Jump to content

Do you believe in a divine Creator of the universe and everything in it, including mankind?


blackbird

Recommended Posts

On 5/10/2022 at 6:14 AM, Great American said:

Your childish post indicates that you probably cannot understand the answer, but I will answer anyway for the benefit of other members:

In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.

So, to your snotty question about talking serpents: Genesis One reveals the Truth that God wanted revealed, which is that he created all things and created man in is image. This truth was revealed in such a way, as was stated, using the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

Furthermore, God wanted it revealed that man fell from grace through sin, and that God has set about from the very beginning to restore man to friendship with God. This great "History of Salvation" culminated in the sacrifice of the Son of God.

As I said, I do not expect you to be intelligent enough to grasp these things, but I hope others here benefit from my answer.

 

 

True. 

I cannot understand how a person would let his thinking deteriorate to the belief in some supernatural God, who is depicted as the worse prick one could ever imagine.

Fools like you call that prick, good.

St. Hitler would concur.

Regards

DL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Great American said:

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen., see the hypocrisy of the Godless. He demands answers from me that he cannot answer regarding his own barbaric beliefs. He cannot explain how all matter just came into existence, suddenly, without cause, but he demands that I explain to Him how God can do such a thing.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is simple:

  • It is impossible for the atheist belief that all matter just came into existence, suddenly, without cause.
  • But it IS possible that an almighty omnipotent God did just that

Until are little Godless troll can explain all matter just came into existence, suddenly, without cause, OR how all matter simple existed eternally, then his little theory is not only no better than Creationism, its actually worse..

What other Gods is your genocidal one referring to when giving the 1st Commandment?

Likely mine as he is way more moral and honest that you are.

Both science and religions now admit to having Gods of the Gaps.

Fools remain idol worshipers of a really nasty God.

They were likely abused as young Christians children. Stockholm Syndrome tells us why.

Regards

DL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, French Patriot said:

So because you like a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God . . . . . 

You are too much of an imbecile to even engage any further. I only speak with intelligent adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Great American said:

So were some of the worst evil tyrants in history. Your posts are crap. You post like well educated person who has been educated with crap. You think you are smart but you don't have the first lick of common sense.

I asked you to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place and you said:

"So were some of the worst evil tyrants in history"?

Given there is no god, all of us are 'athiests' at birth.  We don't have any default beliefs about "God" any more than a cow we eat does. But then our parents' pass on stories about what they WANT their children to believe, with others in our society adding to it in our 'positive' accolades like, "you too, can be anything if you just believe," and you gain an emotional connection to those beliefs. Thus, many like you, become religious when they grow up still playing 'pretend' like Adam and Eve in the garden before they are exposed to the secret about God's wizardry in an apple. [Obviously you haven't yet left your childhood naivete and refuse to eat of the Tree of Wisdom, am I right? You believe it is 'evil'!, yes?] 

So you come along and assert some invisible magical being exists that appears so real to you as though you don't notice how obviously naked you really are.

[Hmmm, reminds of an equally very old tale you might have heard: "The Emperor's New Clothes". ]

I come along and dare to tell you that the the only thing I see of your invisible 'God' you wear so proudly, is nothing but your naked self. But you won't know this until after you bite into the fruit of wisdom in order to advance beyond your playpen. The secrets about reality, like the powers of the gods, are unfortunately based on nothing! THAT is the lesson of the 'gods' secrets. We are cursed to discover that there are no dieties but for what we create in our heads about them and there will be no paradise in heaven for us to go to after our deaths. DEATH is final! 

Until then, you are too naive not to notice how all 'tyrants', like all people, are atheists by default. The myths of religion is representative of the Garden of Eden's children. The despots are spoiled in playing pretend for being so privileged. So given there are no gods, ALL reality is born out of 'nothingness'. Nevertheless, the tyrants will be the ones to demand belief in their own power either as a 'god' themselves, or as being 'annointed' his right-hand man by God.

The choice of most tyrants is to some form of religion, not athiesm. Why would they want those they rule over to have a weak capacity to BELIEVE in them most significantly? How could they actually rule so absolutely without some faith?]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Great American said:
14 hours ago, French Patriot said:

So because you like a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God . . . . . 

You are too much of an imbecile to even engage any further. I only speak with intelligent adults.

Hey, that snake is a feature of that Tree of Wisdom you were told you can't eat from even though God could have opted simply not to plant it or chop it down! Our French Patriot here is unabashedly 'naked' without apology. But ask him what is French for "I am christianized good as any King." Then ask yourself who might you refer to the man who dared to tell the Emperor of Rome this. That is, what would you name this traiterous commie who insults his superior?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2021 at 12:43 PM, blackbird said:
On 4/22/2021 at 11:58 AM, SkyHigh said:

 ...  when you say things like the big bang was an explosion you just prove you know nothing about science.

You would be surprised what I know about science.  I know a number of things like the big bang and evolution are purely speculation and unproven.  Science does not claim to have all the answers and never did make such a claim.  When it comes to the origin of the universe, there is absolutely no evidence or proof that God did not create it ten or fifteen thousand years ago, with an apparent age built it.  Many of the greatest scientists in history believed in God.  They could see the evidence of God's creation all around them and just accepted it.

How does the Big Bang theory relate? I agree to the perceptive that it was a type of 'explolion', but am a bit confused at you not recognizing that there are other non-Big-Bang theories proposed. But even given these different PHYSICS theories, how does the religious idea relate uniquely as an alternative to them all?

"Religion" [From Re-legion "speak of legacy"] which denotes ideas passed down by distinct ancestral history and what is believed to have happened BEYONE LIFE or 'other' worlds, times, or spaces. emphasizes "culture", art, or lifestyles" that are mostly arbrary and contingent factors, Religion though is cultural (social)"science", considered as a form of art(ificial) concept versus science as referring to physical reality

....or....what "science fiction" is to "science fact"; You can permit rellgion to fantasize about origins without a need to observe any common facts or proof. That is, religion can philosphize about reality but it can't speak for it without having some shareability to anyone arbtrarily and that doesn't begin with our particular senses we share in common. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Hey, that snake is a feature of that Tree of Wisdom you were told you can't eat from even though God could have opted simply not to plant it or chop it down! Our French Patriot here is unabashedly 'naked' without apology. But ask him what is French for "I am christianized good as any King." Then ask yourself who might you refer to the man who dared to tell the Emperor of Rome this. That is, what would you name this traiterous commie who insults his superior?

I am = Je sssuis.

Our less astute friend does not know the great value of the serpent.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.
You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.
The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation and “I am”, represents the best rules and laws that we have found to live by.
In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.
That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
   John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw

 Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

 The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Gnosis enlightens adults.

Regards
DL

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2021 at 9:04 PM, bcsapper said:

. . . . As for the Theory of Evolution, it most definitely has not been debunked and all credible scientists accept it.  As with all scientific theories, it will evolve itself as new scientific evidence is found. 

On 6/27/2021 at 11:14 PM, blackbird said:

Give just one aspect of the theory of evolution that is true, just one.  Surely you can give one fact about evolution that is true.

 

As I said, the fact that God created all things does not discount the theory of evolution too.

As I posted previously, Christians don't have a problem with Evolution, rather we have a problem with atheistic Evolution out of nothing.

God created the universe and everything in it. After that, if Evolution processes are part of the laws of nature which He wrote, then I have no problem with that.

BUT, trying to use Evolution out of nothing to explain how all matter came into existence in the first place fails miserably. It cannot be done.  One cannot say that everything just appeared out of the void om non-existence, "poof". Neither can one say that all matter simply always existed; that is a logical fallacy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dowell said:

People who have returned from the other side believe otherwise.

Did they think to take pictures of their vacation in paradise? And why did they come or get sent back here? I think that we should rightfully be skeptical of mere claims of those who cannot be ruled out as merely reflecting mental illness or intentional deception meant to manipulat others. 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2022 at 3:02 AM, Scott Mayers said:

. . . . .  playing 'pretend' like Adam and Eve in the garden before they are exposed to the secret about God's wizardry in an apple. [Obviously you haven't yet left your childhood naivete and refuse to eat of the Tree of Wisdom, am I right? You believe it is 'evil'!, yes? . . . . . 

That sort of rude snotty crap is why people hate Godless degenerates like you. Adam and Eve and the rest were already explained to you, by me, but you were too wrapped up in your hate and ignorance to understand that answer.

I repeat: QUOTE: In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.

So, to your snotty question about talking serpents: Genesis One reveals the Truth that God wanted revealed, which is that he created all things and created man in is image. This truth was revealed in such a way, as was stated, using the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

End Quote

The greatest minds throughout history have all been men of faith, all much smarter than you. You exist in the sewer pits of the human mind, unable to rise to a level of intelligent discourse.

