really thought.
It told me that it never said any such thing.
It also said that it doesn't know what happened before or during the Big Bang.
And it's really miffed at people who put words in its mouth.

 

[Milton Platt]

I say spirit....is that part of you responding to these posts.

Before the 'bang' makes no sense in a lot of ways.
for example.....we call it a 'bang'....but...
for the sound wave to move as we know sound.....you need an atmosphere.

the initial 'bang'.....made no sound at all

The big bang is a metaphor, nothing more. It makes good copy for the news media. I could describe it in some other way, but then a lot of folks would have no idea what I meant.The presence or absence of sound is a non sequitur. And I have pointed out....when you speak of spirit, I haven't the faintest idea what that means or why it would matter. In fact your posts are often unintelligible because you do not use complete sentences and do not express complete thoughts.

 

[Etritonakin]

I agree with half of this, in that ignoring science is a bad thing.

But as far as you asking what god was doing before the big bang, well, nothing, I think, since he doesn't exist. Except in your head, that is.

But maybe this is the time to ask you for your definition of god? Do you believe in a personal, biblical, Yahweh-type god?

Also, the bible can barely be trusted to have accurate quotes--even true quotes from mere men. Many parts of it are pure fiction. Most of the alleged quoted from Jesus in the synoptic gospels ans especially form John's gospel are pure fabrication, he never said them. (are you familiar with the Jesus Seminar and their findings?) LOL.

So, thins being said, begin true, I am interested, just for laughs, to hear which parts of the bible you thing are actual words from ol' Yahweh's mouth?

Also, do you agree that the Yahweh of the OT is one of the more loathsome characters in all of literature? Being a tyrannical mass-murderer and all?

Thank you.

If we consider human consciousness and creativity, we understand that it is not separate from all else, it is part of all else and came to pass by an arrangement of what exists, and also arranges that which exists by will, decision, creativity, etc.

We are aware of what is around us, but also composed of what is around us.
We can perceive what we are and what is around us, process the data, rearrange things and even ourselves.

Obviously, the potential for human self-awareness, etc. has always existed.

I'm not saying I know the nature of God -but it seems perfectly logical to me that that some sort of awareness and some sort of stuff of which to be aware have always existed together.

As we are said to be made in the image and likeness of God, God would be similar to us, but greater -The Eternal, the original.

God stated that he would lift himself up -exalt himself -essentially make more of himself -which -in reverse -leaves the question of irreducibility -for which I do not have the answer.

 

[Milton Platt]

If we consider human consciousness and creativity, we understand that it is not separate from all else, it is part of all else and came to pass by an arrangement of what exists, and also arranges that which exists by will, decision, creativity, etc.

We are aware of what is around us, but also composed of what is around us.
We can perceive what we are and what is around us, process the data, rearrange things and even ourselves.

Obviously, the potential for human self-awareness, etc. has always existed.

I'm not saying I know the nature of God -but it seems perfectly logical to me that that some sort of awareness and some sort of stuff of which to be aware have always existed together.

As we are said to be made in the image and likeness of God, God would be similar to us, but greater -The Eternal, the original.

God stated that he would lift himself up -exalt himself -essentially make more of himself -which -in reverse -leaves the question of irreducibility -for which I do not have the answer.

What exactly do you mean "a part of all else"? Sure, everything in the known universe is part of the known universe. How could it not be? So what? That is simply stating the obvious and gets you nothing.
Yes we have awareness of ourselves and our surroundings through our senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell). So what? So do all the other animals.
"We are said to be made in the image of god".....depends on which religion you are talking about and which god, none of which have been shown to exist.
It does not matter what a mythological being says.........so in that regard, any questions about irreducibility, however you choose to define it, is irrelevant.
You can't now the nature of that which does not seem to exist.,

 

[Etritonakin]

What exactly do you mean "a part of all else"? Sure, everything in the known universe is part of the known universe. How could it not be? So what? That is simply stating the obvious and gets you nothing.
Yes we have awareness of ourselves and our surroundings through our senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell). So what? So do all the other animals.
"We are said to be made in the image of god".....depends on which religion you are talking about and which god, none of which have been shown to exist.
It does not matter what a mythological being says.........so in that regard, any questions about irreducibility, however you choose to define it, is irrelevant.
You can't now the nature of that which does not seem to exist.,

You are kind of a downer

 

[Thief]

The big bang is a metaphor, nothing more. It makes good copy for the news media. I could describe it in some other way, but then a lot of folks would have no idea what I meant.The presence or absence of sound is a non sequitur. And I have pointed out....when you speak of spirit, I haven't the faintest idea what that means or why it would matter. In fact your posts are often unintelligible because you do not use complete sentences and do not express complete thoughts.

I do hear that retort now and then....
but chalk it up to the intention of not following the line of thought.

that you have not the faintest idea about spirit....is the stone chained to your ankle.

 

[Thief]

You can't now the nature of that which does not seem to exist.,

but even science will seek what it cannot explain.

Science now suspects the sum of all things has not been achieved.
they now point fingers at dark energy and dark matter.
they cannot prove this indication....so it remains unproven.
they strongly suspect a much larger 'Picture'.....that cannot be photographed.

 

[Thief]

Seeing the thread's title, I decided to ask Science what it really thought.
It told me that it never said any such thing.
It also said that it doesn't know what happened before or during the Big Bang.
And it's really miffed at people who put words in its mouth.

see previous post

 

[Revoltingest]

see previous post

Why?

 

[Thief]

and there are two levels of ignorance.
they who are not informed...
and they who choose to ignore.

 

[Revoltingest]

and there are two levels of ignorance.
they who are not informed...
and they who choose to ignore.

There are others....
Those who are informed but misunderstand &
Those who are misinformed.