Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[We Never Know]

No, I can’t. All complex structures have a builder, from the Taj Mahal to an FA-117. Even Stonehenge.

But that wasn’t your question, was it? Don’t move the goalposts.

My post was...
"If everything has a cause and a god is the cause, what caused a god?
If a god is uncaused then we know uncaused things are possible.

You brought in "energy can neither be created or destroyed."

So basically everything always existed. If everything always existed, why the need for a creator that didn't have a creator?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Does not being able to demonstrate that the universe and life had a creator mean that there is no creator?

Nope. Of course not.

But the same can be said for Stonehenge....we have no idea who built it. But it’s assumed it was, why?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So basically everything always existed. If everything always existed, why the need for a creator that didn't have a creator?

Huh?
I didn’t say this at all....it sounds ridiculous.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. Of course not.

But the same can be said for Stonehenge....we have no idea who built it. But it’s assumed it was, why?

It may have been built by Merlin.

It fits a pattern of man made construction and we know man builds structures like that. We only know that man has and can build structures like that. There is evidence of previous construction on the site. We know the source of the stones. There are artifacts of known human construction at the site. There are graves at the site.

All of that is evidence that man built Stonehenge. It could have been placed there by aliens or gnomes, but there is nothing to support either of those possibilities.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Huh?
I didn’t say this at all....it sounds ridiculous.

I have noticed a pattern there. So you noticed it too.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. Of course not.

But the same can be said for Stonehenge....we have no idea who built it. But it’s assumed it was, why?

Because that type of assemblage of stones doesn't happen by natural processes. We see other examples at about the same time in other places in Northern Europe.

To prove design requires knowing what can happen without design.

 

[Polymath257]

Scientists have already discovered the answer to this, by understanding the nature of energy.

The Law of Conservation of Energy, proposed by mathematician Gabrielle Émilie du Châtelet, and tested by great scientists since (including Einstein), states that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.

We can deduce from this truism, that energy has always existed in some form or another. Even prior to the Big Bang.

This explains God, His eternal nature (Isaiah 40:22), and as the “Superintellect“ who “monkeyed with physics”.

So let’s put this “who created God” supposed enigma, to rest, shall we?

Nope. You misstate the law of conservation of energy, especially when applied to the Big Bang.

The conservation of energy states that the total energy at any time is the same as the total energy at any other time.

The mistake you make is assuming there is time before the Big Bang. In the standard Big Bang cosmology, that is simply false. Time *begins* at the BB.

In that case, conservation of energy only applies while the universe exists: in other words, after the BB.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans are humans. Were babies. Adult humans preach teach science.

Conscious human uses maths O to observe cell functions as human imposed science.

As consciousness thinking seeing creative interaction says there must be a creator. Yet life living creates its owned survival.

They are personally a creator being as an adult human. Sex procreated beyond their own form baby humans.

Consciously a human saying I create beyond my own destruction as I know consciously one day I die.

Human consciousness making all claims via science maths their God.

As natural is first natural. Natural is formed and created.

The creator expression just human owned in their owned human presence making all claims creating beyond formed form.

 

[We Never Know]

No, I can’t. All complex structures have a builder, from the Taj Mahal to an FA-117. Even Stonehenge.

But that wasn’t your question, was it? Don’t move the goalposts.

Taj Mahal, a FA-117, Stonehenge aren't natural things.

However Mt Everest, the grand canyon, the great lakes, etc are and nature created them.

 

[We Never Know]

Huh?
I didn’t say this at all....it sounds ridiculous.

If energy can neither be created or destroyed, why is it ridiculous to think every thing has always existed? Keep in mind can not be created.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The conservation of energy states that the total energy at any time is the same as the total energy at any other time.

The mistake you make is assuming there is time before the Big Bang.

So, w/o time, energy doesn’t exist? So the laws of physics weren’t operative, either? How do you know? That idea sort of fits science’ atheistic predisposition, doesn’t it?
Has this been proven? Or only suggested, in order to fit this accepted predisposition?

Time is determined by motion, and evidenced through motion. So, if motion stops, time would stop? Hence energy wouldn’t exist?

But I don’t believe time is a physical construct. Although, I do believe that what is accepted by mainstream science, has to be explained through a materialistic, ‘god-doesn’t-exist’ lens.

Time *begins* at the BB.

Again, why say that? How do you know? No human was there to observe that. (Neither was Stephen Hawking, with his “imaginary time” scenario.)

In that case, conservation of energy only applies while the universe exists: in other words, after the BB.

What influence would time have on energy, anyways? No time progression, equals no existence of energy? That would fit the atheist agenda, but it sounds like something akin to special pleading…

‘Energy can never be created nor destroyed, except at the BB.’

Sorry, not acceptable.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If energy can neither be created or destroyed, why is it ridiculous to think every thing has always existed? Keep in mind can not be created.

“Everything” would include you.
Have you always existed?

Nuff said.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Dan From Smithville , put up with my following nonsense, ok?
You wrote:
“It fits a pattern of man made construction and we know man builds structures like that. We only know that man has and can build structures like that.”

But really, is our (human) knowledge complete enough, to say that if we know of “only” one source (man) which has the ability to build…then that’s gotta be it? Maybe a species of primate had that ability?

And “can build” does not mean “did build.”

Then, you state: “There is evidence of previous construction on the site.”
Question: how does “previous construction” have any bearing on what exists now?
Then you state: “We know the source of the stones.”
And exactly how close is that source to Stonehenge? Ahh, not close, is it? So that’s really a strike against humans doing it … transportation of those stones would’ve been extremely difficult! Now aliens, if they had the technology to come to Earth, would’ve had technology to move heavy objects. Or, maybe that “species of primate”, as most are stronger than humans, had the strength, lol.

Then you state: “There are artifacts of known human construction at the site.”

And? Maybe someone left them. Maybe, while wondering about the stones, they were getting ready to tear them down…but got scared off.

Then, “There are graves at the site.

All of that is evidence that man built Stonehenge.”

Graves are an indication of the construction of Stonehenge?

That’s the weakest argument, wouldn’t you say?

it’s only evidence that people died in the area.

You say, “It could have been placed there by aliens or gnomes, but there is nothing to support either of those possibilities.”
Yes, there is something to support aliens…. transportation of those stones over 16 miles! (Gnomes are just too small and weak… they couldn’t do it.) LOL.

Now, I don’t believe any of what I wrote.

But evidence, or the facts of what we observe, is labeled by the interpretation… which could very well be wrong.

Im just too skeptical of humans and their interpretations and philosophies that, by their own admission, endeavor to remove the Creator from every detail.

In a few days, I’m going to post my view of genuine evolution. IMO, it is evidence of something, and it will probably blow.your.mind! And you helped me arrive at the conclusion!

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Polymath257]

So, w/o time, energy doesn’t exist? So the laws of physics weren’t operative, either? How do you know? That idea sort of fits science’ atheistic predisposition, doesn’t it?
Has this been proven? Or only suggested, in order to fit this accepted predisposition?

No scientific theory is proven absolutely. There is always the possibility that new data will require the theory to be modified.

I was pretty clear that I was talking about standard Big Bang cosmology based on general relativity. In *that* theory, the BB is the beginning of the universe and time cannot be extended further because of mathematical issues.

But, we know that general relativity doesn't play well with quantum mechanics and that QM will become relevant at some point in the very early universe. We have several theories of quantum gravity but no data to say which, if any, are correct.

But, the versions we have say that time *could* extend further back before the Big bang. but they *also* say that there would not be a 'singularity' in the way there is with just GR. And, in that case, energy (and matter) would exist whenever there was time. So the whole 'beginning of the universe' idea goes away.

It isn't 'suggested' to fit any 'predisposition'. Instead, the conclusions come out of the mathematics of the more general theory (GR or Quantum Gravity) as applied to the universe as a whole.

Time is determined by motion, and evidenced through motion. So, if motion stops, time would stop? Hence energy wouldn’t exist?

Or time is a coordinate of four dimensional spacetime and 'motion' is simply the differences between different time slices. This is the view of most cosmologists today. Again, that is because this is what the math says.

But I don’t believe time is a physical construct. Although, I do believe that what is accepted by mainstream science, has to be explained through a materialistic, ‘god-doesn’t-exist’ lens.

Why would it have to be? Time is part of the geometry of spacetime. it reacts to physical aspects because gravity is a curvature of spacetime. In that sense, time is a physical thing.

Again, why say that? How do you know? No human was there to observe that. (Neither was Stephen Hawking, with his “imaginary time” scenario.)

I am giving the math of the standard BB scenario based on GR. In *that* theory, time starts at the BB and cannot be extended to any 'before'. The only way around this is to invoke quantum gravity and that allows for matter and energy to exist whenever there was time---so no beginning at all.

What influence would time have on energy, anyways? No time progression, equals no existence of energy? That would fit the atheist agenda, but it sounds like something akin to special pleading…

It's a feedback loop. Time is part of the structure of spacetime. it is curved by matter and energy. In turn, the geometry of spacetime determines the dynamics of matter and energy. This, by the way, is also true in all versions of quantum gravity.

‘Energy can never be created nor destroyed, except at the BB.’

Not what is claimed. The total energy is the same for any two time slices. It's just that there was no time before the BB in the standard model.

Sorry, not acceptable.

Since you are not an expert in the subject, your opinion of what is and is not acceptable is pretty irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

“Everything” would include you.
Have you always existed?

Nuff said.

Not what is claimed. The matter and energy has 'always existed'. it gets rearranged and you and I are aspects of that rearrangement.

 

[Polymath257]

@Dan From Smithville , put up with my following nonsense, ok?
You wrote:
“It fits a pattern of man made construction and we know man builds structures like that. We only know that man has and can build structures like that.”

But really, is our (human) knowledge complete enough, to say that if we know of “only” one source (man) which has the ability to build…then that’s gotta be it? Maybe a species of primate had that ability?

And that would have been a possibility if there were any other species of primate capable of that at the time. So, for example, if we saw structures like Stonehenge showing up in Europe 70,000 years ago, we would possibly attribute them to Neandethals.

And “can build” does not mean “did build.”

Then, you state: “There is evidence of previous construction on the site.”
Question: how does “previous construction” have any bearing on what exists now?
Then you state: “We know the source of the stones.”
And exactly how close is that source to Stonehenge? Ahh, not close, is it? So that’s really a strike against humans doing it … transportation of those stones would’ve been extremely difficult! Now aliens, if they had the technology to come to Earth, would’ve had technology to move heavy objects. Or, maybe that “species of primate”, as most are stronger than humans, had the strength, lol.

This is one of the issues. Did humans have the ability to move heavy objects at that time? Absolutely yes. With enough muscle and some ingenuity, it is possible to move large rocks without high technology. It's just easier with it.

Then you state: “There are artifacts of known human construction at the site.”

And? Maybe someone left them. Maybe, while wondering about the stones, they were getting ready to tear them down…but got scared off.

Then, “There are graves at the site.

All of that is evidence that man built Stonehenge.”

Graves are an indication of the construction of Stonehenge?

That’s the weakest argument, wouldn’t you say?

it’s only evidence that people died in the area.

When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebra.

Again, nothing in science is absolutely proven. But some common sense is also applied: look at what is around at the time and what you have actual evidence for. Don't step out of that. When new evidence comes to light, re-evaluate based on that new evidence.

Stay with testable hypotheses at all times.

You say, “It could have been placed there by aliens or gnomes, but there is nothing to support either of those possibilities.”
Yes, there is something to support aliens…. transportation of those stones over 16 miles! (Gnomes are just too small and weak… they couldn’t do it.) LOL.

Now, I don’t believe any of what I wrote.

But evidence, or the facts of what we observe, is labeled by the interpretation… which could very well be wrong.

Yes, absolutely. That is why we always do minimal conclusions based on the available evidence and restrict ourselves to testable hypotheses not going too far from the evidence.

Im just too skeptical of humans and their interpretations and philosophies that, by their own admission, endeavor to remove the Creator from every detail.

I think you misinterpret. The God hypothesis isn't testable. Until it becomes so, it isn't even wrong. In that sense, it is exactly like the aliens or goblins hypotheses: it goes *way* beyond what the evidence points to.

In a few days, I’m going to post my view of genuine evolution. IMO, it is evidence of something, and it will probably blow.your.mind! And you helped me arrive at the conclusion!

Take care, my cousin.

I can't wait.

 

[We Never Know]

“Everything” would include you.
Have you always existed?

Nuff said.

I am energy. The energy that I am always existed, it just changed. When I die my energy will go out as heat, be used in decomposition and/or be transferred(if eaten) to bugs, worms, animals.

 

[Polymath257]

I am energy. The energy that I am always existed, it just changed. When I die my energy will go out as heat, be used in decomposition and/or be transferred(if eaten) to bugs, worms, animals.

That is true for pretty much all of the atoms in your body as well. Outside of nuclear reactions, atoms don't change over billions of years. The carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur atoms that make up your body were produced in stars before our solar system was formed. The hydrogen atoms mostly existed even before that.

 

[rational experiences]

That is true for pretty much all of the atoms in your body as well. Outside of nuclear reactions, atoms don't change over billions of years. The carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur atoms that make up your body were produced in stars before our solar system was formed. The hydrogen atoms mostly existed even before that.

When you choose the subject. Then you already chose your answers.

Stars as stars are stars unless wandering and are in out of space.

We stand on planet Earth a sealed body not owned by scientists.

You use it. Earths products. And named the product yourself.

Most of your beliefs came about from your own choice to combust earths stone gases in our heavens. The radiation effect warped your mind and you have never thought correctly since.

Water is a mass owned in substance due to empty space pressure.

You gave water it's title. Just water.

You might say H20 yet atoms released into a space via changed pressure react convert and it does not remove water.

Pressure owns why any form exists and it varies. Why form is not space plus energy as just one answer.

Two variables. Owned presence created by two bodies.

Once a small amount of space existed. Then massive space pressure existed. Why you cannot create energy you can only destroy a portion of it to gain a new different result.

Science says energy by intent to use it as a power source for a machine. And all thesis was intentional to compare how a machine plus reaction could be controlled by men.

Humans aren't energy. That is just wishful thinking in a claim if I study a human biology then I will know everything.

When science says it wants disappearance in a thesis then obviously he wants life to disappear. As it is in his thoughts.

He wants us to reappear in spirit and not life.

As he says if I can remove the total energy then surely only spirit form would exist.

Space thesis involves a huge amount of nothing first.

Gases came out of mass. The energy it owns belongs to its own mass.

Hence a gas is only present as it was cooled. Burnt it disappears quickly.

We live inside of gases blocked out by water and oxygenation. Your ideas about our life and energy is fake as it is bound only in its owned spatial creation like a mini world.

Why we are not connected to it. We are biological energy. Chemical food form only. Not much as food is how we supplement lost energy.

Energy is minimal to huge mass presence which does not equal any same base form.......fact energy owned it's process in space to form.

Burnt eternal. Eternal is not understood or factored. In other words energy did not begin as an atom otherwise the base form energy would only be atoms.

Memory our holy father.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is true for pretty much all of the atoms in your body as well. Outside of nuclear reactions, atoms don't change over billions of years. The carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur atoms that make up your body were produced in stars before our solar system was formed. The hydrogen atoms mostly existed even before that.

I have two of the very first sulfur atoms ever formed on a shelf in the living room in a display box with a signed certificate of authenticity.