|
|
Post by quest on Jan 25, 2019 5:49:51 GMT -5
Contrary to an “explosion” , with intentionality, there is a ‘Chosen method’ of creation, which is like (methods of creation) or simply laws of creation (known as scientific laws) Our Creator is a Supreme Master Chemical Mechanical Biological Engineer! Hmmm, IMO (And a Physician’s Physician)too And also Infinite In Life, and Knowledge Yes, I am sure I missed many many of our Creators talents, They are what they are. IMO Thank you Basically, the idea that “science” can prove something rests in the interpretation of the evidence that surrounds us.?.? With that in mind, it does “appear” to me that there is an Intentional (purposed) Initiator (the Creator) the presence and Need for communicating the instructions for all living replicable organisms, is all I need to be totally convinced of this analytical Conclusion, .... (). (). . |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 25, 2019 13:48:00 GMT -5
Contrary to an “explosion” , with intentionality, there is a ‘Chosen method’ of creation, which is like (methods of creation) or simply laws of creation (known as scientific laws) Our Creator is a Supreme Master Chemical Mechanical Biological Engineer! Hmmm, IMO (And a Physician’s Physician)too And also Infinite In Life, and Knowledge Yes, I am sure I missed many many of our Creators talents, They are what they are. IMO Thank you Basically, the idea that “science” can prove something rests in the interpretation of the evidence that surrounds us.?.? With that in mind, it does “appear” to me that there is an Intentional (purposed) Initiator (the Creator) the presence and Need for communicating the instructions for all living replicable organisms, is all I need to be totally convinced of this analytical Conclusion, .... (). (). . Okay. You believe that there is a creator. Can you define what that creator is like? Who made the creator etc? |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 25, 2019 14:02:04 GMT -5
Basically, the idea that “science” can prove something rests in the interpretation of the evidence that surrounds us.?.? With that in mind, it does “appear” to me that there is an Intentional (purposed) Initiator (the Creator) the presence and Need for communicating the instructions for all living replicable organisms, is all I need to be totally convinced of this analytical Conclusion, .... (). (). . Okay. You believe that there is a creator. Can you define what that creator is like? Who made the creator etc? Would you like me to repost ? OK, I will . By the way, our Creator is the “Initiator of the universe” And I think you believe the Initiator was “probability” (with an assist from our gravity?). Then where did gravity come from? If that is correct, let me know (or is that only a guess?) Thank You |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 25, 2019 14:17:06 GMT -5
Contrary to an “explosion” , with intentionality, there is a ‘Chosen method’ of creation, which is like (methods of creation) or simply laws of creation (known as scientific laws) Our Creator is a Supreme Master Chemical Mechanical Biological Engineer! Hmmm, IMO (And a Physician’s Physician)too And also Infinite In Life, and Knowledge Yes, I am sure I missed many many of our Creators talents, They are what they are. IMO Thank you Repost And Our Initiator has been communicating with those that have acknowledged they were initiated by our Initiator. Hmmmm. Ok, hey, we can certainly extrapolate that our Initiator(aka: Creator) Came from before the universe was created, therefore In order to reveal to us, a “begotten Son” who came forth from our Father (who to us is “Spirit” and infinite/incomprehensible , and yet Capable of having a personal relationship with us) Well, I did try, but this explanation is as lacking as I’m severely limited in knowing what “infinite “ entails, as it is beyond humanity, IMO TY |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jan 25, 2019 15:01:43 GMT -5
Basically, the idea that “science” can prove something rests in the interpretation of the evidence that surrounds us.?.? With that in mind, it does “appear” to me that there is an Intentional (purposed) Initiator (the Creator) the presence and Need for communicating the instructions for all living replicable organisms, is all I need to be totally convinced of this analytical Conclusion, .... (). (). . Okay. You believe that there is a creator. Can you define what that creator is like? Who made the creator etc? Who created the creator? Like time the creator is timeless and has no beginning or end. To restate Stephen Hawkings words that time has no beginning or end. What does the creator look like? I believe 'he' is what we would term a spirit, not a being like us. I don't think that there is a word to describe the creator. The creator is in another dimension if you like. We see his handiwork everywhere and in creation itself. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 26, 2019 11:37:50 GMT -5
Okay. You believe that there is a creator. Can you define what that creator is like? Who made the creator etc? Who created the creator? Like time the creator is timeless and has no beginning or end. To restate Stephen Hawkings words that time has no beginning or end. What does the creator look like? I believe 'he' is what we would term a spirit, not a being like us. I don't think that there is a word to describe the creator. The creator is in another dimension if you like. We see his handiwork everywhere and in creation itself. Is there any reason to believe that we need a creator? If time is without beginning or end, why is there need for a creator? We know what happened to form mass in our universe. It didn't require a God. If you believe there needed to be a creator to get everything we now see, then you also have to believe that the creator needs a creator. It can't be had both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 26, 2019 19:17:37 GMT -5
Who created the creator? Like time the creator is timeless and has no beginning or end. To restate Stephen Hawkings words that time has no beginning or end. What does the creator look like? I believe 'he' is what we would term a spirit, not a being like us. I don't think that there is a word to describe the creator. The creator is in another dimension if you like. We see his handiwork everywhere and in creation itself. Is there any reason to believe that we need a creator? If time is without beginning or end, why is there need for a creator? We know what happened to form mass in our universe. It didn't require a God. If you believe there needed to be a creator to get everything we now see, then you also have to believe that the creator needs a creator. It can't be had both ways. If you can’t have it both ways? , can you explain how something that exists , can exist? Do you have a “mechanism” that allows existence, to remain (in existence) ? Just wondering what is your basis for an unintentional existence, that might self-disappear ? If it’s intentional, we can understand why it remains In existence, ( because it was intended for our human consciousness to observe and study this existence) If existence wasn’t conceived to be observed, we Certainly could question what was the purpose of consciousness, ...as even if you do not recognize who the Initiator of creation Is? Ok this is enough for starters! Thanks e |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 26, 2019 21:34:34 GMT -5
yes, if things look like they are intentional, let’s accept that observation, until the burden of proof
reveals another observation! Ok?
And if things look like they were designed, can anyone prove they weren’t designed?
if we use logic to form words that have the appearance of a correct interpretation, can we accept this logic , also?
thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 27, 2019 12:22:42 GMT -5
Is there any reason to believe that we need a creator? If time is without beginning or end, why is there need for a creator? We know what happened to form mass in our universe. It didn't require a God. If you believe there needed to be a creator to get everything we now see, then you also have to believe that the creator needs a creator. It can't be had both ways. If you can’t have it both ways? , can you explain how something that exists , can exist? Do you have a “mechanism” that allows existence, to remain (in existence) ? Just wondering what is your basis for an unintentional existence, that might self-disappear ? If it’s intentional, we can understand why it remains In existence, ( because it was intended for our human consciousness to observe and study this existence) If existence wasn’t conceived to be observed, we Certainly could question what was the purpose of consciousness, ...as even if you do not recognize who the Initiator of creation Is? Ok this is enough for starters! Thanks e No. I can't and nobody can at present. No one knows why anything exists. We know how matter formed after the Big Bang, but before that we don't know. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we need to fill in the gap of our knowledge with a being that is problematic within itself. Why can't we just accept that we don't know? We don't need to bring a personal God into it because if it exists, someone had to create it and on and on. No point in that imo. |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 27, 2019 14:09:31 GMT -5
If you can’t have it both ways? , can you explain how something that exists , can exist? Do you have a “mechanism” that allows existence, to remain (in existence) ? Just wondering what is your basis for an unintentional existence, that might self-disappear ? If it’s intentional, we can understand why it remains In existence, ( because it was intended for our human consciousness to observe and study this existence) If existence wasn’t conceived to be observed, we Certainly could question what was the purpose of consciousness, ...as even if you do not recognize who the Initiator of creation Is? Ok this is enough for starters! Thanks e No. I can't and nobody can at present. No one knows why anything exists. We know how matter formed after the Big Bang, but before that we don't know. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we need to fill in the gap of our knowledge with a being that is problematic within itself. Why can't we just accept that we don't know? We don't need to bring a personal God into it because if it exists, someone had to create it and on and on. No point in that imo. Ok, in your opinion, do you think the “Initiator “ had a purpose for the existence that was created, And was the initiator a product of the material that’s was “initiated” . If the initiator was of mass, space, and time, then there was no need to create them, as they already were existing! Ya know? Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 27, 2019 14:13:07 GMT -5
In other words, creation needs a Creator that exists
Outside of material world, in order to create the materials
out of nothing , (which is quite commonly held view of science even today)
IMO
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 27, 2019 14:15:22 GMT -5
You mentioned that you believe the initiator was Energy?