AND you are still unable to answer my question: How did all matter in the Universe come into being? What was the first cause of all existence, if not an omnipotent God?

You cannot answer that and you never will, because atheism is for the shallow minded, men who fear making the changes they need to make in their lives to become better men. You live in perpetual fear and cowardice. Well, you better man up, because you have an interesting eternity awaiting you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Did they think to take pictures of their vacation in paradise?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

It seems that old paintings don’t figure in to them all that much. It seems to be more about leaving a dying body, a sense of wellbeing and being free of physical restraints. The blind can see, they can travel at will, free from gravity,  see from a perspective outside their body. They see a light, approach it, and are greeted by departed loved ones, and are often given a choice to return to the body, or enter into the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2022 at 12:02 AM, Scott Mayers said:

So you come along and assert some invisible magical being exists

Invisible does not imply magic. In fact most of the universe is invisible to us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Dark energy is thought to be very homogeneous and not very dense, and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite rarefied and un-massive—roughly 10−27 kg/m3—it is unlikely to be detectable in laboratory experiments. The reason dark energy can have such a profound effect on the universe, making up 68% of universal density in spite of being so dilute, is that it uniformly fills otherwise empty space.

Dark energy is thought to be very homogeneous and not very dense, and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite rarefied and un-massive—roughly 10−27 kg/m3—it is unlikely to be detectable in laboratory experiments.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

You can bury your head in the sand, and convince yourself that what you can't see won't hurt you, but what we can't see, is very real, and all around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quote

The bias of evolutionary leaders

It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.

Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote:

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.1

Further down the article says:

Many evolutionary books, including Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, contrast religion/creation opinions with evolution/science facts. It is important to realize that this is a misleading contrast. Creationists often appeal to the facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal to philosophical assumptions from outside science. While creationists are often criticized for starting with a bias, evolutionists also start with a bias, as many of them admit. The debate between creation and evolution is primarily a dispute between two worldviews, with mutually incompatible underlying assumptions.    Unquote

Refuting Evolution chapter 1: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias - creation.com

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/16/2022 at 2:56 AM, Great American said:

The greatest minds throughout history have all been men of faith, all much smarter than you. You exist in the sewer pits of the human mind, unable to rise to a level of intelligent discourse.

AND you are still unable to answer my question: How did all matter in the Universe come into being? What was the first cause of all existence, if not an omnipotent God?

You cannot answer that and you never will, because atheism is for the shallow minded, men who fear making the changes they need to make in their lives to become better men. You live in perpetual fear and cowardice. Well, you better man up, because you have an interesting eternity awaiting you.

For most of world history, the atheist was treated as 'criminal' regardless of the fact that the 'gods' you claim to believe assert us as having 'free choice'. So the atheist was condemned and speaking openly about it was a death sentence. So duh.....would an atheist in power risk asserting it? No. In fact, it is most likely that given most of the world who relies on deception to 'capitalize' upon other's stupidity, ....even if MOST of the world's power were sincerely 'athiest', they would both pretend NOT to be AND discourage others from admitting it because most the most politically effective means of control requires demanding FAITH of the sheeple they are controlling. 

I mean, certainly if you think being religious makes you somehow wiser, could you not notice that the most evil thing one could do would be to pretend to be religious but promote all others of just the opposite? So before you condemn the atheist, maybe you should reflect on what you are advising: that the honest atheist should either get with the program and PRETEND (like you) to be devoutly religious or risk death and suffering!

 

We are all born 'atheist' and your own pretentious assertions about religion should require you ask why you need other humans to teach you anything 'religious'? You should also require to disprove all other religious beliefs. Isn't it odd to you that if you are born in the U.S. you are more likely to be Christian but if you were born in India, you'd more likely be Hindu, for instance?

If there were a God, would it be religious? That is, do you expect it to be 'faithful' to something beyond itself given it already IS and KNOWS all? If it 'created' us, what did it require to make us? If it didn't 'create' us from NOTHING, what was it that it 'created' us from? 

 

If you are sincere, you are absurdly irrational. If not, you are being deceptive. 

Challenge: prove that what you just read has substantial existence in MEANING! That is, do the thoughts you interpret from these words as you interpret them, themselves have a real existence? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2022 at 11:51 AM, Dowell said:

Invisible does not imply magic. In fact most of the universe is invisible to us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Dark energy is thought to be very homogeneous and not very dense, and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite rarefied and un-massive—roughly 10−27 kg/m3—it is unlikely to be detectable in laboratory experiments. The reason dark energy can have such a profound effect on the universe, making up 68% of universal density in spite of being so dilute, is that it uniformly fills otherwise empty space.

Dark energy is thought to be very homogeneous and not very dense, and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite rarefied and un-massive—roughly 10−27 kg/m3—it is unlikely to be detectable in laboratory experiments.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

You can bury your head in the sand, and convince yourself that what you can't see won't hurt you, but what we can't see, is very real, and all around us.

🤣 If you only knew what my own physics theory is, you wouldn't be asking me this! Haven't you also not noticed that I asserted above that we derive from absolutely nothing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2022 at 8:35 PM, Scott Mayers said:

🤣 If you only knew what my own physics theory is, you wouldn't be asking me this! Haven't you also not noticed that I asserted above that we derive from absolutely nothing? 

Do you really believe the universe and man came into existence from nothing without an intelligent designer- Creator?  There is a simple principle of science that you use to help understand things.  It is the principle of cause and effect.  There is no effect without a cause.  Everything that exists had a beginning and a cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2022 at 8:35 PM, Scott Mayers said:

 If you only knew what my own physics theory is, you wouldn't be asking me this! Haven't you also not noticed that I asserted above that we derive from absolutely nothing? 

The general consensus is that life originated in the 5% of the universe that we can see. I find this unlikely.  I think that it is more likely that it originated in the 68% of the universe that we call dark energy. All the matter of the observable universe was contained for billions of years in a very small object, believed to be smaller than a single atom.  After  the big bang it took billions of years for the matter to cool enough to the atoms that are the building blocks all we see.  It is only recently that stars and planets formed that are conducive to life.

Dark matter on the other hand is believed to be evenly distributed throughout the universe, and stable. If we assume for the sake of argument that man’s spirit is made of dark energy, the bible tells us in  Genesis 2:7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,  and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

If we assume that near death experiences are events where the spirit left the body, then being able to see their bodies from an outside perspective tells us that even though we can’t see dark energy, it can see us.  Also the spirit has energy to move, but is virtually unaffected by gravity.  Approaching a light, and being greeted by deceased loved ones shows us that life continues after the body dies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2022 at 10:01 AM, blackbird said:

Do you really believe the universe and man came into existence from nothing without an intelligent designer- Creator?  There is a simple principle of science that you use to help understand things.  It is the principle of cause and effect.  There is no effect without a cause.  Everything that exists had a beginning and a cause.

I believe that IF (a condition) there IS an 'origin', then it is from absolutely nothing. But if there isn't, then the Steady State type of theories applies by default. The Big Bang theory relies on assuming the universe's appearance of being 14 Billion years old is due to a REAL singularity rather than the perception. Steady State differs in that it assumes an infinite space-time. 

However, note that my argument is about Totality, not merely our particular Universe. I define it as an absolte total collection of any realms real or not. Then the 'metaphysical' argument I have from abolute nothingness is as equally applicable to any God or gods, heavens, hells, et cetera. 

BUT, you should be aware that most original religious sources also hold that God created everything from 'nothing'. So your particular religious opinion is distinct to modern interpretation of religious scriptures and is usually more 'Right' wing religious.....intentional literalists who cannot recognize the materials as being originally from non-religious thinkers speculating on reality. The original word for YHWY, for example, meant 'source'. And the reason for the 'INEFFIBLE' nature of the word that used to refer to God creating everything from nothing today devolved to mean "unspeakable curse" to say God's name. The original meaning was about questioning how God could have derived everything from nothing.

Note that "YHWY" is pronounced, "Ya way' but is more correctly "Ya ovey" [v sound turns into w] and meand, "the egg"; the Greek becomes, "Je ova" (Jehova), which helps notice how this came about from "the egg". The perfect oval (or egg) is the sun's shape as a circle and given Judaism evolved from Egyptian's sun-worship, you have to look back into the Egyptian origins to understand the original thinking. The term "Nile" hints at this given it meant what we now use as "nihil" or "null". The supposed sky god, Nut, is also where we get "nothing". I'm only giving some basic note of these as it relates to Nothingness. The confusion for others like you existed in the past as well and why the evolution of interpreting God's name as so sacred that it could not be stated. The philosophers would have tried to say to the layperson that the original 'creator' (whichever that could be) derived itself from 'absolutely nothing' but is "ineffible" (hard to speak about) given it cannot be true NOW! 

