We Never Know
No Slack
E = mc²
The point is that nothing was ever truelly "created". It's all recycling of pre-existing things.
Something existed before E = mc², something existed before any laws, something existed before time,
Etc
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
E = mc²
The point is that nothing was ever truelly "created". It's all recycling of pre-existing things.
Something existed before E = mc², something existed before any laws, something existed before time...
The phrase "before time" is literally nonsensical. Without time, "before" cannot mean anything.
The universe didn't "come into existence." The big bang is the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of matter and time and space. Those things always existed. They are eternal. If they weren't, it would violate that law. But if your saying that the universe can't be eternal, what makes it okay for god to be?You CAN use that argument! GOD ALWAYS WAS. Help yourself!
Then explain how the UNIVERSE always was WITHOUT God, using the Law that teaches the universe's matter and energy cannot have been created (come into existence).
Maybe you mean evidence for creation, since creationism has a lot of evidence. For instance, there are quite a few creationists here.Creationists, give me your best evidence for creationism, and i'll try to refute it, and vice versa
Yes, for one scientist. But when you are claiming hundreds of thousands of genuine scientists have misinterpreted data you make yourself look silly. Especially when the opposition cannot muster any scientific evidence for their beliefs.There need be no conspiracy for genuine scientists to misinterpret data.
Ever hear of Einstein? Hmmm....It's the Law of Conservation of Mass? Hmmm....<sic>
Something existed before E = mc², something existed before any laws, something existed before time,
Etc
Hmm. If God is not material, there is no way to discover his existence.
And now you only oppose those that you don't believe in?
The phrase 'before time' makes no sense. To talk about 'before' requires time.
So... let's simplify the argument some to Creation of life on Earth.Creationists, give me your best evidence for creationism, and i'll try to refute it, and vice versa
Alternatively, mass-energy existed, and space, time, matter, forces (&c) exist because of mass-energy, its qualities and effects.Something existed before E = mc², something existed before any laws, something existed before time,
Etc
Something existed before E = mc², something existed before any laws, something existed before time,
Etc
So not the roman pantheon or the norse gods or scientology or mormonism or shamanism or ...I believe that all the major religions came from the same God so I accept all the major religions not just the Baha’i Faith. We read from the Holy Books of all these religions in our Houses of Worship all over the world each week. We don’t exalt one religion or Founder over the other.
View attachment 34106
1. if you agree with the notion that energy cannot have been created, then that seems quite detrimental to your creator argument....
2. "always" is a period of time. Time is an integral part of the universe, aka the space-time continuum. So, at any point in history when there was a universe, there was time. Whenever there was time, there was a universe. Knowing that, please explain how it is wrong to say that the universe has "always" (=for all of time) existed? Seems to me that with or without god, the universe has "always" existed either way.
1. if you agree with the notion that energy cannot have been created, then that seems quite detrimental to your creator argument....
2. "always" is a period of time. Time is an integral part of the universe, aka the space-time continuum. So, at any point in history when there was a universe, there was time. Whenever there was time, there was a universe. Knowing that, please explain how it is wrong to say that the universe has "always" (=for all of time) existed? Seems to me that with or without god, the universe has "always" existed either way.
Easy. The UNIVERSE always was. No God required.
Alternatively, the UNIVERSE 'just is'. Again, no God required.
Then you do not accept the Theory of Evolution, which is accepted and supported by the vast majority of all the sciences across multiple fields of science, not just one. The theory of evolution specifically demonstrates changes from one species, into another. You are therefore a denier of the theory of evolution. And the question still stands unanswered by you. Why?
It cannot be because you are a qualified scientist and have research of your own that disputes the data of other scientists (you'd be a major celebrity if you could). It is obvious to me, your reason you don't want to accept the science is because it conflicts with your beliefs. So please explain to me, as someone who believes in God, why those who believe in God should not accept science when it says we evolved from other species?
Please answer these previous questions in light of the fact that you are a denier of well-established scientific models which have more than adequate valid scientific support:
Why is it a problem for you to accept the established scientific theory of evolution (which demonstrates how species evolved from earlier species), when other Christians don't have any issues with it conflicting with their faith? Why do you choose to take a denier position instead of an acceptor position? What about accepting evolution (as it is revealed to work by science creating new species from earlier species), denies God for you, while not for other Christians? Why is your faith challenged, while theirs is not?
What is the difference between their faith, and yours which, without a scientific basis for doing so, rejects the science? Is your faith in God threatened by it, whereas for some reason theirs is not? What reason for that do you suppose that is true?
Yes, for individual scientists.
But if the development of life or other forms of order in the cosmos, contradicted thermodynamics, this would be a glaring, fundamental problem and there would be uproar about it - and Nobel prizes for those who resolved the conundrum. This is perfectly obvious.
But thank you at least for doing me the courtesy of replying to what I wrote, this time, instead of pretending to misunderstand it.