Creator of God, Big Bang

So, Christians do not believe that their God created them in his own image? Interesting. That must be in the scriptures of some other religion I've heard of, then.As the God you're describing exists in all of our computers and in cyberspace, it's remarkably inconsiderate of him not to contribute a post or two to this thread which would resolve the discussion, IMO.But then, he goes in mysterious ways his undetectable wonders to perform, doesn't he?

What is this proof of which you speak? in the previous thread where you proposed your laws you established only that real things have to be real and that because energy is real so is your version of a god.Nothing more. But you have debated your laws on this forum with me and other and have simply repeated your assesrtions over and over.Nothing more.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

How did you arrive at that conclusion because I clearly never suggested that?

do to complexity, i had recognized as a teen that all that is did not come form nothing. but no religion could satisfy me. i said to myself: surly religion is just moral codes established for mankind to be able to establish order of the masses, and belief in a God who cares is because our minds are weak, and need hope to not corrupt itself.so i kept searching for the truth of reality, and decided, whether from whence we came cared or not, that it was there. so i would talk to it in secret..i would pray, for understanding. for truth, because if i was wrong, i could potentially die as most religions said, and i wanted to know, i felt i had that right to know, since the teachings of religion did not connect enough on issues for me to take it at face value. even Jesus has been twisted , one christ, but several churches.so i observed reality and asked for understanding. i researched many things, religion, and a love since i was a child: science. i also observed the miracle of growth. a tiny seed sprouting into large trees, every plant a purpose when planted, every insect a purpose, every bird, every walking creature, the deer to feed off the land, the coyote to feed off deer, and the balance was set, that there would be neither too little, nor too much of the others, but just the right amount to sustain. exception: man.so i was in wonder, that mankind was outside the special balance, and did not suit any purpose, accept what man chose.so i observed in my youth: nothing outside of energy is real.
but i didn't know it by those words. most would just say something cannot come from nothing.i know now, that God is a body of energy, the first body, that nothing was before, and just was. i know we are also a part of that body, like an eye or a foot is a part of our bodies. but my eye doesn't rebel against the body, if it did, it would have to be cut out. mankind denies the body it lives in, and for a being that existed and does exist by faith, anything other than faith is poison and rebellion. the stones do not argue there molecular structure, if they did, they would not hold form. mankind argues against God with its doubt, and so for it, we are not a part of his body, but by choice. the truth is we are, we just choose to believe we are not.so then will come the death of this body, but in the body of God nothing dies and is destroyed wholly, but just transformed into another part of the body, but for man, for the denial, there can be no transformation in our denial, and so there is a holding place for chaos within the order of God, and when the time appointed comes, this chaos will but cut off from the body of God, and that is the second death.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.here are the laws you ask for larni, which you debated with me already.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. re-read the debate then, because other than people saying they will not beleive, they have not shown me one thing contrary to the laws that have any truth.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi Rahvin, In the OP Dr Evolution said: He ask a question and gave the answer. There is nothing here to debate. The question is answered. What is the "it" he is talking about? This is the "it" he is talking about.Now can we discuss his "it" or is this my last post in this thread?Do we need clarification from a moderator or admin?Have fun now,

---

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

Then why are we talking at all? The answer is that you didn't read far enough:

quote:

---

My question is who created God, or how did God come about?

​

Now I know the answer is he wasn't created, he has always been there..

​

However doesn't this throw the whole argument that machines require an engineer out the window? Humans cannot arise by chance, but a God with infinite power can?

---

You left off the last part. The OP asks why, if humans are too complex to have arisen without a Creator, the Creator can exist without himself having a Creator, since he must be more complex than humanity. I would think "the observable Universe." Since this isn't part of the science forums, Im somewhat uncomfortable with going far afield into the Big Bang without moderator go-ahead. The OP seems, to me, to be speaking about the question "who created the Creator," which is a different subject.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Not clearly never because you said, and I quoted: In addition to the implications of the two words I've emphasized, I wasn't aware that Christians are present "at all points in time and space time", and therefore they can hardly be the made in the image of the God you're describing.

This is what makes me almost want to cry, tesla. You kind of almost make sense up to the point where you conclude a god from the fact that the energy of the universe came from sometime in the past.What you are effectively saying is that the background microwaves we can detect as a remnant of the big bang (or should be say big acceleration?) is your god.We don't know about the initiation of the big bang; but that is no reason to conclude your gods' existance.That is god of the gaps.

i never said that. you said that. i said whatever first is energy. i didn't claim, and do not claim, that we know which perfect singular measurable energy is the energy I'm seeking. I'm saying the energy that all things have come from IS there. and by scientific examination of what that energy is, is the law of existence. I'm not sure what the energy looks like, but i know what I'm looking for.

---

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

Look up background microwave energy. It's the echo of the big bang.There's your genesis energy energy. No mess, no fuss.

ok lets explore this. so..in the result of the big bang, this radiation is leftover as an echo from the resulting explosion.this however, does not mean that what exploded was the radiation, but rather the radiation was a by-product. since radiation apparently has no intelligence to create of itself, i would rather not say this is God.lets review how i see this "echo"there is a pile of wood. and a lighter. and i light the wood. the wood burns. it emits smoke, gasses, and leaves behind a pile of ashes. the ashes are an echo of what was, but is not the wood and lighter and hand that did the lighting that I'm looking for.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

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?

to further clarify the wood and fire analogy:the wood is the Body, the hand is the Word (intelligence/consciousness),and the lighter that did the lighting: FaithEdited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

if mankind always was, and no dinosaurs existed before us, there would be no reason to suggest anything evolved. but because of evolution, we know the before was different.big bang is theory. a guess. probably mostly true, but missing pieces. so not absolutely true.most will argue that God is the same. but by my observations, God IS.
and the proof only needs to be debated by individuals and science seriously, before they will be understood.no one would take : "energy cannot be created or destroyed" by face value. they tested it. time and time again. so also, must the laws i have brought be tested.the big bang is only as relevant as its claim, which is: apparently true, with missing holes.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

Please look up the big bang theory. It has nothing to do with an 'explosion'. Think expansion and cooling. Nothing exploded in the sense of chemical combustion. For the first 300k years or so there where not even atoms. Very poor analogy: you are conflating chemical combustion with the big bang. Sorry, is this a question?