Celtic Heroes

There are two options as to how the universe came to be.

Incorrect, there are infinite possibilities and options.

As for option #1, if the universe has always been around, then there would be no more stars as they would have burned up already. And since there are stars, I think we can count this one out.

Stars are still being formed and destroyed at the moment. There is no set amount of stars and they did not just start at one time. It is a cycle.

For option #2.1, it is just not possible. Evolutionists say that there was a big bang. But, if there was nothing, then there cannot be something. Even today, there takes energy to make an explosion. You cannot make something out of nothing. In response to the need for energy, Evolutionists say that before the big bang all the energy in the universe was held in a single point. But they fail to realize that this energy had to come from somewhere. If the energy has just always been there, then that goes back to Option #1 which shows how energy cannot be infinitely in existance.

The same principle applies to a god... We do not fail to realise the dilemma and we continue to seek out the answer.

The only way to explain how the universe came into existance then, is that an outside source created it. The only option that I believe is possible is that God Almighty created the universe as recorded in Genesis.

Perhaps, but what makes God the outside source? Why not Zeus? Or Chaos? Or Allah?

To your question about where did God come from, God has always been. We cannot know what happened before time began besides what the only witness, God, has told us. And God has told us that He has always been. You can take it or leave it but this is my opinion.

You disprove this conclusion in your 2.1 point. To have always been would be representative of energy "infinitely in existence." If you make God an exception, what is to prevent anyone from creating other exceptions? Or I guess they have through the large variety of religions.

Hopefully this helps! and also with your question, dont believe me because I said it is true. And dont believe others because they say they are right or because it sounds good. Believe what you believe because you have thoroughly examined it and found no flaw. Take responsibility for your life and dont let others decide for you. Your eternity depends on what you believe so make sure you are right!

There is no certainty, only pattern and recognition. What eternity?

Please tell me another way the universe could be created that does not fall into one of these two categories.

God is not limited by time, matter, space etc. He made them! You cannot say God must have been created at a certain time because God was before time! God is not an exception since He made it. Also, I dont have the time energy or space right now but if you look at all the evidence that points to a divine being, it will most certainly point you to the God of the Bible. You can choose to accept the evidence how you like, but if you truly look at the evidence, without bias, then you will see that it points to the God of the Bible.

And you said "there is no certainty". Are you certain about that?

And about eternity, If atheism is right, then there are no consequences after we die. We are living for nothing. But if Christianity is right? then there will be eternal torture and torment in a Lake of Fire for those who do not believe. That is a huge difference!

If "god" is not limited by time,matter or space, y cant the big bang too?

eternal torture and torment in a lake of fire eh? How can u not see that your god is a selfish, one minded dictator? If u do not believe in him he forces you to believe by threatening you with this pathetic crap!

Please tell me another way the universe could be created that does not fall into one of these two categories.

First off there are never 'two sides' or 'two possibilities' to almost any situation. This arrangement is used as many people are born without the ability to hold many simeltaneous points of a problem in thier mind and yet let that meager ability atrophy. It is the classic straw man setup.

Your thinking about energy and stars is completely without merit. Quantum mechanics teaches us that the basic building blocks of reality are uncertain and fluctuate. Given enough time energy can self concentrate from this uncertainty to the extent we see in the Big Bang in a finite time purely from chance. Thinking about time in a linear way in any case is almost certainly wrong as well there is quite a bit of evidence that points to parallel time as being a more plausible explanation of events we see and measure.

God is not limited by time, matter, space etc. He made them! You cannot say God must have been created at a certain time because God was before time! God is not an exception since He made it. Also, I dont have the time energy or space right now but if you look at all the evidence that points to a divine being, it will most certainly point you to the God of the Bible. You can choose to accept the evidence how you like, but if you truly look at the evidence, without bias, then you will see that it points to the God of the Bible.

there is absolutely zero evidence of a god - none. Also mountains of evidence disproving claims of all religions. Adam and Eve was a fairy tale there is genetic evidence disproving humans ever were below thousands in population. Genesis is completely wrong in fact in every detail it claims can easily be shown false. There was no world flood there is ample disproving evidence. I could and have gone on for pages on this. It is extremely ignorant to believe the bible is factual. It is goat herder middle eastern myth.

And you said "there is no certainty". Are you certain about that?

yes you can be certain about uncertainty. For example in polling you can have a 95% confidence your data is representative of the actual population plus or minus 3%. But then again I'm assuming high school statistics are beyond you. The dumbed down simple answer is science only disproves things whittling away at untruths forever approaching factual reality and truth. It cannot prove anything. Yet it describes factual reality very well you rely on the truth of it as the internet is very real and not very likely to be just trillions of random chance occurrences that is all just one giant mistake and will dissapear after this post.

And about eternity, If atheism is right, then there are no consequences after we die. We are living for nothing. But if Christianity is right? then there will be eternal torture and torment in a Lake of Fire for those who do not believe. That is a huge difference!

Pascal's wager is about the stupidest argument an apologist can make. It mKes believers feel secure about thier unfounded beliefs far more than teach flawed game theory to educated athiests. First off there is no proof of a Christian god and if Jesus were real he sends you to help for having belief other gods. Most religions dont have this. So to stand the best chance to go to an afterlife one should disbelieve in Jesus and go for all those other religions at the same time to stand the best odds. Not to mention that in the above wager would you waste your one infinately precious life you know you possess for certain. Would you waste it in such a stupid way if the odds of going to heaven were the same as winning all lotteries on earth for a thousand years in a single try but losing none? You are being scammed in the greatest way possible by giving up your one given existence for the empty promise of a magical better one. Too bad I can't see your face when you pass on and go to enter those fake login credentials.

You are ignorant, stupid, being obtuse, or are insane if you think without god there is nothing to live for.

Please tell me another way the universe could be created that does not fall into one of these two categories.

First off there are never 'two sides' or 'two possibilities' to almost any situation. This arrangement is used as many people are born without the ability to hold many simeltaneous points of a problem in thier mind and yet let that meager ability atrophy. It is the classic straw man setup.

You thinking about energy and stars is completely without merit. Quantum mechanics teaches us that the basic building blocks of reality are uncertain and fluctuate. Given enough time energy can self concentrate from this uncertainty to the extent we see in the Big Bang in a finite time purely from chance. Thinking about time in a linear way in any case is almost certainly wrong as well there is quite a bit of evidence that points to parallel time as being a more plausible explanation of events we see and measure.

God is not limited by time, matter, space etc. He made them! You cannot say God must have been created at a certain time because God was before time! God is not an exception since He made it. Also, I dont have the time energy or space right now but if you look at all the evidence that points to a divine being, it will most certainly point you to the God of the Bible. You can choose to accept the evidence how you like, but if you truly look at the evidence, without bias, then you will see that it points to the God of the Bible.

there is absolutely zero evidence of a god - none. Also mountains of evidence disproving claims of all religions. Adam and Eve was a fairy tale there is genetic evidence disproving humans ever were below thousands in population. Genesis is completely wrong in fact in every detail it claims can easily be shown false. There was no world flood there is ample disproving evidence. I could and have gone on for pages on this. It is extremely ignorant to believe the bible is factual.

And you said "there is no certainty". Are you certain about that?

yes you can be certain about uncertainty. For example in polling you can have a 95% confidence your data is representative of the actual population plus or minus 3%. But then again I'm assuming high school statistics are beyond you. The dumbed down simple answer is science only disproves things whittling away at untruths forever approaching factual reality and truth. It cannot prove anything. Yet it describes factual reality very well you rely on the truth of it as the internet is very real and not very likely to be just trillions of random chance occurrences that is all just one. It giant mistake and will dissapear after this post.

And about eternity, If atheism is right, then there are no consequences after we die. We are living for nothing. But if Christianity is right? then there will be eternal torture and torment in a Lake of Fire for those who do not believe. That is a huge difference!

Pascal's wager is about the stupidest argument an apologist can make. It mKes believers feel secure about thier unfounded beliefs far more than teach flawed game theory to educated athiests. First off there is no proof of a Christian god and if Jesus were real he sends you to help for having belief other gods. Most religions dont have this. So to stand the best chance to go to an afterlife one should disbelieve in Jesus and go for all those other religions at the same time to stand the best odds. Not to mention that in the above wager would you waste your one infinately precious life you know you possess for certain and waste it in such a stupid way if the odds of going to heaven were the same as winning all lotteries on earth for a thousand years in a single try but losing none?

You are ignorant, stupid, being obtuse, or are insane if you think without god there is nothing to live for.

You still did not say a third option to how the universe was made.

And as stated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, whenever energy is used, some energy is rendered useless. If the universe was eternal, then the we would be in complete entropy by now.

And you say there is no evidence for God? Evolutionists say that all life came from a single cell amoeba. Darwinist Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford, says that the DNA of a single amoeba has enough information as 1000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica! not to mention each set has 30 volumes! And still today, with how "intellegient" we are, we cannot make life from nonlife. To say that the information in a single amoeba formed unintelligiently is simply ignorant.

You say we can be certain about everything being uncertain, but that is totally contradictory! Atheists claim that they use logic to come to their conclusions, yet they dont even see how their logic is faulty.

You still did not say a third option to how the universe was made.

because the universe was never made in all likelihood. Existing as we do on the scales we do does lead to a way of thinking about what time and space is that is demonstratably false. It is quite possible that all possibility exists simultaneously and there is no such thing as time. Afterall how could logic and math not exist? How could they be limited to our observable universe? It is likely that the place you find yourself in is simply one of an infinite set of probabilities. Many physical experiments provide rather convincing evidence of this.

And as stated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, whenever energy is used, some energy is rendered useless. If the universe was eternal, then the we would be in complete entropy by now.

the second law is for closed systems. Our universe is at a minimum 50 times bigger than the observable universe to perhaps infinately larger. It is not a closed system therfore does not violate the second law. Try understanding high school physics before you claim to refute all of science at least.

And you say there is no evidence for God? Evolutionists say that all life came from a single cell amoeba. Darwinist Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford, says that the DNA of a single amoeba has enough information as 1000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica! not to mention each set has 30 volumes! And still today, with how "intellegient" we are, we cannot make life from nonlife. To say that the information in a single amoeba formed unintelligiently is simply ignorant.

no scientist believes we came from amoebas. You are ignorant and using a straw man argument that has no basis in reality. Yes all life likely came from A single event but no one believes This even involved DNA. rNA came before DNA and likely RNA has a precursor as well. The first life is believed to be something like simple amino acid compounds in porous rock (acting as cellular walls) where a very simple encoding of information took place in self replicating chemicals. Your claim of amoebas is just plain stupid. There is no other word that is a factual statement.

You say we can be certain about everything being uncertain, but that is totally contradictory! Atheists claim that they use logic to come to their conclusions, yet they dont even see how their logic is faulty.

No you are just ignorant of math, science, and how reality actually works. Perhaps if you flexed those few brain cells you have to learn rather than stay ignorant by wearing faith (ignorance) as a badge of honor.

You still did not say a third option to how the universe was made.

because the universe was never made in all likelihood. Existing as we do on the scales we do does lead to a way of thinking about what time and space is that is demonstratably false. It is quite possible that all possibility exists simultaneously and there is no such thing as time. Afterall how could logic and math not exist? How could they be limited to our observable universe? It is likely that the place you find yourself in is simply one of an infinite set of probabilities. Many physical experiments provide rather convincing evidence of this.

And as stated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, whenever energy is used, some energy is rendered useless. If the universe was eternal, then the we would be in complete entropy by now.

the second law is for closed systems. Our universe is at a minimum 50 times bigger than the observable universe to perhaps infinately larger. It is not a closed system therfore does not violate the second law. Try understanding high school physics before you claim to refute all of science at least.

And you say there is no evidence for God? Evolutionists say that all life came from a single cell amoeba. Darwinist Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford, says that the DNA of a single amoeba has enough information as 1000 complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica! not to mention each set has 30 volumes! And still today, with how "intellegient" we are, we cannot make life from nonlife. To say that the information in a single amoeba formed unintelligiently is simply ignorant.

no scientist believes we came from amoebas. You are ignorant and using a straw man argument that has no basis in reality. Yes all life likely came from A single event but no one believes This even involved DNA. rNA came before DNA and likely RNA has a precursor as well. The first life is believed to be something like simple amino acid compounds in porous rock (acting as cellular walls) where a very simple encoding of information took place in self replicating chemicals. Your claim of amoebas is just plain stupid. There is no other word that is a factual statement.

You say we can be certain about everything being uncertain, but that is totally contradictory! Atheists claim that they use logic to come to their conclusions, yet they dont even see how their logic is faulty.

No you are just ignorant of math, science, and how reality actually works. Perhaps if you flexed those few brain cells you have to learn rather than stay ignorant by wearing faith (ignorance) as a badge of honor.

So your third option of how the universe came into existance is already one of the two I stated...

And um actually I do understand high school physics. A closed system is one that no outside forces act upon it. As far as I know there is no other force acting upon the universe, therefore the universe is a closed system. And since the universe is a closed system that means we can apply the 2nd Law.

Ok so even if I do accept your claim about how life began, it still doesnt explain how the amino acids got their information. There has to be somewhere that it came from. If it has just always been there, then it points back to the point that the universe had to have a beginning because if it didnt, then there would be complete entropy.

Amoebas were the first single celled organism, there is a world of difference between the first single celled organism and the first life. Life is believed to have come from some self replicating chemicals, that changed and evolved over time single celled organisms, which then evolved into various stuff, which evolved into more stuff, which evolved into MORE stuff, which evolved into us.

Also gandy your god has to threaten people into obedience, sounds like a dictatorship to me, god is kim jong un and you are the slaves working for nothing with false hope of your "Dear Leader".all you Christians want atheists out of america but if we were to leave america would be screwed. America would lose over 10% of its population, but under 0.25% of its criminals, along with many scientists and entrepreneurs. Average IQ would plummet, economy would all be taking hits because of this. Starvation will eventually set in, then famine, then cannibalism, this would take about 100 years to happen, max. Your welcome for saving your life and country.

So your third option of how the universe came into existance is already one of the two I stated...

no. Not at all. Here is what you posted:

Gandy wrote:
As for option #1, if the universe has always been around, then there would be no more stars as they would have burned up already. And since there are stars, I think we can count this one out.

For option #2.1, it is just not possible. Evolutionists say that there was a big bang. But, if there was nothing, then there cannot be something. Even today, there takes energy to make an explosion. You cannot make something out of nothing. In response to the need for energy, Evolutionists say that before the big bang all the energy in the universe was held in a single point. But they fail to realize that this energy had to come from somewhere. If the energy has just always been there, then that goes back to Option #1 which shows how energy cannot be infinitely in existance.

The universe could have been always around just not in the exact form we see within our observable universe. It is a well respected hypothesis that two portions of reality intersected which is what caused the big bang. No scientist believes our current observable universe is infinately old that is a stupid straw man argument.

For option 2 no scientist believes in "nothing". The very possibility of nothing is impossible - with nothng to confirm nothing is there nothng cannot really exist - nothng simply requires something to give it form. From physics we see that empty vaccuum of space is not nothng even if 100% empty. Quantum uncertainty means it is teaming with pairs of low energy particles that constantly cancel each other out or particles that decay instantly. No scientist believes "purely empty space" is even possible within our observable universe. It is a simple extension to believe this may exist outside the observable universe as well. The big bang likely came from a quantium fluctuation in this empty space that is teeming with countless quadrillions of particles per unimaginably small dot.

And um actually I do understand high school physics. A closed system is one that no outside forces act upon it. As far as I know there is no other force acting upon the universe, therefore the universe is a closed system. And since the universe is a closed system that means we can apply the 2nd Law.

The observable universe itself is not a closed system. Even ignoring the fact it has a receding edge that added thousands of cubic light years to its volume as I typed this gravity itself may bleed off to nearby dimensions and is the basis for many ongoing measurements to try and quantify. Your lack of understanding both physics and biology show that you either do not understand or are simply obtuse and trolling. Niether is an honorable option.

Ok so even if I do accept your claim about how life began, it still doesnt explain how the amino acids got their information. There has to be somewhere that it came from. If it has just always been there, then it points back to the point that the universe had to have a beginning because if it didnt, then there would be complete entropy.

Yet you fail at high school physics again. All molecules at all times contain a truly massive amount of information. Each atom has massive amounts of information as each particle within it has many variables defining it. Information itself has existed since at least the beginning of our universe and likely is eternal and not even bound by time for information as understood in physics cannot be created or destroyed only altered in form.

Actually gandy the universe isnt entirely a closed system, the visible universe is way smaller than the actual universe because the universes expansion rate is faster than the speed of light, and its thought that gravity might be leaking from other universes into ours. Which is one of many possibilities for the creation of the big bang