Right?
Then are you redefining Energy, also?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 27, 2019 14:20:27 GMT -5
You mentioned that you believe the initiator was Energy? Right? Then are you redefining Energy, also? Thanks I will explain what I mean Energy needs mass to exist. E= m*c*c Right? Then mass was already existing , and we haven’t answered the question , who initiated mass? Hmmmm Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 27, 2019 14:31:20 GMT -5
I will explain what I mean Energy needs mass to exist. E= m*c*c Right? Then mass was already existing , and we haven’t answered the question , who initiated mass? Hmmmm Thanks The thread that won't die. Each time a new post is added, and each time it's view, we are using electrons. Electrons don't last forever you know, we risk wearing out our finite supply electrons needlessly by the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 27, 2019 14:50:02 GMT -5
Another doomsday?
all cease or else!
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 27, 2019 15:21:03 GMT -5
Basically, many people believe that there Is an uncreated “Creator” . Science can demonstrate
this evidence (as per the posts already made),
no one believes that the Creator of the Whole infinitely conceived universe, needs to be Created
by another Creator, nevertheless we endure these
missled thoughts that are currently presented ,.
Thank You
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 27, 2019 17:42:45 GMT -5
If you can’t have it both ways? , can you explain how something that exists , can exist? Thanks e No. I can't and nobody can at present. No one knows why anything exists. We know how matter formed after the Big Bang, but before that we don't know. But just because we don't know doesn't mean we need to fill in the gap of our knowledge with a being that is problematic within itself. Why can't we just accept that we don't know? We don't need to bring a personal God into it because if it exists, someone had to create it and on and on. No point in that imo.[/quote Then perhaps we all should work together to solve the problem of questions that no one in the material world can explain by using materialistic methods, Why would anyone presume that our material world came into Existence by materialistic paths? It doesn’t make Logical sense to me anyways, and neither should it make sense to people that do not perceive this “gap” of existential evidence ? ok? (Is this post worth risking an electron (?), to explore an answer?) Thank you |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 18:31:35 GMT -5
I will explain what I mean Energy needs mass to exist. E= m*c*c Right? Then mass was already existing , and we haven’t answered the question , who initiated mass? Hmmmm Thanks The thread that won't die. Each time a new post is added, and each time it's view, we are using electrons. Electrons don't last forever you know, we risk wearing out our finite supply electrons needlessly by the thread. Very interesting topic xna, we have a lot to learn about electrons. Quantum physics is turning all the electron theory we learnt on its ear. It is a bit hard to catch one and have a good look at it. Is life itself an organisation of electrons within our body mass, or is it a different energy not yet identified???. The BIG question. Steve Hawking did say that Scientists eventually will work it out, and I think that may be true. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jan 27, 2019 18:50:37 GMT -5
The thread that won't die. Each time a new post is added, and each time it's view, we are using electrons. Electrons don't last forever you know, we risk wearing out our finite supply electrons needlessly by the thread. Very interesting topic xna, we have a lot to learn about electrons. Quantum physics is turning all the electron theory we learnt on its ear. It is a bit hard to catch one and have a good look at it. Is life itself an organisation of electrons within our body mass, or is it a different energy not yet identified???. The BIG question. Steve Hawking did say that Scientists eventually will work it out, and I think that may be true. That's why only 50% of the people can be positive at any one time.🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by LOL on Jan 27, 2019 19:00:35 GMT -5
Very interesting topic xna, we have a lot to learn about electrons. Quantum physics is turning all the electron theory we learnt on its ear. It is a bit hard to catch one and have a good look at it. Is life itself an organisation of electrons within our body mass, or is it a different energy not yet identified???. The BIG question. Steve Hawking did say that Scientists eventually will work it out, and I think that may be true. That's why only 50% of the people can be positive at any one time.🤔 good one curly ! lol |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 29, 2019 16:12:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 31, 2019 4:47:51 GMT -5
many minds have attempted to connect the “dots”
in a logical progression that would demonstrate
a clear path from inorganic material to biological
organisms..
