No, Niamh, I wasn't even considering 'God' when I said your post was brilliant.

I was referring - on a purely physics level - that you had mentioned the one insurmountable obstacle that Krauss and others encounter and cannot surmount: "Nothing' comes out of 'Nothing'.

The very idea of 'A Universe From Nothing' breaches the 'First Law of Thermodynamics'- that universally long held tenet that; "nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing" --

-- and flies in the face of another principle of physics - 'The Conservation of Matter' - which states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In the words of revered evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow: "Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever”

So if - according to the physicist's 'Bible' - 'Nothing' can ever be suddenly created from 'Nothing', and if both 'Matter' and 'Energy' cannot be created, then Krauss's preposterous and B.S. proposition is a non-starter, and no matter how he tries to 'disguise' thefact that his proposition is B.S. (more later in another post) then we are left with the fact that 'Something' came out of 'Something'.

This has nothing to do with God, it is physics, and you echoed as much when you wrote: .

"Well it is really, we might know how life started and evolved on earth but where did the stuff that made that possible come from etc etc etc you could go back and back and back and probably never get to the end...".

Exactly! 'Something' was there in the first place, or in other words; there was 'something' which already was in existence which was not dependent on 'something else' for it's existence.

In physics, you simply cannot create 'Anything' out of 'Nothing'.

And to us believers - using the bastardised principles of Occam's Razor - that only leaves God.

Well we can talk to scientists today, look at their work and critique them. We can build on what they say and no scientist ever says that their word is final


Pray tell me who are the men who wrote the bible and why does the bible end thus?:

Nothing May Be Added
…19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. 20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.



(and Peer Review is what stops "exaggeration,Chinese whispers ,mistakes and a few porkies " - for an explanation of what that is look here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review.html)

Our universe may well indeed well be part of a multivers and if the multiverse theory is right, it would have been born among an infinite number of older sibling universes.

We have currently zero information of what came before the Big Bang. While we can say we know nothing and see nothing pre-Big Bang, we cannot say there was nothing from nothing line.

We are always learning and moving forward, that is the beauty of science. :spin:

In 2,000 to 3,500 years time, future LT's may be similarly dismissing the written words of Stephen Hawking, Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins as primitive 'fable' tellers.

As for your intimation that the Bible is irrelevant because we can't talk to or question its authors, when was the last time you talked to or questioned Albert Einstein, Hans Bethe, or Robert Oppenheimer?

Finally, and as I have previously informed you in a previous thread, the Judeo Christian Bible was written by many authors over thousands of years, so - again - to intimate that the entire book is flawed or irrelevant because of one minuscule portion is typically inane, and akin to throwing away a ton of apples because one is bruised.

I was replying to Kaz's statement regarding scientists today against what she said about the men who wrote the bible.

so it was not really addressed to you or the 3 topics you replied about which are not related.

However I have a question for you:spin:

Can you say why the lady in question said she saw jesus and explain why you think that and how that would come about?

The 'Multiverse' is just another theory. The Big Bang is just a theory, but this theory is physically impossible given all known laws of physics, and is currently - as with all scientific theories which you consistently hail as 'Gospel' - being discredited by other eminent physicists as baloney.

What's more; cast your mind back to a previous thread in which I asked you a question on Physics - your favourite subject:

"If the universe is expanding (Big Bang et al) and as light 'diffracts' - spreads out as it travels - independently of this expansion, and if some of these 'dead stars' which are the source of this light are trillions of light years from our vantage point on Earth, then why do we still see the travelling light from these distant dead stars as starlight? Why hasn't it acted in accordance with the 'Laws of Physics' and spread out and dimmed as a massively wide glow of light? Why hasn't it changed colour even as it has 'cooled'? "


And remember that - here again - you did not answer me except with the usual non-relevant ridicule.

Well, I knew the answer and it is highly pertinent here.

Starlight does not diffuse and does not spread out and dim, because the latest thinking among physicists is that the universe is not expanding - which makes further nonsense of your prized 'Big Bang Theory'.

According to the Big Bang theory, distant objects appear fainter but bigger in an expanding Universe, because the surface brightness decreases with the distance, and the light is stretched and further dimmed as the Universe expanded.

Therefore, in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should be hundreds of times dimmer than nearby galaxies, but observations in new studies have been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics, which contest that the universe is expanding.

Scientists carefully compared the size and magnitude of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies, and chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the 'Big Bang theory', they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical. These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis.

Finally, given that you are such a 'science and physics' groupie, how can you state:

"We cannot say there was nothing from nothing line."

By the First Law Of Thermodynamics and other tenets and principles of physics, "Out of Nothing, comes Nothing".

Now your view thoroughly deserves a few; :joker::joker::joker:

I'm not into all the ins and outs and whys or wherefores,I don't study science or religion,all I can say there are two books,both supposedly written by men,so who is to say which one is accurate,we do not know,personally the Bible has some home truths for me,albeit the stories have been exaggerated in films etc,but some words are definitely true such as the nations will go to war(just one example)East against West,we will destroy ourselves as some of us are arrogant,greedy,cruel and selfish.

Wow! Your last question is back on topic -- I do hope it's not an attempt to deflect from the subject which you started and on which you ridiculed others for their responses, because you have no answers now when challenged to substantiate your secular physics-based claims?

Anyway, I will answer you but I have pressing work and a deadline, and I have already spent hours on this. I will address your points which I have emboldened though, and say that; I know your point was "not really addressed" to me, but I am interjecting - contributing - as you often do.

Further; the "3 topics in question" are definitely "related" by virtue of being on this thread on this forum. That being so, any relevant response is valid.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/sc...ing-01940.html


basic copypasta from the above article

and preaching from Eric Learner the guy who makes his living saying the big bang did not happen....:umm2:


Jesus H on a bike



What next "Why I think 9/11 was an inside job"?

Impho,The human brain is not capable of understanding the beginning of everything.We are the most intelligent species on our planet but we are'nt intelligent enough to answer the most perplexing of questions and either won't ever be or if we survive long enough,Until we evolve into a higher,more intelligent species(if that's where evolution takes us).Here are a couple of questions in which i believe our species as it is won't ever answer(imo).....

1.What is existence?
2.If there is a God,How did he come into existence?
3.How did existence come to be and what existed before?

Now these questions i believe are too complex for the human brain.

To be fair most people dont even know the capital of Australia....

:dog:

I read that article and perhaps 20 others and my post is a summary of what I read and research from as many sources as time allows. If it was 'copy pasta' the words would be identical. Where in the quoted article do you see any of the other points I raise or comments I make?

Obviously (except to a cretin) there are only so many ways of writing about a given subject and therefore the idiom of the source material and post will by necessity sometimes be similar - that much is unavoidable. Describe such an article without sometimes being compelled to use the correct terminology and occasional statements of the source.

You do it all the time, but you merely scour the internet then past a link without really reading, digesting or understanding the subject matter you are linking, I read, absorb, and analyse the article, then weigh it against other articles or books, before relating in my own manner.

Anyway, once again you have proved my point that you are bereft of any real, worthwhile views - no matter what the source, because you do not understand the subject - instead, you do not answer, and resort to deflecting ridicule.

Also; is it not yet more hypocrisy on your part to ridicule me for agreeing with Lerner's valid viewpoint (among others) - no matter if he makes money from his expertise - when you constantly quote Dawkins and Klauss whose viewpoints are far less credible than Lerner's and from which their primary aim is to make money? They do not give their books away.

So; ridicule wasted, deflection unsuccessful - now will you answer my questions?

It was a cut and paste job with a few words changed but a basic highlight and google search is your friend

:spin:

No - it is your friend, you are the one who is incapable of actually learning knowledge then relating it in your own terms, which is why you are the one who pastes links to everything 'internet'. Unfortunately, your way is like cheating at exams by covertly having the answers: because you have not actually read and learnt the material, you do not ever understand the subject matter.

The majority of my post was written months ago on here in response to another post of yours about Ghosts etc, so I am not the one who suddenly ran to google any subject. You are the one who ran to google (as normal) when stumped for a legitimate response to my posts.

I already possess most of my learnt knowledge and don't have to take the time to google - which is also why I can answer quickly, whereas you cannot answer at all, or if you do, it only by way of a minimalist response or a pasted link with long intervals in between, because you know nothing and have to google each and every time.

I also notice that you still have not answered any of my points but once again resort to attempted ridicule.

Shallow Hal.

Either stick to discussing the topic and NOT other members or the thread will be closed.

Thank you Josy

I would like to ask Kirklancaster



Can you say why the lady in question said she saw jesus and explain why you think that and how that would come about?

It was not a rhetorical question LT - I genuinely do not know why. I have my own ideas - theory if you will - obviously biased and based upon my faith, but I don't know.

I wanted to discover other viewpoints for the very reason that I wasn't sure.

I would like to think that because she was an atheist and not a religious person (according to her own testimony in articles I have read, and in a documentary which someone on here mentioned) that Christ did actually appear to her.

I am not concerned that the vision she actually saw was an image -- a medieval artists impression -- of the 'Veronica Cloth', because no one can look upon the countenance of God, and if she did 'perceive' a vision of Christ, then her mind would project the image of Christ which she could identify.

Incidentally, the image of Christ - long hair and bearded - on that particular painting, is notable, because it is the sterotypical image that most artists depicted once the image on the Shroud of Turin had become known. Before then, depictions of Christ in art were diverse and generic.

Anyway, in this particular case - I just don't know.

Oxygen depravation makes crazy stressed out fat woman see Jesus. (how she knew it was jesus is what proves it's fake. because no one knows what Jesus looks like, so how would she know it was Jesus?

This woman went through something horrific and clearly lost a lot of brain cells in the process. I hope she feels better and gets some psychological help.

All religions are a lie.

We have to accept that everyone has a point of view which is totally valid to many people. As we/I have said before in my view it is life and shouldnt be claimed as religion. It is a way of using the mechanics within our own being. The alternative state of being can be accessed through darkness and stress but imo the vision may not have been JC but one of the guardians who are there to help us in distress.

I do really feel that religion is man made as I may have said before, we just have to look within our own personal identities to reach a goal.

I have got well into the Deep Sea Scrolls but I can see how many who believe totally in JC could be disillusioned. As I have previously said I do believe in him but not in the same way. I guess I could class myself as an atheist but I have strong beliefs in the experiences of life which we are sometimes afraid to accept.

Imo though LT whilst I can appreciate what you are saying it was through the act which caused her to experience. We are so bogged down with our everyday lives and worries that we are kept anchored to the physical plain of thought it is often when we are in trouble that another door opens and a light is allowed to shine in sad but true.

It is hard to say what the dear little souls will be feeling but an understandable point. We can but hope that there is some comfort somewhere for them.

and...............who created the first word? Such a complex situation because no matter what we have to go right back to the beginnng to see how things did evolve. In the beginning there wasnt such a thing as religion as we know it. So much has been lost through fighting over the political side of life and religion.

Jose Silva teaches people to use both sides of the brain, in so doing we are able to see things more clearly but no one seems to have the true answers of true existence, we just have to take it a step at a time. Perhaps one day when the time is right we will all know. :wavey: (have just found the smilies again :laugh:).

And atheism is a false sense of superiority. :spin:

I agree LT, the beauty of science cannot be denied, there was a piece quite a while back now where they were researching that which came before the supposed big bang theory. I haven heard anymore about it but I have to admit I felt quite interested in the aspect.

Why would you feel that Marsh, isnt it just another point of view? I find it easier to think that way because to me we are all equals and it is interesting to know how others feel......:wavey:

Hi Kirk, in your view what is the true definition of an Atheist? If we join a "society" we have to conform to rules, now as I cannot accept JC or "God" in the same light as Born Again Christians I term myself as an atheist but I know and accept the other side of life, the beginnings of all things and the joy of discovering that we are not alone.

I have said before that I believe in the seperation of the bodies, now this can be brought upon by the energy of distress, the sleep state or by ones own efforts. It is in this state that imo we come into touch with our visions.

I guess most of us have faith in something or another.....:wavey: