Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Link(s)?
If it is that important to you be my guest to run through the many pages of my account to find them. I don't care enough to take the time. I know that many on here know that I have presented it numerous times to provide evidence to support the beginning of the universe.
Twist what? Why is the universe coming from non-existence to existence different from Hawaii coming from non-existence to existence?
Interesting reading, thanks. From your link:
I would, just like I would say that a tree is made visible even if there is no one there to see it. That was your original claim remember? That "made visible" and "revealed" aren't the same thing.I would say yes. Why wouldn't you?
Sorry, if there was so much evidence I thought it was easy to link. Maybe I am wrong.
Interesting reading, thanks. From your link:
If a big bang is permitted by the laws of physics to happen once, such an event should be able to happen more than once. In recent years a growing posse of cosmologists has proposed models of the universe involving many big bangs, perhaps even an infinite number of them. In the model known as eternal inflation there is no ultimate origin of the entire system, although individual pocket universes within the total assemblage still have a distinct origin.
Davis never addresses this model and in fact, specifically states he is going to ignore it to focus on only one model, where a single universe comes into being.
So there are cosmologists right now who think that the model I proposed may be right. Here is a good starter on that model. Cyclic Universe
No, I'm hypothesizing the same thing the Cyclic Model of the universe does, that the universe as an entity may have existed eternally but this physical incarnation of the universe has only been around for ~14B years.No, I'm not deliberately misconstruing what you're saying, it's just that I'm not clear on what you're saying.
I don't think you're claiming that the universe is more than 14-15 billion years old, are you?
No, I'm hypothesizing the same thing the Cyclic Model of the universe does, that the universe as an entity may have existed eternally but this physical incarnation of the universe has only been around for ~14B years.
Here ya go:
1. The universe had a beginning.
2. The universe started from nothing.
3. The visible universe is made up of the invisible.
4. The universe is fine tuned not only for life as we know it but for the universe to exist at all.
5. God claimed there were laws for the universe.
6 Fine tuning of the earth itself.
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose." Richard Dawkins
“living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." Richard Lewontin
Francisco Ayala " The functional design of organisms and their features would .. seem to argue for the existence of a designer. It was Darwin's greatest accomplishment [however] to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent." from "Darwin's Greatest Discovery"
My bad, it is a mistake by KJV. Most other versions of the Bible it isn't and the word in question, shamayim, can be translated as either singular or plural.Funny ... he was honest enough to admit it.
Why can't you?
I don't know. I'm not a physicist. I wasn't even sure that this particular model of the universe existed until I Googled it after thinking about it earlier in the thread. It simply seemed like a reasonable possibility, one of many.Your welcome and thank you for your link as well.
Considering your model I'd like to ask you how this occurs considering the second law of thermodynamics?
Not evidence. (see the Zeus example).
What do you mean not Biblical?Neither evidence, nor Biblical.
Why?Not evidence.
Statistical fallacy. Is the lottery "fine tuned" for the winners?
No he didn't. If creative interpretation like that is allowed, Nostradamus got many more things right than the Bible.
Right, fallacy of a fallacy.See #4 above.
Really? Even you subscribe to the dishonest practice of quote mining?
I don't know. I'm not a physicist. I wasn't even sure that this particular model of the universe existed until I Googled it after thinking about it earlier in the thread. It simply seemed like a reasonable possibility, one of many.
What? That is a little weird. Are you saying that the Bible doesn't make that claim?
The way in which you interpret the Bible, it could claim anything you want it to.
No, the universe did not create anything. Nor was the universe created. It has always existed. It expands and contracts. This particular expansion/contraction cycle has lasted ~14B years so far. That's what this particular model of the universe hypothesizes.The universe created this physical incarnation of the universe? I'm not following you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?