Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creator of God, Big Bang
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 91 of 162 (452079)
01-29-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 1:06 PM


Re: for CS
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 2:48 PM tesla has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 162 (452121)
01-29-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by tesla
01-29-2008 1:46 PM


Re: for CS
by your words, you attack me in anger
Nope, there's no anger.
do you call yourself a christian, and call christ lord, but do not do what he Say's?
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?
that you do not understand science, nor the words of the Lord, because you try to separate the two.
Well fuck you too. Actually though, I don't separate them.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 1:46 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 93 of 162 (452136)
01-29-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 2:48 PM


Re: for CS
But, ya know, whatever dude.
At least I won the argument.
Catholic Scientist = 1
tesla = 0
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 2:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 3:28 PM tesla has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 162 (452142)
01-29-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by tesla
01-29-2008 3:22 PM


Re: for CS
But, ya know, whatever dude.
At least I won the argument.
Catholic Scientist = 1
tesla = 0
as you see it, so be it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 3:22 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 3:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 95 of 162 (452145)
01-29-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
01-29-2008 3:28 PM


Re: for CS
Because now we all know that that has been refuted.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2008 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 96 of 162 (452211)
01-29-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by tesla
01-29-2008 10:30 AM


Re: Makes More Sense
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.
So when God makes things "naturally", like uranium, its like God building his house on the sand.
Remember this:
almost all of the elements we have forced into creation exist only a short time because they cannot maintain order in that form
---
if someone does not know the difference between order and disorder, its impossible to have a true discussion.
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.
you see, as with in politics, dogmatism can be held on apparent things, as opposed to true things.
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)
i hope i answered your questions, and was able to explain what i meant about the natural order
Not really. It seems your now saying "goddidit because its natural". Order and disorder don't seem to be important factors for your case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 10:30 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 6:43 PM Vacate has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 97 of 162 (452219)
01-29-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Vacate
01-29-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
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.
order is established form.
chaos is absolute disorder.
the short time an element exist outside of its natural environment, is because its outside the natural environment. its important to understand, this for this reason:
outside of God, man cannot exist.
the order is relevant in understanding all things by this:
water is two hydrogen , 1 oxygen, and become water. the hydrogen and oxygen do not war with each other, but compliment each other and exist in the order with perfection, which is water, and behaves in its environment as it should for that condition.
now lets say a hydrogen becomes unstable, it would not be ordered, but rather disordered, then does the water cease to be water, because without two hydrogens, its not water. so also must oxygen be stable as oxygen to remain oxygen, and hydrogen by its own right ordered to remain hydrogen.
a kingdom divided cannot stand, so also , can no order be established on top of disorder without direction.
man has the power to direct, so we can take the ordered structure of water, which behaves rather disorderly in its environment, and build on top of it a ship. the ship will float and conquer the behavior of the orderly structure.
other things also, with direction, or by properties contrary to the behaviors of water, can conquer water. by living in and below it, or on top.
but no thing, not in all observation, can be chaos and order exist on top of it without direction. not one observation have i seen, nor been shown.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Vacate, posted 01-29-2008 6:25 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Vacate, posted 01-29-2008 7:14 PM tesla has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 98 of 162 (452228)
01-29-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by tesla
01-29-2008 6:43 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
water is two hydrogen , 1 oxygen, and become water. the hydrogen and oxygen do not war with each other
So this is an example of an ordered natural element.
but no thing, not in all observation, can be chaos and order exist on top of it without direction. not one observation have i seen, nor been shown.
Oklo - natural nuclear fission reactor
This 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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 6:43 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 7:31 PM Vacate has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 99 of 162 (452236)
01-29-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Vacate
01-29-2008 7:14 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
no, it is only behaviors of natural orders, or something directed.
you and many others continuously show me these natural behaviors and point to : hey hey its chaos chaos!
but they are natural behaviors of the ordered structure.
chaos can be contained within order, I've been shown that too.
but none of that is order on top of chaos without direction.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Vacate, posted 01-29-2008 7:14 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Vacate, posted 01-29-2008 7:46 PM tesla has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 100 of 162 (452238)
01-29-2008 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by tesla
01-29-2008 7:31 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
no, it is only behaviors of natural orders, or something directed.
I accept that. So all examples thus far are natural orders.
you and many others continuously show me these natural behaviors and point to : hey hey its chaos chaos!
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.
chaos can be contained within order, I've been shown that too.
Exactly. We can both provide examples, you however insist that all examples counter to yours are God directed. Prove it.
but none of that is order on top of chaos without direction.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 7:31 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 8:13 PM Vacate has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 101 of 162 (452244)
01-29-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Vacate
01-29-2008 7:46 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
I accept that. So all examples thus far are natural orders.
i love you! you do understand! good, I'm excited at this turn of events
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?
lets observe electricity. it is apparently chaos contained within order (yet can be argued as order by some)
so if its chaos within order, yet we create an order on top of it (computers) by directing its flow.
this is just to show where order can be established by direction.
now for the importance of the law, which when understood as true, works complimentary with the other laws i brought you, to prove God.
law: nothing outside energy is real. something cannot literally come form nothing.
ok. so something was before what is. what did it look like? how could such a order as the natural order exist?
always was? man wasn't. the earth wasn't. science shows us that right? don't stars implode? change?
so by looking to the beginning and the inevitable before that's we come to one energy. because as long as two energies are, before that is relevant.
now the laws.
apply those laws to a singular energy.
singular energy question: intelligent? not intelligent? ordered? chaos?
do you see? or ..how can i show where this law is important?
...if you took a computer apart and put it in a box, and left it alone to the natural order , would it become a computer by chance?
.........if directed?
...if i took all the energy of the universe and put it in a box..