hmmm, personally I like to believe that the
proper channel would involve an organization
of these “dots” that could be understood by
those that seek such inquirings. (Yet human minds
are not designed to comprehend what this amazing process is, as it theoretically involves a maze of
haphazardly intermingling Logic with mutations,)
and the hypothesis is that that the complexity/progress of organisms is quirkily
governed by the “progress” (Logic?? Ha)
that haphazard mutations “create” .
and no one understands any such a logical path as that to be the answer to the question of a mechanicism to “create “ a mind that is capable
of profound and requiring a logical oversight? hmmm
ok, thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 31, 2019 5:05:15 GMT -5
hmmm, well perhaps Logic is developed to compensate
for the haphazard thoughts that are required to
understand natural abiogenesis?
Yet it does nothing for connecting the theoretical “dots”
on this journey. Hmm
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 31, 2019 5:17:07 GMT -5
This is such an illogical pathway to discovering logic
by depending on haphazard mutations in DNA
huh? that does not make logical sense to me
therefore I must conclude that real Logic must
supervise/and edit, our DNA, IMO
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Jan 31, 2019 5:36:23 GMT -5
DNA is the intelligent designers “blueprint” for
logical living organisms, it is a required to
help us to think properly/logically and to
avoid haphazard theories, IMO
thank you’re
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 1, 2019 23:05:06 GMT -5
In summary, if “science” wants to follow a path that
is dominated with Logical hypothesis, they need
to ditch the “theories “ that are tipping over due to
haphazard events with No purpose ?
Some day the real science will show that only Logic and truth
is acceptable in our path to knowledge IMO
hmmm
Thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 2, 2019 3:02:03 GMT -5
Here is an example of some misguided lab studies Sad that no one has called the labs on their poor research even when this knowledge has been around for at least 6 years!!! youtu.be/AwkBB2Z6914 (Hey, firemen do not cause fires!!)(they do show up however. to put out the fire). Hmmmm Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by quest on Feb 2, 2019 15:04:08 GMT -5
For obvious reasons I conclude that evolutionists
are required to pervert the concept of Logic, and that is a sham/(shame) , IMO
the main reasoning being the concept of “random” (or should we try to conceive “haphazardness”?)
whatever angle you take you run into a Logic dead end, IMO.
most evolutionists are offended by using “haphazard” events (probably cause they cannot
Invoke the elusive doctrine of probabilities?)
if that is a debatable hypothesis, please enunciate
a Logical offense/defense to that comment? Thank you .
when dealing with probabilities, we look for “random sequences of base 10 numbers “ (0-9)
which is technically drawing on a hazardous proposition, mainly that “random” sequences
will logically follow from a base 10 paradigm.
what would rule out a sequence that involves a
”infinite” base ?
That would truly give an infinite possibility of even getting the first digit in the sequence to be Logical(correct) ....and defining a probability
that small would require “infinite time” and “infinite conception “ ✅. Which pretty much eliminates
a “rationed” (rational) hypothesis to act as
a catalyst to initiate a finite probability. (As all probability would essentially be —>zero(non existent), IMO
thats way over my head. !
thank you
|
|