No time 'exists' at such an origin. So the argument is the same that later interpreters redefinition of God as a literal person-like being rather than merely "the source" or the related similar generic terms, like "lord" (owner of the Universe) being one: If absolutely nothing existed, it had nothing to OBEY, such as 'laws' nor 'logic'. At such an origin, it is then also true that it has no law preventing it from 'creating' anything; In fact, it 'creates' the laws and logic of our particular universe. To many, this became a magical supreme God rather than merely Nothing. The intellectuals who first questioned these became the authors of what became things like religious scriptures. But the interpretations passed on came from the naive minded 'simpletons' dominating the political power over historical documents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dowell said:

The general consensus is that life originated in the 5% of the universe that we can see. I find this unlikely.  I think that it is more likely that it originated in the 68% of the universe that we call dark energy. All the matter of the observable universe was contained for billions of years in a very small object, believed to be smaller than a single atom.  After  the big bang it took billions of years for the matter to cool enough to the atoms that are the building blocks all we see.  It is only recently that stars and planets formed that are conducive to life.

Dark matter on the other hand is believed to be evenly distributed throughout the universe, and stable. If we assume for the sake of argument that man’s spirit is made of dark energy, the bible tells us in  Genesis 2:7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,  and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6172100/

If we assume that near death experiences are events where the spirit left the body, then being able to see their bodies from an outside perspective tells us that even though we can’t see dark energy, it can see us.  Also the spirit has energy to move, but is virtually unaffected by gravity.  Approaching a light, and being greeted by deceased loved ones shows us that life continues after the body dies.

 

I argue that 'dark energy' is just the energy of any point in space and derives from 'contradictions', manifested as direct collisions that have no other dimensions to transfer energy from. So it finds these points as 'new' points in space. The 'energy' then is the expansion of space itself. Dark matter is the phase of random points in space of the latter new points that spin creating curved paths (rather than Newtonian straight lines). It is 'dark' because light is dependent upon matter, NOT the other way around that the Big Bang interpretation assumes. This though is a part of my own theory and while others in physics may 'agree' they often have to fit it into the normal accepted theories (or they'd be burdened like I am to have to go back and undo a lot of mis-interpretations. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I argue that 'dark energy' is just the energy of any point in space

It seems that dark energy is the energy of every point in space. It is not at all random.

 

5 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I believe that IF (a condition) there IS an 'origin', then it is from absolutely nothing.

Of course before there was something, there was nothing. In a vacuum virtual particles appear for an instant and then recombine into nothingness again. If two sets of virtual particles happened to collide with two of the opposite particles uniting, it would leave the other halves still existing. It would take countless eons for these particles to form a large mass, but time is only relevant if someone is waiting for something. We have no idea how dark energy came into bring, because we can't observe it, but we do know that it is responsible for the accelerating expanse of the universe. If God didn't create the particles of the universe, it begs the question, did Leonardo da Vinci create the Mona Lisa, or did he just rearrange already existing paint on an already existing canvas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 9:24 PM, Dowell said:

It seems that dark energy is the energy of every point in space. It is not at all random.

 

Of course before there was something, there was nothing. In a vacuum virtual particles appear for an instant and then recombine into nothingness again. If two sets of virtual particles happened to collide with two of the opposite particles uniting, it would leave the other halves still existing. It would take countless eons for these particles to form a large mass, but time is only relevant if someone is waiting for something. We have no idea how dark energy came into bring, because we can't observe it, but we do know that it is responsible for the accelerating expanse of the universe. If God didn't create the particles of the universe, it begs the question, did Leonardo da Vinci create the Mona Lisa, or did he just rearrange already existing paint on an already existing canvas?

Well, you are asking the right questions. But the particular physics are too deep to discuss here properly. The only reason I mention these at all is due to the accusation that the atheist is somehow the deluded person for believing that we could derive from nothing. To summarize the point I am making regarding this...

If absolutely nothingness could NOT originate anything, then all things always exists and literally nothing is false ANYWHERE in Totality which automatically includes 'abolutely nothing' as ONE particular concept. And if one thinks that 'God' is the answer, it begs what God is (as a representation of Nature itself) if it lacks the power to create from 'nothing'. So philosophically, you are correct: we don't really 'create' from nothing. But WHAT we create, if it is novel (new), is derived from a RELATIVE state of nothingness (versus the absolute). But note that all nothings are nevertheless 'equal' in meaning and is a property of everything. 

[For an example, try to imaging what any specific point in space is. Each point in space is "nothing". Yet the combination of such points infinitely create everything.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...