The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ

[NicholasMarks]

Nick, could you kindly provide me a link to a scientific institution that says everything came from nothing?

That is the key principle behind the big-bang theory. There was nothing but this singularity which decided to explode creating all the mass in the universe in the pattern and form that led to how it is witnessed today. I have noticed a slight swing away from this scientific point but never-the-less it has been made known to the public as a scientific principle for a long time. Apparently all the trillions upon trillions of megatons of energy now present in the universe was all contained within that singularity.

Well...I don't buy it ...the Holy Bible doesn't buy it and, now, it seems, some scientists don't buy into it either. The truth is very complex but fits all the answers and, more importantly, fits the teaching contained within the Holy Bible.

[Nearly Sane]

That is the key principle behind the big-bang theory. There was nothing but this singularity which decided to explode creating all the mass in the universe in the pattern and form that led to how it is witnessed today. I have noticed a slight swing away from this scientific point but never-the-less it has been made known to the public as a scientific principle for a long time. Apparently all the trillions upon trillions of megatons of energy now present in the universe was all contained within that singularity.

Well...I don't buy it ...the Holy Bible doesn't buy it and, now, it seems, some scientists don't buy into it either. The truth is very complex but fits all the answers and, more importantly, fits the teaching contained within the Holy Bible.

I note that instead of pointing me to a scientific institution that states everything cones from nothing, you have instead laid out your basic misunderstood don't of Big Bang theory which emphatically does not state that. A singularity is not nothing

[NicholasMarks]

Sparky,

Never mind "going in to great detail". The question you were actually asked was this:

"In a fairly extended exchange we had a while back you said explicitly that the rate of earthquakes had risen, and you did so to imply that it was a portent of some kind. Are you saying:

1. That you did say that?

2. That you did not say that?

3. That you can't remember whether you said it or not?"

All you have to do to answer is to reply 1, 2 or 3.

Out of a courtesy you don't really deserve bluehillside...I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes...and certainly not as you previously implied in a tat-for-tat dialogue in which you presented your proof in exceptional detail. Now...a sensible person would not go round and round in circles in any argument, true or false, and I consider myself sensible...though I suspect you will have a snarling answer for that too.

[NicholasMarks]

I note that instead of pointing me to a scientific institution that states everything cones from nothing, you have instead laid out your basic misunderstood don't of Big Bang theory which emphatically does not state that. A singularity is not nothing

With all due respect Nearly Sane...where did the singularity come from??

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

Out of a courtesy you don't really deserve bluehillside...I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes...and certainly not as you previously implied in a tat-for-tat dialogue in which you presented your proof in exceptional detail. Now...a sensible person would not go round and round in circles in any argument, true or false, and I consider myself sensible...though I suspect you will have a snarling answer for that too.

Stop weaselling around the question. You know full well that if I produced a link to you saying that earthquakes are on the increase you'd wriggle out of it by saying that we didn't have a "detailed" exchange about it. That's why I made it very simple for you - all you have to do is to answer 1, 2 or 3.

Here it is again:

"In a fairly extended exchange we had a while back you said explicitly that the rate of earthquakes had risen, and you did so to imply that it was a portent of some kind. Are you saying:

1. That you did say that?

2. That you did not say that?

3. That you can't remember whether you said it or not?"

Dodge it again or finally answer it. It's your call.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

With all due respect Nearly Sane...where did the singularity come from??

With all due respect, why don't you answer the question Nearly asked you?

[Nearly Sane]

With all due respect Nearly Sane...where did the singularity come from??

haven't a clue, but it isn't nothing so can I suggest you retract the statement that scientific institutions state that everything came from nothing, as this is a misunderstanding as I pointed out?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

haven't a clue, but it isn't nothing so can I suggest you retract the statement that scientific institutions state that everything came from nothing, as this is a misunderstanding as I pointed out?

Just to note that if Sparky decided to withdraw every statement he'd got wrong about the findings of science we'd be here for an awful long time.

[NicholasMarks]

haven't a clue, but it isn't nothing so can I suggest you retract the statement that scientific institutions state that everything came from nothing, as this is a misunderstanding as I pointed out?

But I have a better answer Nearly Sane that fits in with the scientific dialogue on  the matter...it is Biblically inspired and offers the very material this theme is all about.

The singularity is a word to describe a force that lay within it and created everything...and common sense dictates that something must have created that force so...what was it?? You don't have to answer that...but science appears to be realising their folly slowly and no conjuring tricks can procure something to exist that has no reality attached to it...hence it is nothing.

[floo]

But I have a better answer Nearly Sane that fits in with the scientific dialogue on  the matter...it is Biblically inspired and offers the very material this theme is all about.

The singularity is a word to describe a force that lay within it and created everything...and common sense dictates that something must have created that force so...what was it?? You don't have to answer that...but science appears to be realising their folly slowly and no conjuring tricks can procure something to exist that has no reality attached to it...hence it is nothing.

Ye gods, you make it up as you go along!

[wigginhall]

Nothing is a complicated concept in physics, for example, under one interpretation 'nothing is inherently unstable', and can flip into non-nothing.  How this connects with the singularity, I don't know.

But in any case, some theists like to adopt it to suit their own arguments of creation 'ex nihilo', which produces a complete dog's breakfast of scientific ideas and theological ideas, not a good mixture.

(There is also the idea that the total energy in the universe amounts to zero, (combining positive energy with negative energy), but this is pretty indigestible stuff.)

[Nearly Sane]

But I have a better answer Nearly Sane that fits in with the scientific dialogue on  the matter...it is Biblically inspired and offers the very material this theme is all about.

The singularity is a word to describe a force that lay within it and created everything...and common sense dictates that something must have created that force so...what was it?? You don't have to answer that...but science appears to be realising their folly slowly and no conjuring tricks can procure something to exist that has no reality attached to it...hence it is nothing.

No, Nick, common sense doesn't give that answer because that leads to an infinite regress. So your question is nonsensical.  Further I note you are now playing with words to hide your misstatement  about big band theory. The singularity is not nothing. Scientific papers nstitutions do not say everything came from nothing. Again I suggest you retract this as it undermines any case you are making.

As to your 'better answer', can I suggest you provide it because nothing you have written so far is anything more than assertion. There has been no science.

[wigginhall]

Another interesting theory is that nothing is impossible, because of the uncertainty principle, in other words, to assume nothing is to be certain, and you can't measure anything with certainty.   Ah well, I guess you need a degree in physics to really get this.

[NicholasMarks]

No, Nick, common sense doesn't give that answer because that leads to an infinite regress. So your question is nonsensical.  Further I note you are now playing with words to hide your misstatement  about big band theory. The singularity is not nothing. Scientific papers nstitutions do not say everything came from nothing. Again I suggest you retract this as it undermines any case you are making.

I think I know where this is heading Nearly Sane but I will not move from my expressed position. I believe in Almighty God and his much loved son Jesus Christ who tell us that God has always been and always will be...which tells us that things existed before the big-bang...and this thread is all about exploring it with righteous truth incorporated within it.

If you cannot tell me what the singularity comprised of in hard...real terms, and science can't, then it must be nothing which squashes any argument in its validity.

[floo]

The definition of science is:

(((((the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.)))))

NM's fanciful statements have nothing to do with science.

[floo]

I think I know where this is heading Nearly Sane but I will not move from my expressed position. I believe in Almighty God and his much loved son Jesus Christ who tell us that God has always been and always will be...which tells us that things existed before the big-bang...and this thread is all about exploring it with righteous truth incorporated within it.

If you cannot tell me what the singularity comprised of in hard...real terms, and science can't, then it must be nothing which squashes any argument in its validity.

Who created god, if it exists, it just can't come from nothing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

I think I know where this is heading Nearly Sane but I will not move from my expressed position. I believe in Almighty God and his much loved son Jesus Christ who tell us that God has always been and always will be...which tells us that things existed before the big-bang...and this thread is all about exploring it with righteous truth incorporated within it.

If you cannot tell me what the singularity comprised of in hard...real terms, and science can't, then it must be nothing which squashes any argument in its validity.

You can believe anything you like. What you can't do though is to rest those beliefs on falsehoods about what science actually says and then expect to be taken seriously. 

[Nearly Sane]

I think I know where this is heading Nearly Sane but I will not move from my expressed position. I believe in Almighty God and his much loved son Jesus Christ who tell us that God has always been and always will be...which tells us that things existed before the big-bang...and this thread is all about exploring it with righteous truth incorporated within it.

If you cannot tell me what the singularity comprised of in hard...real terms, and science can't, then it must be nothing which squashes any argument in its validity.

That again is not science, Nick, and saying that something has always been contradicts your 'common sense'  idea that a something needs a cause.

