Religion

[BrownFlush]

No I’ve explained the current theories on that to you too and the most likely explanation that doesn’t require an imaginary friend.

You just don’t believe in evolution because you’re not very smart and easily misled by fairytales. I don’t really see it as a useful conversation to have yet again and I got to go to work bud, so I think we are done for now.

Your explanation fell flat. Talk about imaginary. Like all your claims, beyond imagination. You have no answer.

You are the one that keeps shoehorning creation in and claiming to know about “nothing” ever existing. I’m just having an honest conversation with you about the universe and big bang theory.
I suggest you look at the conservation of mass. Yes currently people talk like matter can not be created or destroyed as far as we can tell, so in some ways it does contribute to an eternal universe, but even that isn’t concrete evidence the universe is eternal. View attachment 471507
This does not teach that something came from nothing, it is just the history of how the universe has expanded into measurable space and time.

No doubt the Universe is constantly expanding. Matter can be destroyed. Thus, not eternal.
But, there had to be a first cause. An uncaused cause.
An endless chain of dependent causes is no answer.
It was a Big Bang. God spoke and bang it happened. That Bang has order which requires design. Order cannot come from disorder.
You're trying your best (again) to reason that no intelligence was required to produce and arrange all this,(not to mention the human body) and that no power was needed to get this thing going and keep it running and that all this is the result of blind chance. Sure.
Don't you smile indulgently at me when I tell you.... Hamlet was not written by Shakespeare at all, but was the result of an explosion in a print shop. Don't forget. The print shop came from something else exploding, too.

 

[BrownFlush]

You just don’t believe in evolution because you’re not very smart and easily misled by fairytales.

You believe in evolution because you're not very smart and you are a fairy.
There. That outta take care of the fact that you are not

just having an honest conversation with you

 

[El Correcto]

Your explanation fell flat. Talk about imaginary. Like all your claims, beyond imagination. You have no answer.

No doubt the Universe is constantly expanding. Matter can be destroyed. Thus, not eternal.
But, there had to be a first cause. An uncaused cause.
An endless chain of dependent causes is no answer.
It was a Big Bang. God spoke and bang it happened. That Bang has order which requires design. Order cannot come from disorder.
You're trying your best (again) to reason that no intelligence was required to produce and arrange all this,(not to mention the human body) and that no power was needed to get this thing going and keep it running and that all this is the result of blind chance. Sure.
Don't you smile indulgently at me when I tell you.... Hamlet was not written by Shakespeare at all, but was the result of an explosion in a print shop. Don't forget. The print shop came from something else exploding, too.

You just declaring matter can be destroyed doesn’t make it so, all current evidence points to that not being true.

Then you’re just claiming there has to be a first cause but you can’t explain why there has to be a first cause without making other unfounded and sometimes just straight up incorrect assumptions.

None of what I am saying is attacking your religious beliefs, Christians can and do believe in these things and recognize science does a far better job of explaining the material than any religion does.
The concept of god and things outside of our understanding can coexist with our understanding, but it needs to stay in it’s lane and quit trying to explain what science explains far better.

 

[BrownFlush]

You just declaring matter can be destroyed doesn’t make it so, all current evidence points to that not being true.

Then you’re just claiming there has to be a first cause but you can’t explain why there has to be a first cause without making other unfounded and sometimes just straight up incorrect assumptions.

None of what I am saying is attacking your religious beliefs, Christians can and do believe in these things and recognize science does a far better job of explaining the material than any religion does.
The concept of god and things outside of our understanding can coexist with our understanding, but it needs to stay in it’s lane and quit trying to explain what science explains far better.

Matter/physical can be destroyed/changed, but remains constant. Looks different but is the same. This means matter is not eternal.
Eternal has no beginning or end. It also does not change.Firewood becomes ashes. The body becomes dust.

I have to explain why there has to be a first cause to you? When talking about something that is not eternal,(had a beginning) it's no assumption to state as fact something "caused'' it to be when it did not exist before.