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Vacate, posted 01-29-2008 7:46 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 10:15 PM tesla has replied
 Message 103 by Vacate, posted 01-29-2008 10:22 PM tesla has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 102 of 162 (452269)
01-29-2008 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by tesla
01-29-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
Hi tesla,
I have read quite a bit about your laws are you trying to say:
Colo 1:16 (KJV) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Consist Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
archaic a: exist be b: to be capable of existing
This is what I get from my greek books:
to place together, to bring or band together to put together, unite parts into one whole to be composed of, consist
I draw from this that:
Jesus was before all things.
Jesus created all things.
All things exists because He exists
Jesus holds all things together.
How far is this from what you are saying tesla?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 8:13 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by tesla, posted 01-30-2008 8:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 103 of 162 (452271)
01-29-2008 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by tesla
01-29-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
lets observe electricity. it is apparently chaos contained within order (yet can be argued as order by some)
What is apparent to some is quite obviously wrong by those who know better. It all comes back to that natural order.
so if its chaos within order, yet we create an order on top of it (computers) by directing its flow. this is just to show where order can be established by direction.
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.
now for the importance of the law, which when understood as true, works complimentary with the other laws i brought you, to prove God.
You give an example and then procede to call it a law? Then just keep on marching right up to proof? Astonishing.
ok. so something was before what is. what did it look like?
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?
how could such a order as the natural order exist?
Laws of physics.
so by looking to the beginning and the inevitable before that's we come to one energy.
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?
singular energy question: intelligent? not intelligent? ordered? chaos?
How about 'no such thing'?
do you see? or ..how can i show where this law is important?
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.
...if you took a computer apart and put it in a box, and left it alone to the natural order , would it become a computer by chance?
No. What relevance to anything is this? Do you think scientists believe that things in nature assemble themselves for no particular reason?
...if i took all the energy of the universe and put it in a box..
...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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by tesla, posted 01-29-2008 8:13 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by tesla, posted 01-30-2008 8:30 AM Vacate has replied
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2008 10:24 AM Vacate has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 104 of 162 (452379)
01-30-2008 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Vacate
01-29-2008 10:22 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
What is apparent to some is quite obviously wrong by those who know better. It all comes back to that natural order.
i had thought you understood.
uranium doesn't exist outside of an environment it can be sustained in.
neither does electricity, the earth, the sun, nor the galaxy.
all things are natural and a part of the natural order. a computer exists in the galaxy, subject to the laws of science that we have discovered are: the laws of the natural order.
the natural order did not come from nothing. it is not sustained by nothing.
there is nothing more then i can say, if you cant see that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Vacate, posted 01-29-2008 10:22 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Vacate, posted 01-30-2008 5:26 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 105 of 162 (452381)
01-30-2008 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by ICANT
01-29-2008 10:15 PM


Re: Makes More Sense
spot on. Jesus is/was the consciousness of God that became one with the body of a man.
so Jesus is one in God and God one with Jesus. and the two are one (consciousness and body)
spot on my friend. spot on.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2008 10:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024