Note up till now you hadn't asked what the singularity comprised of so I do not know why you imply that (a) you had and (b) that it hadn't been answered.

Further even if the answer is don't know that does not mean in any sense that it is nothing. Again I suggest you retract your statement.

[NicholasMarks]

The definition of science is:

(((((the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.)))))

NM's fanciful statements have nothing to do with science.

The definition of science suggests that first you collect all the data and analyse it and see what it tells you against reality. The Holy Bible is such a part of that data and tells us a great deal but you have all convinced yourselves that it is an irrelevant part of the scientific world when careful analysis shows that it contains the science of everything.

That is my view point and it would be wise to try and take in the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ to guarantee that you are living that science in the most fruitful way...me...well...I just believe...and it is the Christian part of the forum after all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

The Holy Bible is such a part of that data and tells us a great deal but you have all convinced yourselves that it is an irrelevant part of the scientific world when careful analysis shows that it contains the science of everything.

No it doesn't. The word "science" means something - systematic observation, measurement and experiment, and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses.

Which claims from the bible have you subjected to this process exactly in order claim it to be "scientific"?   

[NicholasMarks]

That again is not science, Nick, and saying that something has always been contradicts your 'common sense'  idea that a something needs a cause.

Note up till now you hadn't asked what the singularity comprised of so I do not know why you imply that (a) you had and (b) that it hadn't been answered.

Further even if the answer is don't know that does not mean in any sense that it is nothing. Again I suggest you retract your statement.

You now seem to want to go round and round in circular argument Nearly Sane. But I will go one better...the missing scientific link to the full and accurate knowledge of the universe...according to the Holy Bible...is that beneath all this high-speed activity of galaxies hurtling through an expanding universe is a static universe. Common sense and science must say that this dimension exists because it is the state that must have been before the big-bang. Now if you fit huge clouds of dynamic energy within that pre-big-bang, tranquil state, where time stands still, we have the starting point for a wonderful universe in which God says...look into the heavens...who made all these things...with the superabundance of his dynamic energy...not one is missing.

You wont perhaps realise just how important this is to you...but as all science comes into existence from what happens next...it might be wise to read your Holy Bible so that you can genuinely put forward an opposing view.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

You now seem to want to go round and round in circular argument Nearly Sane. But I will go one better...the missing scientific link to the full and accurate knowledge of the universe...according to the Holy Bible...is that beneath all this high-speed activity of galaxies hurtling through an expanding universe is a static universe. Common sense and science must say that this dimension exists because it is the state that must have been before the big-bang. Now if you fit huge clouds of dynamic energy within that pre-big-bang, tranquil state, where time stands still, we have the starting point for a wonderful universe in which God says...look into the heavens...who made all these things...with the superabundance of his dynamic energy...not one is missing.

You wont perhaps realise just how important this is to you...but as all science comes into existence from what happens next...it might be wise to read your Holy Bible so that you can genuinely put forward an opposing view.

Deranged.

[Nearly Sane]

You now seem to want to go round and round in circular argument Nearly Sane. But I will go one better...the missing scientific link to the full and accurate knowledge of the universe...according to the Holy Bible...is that beneath all this high-speed activity of galaxies hurtling through an expanding universe is a static universe. Common sense and science must say that this dimension exists because it is the state that must have been before the big-bang. Now if you fit huge clouds of dynamic energy within that pre-big-bang, tranquil state, where time stands still, we have the starting point for a wonderful universe in which God says...look into the heavens...who made all these things...with the superabundance of his dynamic energy...not one is missing.

You wont perhaps realise just how important this is to you...but as all science comes into existence from what happens next...it might be wise to read your Holy Bible so that you can genuinely put forward an opposing view.

 

And you seem to be avoiding that you have posited that everything needs a cause but that not everything needs a cause.

Again you are doing something closer to poetry than science in the above. Can you show your working rather than asserting things, please?

[Sebastian Toe]

You now seem to want to go round and round in circular argument Nearly Sane.

The only circle is of your own creation.
Someone asks you a question. You avoid answering it. You get asked the same question again and again and again. You avoid answering it again and again and again.
To break that circle all YOU have to do is answer the question.
Any chance of that happening?

[NicholasMarks]

Who created god, if it exists, it just can't come from nothing?

Your phraseology needs working on Floo...but it is all there in the Holy Bible.

I have found it wise not to go off at tangents though so you will have to be patient.