There is no battle with the scripture and scientific fact. As far as explaining goes, the Genesis account does not have a clear reference to a creation out of nothing. It's assumed rather than explicitly taught, and it's the context which distinguishes these particular instances as such.
This creation was not from pre-existing matter is made clear by the New Testament. In Romans 4:17, Paul speaks of God who “calls into existence the things that do not exist.” Hebrews says, “By faith we understand that the world was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (11:3).

 

[El Correcto]

Matter/physical can be destroyed/changed, but remains constant. Looks different but is the same. This means matter is not eternal.
Eternal has no beginning or end. It also does not change.Firewood becomes ashes. The body becomes dust.

I have to explain why there has to be a first cause to you? When talking about something that is not eternal,(had a beginning) it's no assumption to state as fact something "caused'' it to be when it did not exist before.

There is no battle with the scripture and scientific fact. As far as explaining goes, the Genesis account does not have a clear reference to a creation out of nothing. It's assumed rather than explicitly taught, and it's the context which distinguishes these particular instances as such.
This creation was not from pre-existing matter is made clear by the New Testament. In Romans 4:17, Paul speaks of God who “calls into existence the things that do not exist.” Hebrews says, “By faith we understand that the world was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (11:3).

you’re just declaring matter can be destroyed again, that is incorrect.
It doesn’t matter what shape matter is currently in, you didn’t destroy the matter itself you destroyed its current state.

 

[El Correcto]

Matter/physical can be destroyed/changed, but remains constant. Looks different but is the same. This means matter is not eternal.
Eternal has no beginning or end. It also does not change.Firewood becomes ashes. The body becomes dust.

I have to explain why there has to be a first cause to you? When talking about something that is not eternal,(had a beginning) it's no assumption to state as fact something "caused'' it to be when it did not exist before.

There is no battle with the scripture and scientific fact. As far as explaining goes, the Genesis account does not have a clear reference to a creation out of nothing. It's assumed rather than explicitly taught, and it's the context which distinguishes these particular instances as such.
This creation was not from pre-existing matter is made clear by the New Testament. In Romans 4:17, Paul speaks of God who “calls into existence the things that do not exist.” Hebrews says, “By faith we understand that the world was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (11:3).

Firewood becomes a lot more than ashes, you know like energy you use to cook, the smoke that comes off it, etc.
Do you literally believe wood just becomes ashes or that a body just becomes dust.
That’s not correct either, probably why you think matter can be destroyed.

 

[BrownFlush]

Firewood becomes a lot more than ashes, you know like energy you use to cook, the smoke that comes off it, etc.
Do you literally believe wood just becomes ashes or that a body just becomes dust.
That’s not correct either, probably why you think matter can be destroyed.

I stated matter can be changed. What is destroyed is its original state/form. That happening is why its original character is not eternal.(Not to mention matter has a beginning was disqualifies it from being eternal) I did not say wood "just" becomes ashes. Didn't know I needed to state all the things it could become. I see you didn't state treated lumber.
Ecc.12:7 Dust..Of course the mass or space won't be the same after the worms get done eating you.

 

[BrownFlush]

you’re just declaring matter can be destroyed again, that is incorrect.
It doesn’t matter what shape matter is currently in, you didn’t destroy the matter itself you destroyed its current state.

See #8867

 

[El Correcto]

I stated matter can be changed. What is destroyed is its original state/form. That happening is why its original character is not eternal.(Not to mention matter has a beginning was disqualifies it from being eternal) I did not say wood "just" becomes ashes. Didn't know I needed to state all the things it could become. I see you didn't state treated lumber.
Ecc.12:7 Dust..Of course the mass or space won't be the same after the worms get done eating you.

Now you’re just making up a new phrase you’re gonna throw around “its character isn’t eternal”.
It doesn’t have to be, mass-energy equivalency. Even if you “destroy matter” or convert it to energy the universe will still maintain the same amount of mass and energy. We aren’t discussing wether or not matter is eternal, the original point was could the universe be eternal, mass-energy equivalency supports that it could be.

You just said the universe can’t be eternal because wood burns to ash and bodies turn to dust, that is nonsense reason for thinking the universe can’t be eternal.

 

[BrownFlush]

Now you’re just making up a new phrase you’re gonna throw around “its character isn’t eternal”.
It doesn’t have to be, mass-energy equivalency. Even if you “destroy matter” or convert it to energy the universe will still maintain the same amount of mass and energy. We aren’t discussing wether or not matter is eternal, the original point was could the universe be eternal, mass-energy equivalency supports that it could be.

You just said the universe can’t be eternal because wood burns to ash and bodies turn to dust, that is nonsense reason for thinking the universe can’t be eternal.

Don't talk about "making up things". I'm not making up anything. Character/state whatever.

You obviously do not under what the word eternal means. If something had a beginning, it is not eternal. Eternal has no beginning. It aways was. Matter/mass/space/time had a beginning.

No. I said the fact that mass would/can change from its original form/state/character, that would mean that event changed its original state, making that(character/state/) not eternal, not to mention it had a beginning.

So, all existing matter has come from pre-existing matter?
Matter does not have knowledge or understanding. Matter by its very definition is "inanimate" and "lifeless." While there may be life associated with matter, the matter itself is not the life (compare a body without life.) Matter does not have intelligence. It does not control, direct, or modify.
Gen 1:1 Space, mass, and time were created and had a beginning. First verse in the Bible. There is purposeful progress in the creation account. In the days of the creation you can see a process in the Genesis account. An "appropriate" preparation for the succeeding phase. When you sit back and look at how it was done, it was done all for the ultimate purpose of providing a suitable home for man.
The stages in Genesis cannot be made to fit the sequences of your evolution pals and their way of reading the time scale.. That's a fact has been a constant source of frustration for your atheist pals and evolutionists.

 

[El Correcto]

Don't talk about "making up things". I'm not making up anything.

Hmm, let’s see if this holds true.

Matter/mass/space/time had a beginning.

You’re making this up, that isn’t correct. We don’t understand the early universe, doesn’t mean it has a beginning.

No. I said the fact that mass would/can change from its original form/state/character, that would mean that event changed its original state, making that(character/state/) not eternal, not to mention it had a beginning.

Doesn’t matter if its state isn’t eternal, the building blocks of matter could be eternal.
I’m not arguing it is eternal, I’m just saying you’re wrong about declaring it isn’t eternal.

So, all existing matter has come from pre-existing matter?

We don’t know but it appears energy can create matter in laboratory conditions and probably the conditions of the early universe we know a bit about. That is where I was taught matter came from initially. Matter can create energy and energy create matter, you’re not “destroying” it when you do this.

Matter does not have knowledge or understanding. Matter by its very definition is "inanimate" and "lifeless." While there may be life associated with matter, the matter itself is not the life (compare a body without life.) Matter does not have intelligence. It does not control, direct, or modify.
Gen 1:1 Space, mass, and time were created and had a beginning. First verse in the Bible. There is purposeful progress in the creation account. In the days of the creation you can see a process in the Genesis account. An "appropriate" preparation for the succeeding phase. When you sit back and look at how it was done, it was done all for the ultimate purpose of providing a suitable home for man.

This entire paragraph is schizo babble, I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make, you keep trying to do these ham fisted attempts to pivot into evolution without learning your lesson on “the beginning” and “something came from nothing”.

Correct your mistakes first, then we can talk about your evolution nonsense.

 

[BrownFlush]

@El Correcto
You want to have a pissing contest or a discussion?

You "declare" I'm wrong when you have stated matter "could be" eternal. I stated the reasons that matter cannot be eternal or "defined as eternal". Next?

Ok. So what? I didn't say it was destroyed. Its original, let's see, how do you want it said, not character, state, yeah that's it, state is destroyed. Matter can make energy all day but it doesn't make life.

Schizo babble? Ham fisted? I'm not learning a "lesson" from you at all. Take the time and check out what is said or don't.

Correct your attitude. The only mistake I made was thinking you could have rational discussion. You are right, though. Evolution is nonsense.

 

[El Correcto]

You "declare" I'm wrong when you have stated matter "could be" eternal. I stated the reasons that matter cannot be eternal or "defined as eternal". Next?

The original argument was about an eternal universe, you pivoted into matter, I corrected you on how matter functions, you claim you can “destroy matter” but that isn’t exactly correct, you can convert matter into energy and energy can be converted into matter in the right conditions. Mass-energy equivalency. A “law of nature” as you like to call your nonsense.

Ok. So what? I didn't say it was destroyed. Its original, let's see, how do you want it said, not character, state, yeah that's it, state is destroyed. Matter can make energy all day but it doesn't make life.

Yeah actually you said matter can’t be eternal because it can be destroyed. That was one of your arguments against an eternal universe.
You correct your mistakes and we can move onto abiogenesis and evolution.

Schizo babble? Ham fisted? I'm not learning a "lesson" from you at all. Take the time and check out what is said or don't.

Correct your attitude. The only mistake I made was thinking you could have rational discussion. You are right, though. Evolution is nonsense.

Making two unfounded assumption to arrive at the conclusion your imaginary friend is real and created the universe is not a good start to have a rational discussion. It’s sad that that’s what you think this is.

 

[BrownFlush]

A “law of nature” as you like to call your nonsense.

Need to back off your flame up homo attitude. We can do this, but there's no nonsense like your nonsense.

 

[El Correcto]

Need to back off your flame up homo attitude. We can do this, but there's no nonsense like your nonsense.

I’m glad you’re done spitting misinformation about reality to bolster your religious beliefs and have just fallen back on what you’re good at. Being hateful.

 

[BrownFlush]

The original argument was about an eternal universe, you pivoted into matter, I corrected you on how matter functions, you claim you can “destroy matter” but that isn’t exactly correct, you can convert matter into energy and energy can be converted into matter in the right conditions. Mass-energy equivalency. A “law of nature” as you like to call your nonsense.


Yeah actually you said matter can’t be eternal because it can be destroyed. That was one of your arguments against an eternal universe.
You correct your mistakes and we can move onto abiogenesis and evolution.


Making two unfounded assumption to arrive at the conclusion your imaginary friend is real and created the universe is not a good start to have a rational discussion. It’s sad that that’s what you think this is.

Original argument. I'll try a third time to get it off the ground. There was no pivot. My point about destroyed (that's not annihilated, gone forever) was the original state, form, character can be changed, thus making "that" which is destroyed. (from it's original state)

You correct your attitude and we go anywhere you like.

Imaginary friend is where I start. If you can't consider the material, and compare it to your imaginary madness, have a good one.

 

[El Correcto]

Original argument. I'll try a third time to get it off the ground. There was no pivot. My point about destroyed (that's not annihilated, gone forever) was the original state, form, character can be changed, thus making "that" which is destroyed. (from it's original state)

You correct your attitude and we go anywhere you like.

Imaginary friend is where I start. If you can't consider the material, compare it to your imaginary madness, have a good one.

Okay and I already explained to you multiple times that your argument is dumb and does nothing to prove the universe isn’t eternal.
You can’t prove it had a beginning or was “created”.

 

[BrownFlush]

Okay and I already explained to you multiple times that your argument is dumb and does nothing to prove the universe isn’t eternal.
You can’t prove it had a beginning or was “created”.

You've explained nothing, much less multiple times.
What point have you failed to make? Matter is eternal?
Again, the definition of eternal is it has no beginning or end. It always was and always will be.
Matter had a beginning. It's not eternal.
You don't have an argument. Talk about dumb.

 

[rickyb]

i want to show you guys a satanic apocalyptic future

@BrownFlush

 

[El Correcto]

You've explained nothing, much less multiple times.
What point have you failed to make? Matter is eternal?
Again, the definition of eternal is it has no beginning or end. It always was and always will be.
Matter had a beginning. It's not eternal.
You don't have an argument. Talk about dumb.

The point wasn’t matter was eternal that’s what you instantly clung too because you know you don’t have a good solid argument for the “beginning” of the universe, universe not being eternal, for “nothing” or for your imaginary friend.