Physics Confirms God

The Learned Joined: Jun 10, 2009 Posts: 187

What is this dead-again-atheist doing in science thread.

Geneboy, is sleeping.

He is allowing spaming.

Confident Learner Joined: Sep 08, 2009 Posts: 79

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

If you're up for a challenge and want a tougher nut to crack than us braindead Atheists, why not go here? http://www.biblocality.com/forums/ Watch out though! The guy who runs it has got all the right answers. He's never wrong and he doesn't give an inch on anything. Good hunting! BornAgainAthiest. Biblocality.com is the site's name.

Troy Brooks doesn't believe in evolution any more than you do. He's a Creationist who believes that God made Adam and Eve, exactly as it's written down in the Book of Genesis. If you'd get your head out of your arse for a minute and listen to what others think, you wouldn't make so many lazy, stupid and arrogant mistakes.

What does Troy believe about evolution? Why not watch his video on evolution ?

In simple terms, God formed man's body from "dust" over 13.7 billion years ( evolution ), but about 6000 years ago, God breathed His breath of life (permanently existing life), directly creating man's spirit; when it made contact with the body the soul life was formed, so as the Bible says, man is "living soul": "spirit, soul and body" (Heb. 4.12; 1 Thess. 5.23). Mental faculties developed in evolution, but those pre-Adamic men would cease to exist when they die. Only when man was directly given a spirit of God-consciousness would never cease to exist, for that would be evil if God were allow you to be aware of His existence to then annhilate you. That would be an evil god, a deistic or scientology type god, e.g. like gnosticism which teaches the overall creator allowed another creator that was evil and created us.

Your spirit has God-consciousness and has the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. Your soul is self-consciousness with the functions of mind (intellect, reasoning), will and emotion. And of course, your body is world-consciousness with the 5 senses with which you make contact the world with.

Any questions? If you need to go over the 4 Step Proof for God in shorter format (about 3 minutes), watch the 4 Step Proof for God .

Then of course, once realize God exists, know where He has revealed Himself by the 4 Step Minimal Facts Approach and There Are Only 4 Choices

Confident Learner Joined: Sep 08, 2009 Posts: 79

Praise the Lord!

Gary R. Habermas explained to the Infidelguy how it works, but the Infidelguy though he had no response just shut his mind down and did not give into reality. That's sad. What is left for the Infidelguy but eternal damnation in Hell? The Infidelguy is a bad guy and obviously gets off on it and his particular idols he worships and places above God even himself. Maybe it is not so much as sad as it is pathetic.

"For if we sin wilfully [rejecting Christ] after that we have received the knowledge of the truth [which we all have the Bible], there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries . He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God , and hath counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord " (Heb. 10.26-30).

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:06 am

Biblo wrote:

Praise the Lord!

Gary R. Habermas explained to the Infidelguy how it works...

er, what does this have to do with physics?

Or reality, for that matter? Shocked

Confident Learner Joined: Sep 08, 2009 Posts: 79

Physics tells us that everything has a cause in nature which proves God. There is no way around it.

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:53 am

Biblo wrote:

Physics tells us that everything has a cause in nature which proves God. There is no way around it.

That would be the Kalam Cosmological argument. Check out the 'Hi' thread. Your shortcut method to God is pithy but lacking in explanatory power. I'd also remind you that judgement and punishment by eternal damnation is not delegated to you. Unless you're posting from the hereafter in which case, my apologies.

Physics also provides evidence that the universe may not need a cause. Being the sum total of all things, it seems possible that it can play by its own rules. Yahweh need not bother showing up to work.

Again, pardon my ignorance but what has Habermas got to do with physics? He surveys biblical scholars to find statistical trends regarding a minimal facts case, particularly with regard to the Resurrection of Christ.

The objection to this approach are that seeking a consensus among biblical scholars proves the consensus, not the event itself. Anyway, whatever.

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 12:34 pm

To iPondR...

Please do not engage in any kind of communication with Biblio.

This is yet another sock-puppet manifestation of Troy (Forever Lost) Brooks. He's trolled this forum under the names ForeverSaved and Parture and has been banned time and again.

In fact, any newbie that links to Biblocality.com or mentions the 4 Step Proof for God will be Troy - so watch out for these signs and avoid him like the plague.

He's not interested in dialog or debate.

Bye Bye Troy! (Waves.)

BAA.

Confident Learner Joined: Sep 08, 2009 Posts: 79

While you produce no forthright explanation of said evidence your coyness is troubling for you, but we do know there are trillions of things in nature with a cause, the evidence overwhelms; therefore the uncreated must exist. Proving God is not the hard part. Obviously the hard part is letting go of the control you have of yourself. You are going to Hell!

The Minimal Facts Approach is derived from physics. Since no naturalistic explanation exists that can account with physics for the multiple attestation, we know Jesus is God.

You're a condemned man, "condemned already" (John 3.1 Cool

.

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:19 pm

Thanks B_A_A, fundamentalism is the game, the flavour of dogma does not matter. Islam, Christian, Hasidic - all cut from the same barbaric cloth. Hell is here, on earth, locked in that kind of mind set.

Intern Joined: Feb 13, 2004 Posts: 297 Location: Belfast

Happy in condamnation. Soon to be surfing a lake of fire near you!

Newbie Joined: Dec 08, 2008 Posts: 23

rayback wrote:

A few of the top scientists, therefore, have come to believe that some sort of powerful and intelligent Supreme Being must have caused this massive bang which occured some 12 billion years ago.

These scientists say that this mysterious Force must have been
the cause that was responsible for origins of our Universe.

That is what God's own book, the Koran, also teaches.

I agree with world's top scientists.

You cant dispute facts.

Of course, ordinary people are free to reject recent scientistfic findings.

People may also interpret scientific evidence in an irrational ways to suit their own closed minds.

But facts are facts.

Facts are facts, Lord Brahma created the universe...it's the only possible explaination, after all Hindu scriptures are very clear about this. You know that Mohammed and Jesus were merely Hindu Avatars don't you? Thank you for reminding us of Brahama's greatness.

Listen genius, nearly all faiths have creation myths...just that most are better written than the one found in the Koran.

The Learned Joined: Jun 10, 2009 Posts: 187

zerilos wrote:

Listen genius, nearly all faiths have creation myths.

And now, top Scientists have joined these claims that Universe did have a beginning, and that it must have been started by something.

Atheists have been proven wrong by modern science. Laughing

I feel sorry for them.

There is a God out there.

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:59 pm

Please do not feed the troll known as Rayback by responding to any of it's posts. Thank you.

Newbie Joined: Jan 05, 2010 Posts: 18

Universe did not have a beginning. This would be death of any claim towards a God.

Quote:

Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory

Mon, April 5, 2010

An Indian and an American scientist have questioned the Big Bang theory, saying it does not serve as a viable explanation for the origin of the universe.

The research papers of Ashwini Kumar Lal of India's Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and Rhawn Joseph of Northern California's Brain Research Laboratory have been accepted for publication in the April issue of the peer-reviewed Harvard journal, Journal of Cosmology.

The research papers come even as scientists at Geneva's European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) are in the midst of experiments on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) recreating conditions of the beginning of the universe.

'The two scientific papers cast shadows of suspicion over the efficacy of the Big Bang model. The scientific community may have to ponder afresh over the issue relating to the origin of the universe,' Lal told IANS here.

He also noted that CERN scientists 'are trying to jigsaw a theory which fits the conditions of the Big Bang model'.

'The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time,' he added.

In his paper 'Big Bang? A Critical Review', Lal says: 'There is a growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago.

'Indeed, the day may come when it is determined there never was a Big Bang and cosmologists of the future will only gaze back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted by so much contradictory evidence,' he adds.

According to the paper, one of the 'acid tests' relating to the validity of the Big Bang model is the 'detection of remnants of gravity waves from the earliest epoch of the universe.

'Existence of gravitational wave background, as predicted by Einstein in 1916 in his general theory of relativity, is expected from the violent early moments of the Big Bang much like the cosmic microwave background that fills the sky with radio waves from the early universe,' Lal says.

While the microwave background presumably originated 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the gravitational wave background purportedly comes directly from events in the first minute after the Big Bang, the scientist says.

'The cataclysmic Big Bang is believed to have created a flood of gravitational waves; ripples in the fabric of space-time. These gravitational waves should still fill the universe.
'However, presumably they are at a very feeble strength and cannot be detected by conventional astronomical tools. Nevertheless, they should carry information about the universe as it was in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang.

'If these waves cannot be detected, this challenges the Big Bang,' Lal maintains.

He also points out that lots of metal has been detected in distant quasars and galaxies, 'and if distance is related to age, this means that many of the oldest, most distant galaxies are metal rich; and this defies the predictions of the Big Bang'.

This means there are 'fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old over 13 billion years ago, which would make them older than the Big Bang', Lal contends.

Lal closely studied 38 research works in the areas of astrophysics, physics and cosmology before writing his paper. This is his third paper on the subject to be published in a foreign journal. The others are Origin of Life (Astrophysics and Space Science, October 2008) and Searching for Life on Habitable Planets and Moons (Journal of Cosmology, February 2010). He also has to his credit some 30 research papers published in Indian journals.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20100405/860/ttc-indian-us-scientists-question-big-ba.html

If Big Bang Theory is proven to be false, then does that mean that Steady State Theory is back in play?

Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:16 pm

Interesting article tibre... thanks for posting it Smile

Quote:

If Big Bang Theory is proven to be false, then does that mean that Steady State Theory is back in play?

I suppose that would depend on what "Steady State" means. The observable universe certainly isn't static, even if it didn't all originate from a condensed, perhaps, space-less region. I've long contended that if there was a "Big Bang" it was a localized event and not the origin of all that exists. This article tends to reinforce that opinion. I'm quite certain the LHC will provide even more incites. GO Science Exclamation


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile