Atoms as God

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is this addressed to me? if so, why should i have anything to fear? for i contend that science and the Bible are harmonious, therefore my faith can really only get stronger for the more science progresses, the more apparent it is, that the scriptures are scientifically sound, the above reference to the universe having a beginning is a good case. t ...[text shortened]... ve to fear, is non science, dogma and postulation proffering and masquerading itself as science!

Robbie you are even more bonkers than i thought you were already. To even entertain the idea that the scriptures are scientifically sound because the phrase 'in the beginning' makes a good case for the start of the universe is laughable.

The Bible is a book of stories, nothing more, nothing less. And where do all stories start? In the beginning!!! They don't start in the middle, and they don't start at the end. They start 'in the beginning'!!!!

Everything has a beginning, my life, this post, a game of chess, a car journey, a day, a year. If people want to belive that God created the universe then he would have to start at the beginning.

The searching of scriptures to find matches with what science now knows reminds me of Nostradmus's alleged prophecies and the so called Bible codes. Utter rubbish.

So we have science reference number one from the Bible. What more delights do you have in store for us?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Robbie you are even more bonkers than i thought you were already. To even entertain the idea that the scriptures are scientifically sound because the phrase 'in the beginning' makes a good case for the start of the universe is laughable.

The Bible is a book of stories, nothing more, nothing less. And where do all stories start? In the beginning!!! The ence reference number one from the Bible. What more delights do you have in store for us?

what is laughable is your attempt to discredit this sound testimony. when was it the science finally came to the realization that the universe had a beginning, 1950s ? 1960s? 1970s? 1980s? Yet it was there, crystallized in the sacred pronouncements of God, since time immemorial!

the ancient writer could have made the same mistake a science, that the universe had always existed, but such inspired wisdom cannot so readily be refuted by the words of mere science and the reasoning's of mortals!

It is not a scientific text book, but when it does touch on matters of science it is well and truly accurate, as this little episode demonstrates. i could find a plethora of other such cases in the sacred pronouncements, would you also cry, these are stories, and unscientific at that! Look my friend, to you they are simply stories, that is fine, to us they are something more profound and we find this kind of unsubstantiated statement quite amusing, for no one who has studied the words of truth could come to this conclusion!

i also feel that Nostradamus was a charlatan and although i have had very limited contact with the Bible codes, i feel it could just be another vain attempt to focus attention on what is not stated, rather than what is! you want more evidence of sound scientific principles, then behold and wonder as i open a treasure trove of unimagined delights and wisdom to you! 😀

I apologize for my spell checker, even though i have added the British dictionary, firefox seems reluctant to be re colonized.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is this addressed to me? if so, why should i have anything to fear? for i contend that science and the Bible are harmonious, therefore my faith can really only get stronger for the more science progresses, the more apparent it is, that the scriptures are scientifically sound, the above reference to the universe having a beginning is a good case. t ...[text shortened]... ve to fear, is non science, dogma and postulation proffering and masquerading itself as science!

Sorry, yes, it was for you.

I thought you wanted my view in the matter. But as it is about science, I would like to give you the answer in the Science Forum.

Now you don't seem to be interested of my answer anymore...? I thought you criticized me for not giving the scientific answer in the Spiritual Forum, despite the fact that it is not spiritual at all. I can assure you that I'm not giving the answer that you expect, but a quite other one. Food for brain. Gasoline for the fire.

I would like to have spiritual things discussed in Spritiutal Forum and scientific things in the Science Forum. That's all.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Sorry, yes, it was for you.

I thought you wanted my view in the matter. But as it is about science, I would like to give you the answer in the Science Forum.

Now you don't seem to be interested of my answer anymore...? I thought you criticized me for not giving the scientific answer in the Spiritual Forum, despite the fact that it is not spiritual a ...[text shortened]... things discussed in Spritiutal Forum and scientific things in the Science Forum. That's all.

Fabian, it quite simple, according to contemporary scientific consensus, did the universe have a beginning, yes or no or don't know? if you want to fill in the details then that's also fine.🙂

you may go to the science forum and post til your hearts content 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Fabian, it quite simple, according to contemporary scientific consensus, did the universe have a beginning, yes or no or don't know? if you want to fill in the details then that's also fine.🙂

No, no beginning. I tell you more in the Science Forum if you put your question there.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, no beginning. I tell you more in the Science Forum if you put your question there.

actually i think it may be in vain, proper nob tried to explain some stuff but i never understood a word hardly, you may be correct, i would not understand it 🙁

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i think it may be in vain, proper nob tried to explain some stuff but i never understood a word hardly, you may be correct, i would not understand it 🙁

Try harder then; for starters, we still have not a clue😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Try harder then; for starters, we still have not a clue😵

are you sure beetle? Fabian sates that there is no beginning, but i suspect it is hinged on some scientific pre condition or worse an assumption, although i cannot be certain at this stage, Scriabin says much the same, although he generally states that the consensus is in favour of the universe having a beginning, Proper Noob also says that we do not know, but then quotes some stuff just so that he can disprove that God does not exist, while at the same time stating that the universe has always existed. its a kind of philisophical argument i think, you know, no time, therfore it cannot be said to be subject to time, therefore it cannot be said to properly have a beginning, something like that i think.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i think it may be in vain, proper nob tried to explain some stuff but i never understood a word hardly, you may be correct, i would not understand it 🙁

I've given my view in the matter in your newly formed thread in the Science Forum.

You have to be openminded if you want to understand the theory of the Universe and Supraverse. When I was young I couldn't for my life accept that it was possible to take a root of a negative number. I couldn't accept it. But after a while I pretended that it worked, and a whole new world of complex numbers and immaginary number system emerges. Suddenly I could solve a totally new class of mathematical problems. I progressed.

Cosmogony isn't an easy subject. I did some courses at University level, I often get questions like this from interested people. I have very much difficulties with fundamental christians who cannot see the splendor of the creation. They are fixed by the words of Genisis, and therefore are blind to new thoughts. They think they 'Know' when they infact don't want to know.

Well. There are a lot of books in cosmogony in 'easy' language. Well worth reading!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you sure beetle? Fabian sates that there is no beginning, but i suspect it is hinged on some scientific pre condition or worse an assumption, although i cannot be certain at this stage, Scriabin says much the same, although he generally states that the consensus is in favour of the universe having a beginning, Proper Noob also says that we do no ...[text shortened]... to time, therefore it cannot be said to properly have a beginning, something like that i think.

I am sure; since there is no such a thing as a scientific consensus, we are free to assume that the current scientific facts and evidence are just enabling us to offer theories. Well, our knowledge of Today cannot offer an holistic explanation of the nature of the universe; and mind you, the explanation offered by our friend Proper Knob regarding that oldie interpretation of the nature and the properties of the universe by Hawking is similar to the properties that some religious personages attribute to "god".

By the way, the concept of Supraverse as Fabian mentioned it at that other thread is quite similar to the QBLH concept of the Jacob’s Ladder;

So I am sure that currently we do not have a clue😵