Creator of God, Big Bang

Almost all? So then your statement is meaningless. You are aware of uranium? Remember your last statement - behave as they should for the condition they exist in the natural "order", run it through your mind for a while. Please explain.

So when God makes things "naturally", like uranium, its like God building his house on the sand.Remember this: --- You have not established that anyones replies have shown a lack of understanding about order/disorder. I took your example of water 'holding its form' and your saying man made tends to exist for a short time to mean that nature is ordered. My example has shown that you are incorrect in this assupmtion. The reason for me asking you to explain your statement: "if you disagree, then i cant hope for you to understand the science." is because you do not as of yet have a coherent argument that shows anyone is lacking in an understanding of science. What is true is that nature is not always ordered as you are trying to imply. (Unless I interpreted your posts incorrectly, if so I would appreciate a better explaination) Not really. It seems your now saying "goddidit because its natural". Order and disorder don't seem to be important factors for your case.

So this is an example of an ordered natural element. Oklo - natural nuclear fission reactorThis is an example of a natural, disordered element that made a natural self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Order from disorder and all that.This is of course a waste of time. I will provide examples of natural order from disorder (stars, snowflakes, nuclear reactors, extreme pressurized frozen water producing double helixes, etc). You will then state that all things natural are Goddidits and that my examples simply support your preconcieved notions. All attempts at providing examples are therefore impossible as you have already stacked the deck with the assertion that everything is created, be it man made or God made.I don't mind however. It may prove interesting to discover through this exactly what you consider to be a true "understanding of the science".

I accept that. So all examples thus far are natural orders. I don't think its chaos. You imply its chaos and that nothing can result unless directed. I have simply accepted your criterea for 'order' and shown an example that is counter to it. All things obey the natural laws, if you agree with this then the burden is on you to prove that God created the natural laws. Exactly. We can both provide examples, you however insist that all examples counter to yours are God directed. Prove it. It is unless you have evidence to the contrary. Explain the 'director' that choreographed the Oklo reactor to produce the results seen. It appears to me that your whole argument rests on nature=God, is this your 'be all end all' understanding of science?

What is apparent to some is quite obviously wrong by those who know better. It all comes back to that natural order. Or we could just watch a thunderstorm and marvel at its obvious undirected electrical outbursts. My example is just to show a lack of direction. You give an example and then procede to call it a law? Then just keep on marching right up to proof? Astonishing. Before when? I take it that your reference to the common creationist claim of "something cannot come from nothing" is directed at The Big Bang Theory - so if you want an answer to what it looked like before T=0 I will reply that this is nonsensical and certainly not science.As for what it looked like... should I hazard a guess and say George Burns? Laws of physics. Thats an interesting claim. You are claiming that everything came from just one 'energy'. I thought you claimed that something cannot come from nothing, but now you are willing to reduce it down to the entire universe came from just one 'energy'? Do you have evidence that engery multiplies; Is it multiplying now? In 15 billion years we went from one 'energy' to the universe, in another 15 will there be twice as much energy as there is currently? How about 'no such thing'? How about show that its a law in the first place. For that matter what law are you talking about? You listed one: nothing outside energy is real. That law is questionable at best, but I am willing to skip the space between superclusters just to keep this discussion moving. No. What relevance to anything is this? Do you think scientists believe that things in nature assemble themselves for no particular reason? ...with a cat.Seriously though. The answer is yes. If you put uranium in a box it decays, cats in boxes (with uranium) they die, matter/energy in boxes they obey the laws of physics. Thats it. Boxes wont produce computers because computers are not the result of the laws of physics. They work on those laws, admittedly, because everything does. All the energy of the universe put in a box will result in the universe doing what it does. Put the energy of a different universe in a different box and what will it do? Whatever its laws dictate.Please try to maintain some semblance of structure here. All these dots and unconnected thoughts make it difficult for discussion. I am at a loss to understand what you are considering a 'law' and what is just a thought, example, or point. I respect that you are trying to swing this over to Big Bang instead of chemistry but instead of showing that you are reading what I say it would seem that you are only reading fragments and using them to further your sermons. No need to jump all over the place, if you want to lead me in a certain direction please do it in an ordered fashion.Edited by Vacate, : Formatting

There is nothing more I will write given that you cannot be bothered to read my whole post. Good day.

Thank you. That is Mt. Rainier just this last summer, that was a great moment in a holiday full of great moments. I am following you and Cavediver discussing this in the other thread. Hes correct... I just have thoughts! I do not see why one energy is any different than "something coming from nothing", as I said to Tesla - in 15 billion years will there be twice as much energy as there is currently? Where did all that energy come from? Nothing?I find it confusing that people would object to everything coming from a singularity, but accept everything coming from a singular. I see Rhavin has explained about lightning, I would like to reply however about the purpose. You could argue that lightning was only made to benefit humans. How would you go about proving that though? I certainly cannot disprove it, but I could just as easily reply that Thor made lightning to keep forests from becoming too crowded. (I could list off other foolish alternatives but I am sure you get the point)Attempting to infer purpose in nature is just a game. It doesn't really have any answers to any real questions. There is no real reason as far as I can tell to object to your claim, it just doesn't really tell me anything.Why do you choose to believe that God made lightning for us? Why not believe God made us for lightning to merrily zap from time to time? What makes you think that there is not lightning on other planets and have nothing at all to do with us.

I take it you mean "explanation"? The fundemental laws of physics have no explanation, they just are. Why? Science does not know. You will claim to have the answer, but you can be sure my next question will be - where is your evidence. (be sure to have it ready, it save us both some time) The Universe, obviously. No The nothingness outside of the universe is real, so is the nothingness between energies. It depends on what you define as real. It also do not see any relevance to this. Whats a lie? Your questions? The answers you expected me to give? Believe what? You are not making sense. I do in fact believe you exist, there is a slight chance that you are a mere chat bot designed to confuse the shit out of me, but if that is the case I still believe that you exist (as a chat bot). Prove direction. As a matter of fact - prove behaivour. All you have done, that I can see, is attempt to show that everything in nature is directed. I claim it is directed by natural processes and natural laws, you appear to be saying this is not the case. I cannot go beyond the evidence that science has put forth so far, there is no reason for the laws of physics that has been discovered. What truth? People are selling truth by the bucket load, I don't buy into claims of truth. There is evidence or philosophy, truth fits soundly in the second choice.

Though this is true (I have no reason to doubt you), that is not really my point. My point, though massively off topic, is that your position and Teslas does not tell me anything. It doesn't tell me what makes lightning, uranium, the expansion of space and time, or even the grand why am I here. Science answers those questions, saying "God made lightning for peoples benefit" does not. It may be true, but it lacks substance the same as if I said I created everything last tuesday. We do appear to be in agreement. I have never had a problem with inserting God into the before. Call it what you will, it harms nothing and if it gives your days meaning - I am all for it. My complaint comes when it trivializes or contradicts science.Sherlock Holmes - "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

Do you mean the bow or burn Christian godlet? Hardly. Scientifically athiest. Philisophically agnostic, see science for my reasons.

A singularity. Read about it, singularity does not mean 'nothing'. Nonsensical. I am sure ICANT can fill you in as to why. Now from my philisophical viewpoint... I don't know. I can imagine a few scenarios but your not really interested in my musings are you? Sure I can. But I am perfectly capable of differentiating my philosophy from my scientific outlooks. (in this case, I am a work in progress and not 100% effective) That depends on the viewpoint I wish to take. If I am to look at this from a scientific point of view then I am obligated to defer to a scientist to present me evidence in support of a particular viewpoint. If sufficient evidence comes about its possible that I may change my mind (if I can wrap my head around it)Forgive me if I misinterpret but I get the feeling that you find the thought of waiting for something to be discovered before having a 'belief' as something to be reviled. Is this true? Is it logical?ABE: Sorry I missed your post #116. I just noticed it now. I will address the nothingness/energy issue in my next post if you wish?Edited by Vacate, : ABE missed a post

I would suggest starting here for a much better explanation than I can provide. There are also several members who are much more qualified (and better worded).I will however stick my neck out and take a stab at a few highlights.

Its not a 'singular energy', its all the energy of the universe focused at one point.

Its that point where relativity breaks down and the gravitational field becomes infinite.

For some reason its the reason science needs to merge quantum physics and relativity. (Ready for the chopping block on this one)

Its the beginning of time, T=0. Meaning there is no before.

String Theory. Don't hold your breath however, it has no evidence that I am aware of.

If you know the basics then why do you ask to further scrutinize something that cannot be scrutinzed? Relativity breaks down at that point, so outside of philosophy how do you propose to study it? Scientifically I do not believe that it says anything at all. I assure you I am not trying to be difficult.

You don't understand. If relativity breaks down at the singularity you cannot use it. That is why another theory is needed. Relativity does not work. As far as I can tell, not much (or nothing) is known. I am sure if there are too many you won't have a problem listing a few. That is correct. You don't think that scientists have brushed off their hands and called it a day do you? Of course there is more to learn. As long as there is a universe there are things that can be studied. Your not suggesting that you have the truth that each and every scientist has worked lifetimes to attain, what has taken you years has taken humanity hundreds? Ah, I see. You mean magical truth and not knowledge gained from science. I thought you meant "what is true" to mean "what is scientific". So does this magical truth supercede what knowledge has been gained from science? No need to hurry off. Kick off your shoes and stay a while, perhaps you will get some definitive answers about string theory, singularities, or Big Bang. You may even find you have more to contribute than you realized. Grow a thick skin, question carefully, and you can learn a lot.