Creator of God, Big Bang

http://EvC Forum: Creator of God, Big Bang -->EvC Forum: Creator of God, Big Bang its on this topic. you can click my name to find other debates. there pretty long tho.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

no one was there, this is a tentative theory "possibly true". but your right, my language should have been more politically correct for the theory. no. im using this analogy for creation. not the big bang. the chemistry analogy isn't saying the big bang was an act of chemistry literally, but as an analogy, the energy that all things came from created, and that the radiation is more probable to be a by-product of the creation. i forgot a word:IT. but it is not the wood....

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

salt crystals are an ordered structure. not chaos. ok... john 1:1also, who told moses to set his people free? "I AM"

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

water is an ordered structure, and salt is an ordered structure, the reaction with them both together is exactly as it should be under the condition that the two properties exist. its this complication of perfect order that shows to me a design of intended purpose.chaos becoming order by direction would be examples as: fractals (man directed) or a house built on sand , by a foundation being made superior to the sands properties by man.another example of direction is living things, which are directed by DNA.in no instance will you find absolute disorder maintaining order on top of it without direction. either A: its an ordered form, behaving as designed, or B: a chaotic form conquered by direction. no, actually, its: intelligent energy that existed singularly, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.but you'll not see that, because you see God as above heaven and earth. when he is a part of it. the marriage of the lamb is where God accepts man back into his body even tho we denied him here, as long as christ will speak for you. and so what does he say about denial? i cannot judge how the denial will be considered an offense for death, but I'm not ignorant of it, so i cant deny him what is him.perhaps for some it would be better to be ignorant, but even as the story of the talents, what God says to gamble in the markets, so do i gamble the money he gave me to gamble.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

no more are they an invalid, than when all the world accepted the science that the earth was flat. they only know what they can see of it, and make a guess at what they cannot verify. but when verification comes, should they not accept the reality of it ? yes, impossible I'd agree. see, God is not created, but was. you ask before the big bang? (if you don't, you should) ok there was a greater heaven that God was with (before that?) another heaven. (before that?)you could go on all day. ok God. before that? (a bigger God) before that?go on all day.eventually there is only one thing that was first. nothing is outside of energy, and as long as two energies are, before that is relevant.so you you can OK I GET IT ONE THING WAS FIRST SIGULAR ENERGY AND ALL THINGS CAME FROM IT.and ill go: ok...what is it?so apply a singular energy that created from itself to scientific reason. what do you get?intelligent? not intelligent?
how did it know it was?
chaotic energy?
pure order?
if ordered, that shows intelligence for such a complicated energy.
if chaotic, how could it become ordered forms?Edited by tesla, : removed irrelevent

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

your name would show you are a scientist and a christian. but you argue against creation?an ordered element is order and behaves as it should for its property.elemental tables. ordered elements with natural behaviors for its ordered form.now, almost all of the elements we have forced into creation exist only a short time because they cannot maintain order in that form.therefore, the elements of salt, and water, and even together apparently as one, behave as they should for the condition they exist in the natural "order"if you disagree, then i cant hope for you to understand the science.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i meant almost all of the MAN created. then how come you cannot understand the difference between order, and disorder?water is an ordered structure. the elements that exist are ordered structures. if disorder, they would not hold form.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

good research what i mean by natural order is what was directed by God's design, and things man have created within the natural order (computers and elements) are man made orders. like building a house on sand. mankind can destroy the earth, by mans means. man has the ability to warp and distort the natural order to the will of man.of what is within man's means. (concerning inability to explain)if someone does not know the difference between order and disorder, its impossible to have a true discussion.its like having a political discussion with someone who's only position is: Clinton did good when he was in office, so Hilary is the best candidate.you can argue all day long and ask them why Hilary would make a good president, but you'll discover the individual doesn't know that Hilary is against guns, he is an owner of several guns , and an NRA supporter, and regardless of any evidence you show of Hilary's positions in politics, the individual will still claim because Clinton was in a strong economy, his wife Hilary will be the best candidate of them all.you see, as with in politics, dogmatism can be held on apparent things, as opposed to true things. because many will believe that the apparent is the truth, without any willingness to see if what is "apparent" is real.ghost flies into your room and disappears. for the rest of the person life they claim they know ghosts are real they saw one. what the person didn't know is that it was a mirror trick an 8th grader did just to harass his neighbor with a little magic he was learning.i hope i answered your questions, and was able to explain what i meant about the natural order, since some words have different intents (and sometimes definitions) by context.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it holds the form of water. if it was a disordered form, it would not remain as water. it behaves as it should for the condition it exists (it does as water should. a red item is red as you say if you understand that simpler)

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

if only i could larni i actually speak three languages fluently: English, bad English, and worse English.its hard for me to explain concepts that the English language doesn't properly give words to describe.(faith for example, few understand its true definition, so its usage can greatly be distorted in conversation)Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

since you know the elements, let me explain conditions in hopefully a language you understand.lets take the most volatile of man discovered elements.its existence is for a very very short fraction of a second.but under the proper condition, of continual bombardment by forces that would mirror how we discovered it, it would exist continually. perhaps in the center of a red giant.but outside the condition it needs to exist, it cannot exist.an analogy is building a fire in water. fire can exist underwater with a continued force that is protected from the water, but if you try to take say, wood, and a match and build a fire inside water, it is impossible. not the right conditions.so also, is the existence of this universe and everything in it, dependant on the condition that sustains it. this condition is existence itself (God) and without that..nothing is.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Luke 4:4
mark 13:31
mark 12:271 Corinthians 8:5for though there be that are called gods. whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many)
but to us there is but one God, the father of whom are all things, and we by him.Mathew 23:19i fail to understand why you don't see that without God nothing has been, nor will be at the end.it is true that man has separated themselves from God, and God gave us medicine to eat and drink, but God did not leave anyone or anything, but sustains it til the time appointed that only that which is of him will be retained.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

by your words, you attack me in anger.do you call yourself a christian, and call christ lord, but do not do what he Say's?i am not attacking you, but giving to you as it was given to me to show, and who can i obey? the will of men, or the will of God?this i am given to tell you: that you do not understand science, nor the words of the Lord, because you try to separate the two. but by understanding this next statement, will both become clearer to you:no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other.
therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by.i wish no ill for you, but will pray for your understanding. God forgive me for having brought you to anger, because i wish only the truth, and no ill to any.the will of God be done, so be it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

as you see it, so be it.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

not true.see , what i have agreed with you on, is that you have won the debate by your "position" of the truth. to which you are debating.but i am debating for the truth. and if i find anything in error, i will correct it. because for the truth i seek, and never win any debate, but unless the truth is known.where have you shown what i have said to be false to me? have you changed my position? if you have found proof against what i say, then say it a way i can understand so i will recognize my error. but if all you show me is that you disagree, without showing me something i can understand in truth, how can my position change?as you see it, so let it be, but you have not shown those laws false. no more than you have shown me that the bible Say's that all that is, is not sustained by God. you have not shown it. so why should i believe you?but for yourself, your position you win for yourself. but it is not mine.Edited by tesla, : the=that

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides