How Did the Universe Begin?

Science  -   320 Comments
Ratings: 7.00/10 from 14 users.

How Did the Universe Begin?Only a man with the brain the size of Stephen Hawking’s would seriously accept the challenge of answering the question How did the universe begin? in less than 30 minutes, while making it accessible for the population at large.

Hawking’s lecture is a masterclass in concision and clear- thinking. He spins through the history of thought on the subject, beginning with the early Biblical view that the world was created by God around 6,000 years ago. And that wasn't the only cockamamie theory dreamt up in the succeeding millennium. Up until the 20th century, mainstream thinking viewed the universe as eternal, a static expanse that had no beginning or end, and where, as Hawking supposes, "nothing very exciting ever happened".

Hawking himself, of course, has been instrumental in overturning many of the fallacious propositions about the origin and development of the universe, disproving (in his PhD thesis, for God's sake) the "bouncing" theory, which proposed that the universe expanded and contracted infinitely over time.

And his work with Gary Gibbons in the 1970s and early 1980s posited a feasible mechanism that explained why the universe is "lumpy" with galaxies, rather than having matter evenly distributed through it. "It was a problem I thought I could answer," says Hawking. An authority talking about what they know to a mainstream audience?

More great documentaries

320 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to adam Cancel reply

  1. Call me old and out of touch, but I still like the theory that the universe NEVER WAS CREATED, but has ALWAYS EXISTED, the whole infinity of it. Matter and energy can be transformed but never created of eliminated, or something like that. The whole 'big bang' notion could be wrong, or misunderstood. Eric Lerner worked this theory, and that of 'Plasma Cosmology' in his book 'The Big Bang Never Happened', 1991, which was heavily criticized and went out of vogue, so you don't hear of it much anymore. No matter, it certainly eliminated the whole 'creation' or 'no creation' argument, not that there still couldn't have been a 'god' for some other reason.......

    1. There are plenty of good solid lines of thought surrounding the concept of infinity, time creation, and many of the things your comment touches on..but you are not understanding the big bang...
      It is NOT anyones attempt to describe the pure start or 'creation' of existence.. it's a 'thing' (the super dense/singularity) that requires somewhere to be 'BEFORE' it can be there. The big bang ONLY attempts to describe whats happened between its singularity state and now... and it does that very well.

      I personally like the idea that the natural state for existence is for some'thing' to be!! rather than the assumption that the natural state was for there to be NOTHING and so something 'MUST' have happened to make this 'something' we have now.

      And while i have done much personal thought experiments on the concept of absolute nothingness, and its potential to also be a reason for the creation of something (see my 1st post where i attempt to show maths is a pure absolute truth and so then use the concept of 'absolute truth' to base a thought experiment on how nothing actually creates things and ends it's own nothingness)
      I tend to feel it is a lot easier to have a universe (all of existence, not just what we know.. ALL) that has always been here... in 1 way/form or another.

      That being said, the idea of the big bang is NEVER used by any respectable scientist as a creation of EVERYTHING ... it's used as a start point for the physical universe (or observable universe) where what we OBSERVE is the foundation of the data that has so many people feeling like there was a compressed state to the matter/energy we 'see'. And so 'big bang' is just a name for the expansion ... which again IS what we 'see'

      The big bang does not attempt to answer any concepts of absolute time.. or that no-matter how small an infinitely dense group of matter/energy/space (our universe) may be it still requires a 'place' to be,

      it is a 'thing' that exists, no matter how small.. that needs SOMEWHERE for it to be.

      The big bang cant create ALL space.....

      .......(the concept of 'space CREATION' or the concept of 'having somewhere to exist at all' are VERY interesting subjects by the way) .....
      .....because it (the singularity) requires a 'place' to be a singularity. ie: space.

      So you are rebuking an idea that does not say it is the start of everything, it freely admits it was something (a singularity/super dense state) which by definition, requires there to be a place for it to be a singularity.

      So I agree, the big bang is misunderstood, by many.. including you. that not a dig, it's just to get you thinking.

      It is not an attempt to explain the creation of its is an attempt to explain what happened to the 'stuff' that IS here and explain what happened between its super compressed state.. and now..... and it does that VERY well.

      Of course there was something before the big bang... even if it was a infinitely long history of just the compressed stuff we call the singularity sitting there doing nothing till 'POW' it stared expanding. .. or maybe multi-verse.. or maybe the expand-contract over n over universe... and a whole heap or weird and wonderful idea's about before the big bang... BUT....
      They cant be tested for at this point, maybe in the future, maybe not, i don't know.. but right now we cant test for multi-verses ... if if there was an expansion before ours that shrank and got to 'X' density and 'BIG BANGED'' again.. this cant be tested for at the moment.

      No-one is saying what you think they are about the big bang, no-one claims its the creation point...existence happened before the big bang... and anyone who thinks otherwise really does not understand the big bang idea at all.

      But I agree with you in principle that there has 'probably' always been something, whatever it was.

      Though, 'nothing' is not without it's own/borrowed creation powers hehe.

    2. Yes, I understand that now, Brian. But then you said: "It is NOT anyones attempt to describe the pure start or 'creation' of existence.. " But I believe it is in fact used that way....

      I was using the notion of 'Big Bang' in the colloquial, pedestrian sense, as when talking with a Born Again Christian on my doorstep who insists on inserting a 'god' just prior to a 'creation' event which 'god caused'.

    3. Although Einstein's general relativity implied a 'beginning', he himself never accepted the idea. Stephen Hawking also feels there was no point of singularity, just a smooth convergence. Fred Hoyle who believed in the steady state theory (no beginning) coined the 'big bang' as a derisive term.
      It is not far flung to believe what is considered out of touch today may very well be cutting edge in the future. Since science today embraces that which can't be measured, or observed (dark matter/dark energy) as a viable possibility, it would seem that your position is no less scientific than what is embraced today. (a modern day cosmological constant to make the standard model work)
      Hawking once stated that to ask what was before the big bang is the equivalent to asking what is one mile north of the north pole - a meaningless question.
      For me, (personally) it is far better to ask where were you before you were born? When you consider how we all came to be, it should not be hard to imagine how the universe came about, or what existed before it.
      P.S: Your statement regarding 'energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted or transformed (1st law of thermodynamics) is as profound as anything anyone else can provide. (good job) In the final analysis, nothing is what it appears to be, nothing!

    4. In quantum mechanics there is a sea of infinite probabilities, what if our universe is one probable action not excluding the other 10^500 parallel universes in our mutiverse and which according to Brian Greene there are also10 different multiverses, and we are there as multidimensional selves questioning the same senarios as we are now, give or take.
      Edit: Not withstanding have to take into account our 27 dimensions comprising of superstring theory.

    5. Yes, the whole thing is quite mind blowing, isn't it. Perhaps that is what makes all these questions so interesting, and provocative. I like to believe that I can even learn from Einstein's mistakes. (not accepting quantum mechanics when his own equations predicted it - thus accepting that which doesn't fit our own belief, and adjust accordingly)
      The idea that science had to leap beyond the security of certainty, to embrace probability has had a profound effect on advances in technology, and science in general. One can only marvel at how difficult the future of physics will be on the next generation of people wishing to push our understanding of existence!
      Take care A_R.

  2. It always strikes me as quite peculiar that the greatest minds of our time cannot come up with the most obvious answer as to what created the universe. The beginning of the universe should be referred to as the 'big birth', and what created it in the first place should be referred to as the 'big bang'. (sex) That is right, the same way all of you got here is the same way the universe 'came' into being! (giant life forms procreating)
    Furthermore, the universe is not expanding, but is static, with objects of mass collapsing in on themselves under the force of their own gravitation. This also explains why everything appears to be moving apart from one another, just like inflation. (congruent with Einstein's relativity) Thus, there is no need for dark energy/matter to explain for the apparent missing mass in their calculations. (This is what brains do, to make enough room to house more neurons and dendritic connections in the same amount of space)
    Since the answers to everything are right in front of us, it would seem that many scientists could have saved themselves a lot of money on an education, that has only blinded them from seeing the forest (universe) for the trees. (particles)
    Summary: The universe is a brain, just like the 3 pound universe you have on your shoulders. All the forms of life we see (including ourselves) are neurotransmitters. (there, problem solved - no big deal, nothing impressive about it)
    Now, can everyone start concentrating on what matters most; why evil (greed) is running the world, and what solutions are required for a paradigm shift in 'thinking' to remove it from power once and for all. (trust me, the universe will love you for it)

    1. Objects of mass collapsing in on them selves?? ever heard of the electro-magnetic force??

      I will assume not.

      Your idea is that of a child.

      ''the universe is a big brain'' problem solved, no big deal???

      oh dear you don't even have a basic understanding of the universe you live in, never mind purely phillosophical idea's you are presenting here.

    2. Ever heard of black holes? Even at 10 to the 39th more powerful than gravitation, where is your electromagnetic force now? (child's play)
      P.S: that is where assumptions get you.

    3. Haha thats not what I ment and you know it!

      You said, and i quote:

      ''Furthermore, the universe is not expanding, but is static, with objects
      of mass collapsing in on themselves under the force of their own
      gravitation. This also explains why everything appears to be moving
      apart from one another, just like inflation. (congruent with Einstein's

      You say objects collapsing due to their own gravity is why it 'looks' like the universe is expanding... when really its shrinking!!

      I**ot! Childs or stoner idea!

      And now you try to act like you didn't know what I ment when i laughed and mentioned the electro-magnetic force.

      Everything shrinking is what you said... the universe, s*upid! Not black holes alone!
      You can't pretend!!...or lie!

      All the universe!, Solar Systems, Stars, Planets, Life forms (observers) everything! All shrinking/compressing under their own gravity!?
      Making it 'look' like it's expanding when really it's not!??

      Haha really!? Go on! Pretend you don't know what I mean and dodge it all some more!

      Also, you don't need to go to a black hole to challenge the electro-magnetic force!
      Which isn't the 'universe' getting smaller, as you claim it is! It's black holes only! lol

      (wow you are ignorant, this is actually funny) ........ as i said in my post,

      ''On objects any less massive than a star (fusion!, never mind black hole density), electromagnetism blows gravity out of the water.''

      The you mention black holes! like that proves a single thing!!? haha.

      You just really do not know what you are talking about!

      Learn to read before you make s*upid comments, acting obviously ashamed and ironically attempt to insult others..
      ... funny as it is to watch you cringing and dodge and pretend to prove things whilst knowing they obviously rebuke nothing!

      You are just embarrassing yourself now mate.

    4. I know that sometimes it is hard to not argue without personal remarks or call someone names etc: but please try to rebuke with more polite remarks (no name calling) and on topic to what the doc is about only. Thanks.

    5. I appreciate your reply, I will try not to make personal remarks or insults towards others. But they were mild and genuine, and not completely uncalled for imo.
      But I will make sure I don't in the future, I don't wish to, but his actions are hardly logical or honest!

      I feel other than the odd very mild insulting word, I am mostly on topic.

      It's difficult to write a short post to someone who is avoiding the real debate 100% of the time (so 100% off topic in every post he does) with unfair claims of being a victim rather than a participant.

      And acting like my posts are not 90%+ asking valid and detailed questions about his presented theory on universe creation, which is the topic.

      Am I to just let wild speculation being presented as a solid scientific theory, or even serious theoretical lines of thought, go unanswered?

      Or let him, the instigator of the insults and 1st to post sarcastic mocking comments, act like he is a victim?
      (Have you checked the dates on our comments to each other? To get an accurate chronological picture of it and why it has become insulting from both of us?)

      I hope you take me seriously and not just assume some level of insult from me to you.

      I respect you and your role as an admin/mod, but I feel you have unfairly singled me out when the truth is not so 1 sided at all.
      I only want truth, even if it's incorrect, as long as it's honest and as true as the individual knows.
      Which I feel has not happened in the afore mentioned debate from Awful-truth.

    6. If you could just be polite, I would answer your questions, but you even got the moderators attention now. (who is embarrassing himself?) Good luck Brian, and nice try, but I won't bite!

    7. Again, I question your honesty! And refuse to be labeled the instigator of insults or the only one insulting at all!

      I am not sorry for calling you an i*iot or a child, (very mild insults to be fair lol and are mentioned now only in reference, not to insult further) as I considered them to be a true representation of you .....
      and acting like a victim rather than the instigator of the insults, who is just as prone to throwing insults as I am)
      ........and the fact you take your theory seriously and attempted to prove it has any roots in science.

      You avoid all questions under the guise of being a victim 1 minute and because it's pointless the next, always threatening to answer if only [Insert reason here] but never actually answering anything other than meaningless rubbish!
      Or pretending I am trying to provoke you into a response to my claim that your idea is idiotic! as if it needs provoking, it demands it from anyone who is not a troll. But pretending I am trying to provoke gives you a handy reason to continue not answering, or admitting you can't,....
      .....which isn't so bad you know.. it's ok to not know the answer to the questions of creation.

      You have brought nothing to the table except for lame, transparent reasons why you don't have to answer even the most simple questions!

      I say again, you can not answer how gravity is making the stars and planet and me and you shrink under it's own gravity so much so, that it creates the illusion the universe is expanding when really everything is compressing under it's own gravity!

      All my posts have been 99% clear obvious questions or descriptions of why your idea is just plain silly talk, or explanations of the components of your idea in great detail so as to show why it can not work!

      But you just claim my 1% insults, even with you insulting just as much, make it impossible to even have a debate!

      Your responses look like you skim/don't read and (or because you) don't really even understand your own idea, never mind the questions it throws up!
      And that your scared of something like your image or ego being damaged! (which you will claim is me trying to provoke you into a slagging match, when all I want is truth!)

      Just think about it! You don't answer because you can't! It is a silly idea rooted in about as much science as 'god did it'

      ''everything shrinking/crushing because of it's own gravity!'' ???
      And you act like its soooo true and rooted in science! that your surprised the greatest minds of our time have not adopted it's obvious truth! And insult those who point out the massive holes in it!
      (and if the mods can't see that then I am surprised!)

      And I am supposed to take that attitude seriously? You should count yourself lucky I am bothering to help you!

      Also, why would I be embarrassed? You got nothing but dodge, whilst you pretend not to notice me de-construct your idea and put it back together again right in front of your eyes!

    8. If I was you dude, I would very quickly pretend to be a troll!

      At least then you can save some small.. very small... scrap of dignity!

  3. 2 + 2 can NEVER = anything other than 4!!

    And anyone who claims otherwise is either too stupid to realise what they are doing, or worse yet, decieving on purpose!

    To quote the poster below ''2 apples + 2 apples can = 3 if one of them is mysteriously lost in the process'' If you cant see the insanity in that, then there is no hope at all.

    Unit count is NOT open for discusion, 1-2-3-4-5-6 and so on for infinity.
    IF there is 1 thing .. THEN there is 1 thing.
    Unit count is one of the very few absolute universal truths we have! And you people act like its an exercise in wordplay.

    The only way 2 + 2 can equal ANYTHING other than 4 is if you change the rules by adding ''mysterious dissaperances'' or by changing the value of 2......BOTH of which, and all other variations of, are a completely different question to 2+2.

    2 is a symbol, in this context and almost all others, it is a symbol for a fixed number of 'things' 2 apples, 2 planets etc, IF there are 2 apples.. THEN there are 2 apples... IF the symbol 2 actually reffers to what we commonly call 3! then thats changing the rules and so changing the question.

    If 2 = 2 then 2+2 = 4 is a universally true statement that can NOT be proved wrong, by definition!

    If 2 = 3 then 2+2 = 6

    And so on......

    Only by changing the meaning of the symbols or 'rules' of unit count can u make 2+2 = anything other than 4.

    1 is not a concept!
    It is not required to have an observer observe it, it does not require anything other than the fact its true.
    ie: if there is 1 thing then there is 1 thing, if there are 2 things then there are 2 things.

    The simple premmis of unit count and so all of mathamatics is a universal absolute truth.

    Playing with the meaning of the symbols for each number and giving them different values....
    or changing the meaning of the function symbols (+ - / * and so on).....
    is the most gross perversion of wordplay and misrepresentation I have ever encountered in a scientific field! And this is just simple unit count maths.. its not M-Theory!

    2+2 = 3 if 1 is mysteriously removed during the interaction!!??

    AKA: 2 + 2 - 1 = 3 ... and that ladies and gentleman proves maths is not an absolute truth!! ta daaaa

    rofl errrr av a think!

    - - - - Now thats cleared up ill say what i think about universe creation and everything from nothing etc - - - -

    There has never been, and will never be, the state we reffer to as ''absolute nothingness''. for anything more than an instant!
    And by instant i mean he most pure definition of the word!
    An instant is not a fraction of time, its the exact same point as another, instant with no sequential period between events!

    For if it were ever true that all things in existance had stopped existing, or if there was a 'point' when nothing existed, then it would, at the exact same point/instant there is nothing, become true that there was nothing......(note, 'was' nothing, as there is now something)

    Truth is a 'thing' in existance, it does not need a place as we think of it, to be.
    It does not need a form to be....
    it is simply what is or what isnt...
    -If its true there are 4 apples... then .. its true there are NOT 8 apples or 6 or 9 etc-
    ... and so there is no longer nothing, infact there never was really! (lol sorry)

    Because if it ever came to be nothing, the truth about it being nothing would instantly pop into existance (as well as all the truths about what isnt?? i think so but hmmmm thats everything that isnt, which is infinite? anyways!) as demanded by the 'non state' of nothingness....

    .... meaning we have 1 thing!!

    The TRUTH!

    And then instantly another thing.....

    the unit count that reffers to the truth being 1 thing.....

    So we have the truth and the unit count of 1 for how many things exist...which of course adds 1 to the count, as the unit count and the thing it reffers to are 2 seperate things, we have 2...

    So 3 and 4 and so on throught to infinity, instantly!
    That creates all relationships between all numbers instantly (you dont need to observe a relationship for it to be, it just has to be...)

    - side note -
    All possible meaningful and meaningless relationships between any and all things are aleady there at the point they were 'popped' into creation or made. We notice/discover/realise the ones we do but they were already there! avoid of consciousness requirements.

    If the universe had no conscious life or observers of any kind, but sill had the planets and stars..
    then any star that had planets around it would have however many planets it had...
    if its 7 planets then its 7... and all relationships between and surounding the unit count of 7 would also be there, avoid of concious life!
    1/2 of 7 is 3+1/2 ..... 7*2 is 14, 7 is a prime number ... all of this and the near infinite relationships possible between 7 and all its component parts (123456&7) would be true!
    And would be there in the solar system of 7 planets with no observers.
    Unit count and maths does NOT require consciousness or any observer at all...
    Information and relationships etc dont require an observer, it just is the description of the facts, observed or not.... and so also unit count just IS the simple fact of the matter.
    Thats why its not open for discusion... either there are 7 things.. or there arnt... adding stuff is changing the question.

    - sorry, baack to it -

    As i was saying, 1-2-3-4 and the entire sequence to infinity, instantly! And so then all relationships between all numbers is forced into existance....

    ......which is basically creating geometry, the concept of relationships and comparason and sequence.

    The thing we call form could be forced into existance by the ''shapes'' created in the numbers and there near infinite relationships.

    Which could be how consciousness started?
    (unless consciousness created everything, but thats getting dangerously close to religon and has only faith to back up its claims at this point)

    This 'forced' sequential creative expansion uncovered shapes, as well as many other things, in the maths and relationships and comparasons which needed to be, or could be, visualised.
    And so the possibility of them being visualised created something to visualise them...
    Bit far out there on a limb, but i dont see many better ideas for the existance, or creation, of what we call consciousness and/or observation.
    And this is just fun! Creation created its self through 'if - then'' lol

    And so on and so on step by step by forced step....
    This is a VERY rough step by step as now after just the 1st 2-3 steps even, its very complex in the way each thing forces its relationships and many others things into existance.

    Just like 1 thing existing forces the unit count of that thing into existance which then = 2 things in existance, which creates the relationships between them 2 things ...and so on.

    Unit count, and all of mathematics based on a strict unit count structure, are universal absolute truths!

    Nothing = the truth, which = unit count of that truth, whcih = the rapid creation of ALL things thanks to relative relationships between all things.


    shhhh ...but really its everything from TRUTH, the only thing that really exists afterall! hehe

    1. I am sorry, could you repeat that again.

    2. I will assume that because my post is here to be read as many times as you like, that you are making a sarcastic point.

      Tell you what...why don't you keep acting like the purely assumption based ''universe is a life form on a giant scale'' idea is 1: yours... and 2: new ... lol

      Try some independant thought instead of just repeating what others have said many times before and acting like its your own words or ideas.

    3. It is my idea that the universe is a brain, and we are thoughts inside that brain. (technically speaking - neurotransmitters) I have never made any claim to fame that this idea originated with me, however, I have never seen, or heard anyone (theist, atheist, philosopher, or scientist) declare this as their belief. (I am very well read) One thing for certain; it is a far better explanation then anything offered in this documentary. All science will state is that life began on the back of crystals. (desperate attempt)
      P.S: 2+2 does not equal 4 at high velocities. (special relativity) Ironic I can disqualify your multiple pages of rant in one sentence, don't you think? (no need to answer, rhetorical question)
      Note: 2+2=4; Is this your idea of independent and original thinking? Let me guess, you figured that out all by yourself in grade 1!
      (laughing loudest)

    4. Also, if i'm a neurotransmitter and so are all other life forms, then does that mean that this 'brain' you speak of is not in control of its own processeses, or does the brain tell me (the neuro transmitters) where to go and my 'free willl' is an illusion??

      is the 'brain' you speak of just a brain with nothing else... floating in a realm of nothingness...or are there other free roaming brains on that same scale??

      Have you thought about the scale implications your 'original idea' suggests???

      1: If this universe is a brain then is the 'giant brain' also just a neuro transmitter in an even higher scale of existance?

      2: Are my neuro transmitters actually other life forms in a smaller scale universe?

      3: These brains reproduce, any idea's how? Just gonna claim it's ''high level existance stuff and can't be imagined? Are they just 'brains' or do they have body's to reproduce/function with etc? Do they have requirements for staying alive or are they exempt from such requirements?
      Does the scale keep going up and down like that for infinity or have you idea's about the end of that infinite progression?
      Can a life form travel to the edge of our universe and break out of the 'brain' and into the high scale of existance?
      Did you take your medication this morning?

      4: What physical evidence or theoretical evidence or even observation based evidence do you have to even lightly support your idea? Other than your idea that because you assume gravity is strong enough to crush all objects (rofl.. just... rofl) that there is no need for dark energy or matter because the expansion of the universe is actually just everything getting smaller so it all looks like it getting further away???
      Just lol again, not that I know your wrong, just that your reasons for thinking it are so completely misguided that it's funny.

      Anything at all?? no... pfft!

      5: Just go back to Men in Black and re-think your ideas huh?? it was a film, it was never ment to be a sound scientific theory, but hey just run with it man... lol.

      lol. ... If you had of just posted your idea I would have no problem, but you took time to post a sarcastic comment to me, so here we are.

    5. For the record, there is a difference between sarcasm, and being rude. ( your reaction to my initial statement implies you have no sense of humor) I could easily supply the answers you have requested if you were serious about having an enlightened discussion, however I doubt your sincerity given your continued remarks.
      I will say that all your questions are good questions, and have obvious answers if you just look around you. It also helps to have a fundamental grasp of relativity, and quantum mechanics.
      If you are interested, and wish to be respectful, let me know, and we can further this discussion. Take care, and best wishes Brian!
      P.S: I did post my thoughts at the top of this discussion. I apologize if you misinterpreted my intentions in my initial response. It was a joke, and had no malice behind it.

    6. So your reasoning for me being unworthy/incapable of debate and of me needing a basic understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity is that the answers to the questions that the ''universe is a big brain'' idea throws up and has yet to answer are simple and obvious and if only I had an understanding of basic science I would see that??? oh dear thats lame.

      And because of that, and an attempt to say that I'm being somehow rude to you when all you did was be sarcastic, there is no point.

      No answer to the scale implications it suggests, because basic science answers them easy? oh dear.

      No answer or even attempt to answer any of the many questions that your ''idea so obvious it confuses you as to how the greatest minds of our time have not all come to realise its simple and obvious truth'' throws up.

      Do you know the reason that the greatest minds of our time don't all just hop on board with this idea and assume its obvious and simple truths??

      It's because its full of holes that can not be answered or that contradict each other or that lead to infinite regressions of scale and universes within universes, which again is pure philosophy at this stage and not science.

      You act like the reason the 'greatest minds of our time'' have not fully adopted this idea is because they havn't thought of it, when the exact opposite is true, it's just not science at this point mate.

      Get a grip and stop claiming that my understanding of science practices and phillosophy and meta-physics etc are to low to understand it.

      You posted sarcasticly to a stranger, who then, without insulting you directly at all, said that you have peddled an idea that is full of holes and unprovable leaps of logic/faith and acted like your'e shocked/puzzled the greatest minds of our times have not all worshiped it as obvious truth... basically.

      You then insulted, name called and got on your high horse claiming some sort of intellectual supremecy over me and attampted to discredit my idea's.....
      (which was and is very para-phrase you ''no .. no.. 2+2 doesn't = 4 if you add extra bits to the sum!'' i mean really?)
      .....and then reply to questions about your idea's as unworthy even of answers due to their obvious and simple answers if only people (me) were more intelligent!

      You were the 1st to insult and name were 1st to claim the other has no understanding of basic science (so unwarrented and an obvious insecure dig lol) and you now claim that you don't have to answer any questions about your idea because basic science proves your idea has no holes or only easy to answer questions to anyone with a basic understanding of modern sciences. Guess thats why the greatest minds of our times havn't adopted it like you... they all need to brush up on basic sciences lol?.

      Claim the guy that can take your idea and tear it into little pieces and reconstruct it for you right in front of your very eyes as not even having the intelligence to be worthy of answers.

      Yeah, if only i had the scientific understanding of a room full of 16 year old smokers saying things like...
      ''hey mann like what if the universe isnt getting bigger but its actually everything in it thats getting smaller! .. like wow!''
      ....forgetting the reason a paper envelope doesnt get smaller due to its own gravitational effect is because on objects any less massive than a star (fusion) gravity is *blown out of the water* by electro-magnetism you know?? the force that stops oranges from being compressed into a black hole by thier own gravity lol..
      but u knew that right? with your high n mighty scientific knowlege!

      **Everything is compressing and shrinking due to it's own gravitational force and thats why the universe seems to be expanding** ?? hmmmm
      **Space isnt expanding it's staying the same and we are shrinking, it's all just a trick of our 'point of view'** ?? hmmmm
      Sorry but that's just funny to hear being presented as a solid scientific theory!... to role play the convo ...

      *you: - ''gravity is making everything compress, space isnt expanding, we are shrinking!''....
      *Me : - ''but what about the electromagnetic forces that stop that from happening?'' ...
      *you: - ''pfft codswallop! Go learn basic science then talk to me''
      *Me: - ''oh dear.''

      My idea about ''everything from nothing'' is a purely thought/logic based progression trying to imagine what would or did happen if there had been nothingness or if nothingness ever came to be, and an attempt to show that there are universally absolute truths, even if small and apparantly meaningless like ''I am something'' or ''if 2 = 2 then 2+2 = 4'' but I don't claim its entirely air tight or even a scientific theory... but your ''universe is a big brain'' idea is so sound and obviously the answer to it all that you're actually insulting people who don't see its obvious simple and entirely riggerous scientific foundations! rofl. Claiming holes don't exist in it and questions don't deserve answers because it's obviously true and easy to answer if only I had a basic understanding of modern sciences.

      nice dodge! bit obvious but good luck in politics. *face palm - head shake*

    7. Hey, I just asked if you could repeat that again, and all you have done is lost your mind ever since. (devoid of humor)
      In my last post, I opened the door for dialogue, to which you have now responded (twice) with literally pages of a conversation with yourself, speaking of holes in my position, when I haven't yet responded to your questions. ????
      Since you are incapable of self control, there is no point in attempting further dialogue with you. (an exercise in futility is not dodging, just a waste of time, and effort, signifying nothing)
      Take care Brian, and good luck with your basic math!

    8. You don't answer because you can't. You can attempt to say it's because of me and say it's not worth it... but it is just far to obvious that you can not answer even the most basic questions about your own idea's, never mind get in depth about such topics.

      Good luck with your stoner idea's :)

    9. You know, you really are not alone. There is hope!

    10. I know I am not alone... in fact quite the opposite!

      I am surrounded by all the people who are in line waiting to adopt your idea as the answer to it all, so that we can finally all move on to the important questions!

      It is you who is all alone, waiting for the ''greatest minds of our time'' to finally catch up to you and adopt your highly scientific and 'hole free' idea as obvious truth!

      Don't worry about me having no hope! I am confident wont take long for them (the greatest minds of our time) to catch up with you.

      Bye troll.

    11. And my 1st response to you was not insulting or agressive, it simpley outlined that i think you need to have some original ideas that are not full of holes before you make sarcastic comments about others people, freely admited, thought experiment.

      Had yoo read my 1st post, you would see that the ''2+2'' part is just to set the scene for basing a thought experiment on the concept of universal absolute truths, and to rebuke the idea that 2+2 does not equal 4 if you take 1 away. i mean common!

      You then start with ''grade 1'' insults and name calling etc... get a grip man and stop claiming to be the victim when infact you are the aggressor.

    12. Since you are retorting to a post of mine, you could have done the decent thing and hit the reply button, or did you think maybe I'd miss it?

      Besides you are misrepresenting my analogy.

      Maths is pure logic. It is an ideal. Mathematical models are idealistic concepts that can ignore the variability of reality. This is extremely useful, otherwise for the simplest problem there would be a near infinite amount of variables to consider.

      So, with 2+2-1=3 or A+B-X=C you have expanded the equation to include the variable X. This is logical if you are aware of the effect of variable X which is a subtraction. My point is, when attempting to describe reality you can not be aware of absolutely all the variables needed to make the equation absolutely correct. It will remain forever a simplified model that works as a predictive tool only when the ignored or unknown variables have no detectable effect. In effect, the best you can say is under specific (ideal) conditions this equation will be true.


    13. It seem to me he just wanted his comment to be on top of the list not buried under 2-300. I couldn't find your comment although i remember reading it.

    14. Possibly. You can find my post he is referring to 2 threads below this one.

    15. no. I understood your attempt to show how mathematics is not an absolute truth, and it was exactly that, that i scoffed at.

      Any variability in reality is allowed in pure maths, if reality changes then the sum changes... it doesn't prove the sum wrong, it creates a new sum.
      If 2+2 = 4 just 5 mins ago but then reality changes, then the original sum was true and NOW the sum has changed to 2+2-1 which of course = 3 ... if high velocity's change the sum then its a new sum, its not an error by the old one, the functions and/or numbers have been changed or removed or new ones have been added and so the sum is an entirely different one. ... if 'we' didn't know all the factors and functions then thats 'our' fault, not the maths. and deffo NOT any kind of rebuke to the concept of unit count.

      Just because you or me or anyone is not smart enough to understand the entire sum is not reason to blame the mathematics.

      you take my 2+2-1=3 and change it into a+b-c=x.....

      but you have converted the symbols i used for numbers into letters and made a HUGE mistake when doing so....

      2+2 are identical numbers! so its not a+b-x=c..

      it would be represented as A+A-(A/2 or A/A) = A+(A/2 or A/A) because it is adding 2 known and identical numbers. NOT 2 unknown numbers...
      and the function IS known.. its not unknown... 'add'. 'subtract' and 'divided by', are all known functions
      And only with that can you perform more complex maths.. you need to know the numbers are true representations of what your counting/factoring into the equation/sum and if you don't then its not the maths fault ..
      .ie: IF A + A - B = (B*3) THEN what does B =??
      what does A =??
      Very easy to work out as long as you know A and A are the same number... pre-decided by the rules/symbols we use to describe maths...and the 'truth' of the situation being described.
      NOTE: we describe maths, we don't invent it.

      You can NOT preform reliable maths if you do not know all the variables, you can only make approximations. (and thats not the fault of the maths, its solid, truth and undeniable)

      I am surprised at your huge mistake and it does to me look like you have purposefully misrepresented my idea so as to rebuke something I did not say.

      Unit count is not a guess.... if I have 5 fingers then I have 5... if its 4 then its 4... Unit count is not an approximation, it is an EXACT representation of what IS there... not just a concept in my mind...a description of 'truth'

      so 2 + 2 will ALWAYS = 4 unless there is more to the sum (so a different sum)... like hidden variables or unknown factors, like someone who suggested strange things happening in force/mass equations on things traveling at or close to the speed of light....

      And I will say again.... if there are hidden variables or unknown factors to the sum of 2 + 2 then the sum is NOT 2 + 2 ...
      its 2 + 2 with more stuff added on top...
      IE: a different sum.

      IF .. 2 = 2 ... THEN 2 + 2 = 4 .... adding more stuff changes the sum, it DOES NOT prove the sum wrong.

      You are misrepresenting the concepts of mathematics and reality........ and confusing them with human error.

      They are 2 very different things.

      Unit count is truth, by definition...either i counted the right amount or i made a mistake.. because there is a right amount to be counted...
      so unit count based mathematics is a universal absolute truth... devoid of human understanding or ability to recognize all the numbers.

      You do not need to know all the variables for them to be true, and if they are true then they are included in the sum....
      If they are true and NOT included in the sum then that is NOT the fault of mathematics.. thats the fault of the person/thing attempting to do the mathematics..

      there is a HUGE difference.

      Did you even read what I wrote? Ill repeat 1 sentence just to show how if you had of read what I said, you would not need it repeating again... but oh well.

      ''If the universe had no conscious life or observers of any kind, but sill had the planets and stars..
      then any star that had planets around it would have however many planets it had...
      if its 7 planets then its 7... and all relationships between and surrounding the unit count of 7 would also be there, avoid of conscious life!
      1/2 of 7 is 3+1/2 ..... 7*2 is 14, 7 is a prime number ... all of this and the near infinite relationships possible between 7 and all its component parts (123456&7) would be true!
      And would be there in the solar system of 7 planets with no observers.
      Unit count and maths does NOT require consciousness or any observer at all... ''
      End Quote:

      Unit count is not an approximation.... it is what is!
      Maths is not an approximation... it's a description of truth....
      IF Jane has 2 Apples THEN Jane has 2 Apples..... IF Jane eats an Apple THEN Jane easts an Apple. and we KNOW we have 1 left!

      The 'IF' is paramount..... maths is based on truth... or more specifically, knowing the truth and performing functions to the 'truthful' numbers you have.

      Just because we don't have all the numbers does not mean maths is wrong... it needs truth to function!
      Reality is truth and truth is reality, perception is something that 'happens' within reality and it can be misrepresenting reality or it can be accurate, either way, there is a truth or truth's and so not knowing them is our fault, not maths or unit count, they are solid.

    16. Wrong. I did not attempt to show mathematics as anything but absolutely true. I said it was pure logic. You are taking my analogy in a discussion with someone else out of context. Consider that the focus of the discussion was not mathematics, but physics.

      I merely used it to explain to someone else that when used to describe or predict reality, mathematical models are just that; models. They are not necessarily equivalent to reality, due to the high probability of being unaware of all the variables. I was pointing out the danger in a rather naive assumption that all the variables are known or indeed knowable.

      I understood your explanation of unit count, and this is all true as long as we are dealing only with numbers. When applied to existential reality however, one apple does not exactly equal another apple. One is sweeter than the other, one is smaller, one is redder and so on. I ask you; is it worthwhile to expand the equation to include this near infinite variability?

      If the answer is no then you must concede that the model is not absolutely equivalent to reality. I hope the context is clear now.

      There is of course an equation that describes the entirety of existence - an equation so vast it contains more characters than there are atoms in the universe (as it would need to describe the polarity and momentum of each one), and is thus incomprehensible to any mind. Indeed it would even have to include a mathematical description of the very thought processes occurring to me as I write, and you as you read. But an equation none the less.

    17. P. S.

      In regard to my 'HUGE mistake'

      A = B

      that was easy huh?

      If we are going to be pedant about the exact symbols and their value, I didn't write A+B-C=X either. It was A+B-X=C (as X is the unknown variable)

      In fact lets combine the two. Answer me this simple sum :


      What is the absolute value of Y?

    18. Not only do I respect your logic, you present it in a concise, easy to follow train of thought. (not pages of long winded minutia)
      P.S: Your patience is admirable!

    19. I post huge walls of text when I feel they are required, either to have a decent debate and provide as much info about the subject or concept as i can... or to accurately describe all facets of someones behavior.

      Where as you avoid all questions, insult people then claim to be the victim of insults, and now make backhanded digs.

      Whilst all the time not even having the guts to have a honest discussion, instead hiding behind lame excuses of victimization or my lack of understanding of the subject matter.

      *golf clap*

    20. I make no such claims. (victimization) You are doing all the talking, but say little worthy of response. How is that working for you?

    21. I feel we have both misunderstood pieces or part of each others points.

      2+2 is not A+B AKA: (unknown variable) + (unknown variable requiring it's own symbol until we find out exactly what it is)

      its 2.. and we know its 2.. because i posed the question 2+2.. i stated the truth and performed maths on true numbers.. not unknown variables.. or fluctuating reality.

      Apples not being identical is completely described without issue by maths and the concept of truth simply envelopes or 'is' the difference.
      Because we are not asking how many sub-atomically identical apples are there... we are asking how many apples .....

      (where apples i like to think is obviously understood as a human label for an object that can be of many shapes and sizes etc, but as long as it fits into the fairly wide parameters of what we will call an apple, then its is counted as an apple and so its not an unknown variable)

      ......are there?
      Which in reality, or theory, has an answer at any given point in reality or statement of fact within a thought experiment.
      ie: Jane has 2 apples...
      ok so we are saying its true she has 2 apples.

      If the question was how many apples have the exact same color markings, then the answer would be different, but it would still exist. same for size and so on.
      They are all separate questions that all have their own answers... absolutely truthful answers.

      Any unknown variable is represented by a symbol because its an open based question...
      With a unit count based or specific question, we would not have unknown variables, because we 'counted' an amount of things and so know how many there are...
      Same with any question that is specific, which all questions are if you don't ask a question of a multi-layered system that requires a specific and comprehensively accurate answer, they can't have unknown variables.
      By doing that we only get answers that are too complex to understand....
      (like your super duper equation that can not be comprehended)
      ....or that fluctuate or that have more than 1 answer.. and so seem variable or unknown.

      ie: does god exist?
      sorry, too open, 1st what does anyone mean by god? and by exists? and by this and that and all the variables.
      ie: if god existing is a perception based reality, then it can be yes and no at the same time.
      It just gets impossible to ever have a dependable answer because its too open.

      A better question would be...
      Is there 'something' that through will, intent and purpose created this thing we call the universe?
      That narrows it, and starts making ground towards a question that is worthwhile delving into and trying to answer...

      I personally think a creator is far too paradoxical, but I don't at all dismiss it because of that.
      i will note that i know its not nearly narrow enough of course, but that will do to show my point.

      When we know its true.. then its true, either by discovery or invention...
      (the world being flat in ancient history is not truth being wrong, its incorrect assumption being proven to be inaccurate)
      .. or by statement... absolutely true!

      Which is why i repeat the silly and stupid looking statement of ....

      IF 2 = 2 THEN 2 + 2 = 4 ....
      or use the Jane/apples example, because we are saying its absolutely true that Jane has 2 apples, so then she has 2, and we can perform reliable maths based on that truth.

      We can't ask the question
      ''IF Jane has 2 apples and then gets 2 more apples then how many apples will Jane have?''
      And expect an accurate/predictable (absolutely true) answer if secretly you ate an apple.
      Thats just cheating lol :P

      Just because we can't comprehend or don't know the maths, or truth, describing any one event, thing or system, does not mean it has no absolutely truthful answer or description.

      That truth, or my (i think the) concept of truth, is all I was trying to get across with ''2+2.= 4 universally by definition''.
      And that was just so I could have a very detailed reason as to why I am allowing the concept of absolute universal truth to be used as the base of an idea about universe/existence being created from the concept or state (or none-state, whatever) we refer to as absolute nothingness.

      Because while I agree it makes more sense for there to be a natural state of 'something' rather than a nothingness that requires a creation point, I still have to accept the possibility (as I'm sure you do) that there may have been nothing and then something happened, and so even just having an awareness of that conceptual possibility means I have to think about it and try to answer it, or at least come up with idea's that are logically sound without huge leaps of faith or unknowns and/or rigorously tested against other peoples sense of logic or idea's.

      Which is why I focus soo heavily on absolute truth and the (obvious to me at least) fact that all questions have an absolutely truthful answer, even if more than 1.. like ''where is a quantum particle at any point in what we experience as time?'' might be here or there or an infinite amount of locations simultaneously, but it has an answer! And I can use that reliable concept of absolute truth to base thought experiments on other aspects of reality.

      Because as you say, most things are variables or unknowns.....
      (wont get into 'cant know' really, because it requires lots of assumptions about the time span of human civilization and human potential and time its self, the nature of consciousness and the potential aspects/forms/layers/planes/realms of existence to name a few basic ones hehe)
      .... and i feel I (or we) should try to start with what few things or concepts we 'absolutely know' and base idea's or build on that if we can.
      Otherwise it's endless debates about unknowns, variables or possibilities.

    22. As I have said, it was analogy to describe the problem with regarding our models of physical law to be absolutely infallible. Yes the underlying laws are themselves true, complete and infallible. What we know about them and the accuracy of our models however, is very likely not.

      Believe it or not, I am competent with basic mathematics. I am fluent in Z80 assembly which while completely obsolete requires a firm grasp of base 2 and base 16 numerical systems and the relationship between those and base 10, variables, functions etc. etc. So please, no more walls of text describing the way 2+2 works.

      Your allude to quanta being in several places at once is debatable. At the deepest level we have uncovered so far, the universe appears to be statistical, in that there are no absolutes, only probabilities. This could be interpreted as a particle being in more than one location simultaneously, however this is by no means certain. In other interpretations it can still have a definite location, just that the location is not absolutely predictable by any other means than describing the probability that it might be here or there.

      There are certainly unknowable things. The uncertainty principle describes the absolute unavailability of information that would be required to build a perfectly complete model of any particular quantum particle for example. It is very important not to ignore that which we know we don't know.

      [edit] when I read that back it seems short, possibly confrontational, which is not my intent. for clarity I will pose one more simplified analogy of the 2+2 question involving the uncertainty:

      A=2 at a probability of 99.9%
      B=2 at a probability of 99.9%


      What is the absolute value of C?

    23. I did not mean to suggest that something can be in 2 places at the same time, i just used it as an example of how there can be a truthful answer to everything. ..
      i understand the probability, and different numerical system (tho i have never learned any assembly language) but im not talking about what can possibly happen.. im talking about what does happen.... whatever actually happens, is truth! measured/understood or not.

      Absolute truth does not require an observer, it just requires its self to be true. so if something is in an exact location or if its in many, the truth is the answer and so it has 1... universally and absolutely true.

      Everything has a truthful answer or result., just because we cant predict the outcome of an apparently random event does not mean it doesn't have an accurate prediction that 'could' be made if all the information was known.

      Because something will happen, and when it does, thats the truth.

      As for your question (and your post didnt seem confrontational or anything like it)

      IF its true that A and B both = 2 but only at a probability of 99.9% then A and B represent something that has not yet happened or can change and so is fluctuating.

      ''How old am i?'' ..for example.

      so C = whatever the result of the things its based on is.

      if its 2 when we ask the question.. then C = 4 ....
      (or if im 40 years old and 2 days, 4 hours, 3 mins, 2 secs, and so on, down to the instant when the age question was asked. I would of been alive for an amount of time when the question was asked, i may not be able to measure it to an infinitely small scale, but that scale exists and so has a true answer)

      ....If its one of the 0.1% times its not 2... then C = whatever it is this time.

      if its true A and B = 2 '99.9% of the time' then on the 0.1% times it will be something else, and when it is we will measure/record it and find C.

      But possibility in its self is ambiguous, it lends to the idea that because there is no reason why something cant happen, that then no matter how remote the possibility may be, that given a long enough time line (infinity is often quoted) it will eventually happen.

      But when we don't understand the mechanism that creates the freakishly rare situation where something with an infinitely small chance of happening, happens, we can't just say ....
      ''well, IF it can happen, then eventually it will''
      ......because for all we know it might not happen...
      It may be possible, but that doesn't mean it 'will' happen. .. it just means it can and might happen.

      What happens is what happens, and some things may just NOT happen, by the same probability that make it possible in the 1st place, even in an infinite universe.

      Example is the infinite coin toss:

      whats the percentage difference in probability when doing 1 coin toss every second for infinity between...

      50/50 for infinity...

      100% head or 100% tails for infinity

      all the other individual (infinitely long sequence) combinations of heads and tails


      They all have the exact same chance....

      head 48% and tails 52% is the exact same chance as tails 100% on an infinite time line... probability is just that... probability.

      What is, is. and everything that is, is a near infinitely improbable occurrence! Often being dismissed as every day stuff.
      (a leaf falls of a tree, when the time is measured to a high enough accuracy, even that becomes an amazingly improbable event.)

    24. Ah yes I see what you mean now :) Yes the models we use are still mostly in their infancy so to speak and often being updated or totally scrapped :P And I see you understand my point about fundamental truths or laws or concepts being good examples of absolute truth.

      I guess i press the point about 100% universal truths so much because i feel/think...(know!? hehe) that regardless of humans or anyones current understanding or models being accurate or not, the accurate description of anything is an absolute truth, weather we know it yet or not.

      And I rant on about 100% universal absolute truths and that the concept of truth is so undeniable ....

      (as every event/thing/none-event has an accurate description and even the ''accurate description'' could be a 'thing' or a form of some kind of information or force/power etc but thats very wild speculation even for me lol).
      ..... because it is the foundation of my thought experiment for how in principle 'something CAN come from true absolute nothingness' and to speculate a chronology for the sequence of events that is my idea of ''IF the universe came from true nothingness...then this is how it did it''

      The true description or ''absolute truth'' is a thing... just like a box exists in the physical universe... but the truth describing every aspect of the box exists in an information type sense... but still in what is commonly .. and so is counted along with ALL 'things' when trying to encapsulate the idea of a .. total.... absolutely comprehensive....*EVERYTHING!* ALL forms of existence... all realms or planes of existence... all dimensions and forces and powers and voids and ALL physical and none physical... the true and absolute totality of ALL of everything known and unknown of course!

      the truth is a 'thing' just like a neutron is a thing or an idea is a thing or a dimension is a thing.

      but thats another story hehe :)

  4. All the atheists here are getting off the topic, now you're just arguing about what other people believe in. Just talk about the video and stop making fun of each other!

  5. Like they know anything anyways. Astronomy as it exists today is dominated by mathematicians that can't explain observations in outer space, and to balance out their crap equations, need things like black holes, dark matter, dark energy etc etc. All these violate every known law of physics several times over. Academia has become every bit as corrupt as politics, where reputations mean more than the search for truth. Stephen Hawking is a hack like all the rest of them.

    1. Black holes are a prediction of the laws of physics, not an invention. Observational evidence (stellar objects moving very very quickly, gravitational lensing, stars being consumed by tidal forces) strongly indicates the presence of super massive dark objects particularly in the center of our galaxy, which fit the prediction perfectly. You may argue that we don't know what happens to physical laws at the singularity if it even exists, and you'd be right. Infinity is never a good thing to encounter in mathematics and almost always means the equations are flawed, but regardless these are still black holes, whether we know what happens inside them or not we know what happens outside them, by physical law supported by evidence.

      It's all very well to knock dark matter/energy, plenty of scientists are very uncomfortable with the ideas, the only other option is that Einsteins description of mass denting spacetime causing gravity is not quite right, which may also be the case. Even so, on a solar system scale it works perfectly, likewise Newtons laws work perfectly on the human scale. Do we say Newton was wrong? No! He was absolutely right up and to a certain scale, and even though Einsteins math doesn't accurately predict what we see on the galactic scale, he was absolutely right up and to a much greater scale than Newton. So now we need new math for the galactic scale and up, dark matter and dark energy are the most knowledgeable minds first attempt at developing this. If you're going to trash it you'd better come with an idea that is just as well thought out, and figure out a way to test for it.

      You talk about the 'every known law of physics' as if they were some god given, stone written, unchanging absolute. Scientists like Newton, Einstein and Hawking amongst a great many others stretching back into history gave us everything we 'know' about these laws, piece by hard earned piece.

      So what's your contribution? you know anything anyways.

    2. Do you understand the meaning of the word LAW? A law by definition is binding, and immutable. Two plus two must always equal 4. without laws, you neither have the scientific process nor mathematics. The big bang theory, black holes, neutron stars break every know law of nuclear physics. General relativity lies in direct contradiction to quantum mechanics. Major contradictions exist in astronomy every where you look, for crying out loud they haven't even figured out what gravity is or how it affects matter on a local let alone galactic scale. I don't wanna argue, seems like you guys are very set in your ways and thinking. It'd be a pointless debate. Anyways, hope you guys have a good Christmas, take care.

    3. Who are you to say such things? What do you know about equations? What do you know about astronomy? What do you know about every known law of physics? Why is academia every bit corrupt as politics? How do you figure Stephen Hawking is a hack? (like all the rest of them)?? You made all these claims, so prove them! You sound like a Troll.

    4. I have a degree in In industrial engineering and a masters in applied physics. I am more than qualified to speak on this subject. What are your qualifications besides modding this website?

    5. Well then, show me your proofs on this subject if you think you are qualified. Words mean nothing. You made the claims, I made no claims. I have to show you nothing.

    6. Modern astronomy violates every law of nuclear physics. That is common knowledge, what do you want? A copy of my Diploma? You guys are m*rons. General relativity violates every known law that applies to electrical engineering, and almost all modern technology. Did either of you guys even go to school, or am I talking to a wall here?

    7. No, we are not m*rons, the ones that do ad hominems such as you, have lost any credibility with me, and by saying that you have lost the argument. Sorry.

    8. I see you offered no credentials of any kind. way to dodge the real question. Have a good Christmas.

    9. Believe it or not credentials (claimed),ad hominems, insults and burden shifting are not a reasonable substitute for actual scientific proof. Please remove your diplomas from their frame and mail them back to your school with a copy of your above posts as evidence of their terrible error.

    10. Jay, he didn't claim to have any credentials. You did.

    11. Judging by your initial comment, I find that very difficult to believe. In fact impossible. Can you back that up at all?

    12. I agree completely. In fact, the very first sentence above was all it took to stop me from watching this. From what I've read seen and observed myself, I have no degree, I have my senses and my brain, I find that the electric universe model better fits what is observable. No beginning and no end.

  6. The uploading is not right and the play is not continuous. Please rectify this!

  7. But seriously. What century is it? The belief in "GOD" is nothing more than intellectual laziness. So many of our peers don't have the drive to find the actual truth, so (like a child) they quickly chew and swallow the same bullshit with which humans have been subjecating each other for millenia.








    1. I guess we can't say there is or there is not because no matter "who" made this whole universe or is it a multiverse in which our universe is located or if there are other multiverses as well and where they're located. Is the string theory correct or not?

      I guess these questions will never be answered, at least not in our time because this place is way too big let alone being part of a bigger "place", a multiverse. But I believe there has to be a creator to all this whether he's from the religions we know or from something beyond our comprehension.

    2. the creator of ALL this may be the combined consciousness of all who were and are, perhaps none of it IS...just a big dream a unified consciousness passes on. The big question is; did matter create consciousness or did consciousness create matter? There has been many scientists poking at that question in many different ways....and it continues.

  8. God only speaks to wingnuts.

  9. nice documentary

  10. Stating that the universe came from nothing by using the example of bubbles from boiling water coming from nothing, just disproves their claim that the universe came from nothing. For the bubbles in boiling water that popup do INDEED come from something - the water and heat itself! Therefore the bubbles couldnt have appeared on its own from nothing because the water and the heat and even the pot was part of the conditions and other factors involved! Therefore there must have been some condition preceeding the Big Bang that caused the universe to be created!

    1. AGREED!

  11. The Universe "just is." We "just are." And we'll all be gone sometime. I don't think there is just one defining big bang. Ok, we come from one, but there must be, or have been, many of them.

    1. I was unfortunately unable to access this video but would say that given space time is contextual to the dimensionality of the universe, there cannot be an objective "beginning" - only the appearance of one conceived/perceived from within space time. The befores and afters exist in relation to the context in which something is embedded but in the case of the universe, is it an entity embedded in anything at all?
      Can there be a "before" and hence a beginning if there is no context of space time to define it?

  12. Richard Dawkins to me is the last prophet of all prophets who came before him and tried to explain the world and what our life means. I don't view religion the way he does, I am surely more pragmatic than him. Religion to me is an attempt to make reason of life based on the limited set of observations we had. Richard Dawkins, with his education and hard work made reason with more sets of scientific facts around the universe, and therefore his conclusions about life is more relevant than that of medieval religion like Christianity or Islam. Nevertheless, his viewpoint is not the end of reasoning.

    Future scientists who build on his work as a starting point might discover theories that are yet incomprehensible to us just as people who go to church today cannot comprehend the work of Richard Dawkins.

    Richard Dawkins is a genius and as an anonymous human being in a planet with 6+ billion others earned my true and genuine respect.

    1. Dawkins... Is that you? lol

  13. Ok we get it, he uses a clicky thing

  14. big bang and all that have to be to stupid to believe that ..the only one who knows about is THE ONE who created evriting universe,us,time,etc................ ... ask God ;;))

    1. Present evidence.

    2. Beings, asking to see EVIDENCE of a GOD.. Is Proof that he exist!.. It takes awhile, you will get it..

    3. Deep in-site! really!

    4. takes no time.. its the logical conclusion of an irrational conclusion ... IF its 100% true that there is a creator god.. THEN its true that us being here to ask is proof that it made us... cos we are here asking.. so SOMETHING made us... and seeing as there is no doubt in the imaginary character you call god.. its a given that me asking is proof he made me?? rofl... amazing, the only thing infinite in this universe is the level of arrogance of a true believer!

      who made this easter bunny.. err i mean.. santa claus... err i mean GOD??

    5. you ask him, then get back to me on that...

  15. And if everything is really stars dust , and if we are seeing stars already die long ago I just can realise probably everything what we are now can be already dead to...

    1. and what if: We weren't stars but infinitly small particles that metamorphosed and went through a "wall" to get caught by a human hand.

      and what if: from human being we die and metamorphose and pass through a wall to birth as a star.

      and what if: from a star we die and metamorphose as a universe.

      and what if: this is infinite or may be it loops around.

      My mom said to me and i say to my daughter, and i guess my daughter will say to her son; Je t'aime grand comme le ciel, les etoiles et le firmament.

      *I love you as much as the sky, the stars and the vault of heaven.

    2. If we are not stars or we do not come from so all the years and all the scientific studs are wrong.

      And if we die, even as metamorphose like you said can it just happen because we already die long ago?? so the moment of " death" can only be a delay.

      And if its the reason why we die ??

      I said to my mom : " I was crazy when crazy means something "

    3. i see for you it goes from Love to Crazy...Did you mom agree?

      As i wrote "what if" it loops around, even for an antiloop like you. From universe back to being born human or as an ant as you portray your self. You think we come from star, i suggest we come from a universe, i just see bigger.
      All we know for sure is that we do not know anything for sure.
      Although for you that seems to be an exception in your undersTanding.
      The scientific studs have always been wrong at one time or an other and they will continue to search for the truth and life will continue to show them that it is getting further and further.
      Spirituality and Science have revolved around the an SOS...try this... turn science towards spirituality (not religions) and lay them all on top of each'll get an 8 in an O or an hourglass. of infinity...
      Now that you can call crazy....because you possibly do not have the imagination to see what is hidden in signs.
      Perhaps it's not that everything is dead, it could be that no matter has ever existed.

    4. Well I have to say that you are not seeing the signs...

      First place my nickname antiloops is used for refer an animal but I right it that way special for this propose... miss understanding...

      My mom never agreed with that so that's why i still keep it alive in me.

      When your mom told you she loves you mother than everything as you said before, shes enough "crazy" for do everything for her loved ones. So it goes really love to crazy :D

      I have to agree with you when you said always in a certain time science will be wrong and so on. But i ask you now : if you never touch the fire who you know that it will hurt you ??
      We never ever had progress if we don't fail first would be impossible for us to define what is right and wrong.

      About spirituality ( i don't believe in religion ) even if the God words write on Bible are not the truth, i believe there is still the better away to live in love.

      Anyway if I put my questions below is because im not even close to get the understanding of what really is going on, but as you said always science and spirituality fails at certain time

    5. Of course we aren't. Think about it. Its not like those stars are still there right now and from their point of view, we're already dead. They are really dead. Our star is really not.

  16. i like how we can see 13 billion years ago from light traveling to us that far away. I wonder if older light is just reaching us now causing a new star.

  17. logging in again

  18. Hello. Please read AL QURAN if you're not muslim all answers are there...and clear.

    1. Sorry, but no.

    2. Well read Holy bible the answers where there long before the Al Qur'an.. What god did in 1 day can be 1000yrs or million yrs.. not a day as for us humans.. Scientists made lots of progress to make a quantum soup with all ingredients but, they cant ignite it..why?
      That needs divine intervention from god no one else. Of course comets and asteroids distribute materials from stars cause all this are gods perfect creation. Time is human made, there is no time.. past, present future co-exists. we can not proof that in this dimension that would be absurd. Jesus is the ONLY saviour.. have that in mind when you live in this dimension.

    3. With all due respect to religious people (feel the need to say this because otherwise we have to go over all that again, and no I'm not saying there can't be a god), but time isn't human made. Even without humans, the suns will fuse hydrogen into helium and so forth. This ofcourse means there is a before and after, and this implies there must be time. Without time, nothing can change, nothing will happen. We humans shaped it into nice bits and pieces so we could work with it, like hours, minutes, seconds.

    4. Well said.

    5. I agree.
      The question is does time really exist? or is it just our own "nice divisions to bits and pieces" to something that we represents the passing of event, start of new ones and changes in general? It's crazy, I can't even find the word to describe it without saying "Time" lol.

    6. I once asked, God what is a million years to you? (he replied) "A million years is like one second to me son" And then I asked, God, what is a trillion dollars to you? (He replied) A trillion dollars to me is like one of your penny's. I worked up the nerve and finally asked, God, can I have one of your penny's? You sure can my son, in just a second. LOL lol Just a little comedy to lighten things up a bit. Great point, God is not bound by time.

  19. My apologies I didn’t know I’d written so much text, I have no issue if you wish it removed.

  20. Hypothetical statement:
    Just wondering if the universe really is as big as it’s said to be, and life may exist on another planet much like our own, would they have a creationist view or an evolutionary one.
    I only ask because if they had a creationist view they would think they were created in their god’s image and we would be worshiping false idol as such. It would also seem the same from our creationist’s viewpoint, they believe god created everything, so unless it conforms to their current belief system they would try to save this other society.
    Seems to me that would start a war and as it does already here on earth. Yet from an evolutionary point of view both societies would have merely a scientific curiosity. Science gets this bad rap for condemning people’s beliefs taking away spirituality. Yet if two scientists disagree they only have to find the proof to prove the other wrong, usually both will be satisfied with a wrong answer as much as a right one.
    Finding out what the wrong answer is, is as important as the right answer as it reinforces the truth of the matter. I have no issues with anyone having belief or faith but it seems to me it rarely ends in a combined truth it promotes conflict, certainly between opposing religions.
    The only plausible answer would be if every religion believed in the same god and took faith as the proof which in itself is why conflict arises unless you have faith to believe that one religion is true you will always find conflict with it, there will always be an unanswered question without faith in it.
    A creationist must therefore in order to be right, make another have faith in their god in order for another to accept them as right, yet if it is one religion vs. another they already have faith in their god/gods without proof so conflict arises as trying to convince someone that their belief is wrong and saying my belief is right, yet providing the exact same reasoning as proof that you simply must believe or have faith is why there can be no end to the matter.
    I mean seriously what is proof is it because the majority says its right or is it because it is right, I have heard people say well I have proof, I have divine proof, miracles that happen and in the bible its god s words to man taught by Jesus, but is it proof or just the majority of people at that time believed in it.
    When something miraculous happens is it because the majority of people believe it was god’s work, does that really make it true that it was god’s work simply because at the time they believed it was is that proof, is religious proof simply faith, it seems enough for a religious person.
    Yet for a scientist if the apple falls, simply believing its gravity and moving on is not enough, they would have to find an exact measurement and test if an orange fell using the same theory to make it a proof of concept, and they believe it true until somebody proves them wrong with more proof.
    Where does god leave room for progress or is life meant to be just faith and continuous testing of that faith to prove that we are worthy, seems to me god is more of a scientist than the creationist is.

  21. I've never understood how physicists attempt to explain time and space - which are in my mind the two fundamental aspects of reality. In my opinion, time and space are both infinite, and in multiple regards. It is somehow apparently obvious to me that matter can continually be divided, and to no end. In essence, there are no "building blocks" of matter.

    Additionally, space is infinite large. At the edge of our known universe, imagining it as a spherical ball of matter, is more space. In fact, many leading physicists would claim that our universe is just one of many that exists, have existed in the past, and will exist in the future. What this realm consists of, I have no idea - but it isn't matter in our sense of the word, and it extends infintely out in all directions.

    Time is second key component of reality. Time, just like the atom or "space" if you will, can also be divided infinitely. I reject that notion that time is some erroneous human perception that is not contained in reality. It is real, but it is curious (did i mention infinite as well? :P). you see, a unit of time can be divided into infinitely small units that aren't actually units (just like there are no building blocks of matter) because in essence their value is zero. I believe mathematicians would symbolize this as 1 divided by infinite.

    Time is also infinitely massive. There has been no beginning to the ultimate realm of reality, it has existed forever, and will continue to exist forever. This, of course does not conflict with the big bang and the origins of our universe because our universe is not the be all end all of "the realm" as i like to call it. Our universe is simply contained in this infinitely massive and infinitely old realm of nothingness if you will.

    In summary, the two key components of reality are space and time - and their ranges of measurement at their smallest are 1 divided by infinite, and at their largest infinite.

    In essence, it is the infinite that must first be conceptualized (if at all possible by our finite brains and supercomputers lol), if we wish to understand reality to the fullest.

    Feel free to let me know what you think of this hypothesis - I have limited math experience and even less experience with physics. I'm a marketing major for **** sake haha. These are just ideas that I like to play around with, but for some reason they seem so obvious to me. People with higher levels of dealings with subjects like this please respond to this and be as critical as you must.

  22. Silence! I created you all! now stop your ridiculous conflict before i spite you down.

    Hail Hitler.

  23. The idea of a 6,000-year-old-earth is based on some creative math using the supposed (and inferred) ages of some of the characters in the Old Testament. It's hardly a 'theory', it's just someone's bad math. Especially when you consider there are *huge* genealogical gaps in the Old Testament to begin with: "...And there were X generations until so-and-so" is hardly anything to claim accuracy about. No, I'm not bothering to look up references, I'm sure anyone who's read Genesis understands what I'm talking about.

    Basing a belief system on dubious math derived from folk tales is kind of silly. But then, I'm not a 7th Day Adventist or a creationist. So I must biased, right?


  25. alex you gaving us reasonable explanation why he may be wrong mr hawking, beig logic that is nice but from the other hand we wander how you religious people believe in a virgin birth etc angels who has no reasonable explanations what so ever .
    even science sometimes fail but religion is not an answer as simple as that.

  26. @ Stephen Kennedy 04/19/2010
    – "Problem with not having genders and continuing on by just having life cells reproduce themselves is that any problems like disease or genetic malformations would be duplicated too. With genders, you get to have diversity so that the changes of reproducing the disease or malformations in offspring is reduced.
    As for why not a multitude of different genders – why would that be favorable? Genders typically represent what is needed to produce offspring (i.e male and female). So if there were 100 different genders, that would possibly mean that 100 different people or animals would have to all get together to reproduce. In that case, it would definitely slow down the cycle instead of just two getting together."

    -seems to me that if gender gives diversity to reduce malformations then more than 2 parents would be better. i mean at that early stage in the development why not 3,4,5,6 since this would bring more diversity and allow less malformation. look at the animal world today, many of them fornicate with many different suiters in the process of procreation. and it seem natural selection would have worked better if more abnormalities were eliminated by diversity ( hence the more parents, the less malformations of the genes to be passed on )

    and why would nature care if the process was slow or not. seems it would follow the easiest path which might explain only 2 genders but then 1 would be best.

    remember i am not arguing here * just trying to make sense of evolution *

  27. @Stephen Kennedy

    ok then natural selection must rely on irreducible complexity and eliminates things that do not serve an immediate benefit. Since there is no intelligence involved to decide that something is in the process of being generated for beneficial purposes it will eliminate them if it sees no immediate benefit. now wings cannot grow overnight so how do the cells know that they are building something slowly over time that will be beneficial later in time and will not be a hinderance during the development stage. because half a wing is certainly not a positive as far as natural selection goes. i suspect there is something special going on in the DNA that allows the changes to occur even when they are not immediately beneficial and may actually be a hinderance temporarily.

  28. @g02mark

    er, yes. I meant "chances", not changes. I was half asleep when I wrote that and I barely remember writing it at all. If it wasn't for my browser still be opened this morning when I woke up, I would have totally forgot :)

    Evolution doesn't "know" which malformations are good and which are bad. That's just a matter of natural selection. Whatever works (i.e. aids in survival and/or reproduction) in the current environment could be considered good. Natural selection isn't a process whereby something is actually looking at these malformations and saying "this is good..." or "this is bad...".

    There is another documentary on here that I watched recently where they talk about elephants and their tusks. Historically, the larger the tusks, the more chances that their genes will be passed on because the female elephants will see those males as the most desirable and will choose to breed with them. So, in that environment, bigger is better and bigger can be considered "good".

    Then, along came humans who started hunting elephants for their tusks. The bigger the tusks, the higher chances the elephants would be killed and therefore wouldn't be able to breed as much. In this environment, smaller is better because the elephants with smaller tusks would have a higher chance of survival and creating offspring.

    You can see that natural selection may not be so natural. The nomenclature is certainly a cause of confusion. When we here words like natural we tend to interpret that as something that doesn't require any involvement like humans being involved in it. Also, when we hear words like malformation or mutation, we think of bad things like a person with a third eye or something, when really it just refers to something different than the norm, but could actually be tremendously beneficial to the species.

  29. btw: i believe virus and bacteria evolve through malformations and they do not have gender.
    or do they ? // at what stage in development of the cell is gender introduced ? i suppose it is a function of the DNA . but some cells are gender biased and other are not right ?

  30. @Stephen Kennedy

    "that the changes of reproducing the disease or malformations in offspring is reduced."
    I think you meant "chances " here right ?

    ok but evolution requires these malformations in order to evolve. how can it know which ones are good malformations and which ones are bad ? If the cell developed on its own how did it stop the malformations from occurring during its development without gender ?

  31. @go2mark - Problem with not having genders and continuing on by just having life cells reproduce themselves is that any problems like disease or genetic malformations would be duplicated too. With genders, you get to have diversity so that the changes of reproducing the disease or malformations in offspring is reduced.

    As for why not a multitude of different genders - why would that be favorable? Genders typically represent what is needed to produce offspring (i.e male and female). So if there were 100 different genders, that would possibly mean that 100 different people or animals would have to all get together to reproduce. In that case, it would definitely slow down the cycle instead of just two getting together.

    Those are just my thoughts. Could be wrong.

  32. I have a question for the evolutionists :

    If life was able to occur spontaneously why do we have or need genders and why would there only be just 2 of them, why not 3 or 100 or millions. why would the natural world have developed males and females when life was able to continue to reproduce from the first cell with out them. you may have a good answer for this and i am sure it is a scientific one.

    Also i think that when God said do not eat from the tree of knowledge that he was telling us that we would never fully understand but have fun trying.

  33. In the world of something even nothing is something in COMPAIRSON; point being: words are not things but discriptions of things and at best subject to connotation. This may be the problelm with fundalmentalist. science or religion. Science and religion manifest their own fundalmentalist. I get cought up in buz phrases, buz words and before you know it buzz concepts and there it is folks, Ignorant 101. Not stupid, ignorant. I acctually heard or read here the other day someone say, "SAME OLD/NEW AGE STUF", (If that isn't an oxymorron), Same old chritianity, same old buddhism, yes. New Age is just another phrase with an ignorant connotation.

  34. i wish it would go further to try and explain certain things like dark matter in particular, I dont really understand the theory.

    I've thought that maybe the universe runs on cycles of a big bang, matter expands to form stars and galaxies and whatnot, stars explode and form black holes, eventually everything gets sucked into black holes and all black holes get sucked into each other (not sure if that would happen or if they'd continue to move away from each other though).

    all matter in the universe is now concentrated into one black hole which is contunually pulling into itself with the force of the gravity of everything in existence, eventually this huge build up of pressure could cause another big bang and the cycle repeats.

    the force of the gravity of everything could be enough that some of the matter could be compressed into a different form, perhaps some kind of dark matter they refer to, but like i said I dont really understand what dark matter is so maybe not. also I dont know if such an event could blow atoms apart and break all elements down to the more basic forms of helium and hydrogen.

    any thought on this theory? im pretty uneducated so it probably makes no sense at all for some reason or another but its just a thought

  35. Take the discussion to the forum please. Comments are intended for direct response to the documentary posted, this isn't youtube. Thanks.

  36. @ Chris:

    Stalkers? That's the nicest thing you have ever said. Thank you.
    You must of read the book that I had recommended.

    And yes, I am fascinated, in a perverse way.

  37. Pilipino is the right language, Tagalog is just a dialect among other dialect of tribes here in Philippines.

  38. Ah, my two stalkers. How very nice. I must just fascinate the two of you. You follow me everywhere.

    And dear Solomon. Is Tagalog your first language? I know you studied English at university. I think it was required, wasn't it? Your brother seems to be able to assemble a reasonable sentence in English. Why not have him translate for you?

  39. @ Solomon:

    Plato, could not have said it better!

  40. Solomon - never before have you made so much sense!

  41. @Chris, What is it that you want some arguments about Cosmological Argument? But let us start with your mother who is not my mother... and that the world is just a tiny dust particle in comparison to our galaxy which is just a spectrum of our being in this Universe from other Universe.
    Time is a bubble we live in, Space is about everything at all, Life is not just about the one we hold dear... so on and so forth.

    Now, let us focus on leadership... in which we will be getting entangled with space and time to remind you that it is not time and space in your concern... Whose leader would you be having? The people who denies Christianity because of King David or the people who deny Islam because of Prophet Muhammad?

  42. Give my regards to James Bond on its "Quantum of Solace".

  43. Yawn

  44. I sent the author of the above promoted video the following comment:

    "Your understanding of the Cosmological Argument is grossly incorrect. I suggest you return to school to study freshman logic.

    Here's your most glaring error. Time and Space are the same thing -- SpaceTime -- and both came into being 13.72 billion years ago, unless you adhere to the Steady State Theory, which makes you a bit of a dinosaur scientifically.

    You're welcome to your own odd personal beliefs, but please don't insult our intelligence."

    I'm still waiting for ANYONE to propose a logical counter to the Cosmological Argument.

  45. As for the time of creation of six days, why not? I created this universe in seconds and mind you without mistakes! lol

  46. Big Bang is just a Baby Bang...

    Well, to support my statement, if universe is based on a Big Bang, then, in comparison to all of that on what is occurring in heavens, Multiverse then do exist with multiple Big Bangs. :o)

    Maybe, just maybe... aliens do come from one of this Big Bang, not necessarily from 'Our Big Bang'. :o)

    So, when this Big Bangs do met, they do give their impact one unto the other Galaxies of the other universe... and entwines with its uniting effect or repulse with its impulsing effect or just simply imploded. Expanding universe with its separating galaxies will be met by galaxies of other Universe. Impaction then will be occurring... We just don't dissipate into oblivion. We seems to be living on an interactive Multiverse.

    Maybe, just maybe... those Black Holes are the remnants of the other Big Bang that gets inside our Universe.

    Imagine the Fireworks exploding in the sky during the celebration of Independence day or New Year's Eve?... Those are the situation of the Multiverse I am talking about... and the vacuum space that it gives, after they were consumed and gone or exploded, are the Black Holes.

    Anyway, if Big Bang babies are looking for the very reason of the Big Bang theory, some American scientists are looking into the reason of how life existed with the neutrinos existence that comes from the ray of light of our very own sun.

    So, for a meantime with those verse, learn something from the Bible's verses for a while.:o)

  47. Infinity squared indeed!

  48. which is more bizare?

    That there was once nothing and then there was something.


    That there has always been something.

    Pick your poison they both sound crazy to me.

  49. i haven't read all the posts.. i think the universe might end before i could..;o)..
    but i did recently learn that 14th century priests didn't actually think the world was flat..
    watch terry jones medieval lives.. the one about philosophers... it talks about an interesting friar/scientist named Roger Bacon... and no offense to anyone, but the earth is only 6000 thousand years old argument is pure say that there was another world where the fossils came from is just, well i won't say it... I'm not saying i know anything about anything... personally i think there are some things we will never truly understand... but even Zacharia Sitchin makes more sense than creationists... peace to all faiths that don't press their beliefs on other people..;o)

  50. Science V Creationism
    Observation | Observation
    Hypothesis | Hypothesis
    Experiment | Lots of prayer
    Prediction | Rhetoric
    Modify Hypothesis | Gnash teeth
    Experiment etc | MOre prayer

    God's Plan (highlights)

    (1) Create Universe
    (2) Send son to die for mankind's sins
    (3) Seem not to exist

  51. kindly go forth and multiply you obsequious twerp. Meanwhile reread your scriptures whilst ignoring arguments against your" well founded "beliefs".

  52. (sigh...)

    Yavanna/Steve, I surrender. You have bested me. It is pretty clear that you posses neither the capacity or the will to understand Method. I've heard far better arguments from cats fighting in the night. Further, you seem to have misplaced your manners.

    I have done my best as anyone can see who read the above posts. But, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." and "Cast not your pearls before swine, for they will trample them underfoot and turn and attack you."

    I'm sure your sound, educated and well-grounded arguments must be very persuasive in your social circles where you are, no doubt, held in high esteem as an intellectual giant. Perhaps you should rejoin them on the front porch rocking chairs and polish your gun while you enjoy another glass of moonshine.



  53. I watched the first segment and I`m pretty sure I`ve seen one of his lectures before. I started watching the series of video's which was basically explaining god with a cartoon and called him "Hal" - found it rather painful. I'n not sure If I can buy into all this global / personal consciousness stuff. But it's interesting to learn about other modes of thought and belief.

    I`ve branched off into alien technology for a bit of light relief for now lol, You can find it under the side bar tab "How to Time Travel."

  54. Yavanna:

    Finding that site very interesting myself.

    No, not some Guru Master studying all that stuff, but did do meditation on and off. Very relaxing, probably go back to it.

    For this whole CA arguement, if you have a mind to, watch Nassim Haramein on that link, that states everything is based on fractal's-Holofractographic Universe.

    Must warn you though, it is 13 hours long! 45 segments on youtube.

  55. Chris, I was having a better look of your rebuttal of Dan Rowden's video "God Debunked - The Cosmological Argument" and review it so as to understand your arguments against it. I was going to bring up your rebuttal on his channel but then thought to suggest that it might be better if you take your argument to him yourself; because as you say this discussion is about a logical argument.

    It seems however that Mr pmchristopherjv has beat me to it. And now we know your secret YT identity! I hope you get some good responses - please let me know how that discussion goes.

    One question however - you mention both here and on the channel that he was kicked on his high school debate team. I was wondering how you came to know this. I am aware he dropped out of high school when his father became ill and later died from cancer....

  56. PS didn't mean to come across so aggressive.

    Achems I'm about half way through the main page of that site you linked and watching the video's there - The cartoon one of QT made it much more simple for me - the rest seems to be dipping into mediation and consciousness a lot......

    So I was wondering do you practice any type of meditation and what are your experiences. Might be one for forums if it goes too far off topic.

  57. @Chris

    "I hope you are feeling better this morning,"

    Usually I am fine - problem is I post and then you reply - by which time because I`m in England; it's quite late and I`ve had my cultural "6-pack" In any case this is the 'medicine' that I need to sleep as I have a crushed spine. But though I get a bit silly sometimes; even when a bit drunk I make a lot more sense than most "contributors.

    I see where you are going here: "Otherwise, this is just pointless opinionated drunken internet chatroom noise." a trap you wouldn't have fallen for and an excuse you wouldn't have used if it hadn't been for my own admission of innebriation.

    I hereby bring this entire discussion down to earth. You my friend are an illusionist - admittedly one I admire. You are also a politician because whatever facts and points are raised you redirect the discussion to that equitable to your agenda. You are admirable and eminently satisfactory in that regard. You blind us poor numb nuts of science with science!

    I have really enjoyed this discussion but here my part in it draws to an end. NO Have you Fk dealt with my first post! For emphasis I use FK by the way.

    You have never answered any of my main points. All you ever do is cleverly bring up complicated matters of logic and science as a smoke screen for your beliefs; and that is ALL this is about - no matter how sexy the accent gets!

    CA is intelligent design - Derr "God did it" - just for once (excuse my aggressive irritation) why dont YOU supply the answers instead of demanding scientific debunking of a nothing idea.

    Go back to my original response and reply to it in total - no weaselling around this time by answering the bits you found easy! (that's what I would have done by the way - no offence)

    The fact of the matter is CA is a flawed philosophical argument which has been debunked many times. An "idea" which is all it is. NO more an idea than a projection of a fairy to explain the existence of which we might deny: reality and truth.

    You have said "On a side note, it is unproductive and confusing to your argument to raise unrelated points. You’re all over the landscape." Touche sir! I was quite plain in my original response. Stop doging the main issues! It is you sir that is turning the whole discussion tangential with you defintions of infinite time and wotnot!

    If the real discussion is about CA then I answered each point toally in my original response. But what this is really about is YOUR beliefs. Because that what a philosophical idea is all about.

    And so "in a meaningful conversation you have to tackle each issue one at a time so that a logical picture can be shown." Not true - This is a total picture what we look at - it is called reality.

    So to end and in answer to "Please don’t allow the discussion to become sidetracked by what you think may or may not be my motives. Including you, everyone has motives, an agenda or a personal bias. That’s okay. But the logic either stands for fails on its own." Here I really must end - That is all this discussion is about - YOUR belief that a god did it all. Because whatever else we decide about your philosophical beliefs they are no more than that - a conjecture that despite better evidence you have decided that the universe was programmed by a non existant God (or what you call an uncaused being)

    I bring this discussion back to earth - this is your belief that God was the ultimate first, Nothing else - That is a proof you must display. It is not for us or science to otherweise rebut or explain.

    This is one of the oldest tricks going - My god is real - disprove it!

    And yes I was blind drunk when I wrote this. You dont wanna Fk with me when I`m sober - I can be a real miserable bastard!


  58. Yavanna/Steve,

    I hope you are feeling better this morning,

    I don’t know where to start with your previous post. I would like to address each point, but your post is all over the landscape and is a bit difficult to follow (perhaps a result of your inebriation). Please bear with me as we try to sort this out.

    Let’s start with your three-point premise. You asked way I didn’t address it as a whole. It’s a fair question and allow me to explain.

    The fact is that I did address it as a whole. The three points in your premise constitute an “Argument.” Points (1) and (2) create the basic premise from which you draw out your conclusion in point (3). Point (1) is your opening and, therefore, strongest point. Your conclusion in point (3) is supported by points (1) and (2). If points (1) and (2) are not defensible, then point (3) can be ruled invalid.

    I raised a valid counter to point (1) and showed that my reasoning behind the objection invalidates your premise. If you feel the reasoning supporting my objection is invalid, please demonstrate -- specifically -- your counter to my objection.

    On a side note, it is unproductive and confusing to your argument to raise unrelated points. You’re all over the landscape. I understand what you want from me – a proof of my argument for a universe created by God. But, in a meaningful conversation you have to tackle each issue one at a time so that a logical picture can be shown. Otherwise, this is just pointless opinionated drunken internet chatroom noise.

  59. Hi WTC7


    Here is what I mean when I say that the Big Bang theory is tested. A "theory" is a scientifically acceptable general principle (not a ‘hunch’ or idea) offered to explain phenomena, and must make real-world testable and verifiable predictions, or it is useless as a theory. The Big Bang model makes many predictions about the universe that are observable or testable. The fact that it is the most tested cosmological origin theory is due to it having come about during an era when we have the means to make such tests.

    Test examples include: Whether galaxies are moving away from us in a way that agrees with predictions can be tested using redshift; Analysis of the microwave background (considered by most to have been the smoking gun of the big bang); The calculations of Relativity (the MOST tested theory) that point to an expanding universe (that therefore had a beginning) can be verified; the current quantity of light elements (H and He) in the universe is a Big Bang prediction that can be verified, etc. The list goes on.

    I realize that the Big Bang theory is not universally supported and that there are some big unanswered questions. Okay, agreed, it is 'only a theory.' The Earth orbits the Sun is also a theory. Eventually, the growing mass of evidence for 'only a theory' becomes impossible to ignore. Any new theory will not replace the Big Bang, but only add to it as Einstein added to (not replaced) Newton.

    When I use the word ‘defend’, I don’t mean that I am defensive (far from it). To ‘defend’ is a term used in classical debate meaning to substantiate a position or statement. I meant that, because many of the points or facts I have discussed, which have been challenged by the members on this forum, were rudimentary, basic in their content, and common knowledge, I should not have to prove such basic information that should have been learned in school.

    My Opinion: Much of the confusion on this thread could be avoided if there were an understanding of the basic rudiments of “Method.” Several times I have made appeals to the ‘Scientific’ Method in order to demonstrate the merits of an argument, but to no avail. Most have never learned how to frame and defend a simple argument and become angry easily.

    I would suggest to Vlatco that a page be created that outlines what “Method” is, what it does and why it is a requirement to any meaningful discussion on scientific knowledge.

    Everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but not to their own facts or their own logic (is not that what atheists accuse of creationists?). Otherwise, it’s all unsubstantiated opinioned nonsense – no different than young children fighting on the playground.

    My best regards,

  60. Hi Chris,

    Thanks for answering to my last post. You touched upon everything I wrote except for my comment that the Big Bang theory is not testable (you claimed that it has been the most tested theory), I would ask you to comment on that too.

    Another point: you don't really have to defend anything, this is simply a discussion on issues of interest to some of us and we do it as long as it keeps our interest and as long as we feel fine about taking part in it.


  61. It's amazing that this crazy retard has so many incredible ideas. Is he a teacher or something? Reminds me of that Jap Michio Kaku! Man the stuff these guys come up with!!1!

  62. Hi again WTC7,

    Hmm. I think you are talking about Time-Dilation effect described in General Relativity. In this case, you are correct in stating that Time is (potentially) relative for each observer. And the medium (in this case: light waves) carrying the information of that event is received by different observers in different places at different times. But that does not mean that the event only has validity when you get the information (light waves) unless you ascribe to an anthropic view of reality, which would make you the center of the universe (regardless of how your mother feels about you ?).

    While this is a real and measurable effect, that does not mean that Time is NOT an actual and real property of the universe. The time (physically, a difficult concept anyway) flows for the universe whether or not there is an observer. If the universe were empty, Time would still pass from the perspective of the universe.

    Also, regardless of the observer’s frame of reference in regards to another observer, time passes for all observers according to their own frame of reference. There is no frame of reference in the physical universe where time does not pass for that particular frame.

    Also, regarding the following point:
    “…the scientists were indeed surprised to realize that the Universe was changing, but their surprise had little to do with it changing in TIME, it was simply the change as such they did not expect to see.”

    I’m afraid that your nuance is incorrect and misleading. It was indeed the idea that the universe evolved in Time that was surprising. The prevailing belief was an unchanging universe that was capable of sustaining itself from Eternity to Eternity. Hubble’s discovery upset that apple cart because it proved that the universe could not have been self-sustaining (as was also proved by Einstein's original calculations on General Relativity). English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle hated that idea. He traveled all over the world speaking out against it. It was not that this was a change in a pre-existing universe. This was a fundamental change in how the universe came into being.

    Gentlemen – I am making a defense for points that I should not have to make. These things are not my ideas. They are basic to our understanding of modern physics and are well-documented in history.

    Best regards,


  63. Ayup Achems - what the hell you doing stalking a logical discussion - I thought we were all agreed that you are an Illuminati mind controlled nut job!

    Anyways I`m off to bed and hopefully I can discover some decent input to my drunken ramblings with Chris!!!

  64. “PROVING” the existence of a theistic God, that cannot be done by the CA. The CA does not prove the existence of God directly. But it DOES eliminate other options. Further, a finding for the logic of the CA does not mean that anyone has to ascribe to a particular religious concept, fall down on their knees, or send me money "

    That seemed pretty open minded and indeed reminded me of my own god concept as I mention in my first post. Apart from the obvious straw man "But it DOES eliminates other options." - It simply doesn't - In a whole universe of possible causes you choose to say "God did it." That is called a leap of faith. You are filling in gaps in your knowledge by subscribing magic to a supernatural being. Going back yet again to my first post - even if the CA (ie first cause argument) is correct you cannot automatically jump to the conclusion that first cause was the act of a magical God.

    "(1) Whatever is sentient much have a cause.
    Not true. You are claiming being “Sentient” as a quality of a set that only contains beings that are “Caused.” There is no basis for this conclusion. God can be uncaused and sentient. We can be caused and sentient. These are not interchangeable terms."

    Not true - yet again you haven't taken my complete argument as a whole (again I ask you to take my first argument in its entirety rather than argue single points). God is eternal therefore infinite. Yet the CA claims that FINITY is contingent upon it working. You really cant see the duplicity in this?

    Going deeper into this "God can be uncaused and sentient. We can be caused and sentient. These are not interchangeable terms."

    Why cant God be caused? Why is "he" exempt from causality or every other rule? This goes back to a very early and much often argued point I have made. Who made God? And yes they can be interchangeable terms. Define God firstly before you can say this and explain how you can define God. I would wager you have no knowledge of this entity therefore you cant. (no offence) You might just as well say that a clump of earth designed the universe and we cannot question you on that 'fact' - so all must hail the mighty clump of earth?

    I can interchange terms as much as I please in summary. Because I didnt define your god.

    "You would have to demonstrate that the quality of being Sentient can only exist when a set includes only beings that are Caused but does not exist in a set that includes only Uncaused beings."

    An "uncaused being" is God right? (uncaused isn't in the dictionary btw but I get what you mean)

    If this was a game of chess I would say "your move" however if you see this as such I think I gave you a fool's mate on my very first reply to your arguments which you have yet to satisfactorily respond to. You have just lost the plot and keep moving your imaginary logical pieces however!

    Best Regards

    and nothing personal


  65. Yavanna,

    I really can't recommend that you post while drunk, but then, this is America and you are free to do as you feel best.

    Please don't allow the discussion to become sidetracked by what you think may or may not be my motives. Including you, everyone has motives, an agenda or a personal bias. That's okay. But the logic either stands for fails on its own. Claiming the CA fails is not the same as showing your argument. Not liking the CA is not the same as showing it to be faulty. You are free to like or dislike the CA as you see fit.

    I stated this in the thread a few weeks ago but will repeat it here. As far as "PROVING" the existence of a theistic God, that cannot be done by the CA. The CA does not prove the existence of God directly. But it DOES eliminates other options. Further, a finding for the logic of the CA does not mean that anyone has to ascribe to a particular religious concept, fall down on their knees, or send me money. It only means that the logic of the CA is sound and has stood up to the test of review. Not opinion. Review.

    Now then, let's look at your argument. You said:

    (1) Whatever is sentient much have a cause.

    Not true. You are claiming being "Sentient" as a quality of a set that only contains beings that are "Caused." There is no basis for this conclusion. God can be uncaused and sentient. We can be caused and sentient. These are not interchangeable terms.

    You would have to demonstrate that the quality of being Sentient can only exist when a set includes only beings that are Caused but does not exist in a set that includes only Uncaused beings.

    Your move.

    Best regards,


  66. Hello "old" friend :-D, the pleasure is mutual

  67. Howdy people:

    Hi, WTC7, nice to see you again.

    I was watching with interest on the progression of this thread.

    I am going to throw in a link that is following, no doubt it has to be moderated. And than I will get back to you all.

  68. Basically this is a discussion about intelligent design with a sexy accent - we all must agree on that. I`m a sucker for sexy accents!

  69. "The use of logic is for determining facts and, if enough facts can be established, the truth"

    But the ultimate premise of your arguments is the claim that "God did it" How can that ever be proven as a given fact therefore part of a logical process? No true atheist agnostic or scientist or whatever will definitely say that God doesn't exist - because by definition that which does not exist cannot be proven to be or not be. But to make the leap of faith that (if the CA is totally right there is a first cause) there MUST be a god is totally illogical. I advance the hypothesis that a saucepan did it - prove me wrong.

    So please continue and I suspect you will start with point one. That is that God isn't Sentient. If I was approaching this as a discussion at this point that would be the weak joint. Then I would reply in earnest to your precepted reply: You are merely calling a natural occurrence God - but I`m getting beyond myself here....

    In any case I`m becoming more interested in the other sub-discussion with WTC7 so am in no rush to be educated when i`m this drunk. For instance - on your imaginary infinite railway - there is always the possibility that the train on its infinite rails was only a few yards away from its destination...? (to an outside observer of this discussion at this point you may wish to read up on the preceding discussion to save me explaining my question)

    In any case stop dodging my real questions by drilling into minutia. I have my Dad chained but he is really strong and he could break off and totally Pwn your dad any time now!

  70. Yavanna,

    The use of logic is not for the sake of besting someone in an argument. That would be more like the rules of rhetoric, which are (among other uses) intended for debating and presentation. The use of logic is for determining facts and, if enough facts can be established, the truth.

    You have presented a three-part premise as follows:
    (1) Whatever is sentient must have a cause
    (2) The Christian God would be sentient
    (3) Therefore the Christian God would have a cause

    Are you going to allow me to request further clarification on your three points, or are you going to send your dad over?

    Best regards,


  71. Hi again Chris,

    I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression of not being aware of the basics of high-school physics. My point was that the concept of TIME is based on illusion and is relevant only if there is a reference point - an observer - otherwise it has no meaning.

    Going back to your example of the train tracks. Based on what I said about time existing only from the perspective of an observer, I would argue that the example is based on a wrong premise - the awaited train is not the flow of time, as such a thing exists only in our eyes, the train is an event. The image of the event travels through space on photons, and that way, the event itself (through its image) exists at any given moment at some point on its "path". And why not, theoretically, the path can stretch indefinitely.

    But this has nothing to do with the speed by which the image is transmitted through space and the distances involved, it is the principle of relativity of the concept of time I am talking about. The image of our Sun we get with only 8 minutes delay, but, hypothetically, a civilization millions of light years away would see that very same moment of Sun's existence in millions of years. The fact that we saw it sooner does not mean that the same image does not continue to travel and exist.

    As regards the Universe changing, I am sorry that I have to make a slight correction - the scientists were indeed surprised to realize that the Universe was changing, but their surprise had little to do with it changing in TIME, it was simply the change as such they did not expect to see.

    The Big Bang theory was really (and probably still is) the most accepted theory of the beginning of our Universe. But I cannot agree that it was the most tested one - it is a theory that could not and cannot be tested (at least at this point of our technological progress). The M theory (String theory), however, is now making its way through and opens new horizons in our understanding of the Universe.

    Greetings :-)

  72. Yavanna,

    Honestly, I was not trying to be rude to you. It has never been my intention to play mind games with cleaver word play dressed up a logic. I apologize for any offense.



  73. Chris

    Please dont drag this to a level of playground nuances because I can assure you my dad could totally own your dad.

    You are challenging my arguments against what is best described as a failed hypothesis that is inherent with flawed logic; yet then ask me to provide a rebuttal based on scientific facts. And again I say go find them they are out there - but I am beginning to "suspect" that whatever facts you are given will be ignored because that would disillusion your choice to believe "God did it."

    If there is anything left that might remotely be considered rational in this discussion first we must provide a basis for what is God. If this is a universe he made then it is also built upon rules he is limited to. But then I forget he is not limited by any rules: logical, physical etc etc. He is excluded from any argument infact. This is pretty much the main assumption of CA. And indeed of any religion.

    “Therefore the same logic can be applied to God.” is a veritable rebuttal to your infinity argument. If you aren't even going to answer my initial answers to your previous posts and play around on smaller points then you are indeed making this discussion a farce. You ask questions within questions when I have already supplied my answers to you in a previous answer.

    As for your wordplay regarding “actual infinities” versus “potential infinities.” the first cannot exist without the latter.

    SO let's cut to the crux. Firstly why dont you:

    1) define god
    2) define his rules
    3) define the universe
    4) define logic - you are very fond of addressing this discussion on this basis despite the fact that "God" defies all logic and laws of physica nature and whathaveyou.
    5) answer all the points I make in my original post
    6) retain a degree of respect for somebody who has taken some effort to discuss this with you.

    "Please tell us — specifically– how the same logic can be applied to God."

    (1) Whatever is sentient must have a cause
    (2) The Christian God would be sentient
    (3) Therefore the Christian God would have a cause

    Forget all the other stuff - why don't you regard this issue firstly as it uses the same flawed logic of the cosmologic argument. Then we might be on an even playing field before you continue to try to get me to debunk a non existent being.

    "Please tell us — specifically– how the same logic can be applied to God."

    I did in my first reply - you cannot strip an argument down into points without considering the whole.

    Even so - and I`m starting to get annoyed as it's really this simple. This is why I chose to make a short reply to: "Therefore the same logic can be applied to God." So don't spout logic to me which your god is immune to then come back to me asking for a more complicated answer. I asked you a short question. Be so kind as to provide a short answer.

  74. Yavanna said: "Therefore the same logic can be applied to God."

    Really? How? In what way? This cannot be your entire rebuttal! That's the elementary school playground equivalent of saying "oh yeah! Sez you!" Surely, you can offer us better.

    Please tell us -- specifically-- how the same logic can be applied to God.


  75. Hi WTC 7,

    This is not a word game or a philosophical riddle, but describes a real property of the universe. If TIME is infinite, it stretches into the past and future infinitely.

    Here is a classic example from my son's high school class: Let’s say that NOW is a train station and TIME is a set of train tracks. If TIME is infinite, the tracks go infinitely in both the past and future. You’re waiting for the train to arrive (waiting for the flow of time to reach the moment we call NOW). How long would you have to wait? The answer is “Forever.” Why? Because the train has an infinite amount of track to run before it would reach you. Time would never reach NOW.

    If this does not make sense, it’s because it’s nonsensical. This is a logical proof that TIME cannot be eternal and/or infinite. TIME is a “potential infinite” but can never be an “actual infinite.” It just does not work that way in the real world. Then, if TIME cannot be eternal or infinite, the only thing left is that TIME is finite. The only reason TIME may seem infinite to us is that we are not in a position to see the temporal horizon.

    Scientists, including Albert Einstein, convinced that TIME and SPACE must be infinite and unchanging were shocked when Edwin Hubble provided empirical evidence of a universe that changed in time. The Big Bang theory -- the most tested and accepted theory – implies that SPACE begins to exist at a definable point in the past – about 13.72 billion years ago. And since SPACE and TIME describe different aspects of the same thing – SpaceTime – this means that TIME also had a beginning.

    Your observation that deep space telescopes can see into the past is simply due to the finite speed of light and the vast distances of the cosmos. It is the same as the time delay between a flash of lightening and waiting for the sound of thunder to reach your ears. Sound is slow. At cosmological distances, light is slow. If there were a means of transmitting information faster than light, we would be able to see the far distant universe as it is now. Getting information about the far side of the universe through light is like getting your mail by pony express instead of email.



  76. Hi Chris,

    Without getting into the discussion about the "potential" and "actual" infinity, I have a different problem with your last post. It's about the concept of the "time" and never reaching the "now".

    For example, if our telescopes could see that far, we would be looking "now" (our now) at something that actually happened like 15 billion years ago (the actual "time" of event). So, what we would experience "at present", would have really have happened "in the past".

    Every sinle photon, our sun so generously provides us with, has been emitted at its source 8 minutes before you actually experience it.

    Hence, I have a hard time (:-D) accepting your explanation of the philosophical question of infinity with a concept that is an illusion at best.


  77. Therefore the same logic can be applied to God.

  78. Yavanna,

    Just a quick reply to this part of your previous post:

    "To say that everything has to be finite is illogical also. This precludes the possibility that infinity cannot exist. Lets take that big number you used earlier as a means of demonstrating that it cant. 10 to the 120th power. Now add a zero to it, and again….. now keep going “forever”, add a few to the powers of powers. My point is there is no “end” number. You can always make a number bigger just by adding another number or zero on the end. Numeracy is effectively infinite."

    You have confused "actual infinities" with "potential infinities."

    A potential infinite is like your numbers that you describe above. As long as you are willing to add another number to the previous number, it will get that much larger. And it will grow larger as long as you care to do that. This is a potential infinite. But "potential" infinities can never become "actual infinities because they are "real" numbers to which you can always add another number. The term "potential infinite" only describes the property of any real number to be increased by adding one more number to it.

    But potential infinites can never become actual infinites. For example, if you were to say that the universe is infinitely old, you have a problem because the timeline would go back in time for an infinite amount of time. And how long would you have to wait for our solar system to be formed and the present time to be reached? Forever! Why? Because the infinite timeline would stretch back into the past for an infinite amount of time. You would never reach "Now."

    Actual infinities do not, and cannot exist in the real world. This is not word play. This is proof that NOTHING can have been around forever if it is material in any way, shape or form.


  79. Yavanna,

    Respectfully, your “off-the-cuff” response is not helping your argument. You would be better served to offer fact and logic. I would suggest you look up the meaning of the term “to beg the question.”

    I must admit to being disappointed. You dismiss my point-by-point rebuttal without offering anything of substance in return. Instead, you “off-the-cuff” me. This is not the way to be taken seriously. If it reveals that you are just not open to hear a valid argument for the existence of God, then I will simply wish you a pleasant day.

    You ask me why I asked for peer-reviewed research regarding a divine origin of the universe. Please remember that you said that science disproved the CA. You suggested I study chaos theory and claimed that that it is an established scientific theory that could be used as an argument against CA.” (No, it cannot if you understood that the quantum field is not truly Nothing.) Are you not trying to use this as a scientific basis in your argument against CA? Why then would I not ask for a peer-reviewed research (instead of someone’s opinion) as a basis for your rebuttal? Don’t just say that the CA is disproved or is faulty. Show me by logic. Show me where – exactly where you don’t buy it. At least show me by better so-called logic than that “God Debunked” idiot.

    Conduct research, build your case, state your position, make your argument, and provide supporting facts and authorities. It doesn't have to be elaborate. It only has to be logical and not beg the question. The scientific method is more than just saying “Oh, Yeah?!” Otherwise, we are only children squabbling in the sandbox.

    Skipping to the end -- You wrote: “…what are your qualifications and sources?”

    Logic doesn’t need a source. It either stands on its own merits or it fails. It either shows its strength in the full light of day or it collapses utterly. Additionally, logic is not just clever word games. The use of logic is a valid part of the scientific method. Finally, I should not have to defend the use of logic in making an argument regarding the physical world. Logic is a valid and required course of study in university-level education (at least it used to be). The CA is an argument based in logic that stands on its own merits of logic in reaching a logical conclusion. Stating that you do not agree with the conclusion of the CA is not the same as providing a valid logical argument against it. If it were, we would have to give weight to the disagreements of young children fighting on the playground.

    You have stated that you do not agree with the CA. Okay, I believe you. Yet, you have not offered any argument of your own other than to point me to the work of others – work that you have admitted you do not understand and cannot defend. You have been persuaded by someone who had a presentation on YouTube that you liked. Fine. And when you see another presentation you like better, you may be persuaded in another direction. Where is the thoughtful and careful consideration that you call your own? The question of whether or not there is a God deserves no less, don't you think? Start by asking your self this question: Would I prefer a universe with a God or without one? Why?

    Honestly, I really can’t see that you care about the CA one way or the other, so what is the underlying and real issue you have with the concept of God? You said you had a religious background of some sort but left it. What happened? How did that background let you down?

    Finally, you asked regarding my qualifications. I assume by this you mean what is my field of expertise, education or degree. I hesitate to reveal such things about myself because my argument should stand upon its own merits, and not because I have or have not earned an advanced degree. An argument has no respect of persons.

    But for the record, I’ll say I’m old, educated, experienced, and professional. I'm married and raised adult children. I’m an enthusiastic amateur astronomer and telescope builder. I appreciate being alive during an era when we can, for the first time in human history, know and understand something of the true nature and size of the physical universe. I’m doubtful of organized traditional religions, and skeptical of people who do not think for themselves. I’ve lived in various places and witnessed various points of view. I do not feel the need to change the meaning of scientifically derived facts to defend a pre-conceived notion of God, who, by the way, is not afraid of scientific facts and does not need me to defend Him on Internet forums. I find the Bible to be a source of truth but do not ascribe to traditional nonsensical interpretations and child-like teachings (like the universe is only 6k years old and dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark). You might say I believe in a literal interpretation but not a traditional or religious one. I feel that "religion", "tradition" and "culture" are among the most evil things on the earth.

    As a Christian, I do not need the CA to support my Christianity. But the CA is a useful counter to those who attempt to use facts from legitimate science to preach that there is not God.

    This is a very difficult topic for most people for which it strikes at the core of their being. You have been most polite in your discourse, which I greatly appreciate. I wish you the best and send my best regards,


  80. PS I meant to ask, what are your specific beliefs? Are you for instance a deist as I originally thought I might be in my dim and distant youth? Or do you subscribe to a particular religion and set of scriptures.

    From your former posts I`m guessing you are some sort of Christian so I might go on to say you have juxtaposed CA upon a particular rule set?

    In any case what I should also have said in the last part of my above comment is that I doubt as this is your "specialised subject" I'll be able to produce anything that you would consider a valid input. All I can perhaps offer is a fresh perspective as I tried to do in my original post.

  81. This is mainly an off the cuff response as I have just found your latest comments and wish to let you know you wasn't being disregarded. I`ve had some problems posting on this doc due to some weird server glitch (I had to post my big comment through forums and Vlatko pasted it in.)

    I don't understand your reply "So what? The Cosmological Argument (CA), like God, is not responsible for the misguided pronouncements (and YouTube videos) of uninformed admirers." For one thing isnt God responsible for everything as per the finite argument without which the version of CA you are using falls apart? And my initial point stands - CA is basically a wordy way of saying "God did it." And this peeves me every time. Why is there always this tendency for "people" to fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural being?

    "You need to establish your (divine) qualifications.....etc" - This is a discussion on a philosophical argument - why should that necessitate the need for "divine" qualifications? Indeed what would you define these as? In any case lets regard my initial comment further - that God was inefficient in this manner of creating servants. Let's theorise for a moment - I am God. I can do anything. Allakhazam! There I go - instant servants. That would be efficient. Why go to all the trouble of creating a huge universe so that a few billion years later these servants come into existence?

    "My answer: Actually, I have not located even one “scientific” argument against the CA, so please quote your sources as a necessary part of establishing your argument. I would be most interested in reading about such research in peer-reviewed papers"

    I`d suggest you start at wikipedia. The rest I found by googling. I`d also suggest you study chaos theory which is an established scientific theory that could be used as an argument against CA. There is a very good doc called the "secret life of chaos" a BBC production - I just checked; its on Youtube in 6 parts.

    Regarding your comments on the "God Debunked source" - I will agree with you that it seemed strange to remove the part 2 component in a rebuttal, but then my understanding of CA is that "2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself." is primarily used by the Kalaam version - which you specifically asked not to be addressed.

    However this is why I later (in my comment) went to greater lengths that would otherwise have been needed to address "part 2" of CA.

    I wont go into the other "flaws" of that source at this time as if you are correct I will have to spend a great deal of time properly investigating an alternate source - and getting my head around it.

    Now clearly this is a pet subject of yours and before this discussion gets prolonged would you answer me some things. Firstly why do you ask for peer reviewed papers on what is basically a discussion on a philosophical theory? Surely if that is what you are asking it would be more efficient to find such on forums more dedicated to that purpose, certainly not a hack like me. Secondly what are your qualifications and sources? You ask for supported arguments - can a philosophical theory have such? This is no different from any theist saying "provide me evidence that God doesn't exist."

    Anyway best regards and as I said just a quick reply, hopefully this will get through to the comments sectioon and I will now be notified of responses.

  82. Hello Yavanna,

    You said: “The cosmological argument is in essence no different from the logic that faith driven people use throughout any discussion involving God.”

    My answer: So what? The Cosmological Argument (CA), like God, is not responsible for the misguided pronouncements (and YouTube videos) of uninformed admirers.

    You said: “(doesn't sound such an efficient way of going about creating his servants if you ask me).”

    My answer: You need to establish your (divine) qualifications before you dismiss the CA based upon your personal perception that God was inefficient in his creation.

    You said: “I wont (sic) put here published scientific arguments against the CO, I imagine you can easily find them yourself and have chosen to dismiss them. And they are many.”

    My answer: Actually, I have not located even one “scientific” argument against the CA, so please quote your sources as a necessary part of establishing your argument. I would be most interested in reading about such research in peer-reviewed papers.

    You may be referring to the many rebuttals to the CA that have included mountains of scientific facts and explanations, but that are mostly targeted against low-hanging fruit such as so-called “scientific” Christian apologetics who propagate garbage such as the young earth theory of the universe. I wish they would take aim at higher targets. The majority of legitimate anti-CA presentations I have located were more along the lines of logic and rhetoric arguments.

    Regarding your referenced source, “God Debunked,” the speaker commits several gross errors that disqualify his argument. To wit:

    At 1.16, the speaker posts what he presents as four premises of the CA.

    1. Every finite and contingent being must have a cause.
    2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
    3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
    4. Therefore, a First Cause must exist.

    First Error: In a bizarre move, at 1.47, he arbitrarily eliminates premise 2, declaring it unnecessary to the CA. Yet, this is deliberately misrepresenting the CA. He cannot presume to frame the CA and then debunk it based upon his misrepresentation.

    Second Error: The speaker says that (new) point three is in violation of point 1, which nullifies the argument, i.e.: the First Cause must have a cause. This illogical statement fails because if the First Cause had a cause, it cannot be the “First” Cause (duh!). If the original point two was restored, then it becomes a qualifying statement to the term “First Cause” – that it was an uncaused, non-contingent, necessary being.

    Third Error: The speaker then makes the unsupported claim that religionists add the modifiers “eternal” and “infinite” to the First Cause in order to avoid asking for special pleading for the First Cause.

    The special pleading objection would have weight only if the CA began by granting the First Cause with special powers in premise one (“the universe came into being because God did it by magic!). However, the CA’s conclusion for the existence of a First Cause is ‘circumstantial’ and made by eliminating any other option.

    Fourth Error: The speaker says that even if the First Cause was eternal, it would have to be either dynamic or static, and presents his logical argument.

    Here the speaker has a point only if the First Cause is a part of the contingent, material universe. The dynamic and static natures as presented by the speaker are limited by causation, which is defined by time (original premise three). But, by definition, a non-contingent being cannot be included in a set of contingent beings; a First Cause cannot be part of the thing caused (premise two). Therefore, the First Cause exists outside of the frame of the contingent, material universe, which includes time and causation. The First Cause is therefore “transcendent” -- apart from the material universe.

    This speaker frequently redefines opposing arguments to suit his rebuttal rather than addressing them on merits. Although he strives to represent himself and his arguments as logical, I do not find his sophomoric self-serving body of work to be well supported or reasonable. No doubt, such poorly framed arguments are what got him kicked off his high school debate team.

    I should also state that the Cosmological Argument does not provide proof of Christianity or claim to provide direct evidence of a traditional theistic God. Similar arguments are used in Islamic Apologetics.

    I’m not even half way through your reply so there is more to come, but please offer your comments so far. I would be most interested in specifically where you disagree with my points and conclusions, and offer your own supported arguments.

    Best regards, Chris

  83. Finally, a worthy and well-considered reply. Thank you.

    Unlike all the other replies, you have spent much time and supplied much material and it would be unfair and shallow for me to offer an off-the-cuff answer. As God said to troublesome people in the old testament, "Come, let us reason together." And so I will offer you a reasonable and well-founded argument. First, I will study your points and references because I want to make sure that I fully understand them. I will do my best to present an argument based upon sound logic, supported by evidence and avoid begging the question. I have every expectation that you will do the same.

    Again, thank you for your reply,


  84. Chris: I almost forgot to say "thank you" to you also. My mind is on other things.


  85. Achems Razor: Thank you for your time and effort. I suspect I won't have any further questions after looking up your links, but I will let you know if I do. Once again, thank you.


  86. Patsy: Thanks! I'm looking forward to my vacation so I can catch up on my studies in-depth in the annotated Bible my mom and dad gave me for my 21st birthday (I left it back home as I was overloaded at the airport and had to take it out--it has to be at least 6 pounds!). I'll get back to you in March sometime, maybe.

  87. P.S.

    Chris: How was your trip to see the grandkids? Anyway, you just have to be patient with the atheists. Slow and steady wins the day.

  88. Charles B : Don't worry, I don't normally tend to discuss such important issues with people who simmer on concepts that they learned from their Father's annotated bible, or ponder such questions as "Were Dinosaurs part of the origional earth under Lucifer’s governorship?".
    ps: good luck with the reading.

  89. Razor: Ok. Thanks for the links. When I have the "time"! Ha. I'm funny tonight. :-)

    On second thought, "time" doesn't really bother me that much, but I would like to think about UFO's a bit more thoroughly (I'm just typing to myself, not really asking for any help there).

    Patsy: You sound utterly boring to me. Taking the time to converse with you at any length would most likely "yawn me into submission" wheather or not I agreed with a word you typed. And I read plenty, thanks.

  90. Kelly K: And Charles B:

    Instead of writing about time. I will instead direct you to 60 short videos on youtube, about time and quantum. This will save me a lot of time, and be more beneficial to you.

    Google-"YouTube-is time an illusion Pt. 1"

  91. I think it is funny the way some religious people try to sneak in the back door and try to trick you. Re: Chris.
    That is why he went all haywire. when he thought I was new age! to them that is their Devil stuff.

    And then there is Charles who is forthright, who I do not mind conversing with. "Ha" Hard Sell?? That's funny!

    Yes I will try to fill you in on stuff I have learned over many years.
    again I make no claims, I am not religious, and I am a layman.

    I guess you can class Einstein as new age. He had deduced that time and space are illusions. Google "Theory Of Relativity"

    It is best if you find a few things out for yourself for now.
    Google-"Julian Barbour" a theoretical physicist, on his book "The End Of Time"
    Google-"reality is an illusion youtube".
    Right here on TDF watch-"Parallel Universes"
    You may also want to watch here on TDF "What The Bleep Do We Know"
    If you have any questions, let me know.

    Regards. :D

  92. Religion was created by man in an attempt to fill in the gaps in human knowledge,the majority of these gaps no longer exist and have been replaced by explanations based on observations.These observations are open to all of society to independently research and confirm.The whole point of science is that it is a search for truth,and it is constantly updated as our knowledge and understanding of our amazing universe expands. This knowledge is gained from the labours of people who have dedicated their lives to this search for truth using hard work.The contemporary understanding of the universe tends to be argued against by each generation of creationists and others with religious faith,until the next generation of scientists have then explained their thinking and ideas with scientific observations(read a history book) Imagine what we will know in 200 years!!. Unfortunately most religious people tend to ignore the glaring fact that history shows us that today's religion is tomorrows folklore and mythology (again,read a history book). People of religious faith argue for something that they want,and have a deep need to be true.Scientists just make observations and state the results of these observations.All religious doctrines and scriptures have proved to be incredibly incorrect about where we came from,so to believe these same teachings on the future,or workings of our universe really is a sign of self delusion(read any religious scripture). There is only one reality that we all share,people do not get to pick and choose what reality they believe to be true. We all live in the same beautiful and magnificent universe, and therefore we all share the same observations,regardless of these observations matching what you would like to be true.
    ps: if anybody feels a need to contradict anything i have just stated then please do so with information and facts that can be verified by consistent observations, as opposed to links to websites of people speaking about their creationist opinions and not observations shared by all of mankind.

  93. Chris: I had read that before, but I hadn't even thought of that Scripture. It does say the world was made a "wilderness" doesn't it? But I always believed it was God's judgement that did so. But in this case even if it was God's judgement, we can really "blame the devil". When I get my commentary back this January, I want to study this more myself. Also, I've found Mr. Razor to be mostly very accomidating, but you have to be softer in your wording a bit. He is a "hard sell" just like most of us! :-)

    Kelly K: I don't know about time. I think it's a line. But Mr. Razor has some novel ideas.

    Salim: I suppose a fourth option is possible where we think we saw what we saw, but it brings no comfort to my heart to consider that option in this particular case. :-(

    I'm about to have dinner. I'll check back later. I would like to see what Mr. Razor has to comment if he has time.

  94. To Kelly: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High." Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit.
    Then, those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying, "Is this he who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?" Isaiah 14:12-17

  95. Chris: I understand your cosmological argument. I also feel that mathmatically everything that is now existing could not have been only by chance. Now what?

    Achems Razor: I haven't completely bought into the whole quantum machanics theory as of this date, but there is some truth to the fact that how we view the world helps shape our own world, but there are limits there. what do you mean that time is an illusion? Keep it simple for me.

    Charles B. or Chris: What Biblical evidence do you two have for the rebellion of Lucifer other than his presence in the Garden of Eden as an "evil" force? No overly zealous Bible pounding, please.

    Salim: Thank you for adding the 4th option to Charles B.'s post, but the question now is, how can you tell which one is correct? Or can you?

    Anyone: What is time? Is it circular or in a line? Is prophecy quantum machanics in action en mass, or messages from the one god? There are examples of both Christian and non-Christian prophecy.

    350 words or less, please. Professor Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" was nothing of the such!

    I might not be around for a while or always comment, but I will read what is posted.


  96. Chris :

    I never said I was God. So do not put words in my mouth! I said there is no Gods. There is just us. Re: Human Race.

    Our perceived reality, our consciousness is still evolving. We are only according to time scale, one step above the stone age. A class "0" civilization, that has a long way to go even to a class "1" civilization.

    We are all still in a process of becoming. Our observed Universe, is observed collectively, as is everything else. It is a mind construct. Which makes it real enough, but it is still illusion. The only thing that is tangible is our now. Not past or future. We do not live in the past or future. We live strictly in the "Now"

    I am not going to any major lengths to not believe in God. So do not try and lay any guilt trips on me with your anathema garbage. It is my prerogative not to believe. If it is your belief, that is fine. I have no problem with that.

    We live in a physical, material and logical World with our physical senses.
    But is that all you think there is? Only what your physical senses tell you? Everything to you is material, physical and logical?
    Well, I tell you there is more than meets the eye!

    You will probably disagree again with what I say. Personally I do not care!

  97. Hmmm. So... you have gone from atheism to you, yourself being God. Never have I so disagreed with someone who said that they agreed with me. I hardly know what to reply.

    If our perceived reality is only a shared illusion of our own creation, what does disease, death, starvation, war, hatred, bigotry, indifference to the suffering of others, lust and the porn industry, gluttony, murder, robbery, assault, etc say about us? Why would we coordinate our great creative powers to create such a world?

    Also, if the observed reality is only a shared illusion, how would you explain the observed universe. Is the structure of the quantum world a product of our minds? How would it even be imagined? Why have the complexity of all levels of the universe? Why have physical laws at all? Most of the scientific community, including Einstein, imagined an unchanging universe until facts from the depth of space revealed a universe that evolved in time. If your idea that our reality is of our own creation is true, then there would not be unexpected surprises like that one. Our world would be what we imagined it to be -- flat.

    No, my friend, that is poppycock and self-serving nonsense. It's amazing to me the lengths some will go in order to avoid the very idea of God. I don't know what New Age book you read to come to these conclusions but you wasted your $2.95.

    Your ideas that we are the gods that create the world in our minds is not new. It was common during the 60's to hear this and other imagined tales. Many of them had drifted in from Eastern teachings. The flip side of this idea is that God creates the illusion of the universe in our minds. We, as humans, perceive the universe through our senses, which are only realized in our brains and comprehended in our minds. Therefore, God simply projects our reality into our minds and we perceive it to be the material world.

    Again, the problem with this concept is the complexity of the universe. Why have the complexity of hidden worlds like the atom, which we can not see and only have recently begun to comprehend?

    No. The function of logic is that we would, with clear thinking, understand ourselves and the things around us. And there is no logic and no fact that reveals anything but that we live in a material and physical universe.

    To some, the very concept of God is anathema.

  98. Chris:

    I agree.

    Nothing is the product of chance. There is cause and effect for all we see and do. Nor is it so called fate. It is probabilities. We may choose to do some thing, say different from the norm. or something may happen seemingly by chance, no matter how minor, that would sometimes completely change our future endeavors, that is a probable action or cause.

    The same goes for our Universe, which is in a sea of probabilities, a gestalt of pure energy from which it sprung.

    The Universe as we see it, are a series of events as they intrude on our 3-dimension reality. The events are mental.

    We envision everything with our physical 5-senses. But you cannot trust the physical senses to give you a true picture of the greater reality. They are wonderful liars. Sometimes we are far more creative and knowledgeable When we are dreaming than when we are awake. We project our thoughts outward into physical form. We each create our own realities, and en-mass create our big picture.

    Nothing exists that is not conscious of its own kind.
    We are eternal conscious multidimensional units of energy in a gestalt of aware energy.

    There are no Gods, there is just us, co-existing in our illusion of time and space. And in the illusion of our Universe.

  99. To Salim: Raymond Chow, physics professor at UC Berkeley, said that the multiverse concept was born out of desperation. Simply, the multiverse only pushes the problem of infinite regress and absolute infinities back one step. As long as you can ask, "and where did the multiverse come from?" you will have this problem. Infinite regress and absolute infinities CANNOT exist, in this universe or in any others. They are a mathematical impossibility. The concept of the multiverse invokes both.

    Also, the concept of the fine-tuning of the universe not favoring chance is not my idea. The cosmological community says it.

    Looking forward to your reply but it may be awhile before I can post. I have grandchildren to visit.

  100. Good post, Mr. B. The time before adam is known as the pre-adamic age. Your dad is correct in that it was the time of Lucifer's ruling on the earth. I have more but this is not the correct forum.

    The cosmological argument is appropriate to present to nonbelievers because it uses a formal logic that they can understand. God says "Come, let us reason together." And also "All of creation declares Jehovah." It's "faith" that they don't have and don't understand.

    To O. Von Thomas
    Your words: "Using the cosmological argument to prove god requires suspension of chance (no matter HOW small) and throwing in some deductive reasoning which itself is self-destructive. This is laughable at best. If god is the creator, who created god. The probability of god existing without a creator is far smaller then the mathematical probability which is overlooked by the cosmological argument. Thus, the argument cycles into itself; ultimately answering nothing."

    Pardon me, but your response tells me that you do not understand the cosmological argument. Think about it for a bit. Even cosmologists are having a hard time with the idea of chance. Right now, the entire cosmological community is in a bit of an uproar over the old idea that the parameters of the universe are as they are due to random chance. Remember the multiverse? That idea came about because of the chance problem. Good grief, READ A BOOK. I am not pulling this out of thin air. The mathematics is completely against it.

    Let's look at this comment: "The probability of god existing without a creator is far smaller then the mathematical probability which is overlooked by the cosmological argument."

    Not only does this show that you do not know the cosmological argument, it makes no logical sense. The definition of God is that He IS the creator. The cosmological argument does not claim to provide direct proof of God. It simply eliminates all other options, including chance.

    So, there are two sides that both reject chance. The scientific community admits that chance is a mathematically unreasonable solution. Philosophy (i.e: the cosmological argument) shows that chance is illogical. I'm not asking anyone to fall down on their knees or to adopt any particular religion or God concept. But, if you are honest, you have to admit the facts, and be open to the idea that the universe had a beginning, that it did not bring itself into being, and that the parameters of the universe (which are not required by any physical law) are fine-tuned to a degree that mathematically eliminates chance as a logical scientific option.

    If anyone has new and different facts and observations supporting a new scientific theory of the universe, please share it with us as well as the scientific community at large. I'm sure they would be most open to it.

  101. Brief as I can be;

    I will restate my bias, I am agnostic.

    First 2 points to Charles B.
    1) You spoke of a vision a pastor you know had. "With such cases, you either say they are lying, overly imaginative, or it really happened as they say."
    You left out that the mind can play significant tricks with regards to perception. Because you left this out your following conclusion made sense but now including this you can account for the pastors honesty and sincerity while also doubting the experience.

    2) Your last post disregards all the evidence we have gathered over the last several hundred years. Theories must fit observation. Respectfully I will say no more on this topic.

    To Chris,

    Appreciate your input. One thing I would like to note. You say that the likelihood of fine tuning being due to chance is astronomically low thus it must be due to purpose. Multiverse theory takes care of this however. It is that very fine tuning that comes about is an exceedingly rare universe that give rise to us. We would only come to exist in this rare type of universe. We haven't and can't experienced the multitude of other universes that don't have the properties that lead to such life forms. It would always seem to any species living in a fine tuned universe that it's improbable they exist until one realizes that every time such an improbable finely tuned universe arises, so to do species that have the capacity to think how unlikely this is. This is a mix of chance and determinism, not purpose.


    Wow! The comments on this tread are too extensive to read everyone, but I do have Mr. B's "Theory of Everything" to add if I can steal Dr. Hawking's phraseology.

    Mr. Razor: You said "There is nothing in the Bible that gives a specific time date. The ones that do believe the universe is 6,000 to 20,000 years old should revamp their thinking and figure out a new senario that makes sense!"

    You're correct. The timeline is based on geneologies only which has a couple of potential flaws such as are they complete and did they start at the time of creation?

    I've actually have been simmering a concept that my dad told me that the earth is actually quite old, but the time of Adam and Eve is not. I haven't found any website that holds this view but there might be one out there. Dad got his information from his annotated Bible, so it was not his own origianl thought.

    Nonetheless, this is mostly my own thoughts on the matter as I don't have any commentaries or websites to refer to.


    Vlatko asked earlier where did God come from if he made the universe. No one truthfully knows. He just was, and is, and is to come; eternal. Is He a person? Yes, as I understand it, and not "all that is". God is not His own creation, in otherwords.

    But, as an eternal Being, there is no hurry. Time is basicly meaningless. If the universe if 14 billion years old from the time of the Big Bang and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, (provided those are correct mathmatical equations), then we have a conflict with the understanding of many Creationists that believe in a young years, correct?


    My dad said that the earth's age is actually unknown for we do not know how long the Earth existed before the time of the Adam and Eve era which was only about 6 to 20 thousand years ago. Before Adam and Eve were created, the Earth was made, and over Earth Proper, Lucifer was in charge of at least a portion of it. Notice I said "Lucifer" and not Satan. Satan is a term we now use of the fallen Lucifer, who was a high-ranking angelic being before his still-continuing rebellion.

    The fall of Lucifer occured before the time of Adam and Eve as is obvious by the story of the temptation in the Garden of Eden.

    My dad says that the Earth was destroyed or "laid waste" during the rebellion of Satan and destroyed by flood. Between the verses of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 much history transpired, and that is why the earth was "void" and covered by water. This is not Noah's flood, which was much later.

    The Garden of Eden and the time of Adam and Eve was actually a remodeling of the Earth and perhaps even parts of the universe as well. Darkness and destruction was the result of the rebellion of Satan in unknown ages past.

    Before that time, the Earth was also perfect with various forms of life which perrished in the judgement of Satan and that which he was governing at the time. What animals lived then, we don't know. Where there pre-Adimite people? My dad thinks so, but I'n not convinced of that. Perhaps. Vlatko made a good point of why there aren't many more fossils than we have, so all or most traces of them would be gone none anyway. My dad says that is where "demons" came from, but I've always thought them to be just fallen angels like Satan himself. That's just a side note.


    1. Is there a God?

    Yes. He's eternal to the best of our understanding. He is the original creater of the universe(s) as we know it. He is not an alien from another planet or time; He is God.

    2. How old is the universe we live in?

    It could be 14 billion years old from the time of it's creation based upon my understanding of things.

    3. Is the Big Bang possible?

    Maybe. Maybe even probably. We aren't entirely sure how God created the original universe or how long it took. When You're eternal, what's the hurry? He could have been "baking the cake" so-to-speak for countless of billions of years if he chose to. Who are we to say?

    4. Is eveolution the mode God used to create life?

    No way! God may have taken billions of years in preparation of the universe for life, but life is created perfectly at the time of His choosing without before or after forms. As man was created in one moment's time perfect in all his form and ways, so also all life is perfect at the time of its creation also.

    5. Is there life in outer space?

    No. Maybe, but I don't think so. I think the universe was created for us to know and understand in coutless endless eteranl ages to come; it's not a waste to be void of life now as it will not always be that way. Remember, forever is forever; more than enough time to enjoy and understand it all forever and ever in time.

    6. Was there life before the time of Adam and Eve?

    I think so, but I have only the slimest of Biblical proof of that, and mostly logic to say, "I think probably so."

    7. Were Dinosaurs part of the origional earth under Lucifer's governorship?

    Probably. If so, then they were destroyed at the time of judgement by flood and perhaps other forms of judgment too.

    8. Is Noah's flood the same as the Lucifarian flood?

    No. They are two separate earth destroying events. I think all life was destroyed under the Lucifarian judgement, but some life was preserved in Noah's flood. Life didn't start from a clean slate as it did with Adam and Eve's renewal "creation".

    9. Might the fossils we have come from the original Earth before the time of Adam and Eve?

    I think it's very possible.

    10. Why does there seem to be mass extinctions at more than one point in the ancient past?

    I don't know. I haven't got that one totally figured into my understanding of things yet.

    11. Why do animals come and go in the fossile record without transition forms?

    God creates perfection. There are not before and after forms to be found. Why they come and go in different layers of rock is unknown to me. I may postulate that before the time of Adam and Eve God created at His pleasure and His own timing those things which He wanted to create at the time. However, it is my understanding that from the time of Adam and Eve no new spontanious "creations" of life by God has been added.

    12. Are extinct spiecies gone forever?

    Yes. They are. Unless in the future God "re-creates" the same ones of the past, like the dodo bird, for example. There is to be a New Heavens and a New Earth mentioned in the Book of Revelation and many animals of changed natures and characters are mentioned such as harmless lions and asps.

    13. The universe is dying. Vlatko and others have pointed out that we are all headed for extinction as our solar system supernovas or dies as others have done before. Is this true?

    Yes. It's true. With out God's intervention, we're all toast! The Bible mentions that the heavens and the earth will grow old like a garment and be cast aside, but God, who is eternal has it all figured out. No need to worry.

    14. Are we eteranl beings too?

    Yes, we are. We're just eternal as God, but we are not of equal level with God. Our soul's eteranl destiny depends on our choice of whom we will follow now, during the time of the "rebellion" of Lucifer which is still very much on-going. The evil to Hell and the good to Heaven to make things simple. It's our choice, but it must be decieded before our physical deaths. I don't believe in reincarnation, nor do I believe it can be proven Biblically.

    15. So do you have life all figured out?

    No even close! But, I do seek to know and understand be true to myself. I don't give out bolagna that I know certainly not to be so. These are 90% my own thoughts, but surely some really smart Biblical Scholar elsewhere has written about them. If not, then perhaps someday I will.

    16. Who do you explain U.F.O's sigtings?

    I haven't a clue, but perhaps they are demonic or angelic in nature. Many are hoaxes for sure, some are explainable by other means, some are exagerations, but a few surely must be credible one would think. Let's wait and see.

    17. Lastly, who is Jesus?

    Jesus always has been and always will be, the way, the truth and the life; no person can come to God except through Him.

  103. Thank you, Mr. Razor. He was my closest friend from my hometown and I thought that he would be ok (I was sure God would heal him), but he didn't even make it to Christmas. He declined so fast from when I saw him last in February. It's times like this when the question "Why?" just doesn't have answers. It keeps my heart humble.

  104. Charles B:

    I am sorry to hear about your close friend.

    Please accept my condolences.

  105. O Von Thomas: Sounds like a lot of double talk to me. Enjoy your eteranl perfect "void" if you believe such is God.

    Chris: Thank you for the summary. Ironically I thought of the "uncaused cause" argument yesterday walking back from work. That takes me back to college, at least if not highschool. I can't remember if that was Aristotle or Socrates, however.

    Most non-believers nowadays I don't think would be interested in the cosmoligial argument, so why not just talk about God outrightly?

    I think it ultimately comes down to a time of "revelation" on a personal level at a time of God's choosing. I've refrained some from giving some of my best theories (albeit good ones that are mostly Biblical in essense).

    What I can't shake is the "spiritual" nature we have. My very close friend died this week in Oregon, USA, from ALS and I watched in service on-line yesterday night.

    The pastor that was with him (Hank Greene) at the time of death (whom I've known for 20+ years) said at the time of death he saw a radiant light fill the room, and then Jesus Himself walked into the room through the window from the lawn outside and he had a small woman with him (Glenn's mother). Glenn's father is still living. He saw Glenn leave his body, say nothing more than "Bye" and the three left together. He said he was "wallpaper" and in 40 years of pastoring had seen nothing like that. I can't wait to get back to the U.S.A. next year to ask him directly eye-to-eye if he saw this only "in his mind's eye" as a vision, or with his natural eyes like we would see eachother every day. It sounded like the second in the video I watched yesterday.

    With such cases, you either say they are lying, overly imaginative, or it really happened as they say. But I've know this pastor for 20 years, and I'm inclinded to believe him when he tells a story. I would love to see an angel or Jesus first hand, but such has yet to happen, but I trust those that I trust when they say they have.

    Such experiences are totally negated by atheists, and if you're only limited to the "logical" arguments, I just don't see it working, no matter how longical it may be to you and I.

    Nonetheless, best of luck, Chris, and God Bless. I'm still greiving, and I have no more heart to contemplate that which I conclude is essentially a "faith" of the heart issue rather than a "logic" of the mind issue.

    Charles B.

  106. O. Von Thomas:

    Your thread is similar to what I wrote about Null Physics.

    It is on this forum. Sept. 28th. 2009 at 05:21

  107. Using the cosmological argument to prove god requires suspension of chance (no matter HOW small) and throwing in some deductive reasoning which itself is self-destructive. This is laughable at best. If god is the creator, who created god. The probability of god existing without a creator is far smaller then the mathematical probability which is overlooked by the cosmological argument. Thus, the argument cycles into itself; ultimately answering nothing.

    The big bang theory implodes mathematically as the time line reverses to the very "start". Perhaps this implies a terrifying reality, that there is no beginning and no god. All actions have opposite and equal reactions; all interactions equivocate to zero by physical law. Perhaps our universe is the positive, equal to a negative anti-universe which balances to nothing. Everything is therefore nothing, abolishing the mortal codes of life, death, sin etc. Absolute void is therefore ultimate perfection; God.

  108. Chris:

    Thank you for replying, I also never set myself up as anything. I have never made any claims as such. Any info. I have presented is also available to anyone that wants to look.

    I clearly stated in other posts, I am strictly a layman looking for answers to the great mysteries of life, why are we here, etc:

    Where have I made any demands on you, I asked you, will you tell us how you think the Universe began? to the commenters on this forum.

    And the reason I asked you, it seemed to me, you knew what you where talking about.

    You started this Chris, not me. Now you have other people interested in what you have to say.

  109. To Razar: “You set yourself up as someone who might have more answers than anybody on this forum.”
    It’s clear to anyone looking through your posts that you are guilty of what you are accusing me. I did not set myself up as anything. I made no claims for my qualifications or myself. I stated information readily available to anyone. Still, you answer my question/post with more questions/demands.

    To Charles, et al: I really didn’t want to get into the details of introducing the cosmological argument to a new audience because it is too easy to dismiss an argument that is poorly or quickly presented. That’s why I suggested that anyone not familiar with the cosmological argument could conduct their own research and answer their own basic questions from sources more detailed than I will present here. That is the course I still recommend. That way, our discussion would have more meaningful substance.

    The cosmological argument attempts to prove the existence of God using logical means rather than faith. It was explored in classical times by Plato and Aristotle and has been developed and propounded by philosophers down through the ages such as Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas and others.

    Here. I lifted this from Wikipedia:

    The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:
    1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
    2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
    3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
    4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

    According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.

    Simplified but it presents the main argument. The only item I would add would be that eliminating “chance” from consideration as the origin of the universe (see my earlier post), the only thing remaining is “non-chance” or “purpose,” which is a personification of the First Cause. In other words, God.

  110. Chris:

    Actually, I am not interested in being pigeon-holed either.

    You set yourself up as someone who might have more answers than anybody on this forum.

    So how about using your expertize to address my previous question? I know Charles is very interested, as I am.
    And like Kelly says, be concise!

  111. Chris: I think most of us post "off the cuff" here. Mr. Razor does some research, as I have too, but I get a bit lost if it's too technical (sometimes).

    I have two kids and work full time, etc. It would be nice if you could summarize your Cosmological argument for me. How can we talk about Kelly's option #2 without being religious. Sounds either silly or really esoteric (ya like my big word)? :-)

    Got to go, one kid's cryin' and the other is bankin' her head on the patio window--hard! (No, she's not autisitc! Just wants mama. But I decieded not to get her last MMR after watching a doc on that on this website).

  112. Oh, to answer an above question regarding where the idea of a 6000 year age of the earth originated; In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published a chronology dating the creation to the night preceding October 23 4004 BC. This chronology was based upon the genealogies listed in the Old Testament. He was not the first to have done this but was the most well-known. Actually, the Bible does not give an age to the earth and it's pretty apparent that it is very old.

  113. To Achem Razor. I don't think I introduced any new or unknown concepts to this group. Certainly nothing outside of your own expertise, apparently. How about using some of that expertise to address my post?

    To Kelly, regarding the your two options for the beginning of the universe;

    Considering the current understanding of the body of information now known about how the universe is put together, chance is no longer a reasonable option, not least because of the fine-tuning of the parameters of our universe. Check out the work of Sir Martin John Rees (among others), an English cosmologist, astrophysicist, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and Astronomer Royal for more details but let's just take one of these parameters as an example. In order for the universe to be flat (as currently determined) mass/energy must be the critical density, which is one part in 10 to the 120th power. This level of fine-tuning far exceeds the boundaries of chance because there is no reason in physics that requires it. This is just one example but that alone eliminates your first option of chance.

    Logically, I suppose that leaves your second option. Usually, this is where people start to get up in arms. In my first post, I said that I would like to hear some discussion regarding the cosmological argument because it creates a forum where your second option can be examined without getting religious.

    I posted here because I wanted to hear some responses about my post. I'm really interested in logical, reasonable, educated discourse rather than off-the-cuff comments and points of view that are merely traditional, or unreasonable/illogical, or angry, or poorly thought out.

    I'm not interested in being pigeon-holed. I have no agenda. But, since you asked and were polite about it, I think it is pretty obvious that I don't believe or see how the universe could come into being by chance. If chance is eliminated, you're left with "purpose," which can only mean a personification. The rest is just the details on how it happened.


  114. To be quick and to the point, I see only two options for the beginning of the universe:

    1. No one god and all things are eternal and everything has happened by chance.

    2. No "nothing" (pun intended) but there is an eternal god who made it all from "nothing" either by the Big Bang or in some other way not specifically known. The Bible is not entirely clear "how" but it seems he spoke everything into existence. Perhaps combintaitons of the two are possible aslo.

    Chris: I too would like to know the answer to Achems Razor's question as well. Please be concise.

  115. Chris:

    My question is, will you tell us, how do you think the Universe Began? to the commentors on this thread?

  116. Hello,

    Not sure I see a question here.

  117. Hello, Chris:

    You come across, as though you might have the theory of everything, down pat.

    I sure would like to hear what "you" have to say, you seem very voiced in Creationism, Evolution, Chaos Theory, Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Biology, Supernaturalism, Humanism, Paganism. Did I miss any? How about Esoteric? and New Age? that may apply.

    Awaiting your reply.

  118. Hello all, Christians, atheists alike. Interesting thread that seems to step on quite a few toes on both sides. Not to stir up the pot, but I have yet to see these two topics addressed.

    To the atheists who say there is no God, I would like to hear some 'educated' comment on the cosmological argument, hopefully something more evolved than the Kalam Argument, but offer up whatever is your understanding (please google 'cosmological argument if you are unfamiliar). It makes little sense to for a nonbeliever to address matters of faith, but the cosmological argument uses the same logic as science. BTW: For those who will say that Quantum Theory disproves this argument, please address the origin for the Quantum Field because as long as it can be asked, "and what came before that?" you still have not faced up the impossibility of both infinite regress and actual infinities within the material universe. Thoughtful comments welcomed but remember that, while everyone is entitled to their opinion, no one is entitled to their own facts.

    For the believer's side, especially those who insist that the earth is only 6k years old, or that man and apes (as well as all other life on this planet) are not related, or hold to a religious traditional interpretation of the Bible, I would simply state that you cannot really know "how" God made man or the universe. The traditions of thousands of years shroud the meaning of many verses and so you must shed tradition if you seek the truth. For example, do you celebrate Christmas? This day is steeped in pagan meaning and origin (google it), yet religion holds it up as a top celebration in the church. Look up Jer. 10:1-5 for the origin of the Christmas tree. I hold up this one example only to show that you cannot trust tradition or the traditional interpretations, or use them as a basis of your argument or you hold yourself up for ridicule.

    To Christians: It is pretty obvious that man shares DNA with the apes as well as the other species we share our planet with. If we didn't, we could not eat them as food. They would be poison otherwise. So, learn to say, "I don't know" and move on. Admit that we have a DNA relationship with apes. We don't know what it may be, but it is there. Don't fight and twist the facts.

    To nonbelievers: All levels of the universe reveal hidden complexity that defies mere chance, some by orders of magnitude. And when chance is eliminated, the only thing left is "not chance." Admit that the arithmetic is against chance, and that, not only may chance may not be the origin of all things, it is highly unlikely to be the origin. BTW, the concept of the multiverse still begs the question. Only the truly narrow, close-minded, or angry are true atheists. In the very least, they should be agnostics.

  119. Whoops, ambiguous. You use an appeal to ignorance when you ask us to prove not true, some claim you make about gravity. Just because someone can't prove it not true, doesn't make it probable. What if I said, "prove to me turtles can't fly"! It doesn't follow that it's likely that they can. Is this more clear? Sorry for not making it more understandable.

  120. In response to "Obviously smarter than you",

    Let me first state I am agnostic. I haven't a clue as to what you are trying to say. Please be more clear. Furthermore, you commit two fallacies in your arguments. First you use an adaptation of the "every school boy must know" fallacy. Second, you use the appeal to ignorance when you ask us to prove something your saying is not true. Whatever ts is you are trying to say, your not presenting it strongly.

    My advice to you is consider taking a critical thinking class or read a book on the subject. You'll form much better arguments and probably realize that some of your beliefs might need revising too. Good luck.

  121. Harry R:

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Universe or the World is 6000 years old.

    I suspect it the creationist's them selves that gave a time date.
    Do you know where that fact came from? Surprise me!

  122. Where in the bible does it say the world is 6,000 years old? Does anyone here know where that fact came from? You will be very surprised at the answers. This doc was about the big bang, so what were you expecting it to say?

  123. "He spins through the history of thought on the subject, beginning with the early Biblical view that the world was created by God around 6,000 years ago. And that wasn’t the only cockamamie theory dreamed up in the succeeding millennia."

    'COCKAMAMIE'..seems bias in itself to suggest such a statement. NOBODY can say the universe is a few thousand years old- and nobody can say it's billions... Between zealots from both sides- there is no proof for fact. Any answer even a grade school kid can have are as sound as any crazy thing Hawkins can come up with or from you idiots that love to pose the evo/creation debate and sling mud claiming you are smarter and have all the answers...

    FACT: Nobody knows the age of the universe- time and light can be slowed/sped up now by us "evolved" humans in a lab. Who is to say gravity throughout the universe is not or is doing the same thing( Prove that wrong). The question should be can we trust liberal one sided thinking from "educated" professors who live off the backs and government grants to keep money in their pockets and pull free willed thinking people away from God? Who are you?

  124. christians are awesome everything in the bible is true everyone thats not a christian is going to the devils home (not going to say that word) you wanna know what happens to people who aren't christians read the book of Revelation in the bible everything in the book of Revelation is going to happen and it will happen soon so evertbody in the world needs to repent (ask Jesus in thier hearts) and be bapitised. The Lord God Jehovah is the greatest God in the world every other god is a false belief. and if you ask Jesus in your heart you will live forever in a perfect world called heaven. So you guys need to think about that.

  125. I just saw this doc, and it was interesting. As far as all this talk about religion and science I would just add that both are trying to explain the so far unexplainable. The big bang (as was stated in an earlier post) is just that a theory. Science, especially physics, always states things as theory because science knows it does not know everything. Religion does not state things as theory, well because it is dogma (belief in things you can not prove). Comparing the two is like trying to mix water and oil, don't try it you just end up with a big mess. As for the posting of websites, for every position any one has I can post a site that refutes that. it proves only what you agree with. The documentary was good for what it was trying to state; the big bang.

  126. Salim,

    Spot-on! :-)

  127. I believe in both creation and science. Is there a God? I don't know, maybe. Is the universe itself God or a universal mind? Perhaps. Just one point for those who think it is absurd that the universe could come from nothing; if God created the universe (which may be true) then where did God come from? This is equally absurd/non-absurd depending on your perspective. Nevertheless, whether God created the universe or not, the problem still remains... how did the universe come into being, and if it was God, then we are just one more step away from the same question, how did God come into being?

    Realize that God is not answer, rather, he/she just leads to more questions. Please use your "evolved" capacity for reason.

  128. Nassim Haramein - very interesting. Nice info! Thanks


  129. Shoalinagent: What is this "alien DNA splicing" theory for Adam and Eve in a nutshell? Wouldn't this just push the theory of evolution and all the problems associated with it into outer space rather than Earth?

  130. shoalinagent:


    Yes, it seems that our views are the same. I will look at Nassim Haramein,s site with pleasure.

    I like the idea "that all things being equal, often the simplest solution is the right one" Is why I chose Achems Razor, I could of used Occems Razor, Occam,s Razor, or Ockhams Razor which all mean the same thing.

    I agree, that we create our own Reality, as a matter of fact, collectively we create everything that we see!

    Regards: :D

  131. Achems Razor, our views are the same, if you have not seen Nassim Harameins work I highly reccomend it. His model takes into account the holographic nature of the universe and his website even hosts an experiment that was recently performed that prooves it :) By the way, I am intrigued by your user name, I appreciate the term 'Occams Razor' as it is a means of cutting away irrelevant data which is a great philosophy to have. Is your user name based on this term?

  132. You've said it right Charles B. "I’m willing to believe now and understand later."

    That is the main difference between believers and non-believers. The first group first believes and understands later and the second group first understands and than believes.

    However I think all comes to the same point of believing in both groups. For example both groups receive knowledge but through different sources: The Religious Books and Science Books. However these two sources have no ultimate foundation whatsoever.

    In religious books everything boils down to God, but there is no ultimate knowledge of who, where, why and when he was created. We must accept that he just IS.

    It's the same with science. For example we know much things about light. The spectrum, speed, characteristics and so on... but we don't know who, where, why and when it was created. So we also must accept that light just IS.

    In both cases there is not ultimate foundation for the knowledge that was built up through the centuries.

    Therefore the division of believers and atheists is illogical mind product as every other mind division.

  133. Vlatko: That was really well said, but I actually have a thought in response to that one.

    God, by nature is the very essense of "omni" as in omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. However, we as people can make word-plays that don't necessarily fit "God." We can say that God is all powerful, but can He make a rock so big He cannot lift it? If so, then he's limited in His power to lift the rock; if not, then He's limited in His power to make it! Either way, we can say then that He's not "omnipotent" by that definition.

    After much thought, my understanding of God is this: He is indeed all-knowing, but He is the only being in the Universe that can choose to limit His own "knowledge". For example, the Bible states that when we are forgiven, God casts our sins into a "sea of forgetfulness" (I think I have the phrase right) to be remembered against us no more. He limits His own knowledge by choice there.

    Unless you believe like Calvin did that God does indeed create some people specifically to be damned, then somewhere there is a point where God allows His knowledge of individual choices to be limited. He is still "all-knowing" as He is God, but we cannot place on him OUR definition of the phrase. He has limited his own knowledge. To what extent, I'm not sure, but a good example is the story of Solomon. Solomon was rewarded as a youth for his prayer for wisdom to lead God's people, and God promised him wealth, wisdom, AND long life IF he followed God faithfully his whole life long.

    It didn't happen. later in life he rebelled and fell away despite his wisdom, and his life ended abruptly (he didn't have a long life). God spoke to him in a vision 3 times to repent but for whatever reason, he didn't repent as far as we know. What an empty promise that would have been for God to give had Solomon had no choice in falling away after years of serving God faithfully as a youth. What kind of cruel God He would be to take a faithful youth and then twist him to become a king on the verge of madness.

    Does God know who will and who will not serve Him to the last person? Maybe, but perhaps He has limited Himself in that knowledge too. It's a massive debate that has very good scholars on both sides. I'm in the middle. I believe that all those that love and serve Him are "predestined" by their own choices to "life" and those that choose not to are "predestined" to spiritual death.

    I accept the consequences of my personal choices while at the same time praying for God to guide my steps according to "His plan for my life." I suppose in a way I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too, but it makes sense to me. I at least have the heart to believe that everyone that truly wants to know the truth and do rightly will have that opportunity. I pray.

    When I don't understand God's ways fully, I trust His heart; His heart's desire is that all men might be saved should they just believe. I'm willing to believe now and understand later. ;-)

  134. I also looked at that site. This quote got my attention:

    One of the foremost problems with God's omniscience, is that it is incompatible with man's free will. If man has free will to make any choice he so desires, how could God know what choices man will make? The biggest problem with an omniscient God, is that an all knowing God would have foreknowledge of the destinies of every being in which he created, long before he created them. Now if God already knows which of those will go to Heaven and which of those will go to Hell, then God purposely creates people to send them to Hell. How can an all loving God; a God whose greatest desire is that every person accepts him and gets into Heaven for all eternity, create beings whom he already knows aren't going to make the cut?

  135. Mr. Razor:

    I looked over your atheist website link for quite a long time and I wonder why the author is so vitrolic against God; I'm quite sure he feels God has dealt him a bad hand for some tragic reason or another; perhaps when his brother died of cancer. Most people do not have that much rancer without blaming God for some horrible thing that happened to them or a loved one.

    I could answer many of his questions and claims of "false prophecies" even without study of the passages, but not all without some digging involved. One thing he drasticly misses is what we call "prophetic perspective" which means when a prophet sees one thing and then the next but leaves out the details in the middle. I can say, "I see a two mountains capped with snow" but fail to mention the city inbetween (or the time span between them) altogether; that's called prophetic perspective. Many of the prophecies he claimed never happened are still in the furture. Isaiah especially does this. Things of the past and things yet to come are stung together in "prophetic perspective"--one might say, "A God's eye view of the history of mankind." When all is said and done, no true prophecy shall fail or remain unfulfilled.

    He spent great time on claiming that Jesus was never called "Immanuel" in the New Testament, but that made me laugh because He is MY Immanuel now, and I've called Him by that many many times; is that not valid as He's quite often called such now? Because it's not mentioned in the New Testament per se, is it not true now? It's all a matter of perspective. We even have songs about the name; it means "God with us." It's a "fulfilled" prophecy. :-)

    On a lighter note: I heard that an atheist was writing a paper over his atheism and he wrote "God is nowhere!" at the top of his paper. His young son came up to his father, and being a child, didn't understand what was written, but read the phrase as "God is now here!" I don't know if that is a true story or not, but it demonstrates the point that one's "perspective" is everything! :-)

    I leave you with one last thought: The Bible says that He will be found me them that diligently seek Him; no such promise is given to the half-hearted and certainly not the scoffer.

    Unless you have a specific question you sincerely would like to have a Christian perspective on, I'll leave things as they are without any more on the subject.

    Mr. Razor, many a diligent mind has asked about God from many sources, but not as many have actually ask God Himself for wisdom and understanding and to make Himself real to them; try it at least once (or once again) if for no other reason than I wish you would.

  136. Charles B.

    Thank you for your in depth synopsis.

    But are you talking about the Bible, or Marvel Comics?

    Just common sense, sudden shifting of Earths land masses in minutes
    or hours, will completely destroy everything on Earth!

    Tidal waves, Tsunamis, even when the Earth burps, it causes Tsunamis!
    Sudden shifting will cause catastrophic Volcanoes, molten lava everywhere. And will change the composition of the atmosphere etc:

    Might even alter Earths obit around the Sun, will definitely cause it major wobble!

    It would probably change direction of the Poles.
    Rein havoc on Earths Magnetic Field.

    Talk about a doomsday scenario.

    I am envisioning this with a laymans perspective.
    I will look into this at length, especially the time periods involved for the Ark and shifting of the land masses.


  137. Joe:

    Tread lightly!

    I think WTC7 is a very "nice" Woman!


  138. I thought WTC7 was Razor's alter ego.

    MaBad ;)

  139. To Charles B no one you have ever know has ever died because when you die you re dead and i dont mean clinically dead i mean dead and in saying thati m asking or challenging anyone at all to show me one bit of proof that god exists. Like i said science will make mistakes but we as a race will still grow religion says once you get to a certain point of thought just stop and follow what i tell you. As long as people believe in god and stop asking though tough questions they wont know true freedom.Finally i have peace i know a world most dont a world where logic gives me peace and i have peace also in knowing my thoughts are nt bound by someone else s rules. I want proof something anything that can be proven.

  140. Charles B.

    "Adam" had some good points that you never answered. If there was a great flood, how did Noah get animals from Antarctic, Australia, or the
    Western Hemisphere that are native to those areas. Where I live, we have some big mean Grizzly Bears.

    Did they have Prozac for animals in those days?

    :D :D

  141. Charles B.

    We are greater then the sum of our parts.

    I believe in an eternal soul; but you get more than one chance.
    You will be doing it over and over, until you get it right!

    Does not matter, who, or what, you believe in, everybody goes to the same place!

    :D :D

  142. Razor: You are an interesting person. I agree with the multidimensional part (I wonder if our concept is the same in that aspect), but I don't believe in reincarnation, but rather one eternal soul; one chance; one life to live. Traditonal Christian belief I assume.

  143. Charles B.

    If I believe in anything, then it is definitely Reincarnation!

    Yes, I believe in the Soul, we are all separate Entity's.

    We are multidimensional.

    :D :D

  144. WTC7:

    I think Charles B. has Razor on the Brain. (LOL)

    :D :D

  145. WTC 7: Sorry. I read the wrong name. Wouldn't have even noticed my mistake had you not said something. :-)

    Anthony P: A lot of people are having NDE's (near death experiences) now with modern resussitation techniques. To say such experiences where the soul leaves the body are only lack of oxygen to the brain is a bit simplistic. If you truly believe in the soul (like I do), then that is the "real" you, and you can see and hear and smell and touch and taste just like you can now, in a spiritual sense, of course.

    I suppose I'm the religious one of the "Whackos" you mentioned so I should say I do love to read, but I'm so busy and rarely have time enough to read undisturbed -- it's sadly easier to zombie out and watch a documentary on the computer and/or do other stuff while watching the docs.

    P.S. I wonder if Mr. Razor believes in life after death. It would be interesting to get his take on this now that I've been informed the note from WTC 7 above was not from him. LOL Do you believe in the human soul, Mr. Razor?

  146. Charles B. - Thanks for the answer. One thing only, are you addressing me as 'Razor' for some reason you never told me, or is it that you think Achems Razor & me are the same person?

  147. Achems Razor:

    Let me explain it to you again.first you experience something then you react to that experience emotionally your rational thinking comes after the emotion. If you feel Empathy it is because your brain and your body is trying to identify with the person you are looking at, that is not good or evil it is just a form of evolution by being able to feel empathy we feel the need to protect ourselves and others its just a form of survival nature picked up a long time ago. It is only your RATIONAL BRAIN that says hey i just saved that kid I am a hero.Things like that are like cocaine we feed off of it because it makes us feel superior than others. Think of it this way, if a shark was capable of rational thinking how would he view himself? Most sharks would hate themselves they would see themselves as evil think about all they do is hunt and kill all day with no end, but we the observer can look and say hey buddy your just doing your job.Finally to all the whakko's on this site atheist and religious. READ A BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.The stars the sky the whole world around you are experiencing inside your own head. Are brain works like a projector picking up light and displaying the image in the back of your head so you cant have an out of body experience since your seeing it IN YOUR HEAD!!!!!!. When blood stop pumping to the brain crazy stuff happens, so if Pat believed Superman was real she would have seen him to. Thankfully like alex said one day people will realize how ridiculous religion is,and then maybe we will understand that we will never understand.

  148. P.S. I can edit the testimony for flow and grammar and then post it on a forum I know of then post a link. She expressly asked me to share it, but I've been so busy lately.

  149. Razor:

    That is one of the shocking things that stuck in my mind too. I asked her about that, and she said that she could percieve (I'm not sure how really), but she understood that people from all over the world were dying and going down (she never made it to any fire or anything like that, just darkness and terror), but there were no small children; no infants or little kids.

    I don't know Razor; 12 sounds so young to me too. There isn't any Biblical reference to this "age of accountability" in the Bible at all, but in my heart I have faith in God's judgements and that's good enough for me. A good question I don't have an answer for.

  150. Hi Charles B.

    I got interested in the above story you told. I have no way of knowing if your friend's testimony is truthful or not, but I will assume that it is. However, in that case I would really like to get an answer as to why would god send a 12 year old child to hell? What kind of horrible sin could she have made at that age and what kind of mysterious god's purpose would a Christian like yourself find in it?

  151. P.S. I will check her testimony again (she has recently sent it to me via e-mail), as I may be mistaken about the tennis shoe; I might have seen that on a movie, but the general story is accurate.

  152. Adam: I've not yet died, so I don't know what emotions I will have at the time of my death, but I've known one friend personally that has died 4 times, but was brought back; 3 as a 12 year old child, and once as an adult. Her riviting story that she told me was that she died as a child from some kind of fever, and her soul started to go down towards Hell and she saw others dying too and screaming and crying, and when she was brought back, she cried, "Oh mother, oh mother! Please don't let me die! I'm going to Hell!" This happened three times, and she was only 12. Fortunately, the doctor was able to revive her, and she lived.

    She didn't become a Christian until adulthood, but at the age of 47, she died during an operation and her soul lifted from her body (she heard every word everyone said and did, and saw a tennis shoe outside the hospital on a window sill). But this time, she started to go to Heaven.

    To make a long story short, she met Chrsit Himself and He told her "Pat, I'm sending you back to tell your story." and she returned to her body. She had no fear at that time when she died as a Christian, but certainly did when she died as a non-Christian. I looked into her eyes, and I believed every word. She was my friend and co-teacher in China. She lives in California now.

    P.S. She said the doctors were shocked and amazed when they checked the window outside the operating room and found a tennis shoe on the window sill.

    Her name is Pat Maynard. I hope you find peace with your decisions, but please don't say that Christians (Catholics) are responsible for 99% of the mental decay in the world; that's calling white black and black white in my opinion.

  153. Someone show me one bit of proof that there is a god in anyway shape or form, anything at all.The difference between Religion and Science is this, science will prepose new theories that change and logicly that means humans are thinking and EVOLVING.Science has been wrong and will be wrong again but thats the beauty of it that we will mess up but while we mess up we will find more and more answers.Now religious people esp chatholics, 99% of the mental decay is planted by them, they cant even get there own beliefs right in the book that god had the time to write considering he was nt ever doing anything good to man except making bets with satan while allowing Job's family to be murdered or apparently helping a man that was 800+ years old find two of every animal,question how did Noah get to the Antartic or Australia or the western hemispere for the animals that are native to those area's and why would a life long drunk get to live so long when millions of his chosen people get murdered before they are even adults?Also how do you hate people that are made in ur god's image because they are gay? Where does jesus say bash the gays and you will inherit the kingdom of god?Morons faith is the absence of logic or proof.Insult science all you want but as time goes by and he does nt come back wheather as a thief in the night lol or in a thousands years lol again.Wait is that jesus climbing though my window with my tv!,idiots. But like i was saying the longer we EVOLVE the fewer your numbers get and in time logic will win out because the average 6 year old cant tell the difference between a disney story and a biblical one(if take out the murder and add some basis in reality)that means when everyone else catches up to the mental age of 7 the catholic church will die and peace will have a chance.Finally god did nt write the bible the jews did and sinse they wrote it not god again i have to repeat myself for you religious people thats why its full of mistakes and btw the jews WHICH WROTE THE BIBLE admit that its just a bunch of stories that where used to carry on there traditions and culture.Every religious person is nt an idiot or bad but the ones that try to "teach" their beliefs to kids or people down on thier luck are taking advantage of people and hurting us as a race, so to you i say put up or shut up so me proof of god or even a theory that makes any sense, dont give me babel or use circular logic about free will show me proof or shut up and when you lay dying we ll see how much you fight to live because all you can here is the sound of your instints and all you can feel is fear.

  154. Sirius Knott:

    Fair enough!


  155. OK, "pointless" may have been a bit overstated, though I can personally think of hundreds of other subjects I might more productively spend my time speculating upon.

  156. Sirius Knott:

    I agree on one point. Hawking was guessing, when he said the Universe came from nothing. If he knew the answers, then he would have published papers on the "Theory Of Everything". which right now is to elusive to determine.

    "The Theory Of Everything" is elusive because of Quantum Mechanics, which states an effect, called the the Observer Effect, that means something is not real until it is observed by someone. Quantum Theory states, out of the infinite number of possibilities and potentialities in the sea of Quantum energy, that something, will then coalesque into physical manifestations that gives them meaning.

    Simply stated "you get what you are looking for", and if nobody is looking, than it is not there.

    I disagree, that it is a pointless bit of speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculating. If you do not speculate, than you will never find any answers.

    "Nobody knows everything"! Whether it be Naturalism, or Supernatural


  157. It's clear that Hawking is just guessing here. In fact, I'd venture to say that the only reason anybody's entertaining him here is because, well, he's Stephen Hawking.

    If pure naturalism is true, there's no way he could ever answer his own question with any level of real or even reasonable certainty. It's simply beyond science.

    If supernatural revelation is true, he's barking up the wrong tree. Basically, the entire conversation ends up being an intriguing but ultimately pointless bit of speculation.

  158. Hi, Alex! It was nice to hear from your "friend" as well. Ha. ha.

    I have a good sense of intuition, and I suspect if you and I both keep it to a paragraph or two even Mr. Razor and WTC7 wouldn't mind to see "Alex" back on the board, and would stup for our priveledge to express our ideas openly.

    I might suggest a private chat with Vlatko however. He seems relatively reasonable, but it is HIS website. Everyone has thier own little kingdom; I have to move the stapler on my desk back to its rightful place every day after other people use it. Sigh. ;-)

    Why yes, I am a middle child natural "negotiator"! Why do you ask?

  159. Anthony P:

    Yes, I sort of agree with what you are saying about beliefs. But keep in mind every sentient being in the Universe, knows the difference between right and wrong, with or without, Religion. It is called Empathy!
    And yes, the Gods are us.


  160. Achems Razor! That's a good one! I like it ;-)

  161. Andrew J.


    This lady approaches a priest and tells him,"Father I have a problem.
    I have these two talking female parrots, but they only know how to say one thing".

    "What do they say?" the priest asked.

    "They only know how to say. "Hi, we are prostitutes. Do you want to have some fun?"

    "That"s terrible!" the priest exclaimed, "But I have a solution to your problem. Bring your two talking female parrots over to my house and I will put them with my two male talking parrots who I have taught to pray and read the Bible. My parrots will teach your parrots to stop saying that terrible phrase and your female parrots will learn to pray and worship."

    "Thank you," Said the lady.

    The next day, the lady brings her female parrots to the priest's house. The priest's two male parrots are holding rosary beads and praying in their cage.

    The lady puts her female talking parrots in with the male talking parrots and the female parrots say. "Hi, we are prostitutes! Do you want to have some fun?"

    One male parrot looks over to the other male parrot and screams,
    "Frank! Put the Bibles away-our prayers have been answered!"

  162. Dear Charles B

    What is so wrong with the idea that we might have come from 'unpredictable glob of dirt'?


    "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus." - Agent Smith


  163. I like Dr. Steven Hawkings. It's odd, that he would actually say (via the sythasizer) that everything just come from nothing and then some time for no real reason that matter (which repells itself suddenly exploded) and then changed into regular matter that now attracts itself. But he does admitt that if the universe was even just a little bit different, or more than just a little bit different, then we all wouldn't be here asking the question in the first place. He's brilliant, but really there is no answer to where the universe came from unless you believe in spontaniously forming "everything" like he does, (eteranl existing matter that evolved into everything) like some do, or in an eternally existing God, like I do. His conclusions were just too disappointing to believe in for me. I may be mixing my Hawkings documentaries now, as I've seen a couple.

    I'm not precisely sure how God created the whole universe or how long it took before he created earth and the present Adamic race, but I do so like the option of a loving God working on it for us rather than a cold impersonal unpredictable glob of dirt exploding for no good reason.

  164. Dear Andrew J

    No one is making fun of you or any Christians. If you want to go to heaven then go. No one is stopping you. And if you happen to have an extra free ticket to heaven then by all means offer it to us. I for one will gladly accept it. Other than that you have no reason to preach here and become emotional when someone disagrees with you. Like WCT7 said, try to read the comments. Perhaps, it might enlighten you a bit. :)

    We have no reasons to trash Dr. Hawking's theory. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he has dedicated his life in pursuit of answers. Truly, he is one of the remarkable persons of our time.


  165. Alex is busy with his own website. I am sure he'll be back. How can anyone miss all these fun?

  166. Mr. Razer: What happened to Alex? Did something happen that I don't know about? Did he get kicked off the board, or just hasn't posted for a while? I'm so busy now I have an abcessed tooth; I don't feel like posting or reading anything tonight.

  167. I use to be a christian but i only joined because i was afraid to go to hell i realized something very simple anger or vengence comes from fear its and act to defend yourself since your body react to physical harm and mental harm the same way so to say that GOD feels anger or vengence would be to say that he has human characteristics so you cant say hes perfect so there is no GOD to me at least, so i became a atheist and when on this holy crusade to ride to world of religion then i realized i was doing the same thing only i was the good "saved christian" and religion was destroying the world or evil and " the devil". its important for you to realize that there is no such thing as good or evil without you the observer evil did not exist before you looked at it and said it was bad.Its a simply matters on your prospective to terrorist we are evil and it we need to die. to us terrorist are evil and we kill them without a second thought even the soldier who fight and the innocent caught in the middle are just "casualties of war". So who is right, who is wrong again we turn to our laws are religion we created based on our beliefs. Please open your mind see your own vanity your own ego there is no good or evil only you "The Ghost in the Shell". you are the GOD

  168. Hi Achems Razor,

    "I dont have the time to read the lies and garbarge posted above." (Andrew J.)

    I say the guy just isn't worth the time if he can't spare a bit of his own ;-)

  169. Ok, that's fine, make a joke out of it. You might as well label life as a joke. I dont have the time to read the lies and garbarge posted above. I'm asumming by your smart ass attitude towards what other people believe in is your view of life i assume? What i really want to know is, what is it for a scientist to state that the universe has no signifigance? How can one characterise and name what something is if they are not the creators themselves and understand how life itself came to be? If science is the answer to life for you, then how come it cant even explain the purpose of life or the igsignifigance of it? Just like all hypothesis being tested they have a purpose to them...where is this general purpose? can not say that there is no known purpose because then you cant test something that is of nothing cause somethign in itslefs would be of nothing? Are you starting to finally open your naive brain to a more wider idea....instead of asking us christians open our minds to observations made by a scientist that states they know everything but cant even land a man on the mars. Are you sure you are willing to put your faith into the insignifigance of nothing? The devil will mix lies in with truths to convice the week and simple minded. It's the kind of people like you that can not except that a being greater then our own has created us. If you beilieve in the insignifigance of life you are safe to say your just an insignificant being of nothing....


    One day a scientist challenges God. It ends up that god promises him immortality if he can make human life. The scientist takes a woman's check cell and combines it with a male's sperm. Mixes it in a test tube, implants it into a women, and nine months later BOOM! * God shakes his head the whole time, and finally says "with your OWN ingredients"...

    GOD BLESS ALL...even the "insignificant...

  170. Hi, WTC7:

    Ye'h, you said it for me about Andrew.

    All he has to do is read the comments that are presented here to get answers to some of his questions, but I guess it is easier for him to do his God stuff! I sort of miss the "religious Alex" there is nobody to argue with. :D

  171. Hi Andrew :-),

    Hhhmmmm.... Having all the answers, aren't you? You must be a happy chap.... Good on ya :-)

  172. Hello there, and welcome name is andrew, first off i do not have a PhD in anything, nor am i god. Im just here to post my insight about the creation of the universe,a nd life itslef. When people ask what made the earth some will say god. Some people will say who created god? Some will ask that question on a infinite dead path, it's like beating a dead horse. There is no end. Well first off scientists have stated that creation can not come upon out of nothing, that is impossbile. The thing is it can through god. Just stay with me here...God says that he is and always will be, now to put that in lamens terms....(remember how scientist says something out of nothing is impossbile right)? Then how come We, you, us, them, the planet, universe and life were created from nothing, which completly contradicts what scientists state as a law of the universe, but the universe itselfs broke its own law that was set by scientists. Seomthing being created out of nothing is a maricle, a maricale of "I am" Omega, our father GOD!
    Why is it that the spped of light is always the same, no matter where you are on earth the gravity is the same, the speed of sound is constant(depending on altitude), the viscosity of water is always the same (homoginized H20). How come things do not appear and disappear in an out of exsistence? thats because there are laws/rules of this let me ask you this how can rules/laws be if there was noone there to create them? Why is it that scientist can not explain the code that is written in our DNA, that with four simple chemicals creates life? Who was the one who had instucted those codes....theres only one answer, and thats if you can open your eyes and just believe, and that is god. GOD Bless you! P.S The world is not gonna end in 2012.

  173. Vlatko:

    With due respect. I would rather see ALEX on this regular site, but ALEX should take into consideration the points that you mentioned, in other words at least meet you half way.

  174. LOL :D
    Alex, you are the man~~~~~~~~

    For the record, I DO enjoy Alex's comment. :)

  175. Vlatko hi!
    1) «The Adrian’s link is actually in your favor. But of course you forgot to check it out. It’s an anti-atheist site.»
    ------ The title of his link sounds atheistic: atheist answers.
    Wow! Adrian’s link was Christian! And I countered it with… a Christian one :D:D Funny! Actually I didn't forget, let me explain what happened:
    Adrian seemed to come through like an atheist, and I still believe he is (besides the link). I mean if he was a Christian why would he write:
    “It’s like me sending you to a website called -to the site out so not to delay- (which by the way exists) to prove a point that fits my reality.”
    Therefore him sending..*ME* (a Christian!) a website, to prove a point that fits *his reality*, means his reality is a different one than mine and the name of the website made this point clear. So I naturally thought it was another atheistic site.
    What probably happened was is that Adrian just randomly chose a site that sounded atheistic just to make his point (normal), without himself checking it out first. It was a mistake.
    The reason I didn’t check it out was because the site was not given so to refer to a particular issue we were discussing. If it did, I certainly would, as *I always do*, usually commenting on them, as I do on the threads and in the forum. So, for the reasons above I thought it was another atheistic site, one of the many I’ve looked into, so why should I take a look at this one? There was no reason.

    2) Anyway I think this should be the place where people will comment on the actual documentary and not getting into debate about their views on the world and confront with each other.
    ------Vlatko you are right. But this is inevitable. Besides, notice that people don’t usually comment on the doc that much, but mostly against religion. So, actually, even if I stop commenting on their views, they’d still continue… without commenting on the doc, but trashing Christianity, religion in general! This is not a phenomena restricted to your site -as you know- it happens in most if not all sites with threads. So I don’t think me moving to the forum will change anything, since I’m already there, and people still continue to comment on issue like religion etc. Also, note that here, it is completely normal to comment for or against religion since the topic it self, gives us this initiative. I mean, we are talking about the origins of the universe. Some say it happened this way, while I say it didn’t. My opinion is as relevant to the issue as everybody else.

    3) “So please if you could move your discussions to the forum it would be really nice. You can open up you own thread/topic there and start a debate.”
    -------Look at most I can do this: I’ll open a thread on the forum, where my long answers to the commentators *of the film thread* can read my answers. On the thread I’ll write “my answer to you on (and give the particular link)”. The question is will they? Or will I be wasting my time writing for nothing?? This is a risk. I can’t know if they will go to the trouble and register on the forum. But again, is everybody else comfortable with this?? Or do they prefer the things the way they are. They can comment, and you Vlatko can decide.

    4) “You don’t have to point us to dozens of low quality sites to prove your point. Those are made by ordinary people like us. If you like to point on something than appeal to some authority. Let say link to what the pope said, or some well known theologian or priest, or some well known creationist, etc.”
    ------I wont comment on this. (…the pope???)

    5) “When someone replies you don’t have to analyze every single word of the people who disagree with you and start war with them. We are not at war as you previously stated.”
    -------I do this to make the point that people think they are thinkers when most of the time their not. It’s an awakening. Almost all of the sentences (!) are wrong in positions or even illogical. -And you are wrong we are at war and it’s a spiritual one, I just am out with it, admitting it.

    6) “Also probably a good idea would be if you break your paragraphs and don’t overwrite. You’ll discourage people to read what you have to say when they see unorganized long text with bunch of links and smiles.”
    -------I see it differently. If a person is not disciplined enough to read a long post, has he ever read a book??? If he is not disciplined enough to read a long post, he is not worthy of the truth. This is what it proves. So I really don’t care if he is discouraged, especially if my response is… to him/her!! In my opinion, his comment is a waste of time, since he is not a real researcher/seeker of truth.

    7) “And the last and most important is that you will discourage new visitors to watch the documentary when they see overheated of-topic debate.”
    This is completely wrong. Our debates makes the films more provoking to see. Proof of this, is that people do comment on the film, beside our debates. Also, I have no problem you addressing me on this, but as I said elsewhere, I am not commenting to myself. You should personally address others on this as well. But if not, no problem, I can be the “scapegoat”. I insist though, I am not the problem, there is no problem in general. Unless the only problem is…. the Christian view…. and this site is not about truth but about atheists feeling comfortable at a place where they can freely throw rocks. Vlatko, you have to make this clear to your self. Friendly advice.
    God bless you!

    PS. Razor, I appreciate your words (in the same "gang" but on different sides..:D :D ), and Joe your intentions!
    God bless!

  176. Yes, it explains. Keep up the good work, V.

  177. Well Joe there is a simple answer to your question.

    Almost all Alex's posts are recognized as spam by the system and they are not automatically displayed since they usually contain thousands of words and several links.

    The short ones and the ones without links appear automatically but the other ones have to wait a little bit until I manually approve them when I'm around. That's why you sow the post which was not previously there. It was approved latter. Just to be noted, I have never censored Alex here on TDF.

    I hope that explains.

  178. Am I the only one who noticed that Alex's comments are being delayed(censored)?

    Few hours ago, I remember reading this and thinking it didn't make sense.
    September 30th, 2009 at 16:15

    Oh and… amen to that!

    And I just found this:
    September 30th, 2009 at 16:12

    Adrian hi!
    You had written: (and follows Alex's typical long post)

    I hope this is an isolated technical glitch. Personally, I find any type of censorship uncool.

  179. Alex...

    You don't seem to give any valid points anymore except finding a reason to disagree relentlessly. I will be honest with you, I don't believe any of those links you put up, it just doesn't seem right, at all, to me that is. And you keep saying these words: fact, logic, truth, prove this, prove that. So if you want "initate" and tell everyone one about your "factual" findings, let me just say:

    "the wisest man knows he knows nothing" and then maybe you can turn the page even though you read the whole book.

  180. To the religious ALEX:

    Alex, you are part of our gang. Everyday I look forward to see what you will say next!

    I say this with respect.

    Regards. :D :D

  181. Dear Joe:

    I agree with you 100%. There was no Big Bang. There is no linear time, we make it so by our thoughts to give motion. Imagine that everything exists all at once, past, present and future our Reality and the 10 to the 500 power of other Realities. It has been proven time and space are illusions. I am quoting theoretical Physicist Julian Barbour, on his book "the End Of Time". You can Google Julian Barbour if you like.

    Basically we are pulling out snapshots out of a picture album,we are forming our Reality every nano second so to speak. But we have free will, that is where probabilities come in, we can go in different directions in our lives.

    To give you more insight, right here on TDF watch Parallel Universes.

  182. Dear Razor

    Quantum's heavy stuff.

    What was there before big bang?

    This questions is fundamentally wrong way to ask.
    It's too linear. Let me explain. We are taught to accept all things have a beginning and an end because we can only imagine things through our own awareness and perspective. We all have a beginning and an end and we expect all things to be same as us. When we see a rock or a tree we say to ourselves how they began and how they will end. We do this because this explanation gives us a certain comfort. But now we know through science that all things are just star dusts and energy and beginning and end is just different physical states. We have no beginning and an end. Things just exist. When we say and prove that our universe began with a big bang we are implying that there was a certain beginning that caused the big bang and therefore there must have been something else prior to the big bang. Maybe something ended and the new beginning was the big bang. And that something must have beginning also. Theoretically, this type of question can goto infinity.
    This is a linear way of thinking in our non linear universe.
    Then what kind of universe is it? We don't know. What we do know is that it's not linear. There is no beginning and no end, that's just us mortality thinking. Nothing ever gets created out of nothing. Things are just recycled and I would take a guess that our universe is more circular than linear. Our universe just goes through different physical and energy states. And big bang is just a point in a circle.

    So, what was there before big bang? Me, you, and everything else in different states. Can we imagine what that different state might look like? Probably, in future. But for now, are we capable of imagining ourselves as rocks and plants?

  183. Oh and... amen to that! :D

  184. To further elaborate what I entered previously.

    Quantum Theory basically says fundamental particles are empty of existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities.

    They do not become "real" until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning.

    Quantum Physicists have proven whithout a doubt, the physical World is one large sea of energy and probabilities, that flash in and out of existence over and over in a millisecond.

    Nothing is solid. Not your car, your furniture, your house or even your body.

    Quantum Physicists have also proven our thoughts are what brings together and holds together this sea of energy into the "things" we see.

    One of the most exiting discoveries is the whole concept that it is our thoughts, that create our reality.

    Quantum physics has actually revealed that every "conscious and subconscious" thought you have creates your reality.

  185. Actually let me rescind that, it is a website for creationists.

  186. Hey, that is a good link you put on Adrian!


  187. Joe:

    No problem Joe.

    No harm, no fowl!

    What is your ridiculous theory?

    :D :D

  188. *correction
    I meant to say 'some' people. :D

    Of course, I have my own ridiculous theory as to what was there before the 'Big Bang'.

    as-salamu alaykum

  189. Perhaps, but "kudo's" to the people that at least try to find some answers, no matter how ridiculous it may sound to others!


  190. 'It's the question that drives us, Neo. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.'

    It seems Hawking over estimated people when he said 'we have the intelligence to question'.

  191. its funny that i could go my whole life believing one thing and have a stupid comment from a documentary change my whole perspective on religion. obviously i still will enjoy the social aspects of church, but i am now giving into science. its the only logical choice and besides. thanks bruce willis for saving the world one more time, this time for me
    former christian

  192. A sad but true fact is that religion is, has and always will be a form of control over the masses of sheeple. I went to Catholic school as a boy and I don't believe one bit of it. No god that is worth worshipping would be so spiteful and/or hateful. Say what you want 'christians' but more people have been murdered and tortured in the name of religion/god. Return to your pagan roots and honor your Mother Earth (Gaia). Besides the bible there is NO reference to jesus even have existed at all. None! And there were plenty of scribes of the time to record all of his 'miracles'. Not to mention the whole 'vigin birth' being a fairly common occurance within other dieties. 'Christians' stay out of our schools, stay out of our courts and mind your own business!!! Nobody wants to hear your rubbish about going to hell if we don't believe in jesus. Well, if i don't believe in jesus, then it's kind of hard to threaten me with your hell!! My only hell is having to hear any christians self-rightous, holier-than-thou attitude. Theres more gays and child molesters in the christian church than not!! I think i made my point and its gonna make alot of bible beaters throw a relirious fit... because thats all they know whot to do!! Yell and curse others

  193. Whoopi goldberg:

    Actually "Whoopi", Bruce Willis does create Universes by his dreams and thoughts, that become self perpetuating Worlds, as we all do. They will grow into quite bonafide realms of Alternate Realities, so be careful what you wish for!

    :D :D

  194. Why are there poeple still thinking that the Earth is only 6000 years old when there is PROOF from Carbon Dating finds that show that they've been around for millions of years???

  195. i just read all the comments and found it curios as to why nobody has considered the possibility that bruce willis created the universe.
    but seriously the majority of the discussions in the comments are redundant, our universe is just one of many universe's

  196. When Hawking said the Universe came from nothing, but failed to elaborate.

    It brings to mind Null Physics. Null physics states the Universe began from the number zero. Physicists hypothesize that the state of "nothing" is actually "something" because if there is nothing, there would have to be something, that has become nothing. Nothing is filling something. this goes as far to say that the Universe really is nothing, and does not exist.The reason for this is, if everything is to the value of zero, which is the "something" of "nothing", then you would have nothing. Almost like multiplying a negative times a positive. Physicists call the zeros that make up the Universe geometric points, which are similar to singularities, but do not condense matter.

    Geometric points only represent what is not there, but by doing this, they represent something that is there. And this is how the Universe "exists".

    Does anybody else have any idea's why Hawking thinks the Universe came from nothing?

    :D :D

  197. Solar winds producing hydrogen on planets and moons!?! If this is absolutely prooven, then there MUST be life EVERYWHERE!! What an awesome discovery! (thought I'd share, just heard it last day or two)

  198. I think ALEX needs to get a life, seriously. Great job on your site Vlatko, keep up the excellent work!! PEACE.

  199. Wow, Alex, when your write your posts and honestly beileve what you beileve do you do it with a straight face? I seriously laughed at the links you pointed to... I mean how can you take these websites seriously and think they are unbiased when the names vary from "christiananswers" to stuff like "scienceagainstevolution". Seriously man.

    My biggest problem isn't your beliefs as much as it is your close minded attitude towards possible alternatives. Although I personally beileve that the world was created through evolution I keep an open mind to other possibilities BUT so far evolution makes more sense to me and is more consistent with current reality. It is the most logical explanation... how can you disagree?

  200. d: Hello,

    I watched with interest, your link on Holograms, that states objective reality does not exist. Its apparent solidity is at heart a phantasm.
    Led by physicist Alain Aspect, at the university of Paris.

    Yes Quantum does behave strangely, or should I say weird! On wave particles it will either be a wave or particle, just by "thinking" it should be one or the other, but never both at the same time. On Hawking's theory that the universe came out of nothing seems even more strange! It might be it only exists because we are looking. Everything only exists in the eyes of the beholder, we make it real.

    You mentioned Magic Mushrooms. I put on a post about Amanita Muscaria that gave religious Ephinanys, and was a religion starter on Zeitgeist Refuted and Exposed, Aug. 5th at 08:08 Alex and I had a long discussion on that subject.
    And I agree we are inextricably connected to everything in the Cosmos!

    regards. :D

  201. I talk as I am talked to (although within my ethical limits). This is something you should remember. This is simply fair. So, if you do the same, I don't see any problem.
    And of course you can take any measures you like... it's your game. I feel no intimidation.
    God bless!

  202. Vlatko,
    Listen to you! You just want to have the upper hand when you’re unjust, don’t you?
    1) “You put a lot of offensive personal-attacking words in your comment. Anyway I’ve let it go. However in the future I’ll not allow anybody to trash the post like that.”------I “trashed” the post?? I hate to say it but… liar! Anybody who is sincere can be the judge.

    2) “……all your links because they are just propaganda nothing else”
    -------Convenient. It figures. I gave you insight that you would never go to the trouble of finding on your own, and this is how you handle it….

    3) “I’m just trying to have some civilized conversation here.”
    -------Nice to hear, but putting words in mouth, saying my view of science is hypocritical and that I condemn scientists, is not civilized. But as I said, you just want to be on top, right?

    4) “Anyway why would person like you have a need to comment here on posts about science or nature documentaries. You should just stick to the religion section and spread your word there.”
    ------ a) I know very well where I should “stick”. Science and nature are directly related to the Creator of both; whether you want to believe this or not, is your choice.
    b) You in other words just said that because I am a Christian I can’t enjoy and deal with scientific issues, but only issues of blind (…) belief/faith. Well, by now, mocking my intelligence says a lot about yours. Hilarious!
    c) By the way, I am “sticking to religion”… this is what “evolution” is. This is what you don’t want to see, since you don’t want to be helped to see it.

    5) “Science and religion are really incomparable. Science is a tool and religion is dogma (belief system with political-societal annotation).”
    ------a) What is this person saying???? This -again- shows how much time you put into the links, or what I say…..
    b) So to return the “compliment”, yes, “science and religion are really incomparable” when the religion is evolutionism.
    c) evolution is an atheistic pseudo-science dogma, a belief system with political-social annotation.

    6) “Science makes your life easier in this world and is putting philosophical wondering in to practice and religion is giving you a make-a-belief system.
    ------So you are allowed to -in a “civilized” manner- make absurd insulting comments like this, and we are just to sit back and listen to you spread your propaganda! Well, this in all fairness, should work both ways… if you’re fair. Then, if we don’t shut up and listen to you, you feel personally attacked. Can’t you at least realize yourself attacking -as you just did right now and before and elswhere- since what you are actually saying is that Christians are just idiots when it comes to “philosophical wondering”, when searching the depths of God and His creation is the best wondering any philosopher on earth can do!!! But you’re in the dark about that too. And you say this to me, after all I have written all over the place. A bad joke from your side.

    7) “The problem with creationists is that they’re trying to prove religion to be right and science wrong with scientific methods. That is really hypocritical.”
    -------What can you say about a person who persists on the same lie, when he has previously been exposed?? Not much goo, right? So, why can you attack creationists like this and expect me to role over and make like I don’t see? Well, you definitely got it wrong! It’s not going to happen! And by the way, again you are lying in a worse way than the first time (goodness gracious!!), since I already corrected you when in arbitrarily generalizing you say that creationists are trying to prove “science wrong with scientific methods”! Creationists try to show the real facts (most of which you have no idea and care not to obviously), and to promote science not fiction. It is just that the Bible always proves science right!
    b) Then you say this is “really hypocritical”. Again with the “civilized” namee calling… :D

    If you see all my posts, you will realize that I just "adapt" to ones manner. I don't initiate anything.

    Vlatko, I told you, you will not change the tables on me, twisting the facts, just because this is your site. I am never intimidated.
    If you want to be civilized (without quotations) we can... it's up to you.

  203. Thank you, WTC7.

    You are my "Woman" :D :D

  204. Good on you Achems Razor, that didn't deserve response :-)

  205. Vlatko:

    Thanks, About King Koopa.

    I did not want to waste my time to reply to him.

  206. I think someone mentioned here earlier to suppose god "is" everything, not "in" everything, not "above" everything but everything, the entire universe!! That God has always been and is infinite. A pretty large concept but I think Carl Sagan said it best when he approached this idea by saying why not skip a step and suppose the cosmos is everything has always been and is infinite.

  207. Alex just proves the fact that people cannot just accept things such as the universe being spontaneously created. What I mean by this is the fact that we cannot prove or yet determine how this occurs does not mean it cannot occur as described. What people like Alex try to do is attempt to replace things we don't yet understand into a mythical creator which is something all powerful which magically creates the universe but yet in fact they are creating something that cannot be explain just like how spontaneous creation can occur.

    I believe we are not alone and I do not completely rule out that there is a god of some sort however it is extremely unlikely but always a possibility. It is impossible to truly what caused the creation of our universe but perhaps in time with science some explanation may occur if we have not killed ourselves off by then. I just find that people who follow the bible acknowledge that it was written by man but believe everything in it as if it was written by God himself and delivered to earth. In fact the documentary on here "God on the brain" may explain why the bible was written like it was and people have the religious experiences they have.

    Hell it could of even happened if some humans ate some magic mushrooms and created it in their minds and wrote it on paper. I just think religion should be more open minded and not so judgmental. I find it hard to believe that people will only believe certain things science says because they choose to believe it but if it goes against their religion then its automatically wrong. I am just rambling but the point is that people need to feel as they life has a purpose as stated earlier in posts and thus they create a creator and a reason to live in order to reach a better place when in fact life is just a "hologram". I highly suggest reading this as this actually helped reaffirm some epiphanies I had about how everything is literally connected and how people can connect with each other mentally and such.

  208. Just for giggles, no. Razor alchemist i wasn't referring to before, merely using your words. Talking to any ***** who brings up religion to science. It's like comparing the Iraqi War to World of Warcraft.

  209. Alchems Razor....regardless your still an *********, who thinks about everyone else's flaws but his own. Like mentioning my reading level when you supposedly study chaos theory but you can't even spell the word "were". Like i said your a lemming. A bible thumping lemming. First you ******* say the planet is six thousand years old now since science made you look like ***** all of sudden the big bang theory has to do with the almighty. Get your heads out of your ***** and back on your shoulders.
    The biggest flaw in the world is giving ***** like you a podium to speak on, and promote ignorance, sorry i mean religion.

  210. Its Quantum, ALEX, Its Quantum.
    Just think tiny bubbles! (LOL) :D :D

  211. Vlatko hi!
    (That's all you had to say? Naturally, right?)
    Why would you start of with a lie. You know I gave you 100% logical answers as to the supposed “created” God, about space, what was before Him. And I didn’t use the Bible at all, just logic (!!!!), based on the hypothetical assumption “if a God exists how….etc). Logic you cannot refute (no one -hypothetically or not- can.) and should have appreciated. So yes, I believe in creation, and I have every logical reason to believe in it. But saying I’m “a hard core creationist nothing more”, when I use logic to answer you, yes, is deceptive of you. I told you elsewhere, you cannot switch tables on me.

    1) “By doing this you’re saying that todays world educational system is based on lies.”
    ------Any part of the ed. System based on evolution, is.

    2) Then you start to generalize giving no attention to what I write, by saying the ridculous:
    “The education that humans received so far is hoax.”
    “Science is an everyday tool that is used even by creationists.”
    (Now you’re provoking me. I said something against science?)
    “….you’re relying on science and still you condemn scientists. What a hypocritical view on the world.”
    (I condemn scientists?? And this comes from my hypocritical views?? Are you putting effort in winning the liars award? Doing a good job so far.)
    “All man made stuff around you is a product of science.”
    (Bla, bla, bla and again bla! Waste of time.)
    “So you choose to believe and use some scientific achievements but when science is going against your religious views you choose to condemn it.”
    (I condemn science?? So know science proves wrong you “religious” views [evolution]. I condemn pseudo science!!!)
    Vlatko, the only reason you can so frivolously put words like that in my mouth, is not because you can, but… because I let you. Realize the difference. And I let you because of who I am in Christ today. If I was a different person (the b.C. person I once was), you would not be putting words in my mouth. I say this, just so I can give you a reality check. If you continue to put words in my mouth (disrespecting me and my time here to answer to you and everybody else), you’d just be exposing a pathetic side of you, one I will not give my time to. So please be a man when dealing with my words. Disagree, no problem, but don’t manipulate me and the readers in general by distorting my words.
    If you did it by mistake, I apologize. If you did it simply because you don’t care about the truth, overlooking what I say, then I don’t.

    3) “So lets go back to the “6.000 years old Earth” phenomenon. If that is true than how old is the Moon, Sun, other planets in our solar system, Milky Way (our galaxy) and all the other known galaxies? Keep in mind the distance between this objects. For example if you travel with speed of light (which is impossible) you will reach the center of Milky Way in about 250 centuries from now.”
    ------Again you gave no time to the material (in the links). If you did, you’d see that each one and all together, more than answer your comment.

    4) “millions of species (by the way Noe in his time managed to put them all in one boat and after the flood accordingly distribute them on the planet).”
    Oh you definitely changed the channel when you were watching the Noah’s ark movie! Millions of species on the ark??? You make yourself look sound so sure, just to shoot your self in the foot. The evolution lie has you confused. Many of which you call species belong to…. the same species! A wolf for instance and a poodle belong to the same species… they’re dogs!
    “Rabbi Brown postulates that Noach took aboard the ark two animals of each min, rather than all the varieties that developed from each min since ma’aseh bereishis. This interpretation fits very well with the verses: “Of all living creatures, of all flesh, two of each you shall bring to the ark to keep alive with you, a male and a female. Of the birds to their minim, of the beasts to their minim, of all the creepers on the ground to their minim, two of each will come to you to maintain life.” Based on this interpretation, the number of creatures brought on the ark is greatly reduced. Apparently, these specific minim contained all the necessary genetic information, so that postdiluvian diversification yielded the different genera and species of animals recognized by today’s zoologists.”

    5) “The creationists resistance towards science and knowledge in general is evident through the mankind history. They were suppressing every rational thought by all means.”
    -------You are very ignorant (it’s still better than being a liar), and the scent of your arrogance that blinds you is realized. But how can you convince an ignorant in arrogance person, that he is just that? There’s a riddle. I would never say something like this, if I didn’t believe it. You definitely have not done your homework. I mean, how can you say something like that Vlatko? Anyway:

    6) “In the old days they had a different name dough. The inquisition. However they failed. It is very funny when you go back in time and see that they were burning people who were simply saying that Earth is not flat.”
    ------a) So creationists are an inquisition now? Look at how this guy talks! If so, why is the “inquisition” carried out by evolutionists??
    b) You mean you haven’t heard me or others say that Catholicism and Christianity are two different things? Did you care enough to search on the subject? If not, why do you say something like this? Is it just convenient to you? You believe that the Bible teaches obstructing science or killing scientists? That Bible believing Christians believe this? Is this what you want to promote?
    c) As for the “flat earth” nonsense (I had it saved some months ago/an answer by a Christian blogger to an atheist /don’t know from where):
    “Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing." ~ Job understood the idea that the earth is suspended in space.
    Job 26:10 "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." ~ Job also understood the movement of the sun and moon in circular patterns.
    Isaiah 40:21 & 22 "Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." ~ Isaiah understood that God sits above the "circle of the earth" or as could be translated "globe"
    Proverbs 8:27 (“wisdom” is talking) "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep," ~ The word circle here is translated from a phrase that is applied to the curvature of the horizon when on the open ocean. This is the same physical evidence used by the greeks some 1,000 years later to make their own observations about a round earth.
    While it is assumed that the Greeks were the first to suggest this idea, the fact is the book of Job written over 1,500 years before Eratosthenes of Alexandria was born contains the exact same information.
    It was in fact a small handful of scholars not associated with the Christian church who began that inaccuracy nearly 300 years after the life of Christ.
    Taken in context and when understood the time period and technology available to Job, it's amazing that he had a grasp and understanding of outer space, gravity and the universe LONG before the Greeks began to speak out in regards to such things.
    Your point regarding circle and sphere fail to take into consideration that the concepts used to describe the idea of a circle are the exact same methods used by the Greeks to propose the idea of a round earth. The idea of circle is based upon the horizon and the natural curvature found therein. I guess it's ok for the Greeks to use such logic but if found in the Bible that automatically makes it incorrect? Also, I failed to find the linguistic evidence you provided. Would you be so kind as to give some sources for your material?
    Your point regarding the four corners is easily understood when taken in context. North, south, east and west have been described as the four reaches of the earth even in modern times. It's a poetic figure of speech.
    None of the verses in the Bible speaking of a flatness of the earth imply that the idea of a flat earth as being correct. I would challenge you to show such verses if they exist.
    Your points in regard to circle and sphere.

    Cheers (na sntrave) to you too, but don't drink while... writing :D
    May God give you His increase!

    1. @Alex
      You put a lot of offensive personal-attacking words in your comment. Anyway I've let it go. However in the future I'll not allow anybody to trash the post like that. Again I'll tell you that I'll not write half a mile comment with hundreds of links just to oppose you or make you a non-believer or non-creationist. I will not fall into your trap and answer all your links because they are just propaganda nothing else.

      I'm just trying to have some civilized conversation here. Anyway why would person like you have a need to comment here on posts about science or nature documentaries. You should just stick to the religion section and spread your word there.

      Science and religion are really incomparable. Science is a tool and religion is dogma (belief system with political-societal annotation). Science makes your life easier in this world and is putting philosophical wondering in to practice and religion is giving you a make-a-belief system. The problem with creationists is that they're trying to prove religion to be right and science wrong with scientific methods. That is really hypocritical.

      @King Koopa
      Please don't attack commenters like that. In future I will not just censor the comments, I'll delete them.

  212. Vlatko hi!
    1) “Let assume that the “Big Bang” theory is really stupid and the most prominent scientist that ever walked on the face of the Earth, after Einstein, is also stupid.”
    ------The narrator’s words and mine: (In comparing with bubbles! He says) “Tiny universes appear spontaneously out of nothing!” Either he is -sorry to say- stupid, or thinks we’re stupid enough to buy into his nonsense, I mean NONSENSE!!”
    So, to quote me accurately (something generally rare), I said he may be stupid or playing stupid.
    On Hawking I -sarcastically- said: “Real intelligent person ”, because he is not a real intelligent person. From what he said, his thinking processes have a problem.
    I am always amazed how people almost worship other people just because they are noted scientists. Why would I be amazed with Hawkings or any scientist? Please! I clearly showed the stupidity of his comments. Doesn’t this at least show he has strong level of stupidity? Yes, I’ll say it again, he definitely does. Scientists can say smart things and stupid things just after that. This because facts and fantasy get confused. I wouldn’t base my soul on them, Christian or not! So, let’s be true about it, and destroy all “idols”! We have brains in our heads as well.
    Also I don’t like how the took close ups of his face (smiling), it was almost as if they wanted to mock him, as if he was a retarded crazy wizard of some sort. Focusing on his problem like that just seemed evil to me. It really annoyed me.

    2) “What was there before God created Earth (and the universe)?”
    ---------a) To someone who is not Christian this of course is a reasonable question, to someone who is, it’s not. God was “there”! No, I didn’t say He was “in there”, but WAS “there”, that is, Was “space” (as we call it). He is everywhere, not just “in every place”, but “every place”. Hope you understand? There is nothing outside of God. God is not in something (regardless that He can simultaneously manifest Himself in human form or how else He pleases.). Yes, difficult and marvellous to imagine.
    Act 17:27-28 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he
    be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being;

    b) What other things happened in Him, created of Him, before us, we are not told.

    3) “Who created God?”
    --------Based on my previous answer, logic says, if God Is space/dimensions and there is nothing outside of Him, He could not have been created. (Again, as the Bible teaches.)
    I’ll give you another answer of mine: the idea that A created B that created C that created D that created E is correct. But if you see that backwards: E was created by D that was created by C that was created by B that was created by A, a problem arises. If you say A was created by someone/something, the question of “what created him/it” becomes infinite slipping out of your hands just as you attempt to grab it (!) since an origin force is always needed to explain the effect that becomes the cause for something else.
    This model though is illogical, because on one hand it correctly shows cause and effect yet it negates an initial cause! Since that has to be the effect of a previous cause!! I hope you see that it is -after a point- illogical, self contradicting, to seek the initial cause for everything, by asking what came before that.
    But, there is a logical answer to this. The *initial* cause of everything, of all later effects-causes-effects-causes etc. must not have a previous cause, but always exist!! This is -objectively- where logic takes us. And guess what, this is where The Bible takes us!
    So, creation had a beginning, not the Creator. Even if you say God had a creator, you’re just delaying the axiom: The initial cause of everything, cannot have a cause therefore is self existent. Again, difficult and marvellous to imagine, but makes perfect sense.

    You aslo write:
    "However there are many well proved scientific facts that can’t be ignored (when I say proved I mean they are number of times mathematically and empirically challenged and seriously doubted, measured and tested with technologically means by the scientific community. So they are not just statements or beliefs of one group)" and you list the following:

    6) “Our sun is a star of third generation. That means two supernovas are responsible for the creation of our solar system.”

    7) “The sun will one day certainly die (as every star dies one day. Depending on the size some die like white dwarfs, some like neutron-stars and some like supernovas). To be more precise the sun will die in about 4.5 billion years from now and with that our solar system will die also.”
    --------And? (For the discussion I’ll just play along with 4.5 billion years)

    8. Fossil records show that life on Earth existed millions of years ago.

    9) "There are more, but thrust for knowledge is needed."
    ------Yes :D there are more, but thirst for knowledge is needed. This is something we agree on. :D hurrraeeeyyyyy!!:D

    You write:
    “It does not put you in a good light, to say Professor Hawkins is stupid! Professor Hawkins is a great man of science. :D ”
    ------I just have to agree with that smiley face! I totally agree with you on that :D The rest, well, you know.

    1. Ok Alex, you proved that you're hard core creationist nothing more.

      It's very obvious that there are numerous sites out there which are clearly promoting creationism. So opposing to that now I'll have to go and put hundreds of links in this post pointing to scientific articles, studies, videos just to prove you that there are answers to all those links you've provided.

      However I'll not (not that there are none, but I'm too lazy to do that now). Instead I'll say this:

      By doing this you're saying that todays world educational system is based on lies. The education that humans received so far is hoax. We are trapped in some kind of weird conspiracy theory that holds us away from the "truth" which clearly it's known by the creationists. WOW.

      Science is an everyday tool that is used even by creationists. With every single step you're making you're relying on science and still you condemn scientists. What a hypocritical view on the world. All man made stuff around you is a product of science. The first stone tool used in the distant past is the very first product of science. Planes, spaceships, the computer you are using, etc... are products of science. So you choose to believe and use some scientific achievements but when science is going against your religious views you choose to condemn it.

      So lets go back to the "6.000 years old Earth" phenomenon. If that is true than how old is the Moon, Sun, other planets in our solar system, Milky Way (our galaxy) and all the other known galaxies? Keep in mind the distance between this objects. For example if you travel with speed of light (which is impossible) you will reach the center of Milky Way in about 250 centuries from now.

      Probably you'll say that the God created the whole universe with one breath, scattered the galaxies everywhere, and chose to populate one planet in this infinite cosmos with millions of species (which by the way Noah in his time managed to put them all in one boat and after the flood accordingly distribute them on the planet). Isn't that odd.

      The creationists resistance towards science and knowledge in general is evident through the mankind history. They were suppressing every rational thought by all means. In the old days they had a different name dough. The inquisition. However they failed. It is very funny when you go back in time and see that they were burning people who were simply saying that Earth is not flat.

      WTC7 expressed himself very nice by saying:

      For goodness sake, the 14th century universe for Christians was a flat Earth in the middle of everything that existed!!!! What kind of authority should then the Christian understanding of the Universe be for the scientific consideration of today?

      Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno… the day before yesterday, Einstein, Hawking… today, or someone else tomorrow….. the science (with all the resistance within its own ranks) is progressing, bringing something else/new every day...


    2. It has now been proven that WTC7 is a least that we know for sure!

  213. Charles, Hello.

    Sorry I did not answer you earlier. For proof I need something tangible. You are the one trying to prove Creation, you show me. I am not trying to prove anything Charles. I do not believe in your Satan ruling the World in what ever time span you are referring to. Or the other things you mentioned in your thread.
    I do have a personal God, my God is called "All That Is" I do not question your personal God so do not question mine.
    You hold to the young Earth theory that it is only 6,000 years old. that is your prerogative. I wish you the best. :D

  214. Yes, WTC7,

    I have been saying all along. The Gods are us!

  215. Yes, the book is really excellent. I enjoyed reading that book.

    And your previous comment is really great. Excellent simple explanation. I felt like I'm reading my own thoughts.

  216. Excellent excerpt, Vlatko!

    I loved the book you're quoting, it's excellent!

  217. I think it's utterly wrong to take the "science vs god" as the starting point of this discussion. Or that the science's whole purpose is to actually prove that god exists or doesn't exist! Or, to be more precise, to prove that today's perceptions of god are correct or not!

    The hell, we have so many perceptions of god today on this planet!!! Which one is to be taken as a valid (???) starting point? The Buddhist one? The Hindu one? The Native American one?... Why do we assume that the Christian perception of god is the right one and that we should take that one specifically as the item to be proved or disproved????

    For goodness sake, the 14th century universe for Christians was a flat Earth in the middle of everything that existed!!!! What kind of authority should then the Christian understanding of the Universe be for the scientific consideration of today?

    For that matter, the god could have created thousands of Universes, either through a Bing Bang or the string (M) theory may be the right one, and they wouldn't know a heck about it - just like none of us does! So why the confrontation on that part????????

    Gallileo, Copernicus, Bruno... the day before yesterday, Einstein, Hocking... today, or someone else tomorrow..... the science (with all the resistance within its own ranks) is progressing, bringing something else/new every day, as our knowledge and understanding (or the lack of it for that matter, nobody knows...) of the world that surrounds us expands (in our own eyes anyway)... And all of it may be wrong.... !!! .... Or correct....!!!

    However, if we are looking upon science to prove to us the existence of God (the real entity that is above, and unconcerned with our, at the Universal plane level insignificant, mutual planetary bickering), then we better look the other way - within ourselves - because that's where the real God resides, and in every atom there is anywhere...

  218. Here is one interesting excerpt from Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything".

    "It isn’t easy to become a fossil… Only about one bone in a billion, it is thought, ever becomes fossilized. If that is so, it means that the complete fossil legacy of all the Americans alive today - that’s 270 million people with 206 bones each – will only be about fifty bones, one quarter of a complete skeleton. That’s not to say of course that any of these bones will actually be found. Bearing in mind that they can be buried anywhere within an area of slightly over 3.6 million square miles, little of which will ever be turned over, much less examined, it would be something of a miracle if they were.

    Fossils are in every sense vanishingly rare. Most of what has lived on Earth has left behind no record at all. It has been estimated that less than one species in ten thousands has made in into the fossil record. That in itself ia a stunningly infinitesimal proportion. However, if you accept the common estimate that the Earth has produced 30 billion species of creature in its time and that there are 250.000 species of creature in the fossil record, that reduces the proportion to just one in 4.000. Either way, what we possess is the merest sampling of all the life that Earth has spawned…

    …It is almost impossible for us whose time on Earth is limited to a breezy few decades to appreciate how remote in time from us the Cambrian outburst was. If you could fly backwards into the past at the rate of one year per second, it would take about half an hour to reach the time of Christ, and a little over three weeks to get back to the beginnings of human life. But it would take twenty years to reach the dawn of the Cambrian period. It was, in other words, an extremely long time ago, and the world was a very different place…

    …Like most things that thrive in harsh environments, lichens are slow-growing. It may take a lichen more than half century to attain the dimensions of a shirt button. Those the size of dinner plates, are therefore likely to be hundreds if not thousands of years old. It would be hard to imagine a less fulfilling existence. They simply exist testifying to the moving fact that life even at its simplest level occurs, apparently, just for its own sake.

    It is easy to overlook this thought that life just is. As humans we are inclined to feel that life must have a point. We have plans and aspirations and desires. We want to take constant advantage of all the intoxicating existence we’ve been endowed with. But what’s life to a lichen? Yes its impulse to exist, to be, is every bit as strong as ours-arguably even stronger. If I were told that I had to spend decades being a furry growth on a rock in the woods, a I believe I would lose the will to go on. Lichens don’t. Like virtually all leaving things, they will suffer hardship, endure any insult, for a moment’s additional existence. Life in, short, just wants to be. But - and here’s an interesting point – for the most part it doesn’t want to be much.

    This is perhaps a little odd because life has had plenty of time to develop ambitions. If you imagine the 4.5 billion odd years of Earth’s history compressed into a normal earthly day, than life begins very early, about 4 a.m., with the rise of the first simple, single-celled organisms, but then advances no further for the next sixteen hours. Not until 8:30 in the evening, with the day five-sixths over, has Earth anything to show the universe but a restless skin of microbes. Then, finally, the first sea plants appear, followed twenty minutes later by the first jellyfish and the enigmatic Ediacaran fauna.

    At 9:04 p.m. trilobites swim onto the scene, followed more or less immediately by the shapely creatures of the Burgus Shale. Just before 10 p.m. plants begin to pop up on the land. Soon after, with less than two hours left in the day, the first land creatures follow. Thanks to ten minutes or so of balmy weather, by 10:24 the Earth is covered in the great carboniferous forests whose residues give us all our coal, and the first winged insects are evident. Dinosaurs plod onto the scene just before 11 p.m. and hold sway for about three-quarters of an hour. At twenty-one minutes to midnight they vanish and the age of mammals begins. Humans emerge one minute and seventeen seconds before midnight.

    The whole of our recorded history, on this scale, would be no more than a few seconds, a single human lifetime barely an instant. Throughout this greatly speeded-up day continents slide about and bang together at a clip that seems positively reckless. Mountains rise and melt away, ocean basins come and go, ice sheets advance and withdraw. And throughout the whole, about three times every minute, somewhere on the planet there is a flesh-bulb pop of light marking the impact of a Manson-sized meteor or even larger. It’s a wonder that anything at all can survive in such a pummeled and unsettled environment. In fact, not many things do for long.

    Perhaps an even more effective way of grasping our extreme recentness as a part of this 4.5-billioniyear-old picture is to stretch your arms to their fullest extent and imagine that width as the entire history of the Earth. On this scale the distance from the fingertips of one hand to the wrist of the other is Precambrian. All of complex life is in one hand, and a single stroke with a medium-grained nail file you could eradicate human history.

    Fortunately, that moment hasn’t happened, but the chances are good that it will. I don’t wish to interject a note of gloom just at this point, but the fact is that there is one other extremely pertinent quality about life on Earth: it goes extinct. Quite regularly. For all the trouble they take to assemble and preserve themselves, species crumple and die remarkably routinely. And the more complex they get, the more quickly they appear to go extinct. Which is perhaps one reason why so much of life isn’t terribly ambitious…

    …It is a curious fact that on Earth species death is, in the most literal sense, a way of life."

  219. Right. Good points Achems Razor.

    After all "The Big Bang" theory is just a theory. There are several other theories about the beginning of the universe.

    However there are many well proved scientific facts that can't be ignored (when I say proved I mean they are number of times mathematically and empirically challenged and seriously doubted, measured and tested with technologically means by the scientific community. So they are not just statements or beliefs of one group):

    1. The background radiation exists and shows that some kind of violent event happened in a distant past.

    2. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

    3. The universe is about 14 billion years old.

    4. Our sun is a star of third generation. That means two supernovas are responsible for the creation of our solar system.

    5. The sun will one day certainly die (as every star dies one day. Depending on the size some die like white dwarfs, some like neutron-stars and some like supernovas). To be more precise the sun will die in about 4.5 billion years from now and with that our solar system will die also.

    6. Fossil records show that life on Earth existed millions of years ago.

    There are more, but thrust for knowledge is needed.

  220. correction:

    Hawking not Hawkins.

  221. Alex:

    It does not put you in a good light, to say Professor Hawkins is stupid!
    Professor Hawkins is a great man of science. :D

    Vlatko brought up a good point. What was there before God created the Universe! who created God!
    My extrapolation is, there was nothing before the Universe, and there is nothing now, but what we by our own thoughts create! If you were not here would there be anything? And if there was, how would you know! It all boils down to Quantum Mechanics. The Atoms have no rhyme or reason, they are flickering on and off, and bouncing around everywhere, coming in and out of existence, appearing everywhere at the same time, in about 10 to the 500 power of other Universes.

    By our own collective consciousness, that means by every sentient being on the Planet, and by mutual agreement we form all matter. It is not the other way around, matter does not form consciousness.

    Space and Time are illusions, we form Space and Time.
    Atoms are not composed of matter, possibly only energy. And due to Electromagnetic Force coalesce into matter, which I might add, is also an illusion. We Alex are living a Dream, to us that is as real, as real can be! :D :D

  222. All right than. I have some points to add.

    Let assume that the "Big Bang" theory is really stupid and the most prominent scientist that ever walked on the face of the Earth, after Einstein, is also stupid.

    Further more let assume that the Earth is 6.000 years old and that God created everything.

    Logically the following questions are coming to my mind:

    1. What was there before God created Earth (and the universe)?

    2. Who created God?

  223. Mr. Razor: What would you consider as at least a shred of proof of Creation? I get a rather ditinct empression that what I would consider as a "proof" you may not.

    Nonetheless, there is little known theory that between Genisis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there could be a very long timespane. Perhaps millions of years?

    Anyway, the theory goes that God created the world perfect, but during the time of the rebellion of Lucifer (Satan) there was an earth that was destroyed by flood (not Noah's flood), hense the "void and darkness" of the destroyed planet, and then God reformed the destroyed planet in Genesis 1:2. This could account for the age of much of the materials of the planet. If you don't think God made starlight in transit, or other perfectly valid possibilities such as that, then who knows how old the earth is under Satan's rule?

    But, as far as history is concerned, I do hold to the young Earth theory that it's only about 6 thousand years from the time of Adam and the rehabilitation of the Earth.

    You really do have a lot of faith that there is no personal God, Mr. Razer. What would it take to change your mind? Are you hoping for a personal visit from the big "J.C." himself just for you? I wouldn't hold my breath, but I suppose all things are possible with God; you just have to have a little "faith". :-)

  224. lame!

  225. I do not understand why Hawkings would make the ridiculous statement at the end, alluding "nothing" evolved into a universe. His ego might be getting the best of him as he conveniently left out multiverse and M theory

  226. Hello everyone!
    1) Questions are made, but notice that actual answers are not given. This is not a coincidence, as the following will show.
    2) About the supposed “big bang”:
    “Flaws in the Big Bang Scenario
    There are a number of logical problems with the big bang scheme of origins:
    (1) The big bang scenario speculates that the marvelously ordered universe randomly resulted from a gigantic explosion—a “holocaust,” to use Jastrow’s term. Never in the history of human experience has a chaotic explosion been observed producing an intricate order that operates purposefully. An explosion in a print shop does not produce an encyclopedia. A tornado sweeping through a junkyard does not assemble a Boeing 747. No building contractor dumps his materials on a vacant lot, attaches dynamite, and then waits for a completed home from the resulting bang. The idea is absurd. Evolutionist Donald Page was correct when he wrote: “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state” (1983, 40).
    (2) If the universe started with an explosion, one would expect that all matter-energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center—consistent with the principle of angular momentum. It would not be expected that the universe would be characterized by the curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed, e.g., the revolution of our earth around the sun (cf. Morris 1984, 150).
    (3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case.

    Over the past few years, the news media have made much of the report that new measurements of background radiation reveal some variation. The press has hailed this as proof of the big bang. The facts are:
    (1) The temperature differential supposedly detected was only about thirty millionths of one degree, and there are other possible explanations for this circumstance apart from the hypothetical bang.
    (2) Some of the scientists involved in the project question whether the instruments employed for measuring the radiation are sensitive enough to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn.
    (3) Others, who claim that additional testing has confirmed their assertion of temperature “ripples,” confess now that it is “harder than ever” to explain “how these ripples grew into the starry structures that fill the universe” (Flam 1993, 31).
    Even the respected science journal Nature suggested it is a “cause of some alarm” that the media have characterized this flimsy evidence as “proof” of the big bang (1992, 731). ”
    3) At one point Hawkins says: “I had shown mathematically that the universe must have had a beginning”. Christians are shown by God’s revelation within The Bible, that there was…. a beginning!
    4) Elsewhere, towards the end, he says: “but for me, the most attractive (idea) is that the universe was spontaneously created out of absolutely nothing!”
    This is the most stupid idea that any scientist can say! These kind of people attempt to put their stupidity in our brain! Don’t get digested into this! And He finds it “most attractive”…! What a perversion!!! More attractive than a Creator creating everything, with all the magnificence, beauty, complexity, order/laws, we see everywhere! And gullible people admire this guy. What a pity!
    5) And after 21:36 he says that all coming about from nothing “may sound like magic, but such creation is possible.” Huh?? Possible?? Since when?? Completely idiotic statement! I cannot even consider this a foolish scientific mistake since it crosses the borders over to atheistic propaganda! Then he makes the ridiculous comparison with “bubbles”! Bubbles, to him, are apparently created out of nothing??????? And so like the bubbles “Tiny universes appear spontaneously out of nothing!” Either he is -sorry to say- stupid, or thinks we’re stupid enough to buy into his nonsense, I mean NONSENSE!! Evolution is always a great laugh, but this laugh is along side with tears!
    6) And to top it all off with a twist, Hawkins puts the cherry on top, by saying that we as intelligent being can ask the question: “Why is the universe made the way it is?” to arrive to the answer “that if the universe were more than slightly different, no one would be around to ask the question.”
    Real intelligent person :D :D :D
    Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God….
    (Ooooh! So that's how his nonsese came about.)
    Isa 25:1 O LORD, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth.
    Psa 107:31-32 Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! 32 Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders.

    May God give you His increase, and Hawkins and the other narrator common sense as well.

  227. Joseph:

    I was talking about Creationists, not the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that gives a specific time date. The ones that do believe the universe is 6,000 to 20,000 years old should revamp their thinking and figure out a new senario that makes sense!. And this involves more religions than just "Seven Day Adventists"

    When you are saying the final "verdict is not out yet" does that mean they will change their theory's? I think not! they will just add more fanciful tales!

  228. christians may believe many silly things. but nowhere in the bible does it say the universe is 6000 years old. please give chapter and verse. the 6000 year idea is an invention of the seventh day church. and some of its teaching are not biblical.

    the final verdict is not out yet!!!!!

  229. Creationists still stick to their guns that the Universe is only 6,000 years old!. Without any scientific evidence whatsoever, only a belief system.

    Scientific discipline does not require its submissions be accompanied by a statement of beliefs.
    Creationists statement of belief is a conclusion fixed in stone!
    A Creationist is not free to alter their theory's should the evidence contradict them, instead they make up fanciful tales such as a "Water Vapor Canopy" surrounding the Earth prior to the great flood, the creation of Starlight in transit, and the hydrological sorting of Fossils during the great flood. The theory's of Scientists are not etched in stone and can be changed in light of new evidence.
    There is not one Scientific shred of evidence for creation.