Creator of God, Big Bang

There is no before the Big Bang and God was not created.BBists say that as we follow the expansion of the universe backwards we get to a point where there is no before.IDists say that as we follow the irreducible complexities backwards we get to the original creater that was not created.The BBists ask the IDists what created god and the IDists ask the BBists what is before the Big Bang. Neither can answer.If we trace the complexities back to a point where no creation is required, then we can't say that all complexities must be created.If we trace the expansion back to a point where there is no before, can we say that a current state must be from a previous one?

I don't believe you...How do you know it is God? You seem confident... too confident. Please link me to these laws you have brought. I don't know what you're refering too.

False. Salt crystals can form perfect cubes without direction. That's false too, although I won't refute it because basically it is an Argument from Incredulity. Then this god is not Christian God. While your conclusion might be sound, it is based on false premises so your conclusion is false.Sound does not mean true.

content removed, replied to wrong message.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

see Message 65

Sure, but a salt solution, from where the crystals form, is without order. Order can come from disorder without any direction or intelligence needed. So what? Gen 1:27. Gen 3:22.The Christian God is not just

quote:

---

intellegent energy that existed singularly

---

Nuh-uh

---

Seriously, though, what evidence suggests that salt obeys a design principle?You can't use the order, itself, as the evidence because that is what is suggesting design and that would make the reasoning circular. There is also every reason to think that it doesn't.

---

If I put salt in water to make a solution and then evaporate the water to let crystals form, those crystals can form perfect simple cubic crystalline structures all on there own without any aid at all.Why do I need to add intellegence to the process when it works fine without any?

Salt water is not an ordered structure. Salt crystals are. We can get order from disorder. You're wrong. You assume design, a priori, and then look for something that can seem to be designed, then you conclude designed.There is nothing in the growing of salt crystals that suggests an intelligent designer all on its own. You have to assume design to see design and that's why its bullshit and worthless. At the end of the day, that statement really means nothing. See right there in "A", you're assuming design before you even look. Nope because I see god inside me as well. He'd have to be a part of it for that. I've failed to make any sense out of that mumbo-jumbo.

Its true. Actually, I do believe that God created everything, I just think that Intellegent Design is a piece of shit. Wow, just wow. All of that shows just how little you understand.The funniest part is that water is not an element, but is made up of two elements: oxygen and hydrogen. But your general misunderstanding of what an element is and how they behave, and the false assertion that "almost all" of them are unstable, are also pretty funny. I have a Bachelor's of Science from one of the top 10 universities in the United States so I'm sure that I can understand the science.You've just exemplified how little you understand and how much you misunderstand. Actually, I suspect that you are a young person.But anyways, I bid you farewell. I don't feel like wasting anymore time on you.

Because you are using unconventional definitions. (or just plain don't understand it)By conventional definitions, water (meaning water molecules in the liquid phase) are NOT an ordered structure and it does not hold form. Pour a glass of water out on your desk and tell me the shape of its form. Because liquids have no resistance to shear, they will not hold form. Ice, on the other hand, can hold form as it is a solid, which has an ordered structure.The elements that exist don't have just one specific "ordered structure" (as you put it). Take carbon. If it finds itself in the ordered structure of a hexagonal crystal, then it is in the form of graphite. However, if it finds itself in a face-centered cubic structure, then it is the form of diamond.But again, these are not the definitions that you are using.I think by saying that water is ordered, you are meaning that water molecules have a specific molecular geometry. The are bent molecules, in the shape of a 'v', with an angle of 104.5 degrees. If that angle was off by a little, then ice would not be less dense than water (and would not float) and life on this planet as we know it would be impossible.It seems that you are trying to make an Anthropic argument.The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. And on top of that, you are acting like you think that you know what you are talking about and are condescending to people who try to correct you.Nobody is going to give you the time of day if you don't respect them and act like you are going to try to learn something.

---

In Message 77 you wrote:

quote:

---

an ordered element is order and behaves as it should for its property.

---

This definition is a tautology. you could have said as much saying that a red item is an item that is red

quote:

---

now, almost all of the elements we have forced into creation exist only a short time because they cannot maintain order in that form.

---

Radioactive elements don't have shorter half-lives because they cannot maintain order. Again, you are misusing (probably misunderstanding) the terms and then trying to act like you know what you are talking about.Basically your argument comes down to that god must exist because things are they way that they are. You haven't really brought anything profound to the table.

so you ARE making an Anthropic Argument? Here is the wiki page on the criticisms of the Anthropic Principle.Enjoy. I also want to point out, again, that while I don't have a problem with you defining your god in this way (as the sum of existence in the condition that everything is dependent on the condition that sustains it), but when you define god like this, you are no longer talkin about the Christian God, who has been anthropomorphized throughout the Bible.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

If you're going to quote the Bible, then at least QUOTE THE BIBLE....

quote:

---

Luke 4:4

​

4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

​

mark 13:31

​

31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

​

mark 12:27

​

27He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

​

1 Corinthians 8:5

​

5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

​

Mathew 23:19

​

19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

---

What do any of those passages have anything to do with our discussion? What makes you think that I don't see that? So what?All this has nothing to do with the failure of your argument.

---

I take god on faith, as he desires it. Its stupid to try to prove that god exists. Plus, if you did, then you wouldn't have faith anymore.ID is a piece of shit. That's what your going to see me arguing. It is bad science and even worse theology.

Nope, there's no anger. How would I know that it was HIM saying it. If a martian dressed up like Jesus and told you to jump off a bridge, you would just do it? Well fuck you too. Actually though, I don't separate them. An easier way to say this is that science investigates how god did things... just sayin'But, ya know, whatever dude.At least I won the argument.Catholic Scientist = 1

​

tesla = 0

Good then.So, I better not see you posting anything like this ever again:

quote:

---

the proof are these laws many have sen i posted them, some tried to debate them, all failed to prove any law wrong, and no one can prove them wrong, because they came from God because he loved me, and science is no longer a reason to deny him. but proof of him.

​

...

​

The laws of science that prove God:

​

Under this basis: you are. not maybe are. not could be are. but do, exist:

​

Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.

​

No ordered form can exist on top of chaos without direction. (remember direction.)

​

Something cant come from nothing. (it can "appear" to, but impossible to "litteraly" not come from nothing.(because we are)

​

This means: although we cant see the energy of God, nothing outside of energy is real. that is reality.

​

Existence had to be established, and all the elements are too ordered to have existed without direction.

​

So existence is a synonym for God, in that in the begining, there was intellegent energy that existed singularly, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.

​

Debate the law. its sound.

---

Because now we all know that that has been refuted.