Did Nothing Create Everything?

[SetiAlpha6]

The problem that you're going to have with scientists is that you'll need to to provide convincing evidence that a historical event must have been due to God, at least at the level of more likely than not. Probably that means that you'll need to show that your chosen historical event (a) actually occurred in the way you claim it did, and (b) could not have come about by natural means. It's a high hurdle, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

It is a working hypothesis in process. Prophecy might be able to pull that off. What do you think?

Only if God is not affecting physical things in the natural world, which pretty much rules out the sort of Gods people tend to worship. For instance, if God answers prayers by making physical changes in the world, then science will be able to detect those changes, and they will thus be proxy evidence for God's existence. But you know what? Studies of the efficacy of prayer have been carried out by scientists, and the results have been no better than placebo. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist, of course. It just means that he doesn't seem to be answering prayers - at least not in any way that skews the usual statistics of, for example, recovery from fatal illnesses, as far as we can tell.

My Dad was healed by God through prayer.

What strikes me as strange is that this All Powerful God of yours is so keen to hide himself away from his Creation. Surely, if he was so keen for us all to Believe in Him, he could come right out and convince us fairly easily that he is real. Why doesn't he do that, do you think? Why does he rely on us drawing dubious inferences from the existence of split rocks in Arabia, instead?

God has revealed Himself in many ways, to millions of people, and is, of course, still doing so today.

And there's scholarly consensus that this real mountain is undoubtedly the location of the acts of the Abrahamic God that you speak of, is there? Why haven't we seen headline news proclaiming that Proof of God has been found at last? Why haven't all the Buddhists converted to Judaism in the face of this marvellous convincing evidence?

More Bible Scholars are coming around to this viewpoint all the time. It takes time, because no one wants to make a mistake on this and end up with egg on their face.

You know, I've seen lots of split rocks in my time. It has occurred to me that - just maybe - rocks can be split by natural processes. But no, that can't be right. Only God could split a rock!

Yes, of course natural processes can do these kinds of things. It needs to be studied more. Certainly scientists could find out where the water originated from. Right? There should be a break of some kind below the Split in the Rock. Which allowed pressurized water to escape from an underground reservoir over the length of time it would take to create all of the erosion there. If an underground reservoir was found, that could indicate natural processes were involved. Whether or not God broke the Rock in half to release the pressure, would be another matter. It needs to be studied more by trained and experienced scientists who specialize in these things.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I've seen that guy before, but for 48 min should have some kinda' info.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex, what are you basing this on?
Please prove your claims.

My post sort to demonstrate to some degree how "probably" and "it is thought" which are casual supposition turn into "irrefutable evidence"
Something you appear to being doing.
The main evidence is the absence of copper children's toys in the ancient grave sites yet to be found.
You have found a rock with a split, and first assume it must be "your rock" etc etc etc and even if it may be so the point that you just can't understand is nothing you offer proves there is a god...let's say the rock is there the water at some point flowed out that does not prove God it proves perhaps that ancient folk found a rock which when struck opened and water flowed out which does not prove there is a god. Now get a superman comic find a drawing of the statue of liberty take a photo of the statue of liberty throw your photo on the table and announce "Here is proof of superman".

You may also want to offer evidence that Moses was a real character...there is no evidence to suggest that he was real in fact I think you may find scholars believe him to be mythical.
And I guess you will say "But it's in the bible" to which the only reply can be "given the huge number of mistakes in the bible it has proved to be too unreliable to be offered in support of any proposition whatsoever"
You can not prove God and most importantly you can't prove that you could ever know what he was thinking or what he expected...humans create gods Gods do not create humans...your ingrained belief leaves you totally incapable of appreciating any view that is opposite to yours...you refuse to consider that Jesus can only be a myth based upon ma y similar myths that came before...and that is real evidence ...some 15 human gods before Jesus all based in astrology all the same and you dont think Jesus was just another made up human god...honestly mate that is ignoring reality. You are not interested in real evidence that brings it home that your belief is in a myth so you won't even look...well I have looked and I am afraid that evidence will not go away even if you refuse to look at it...I have said many times and you prove the point...you will never change belief with facts...And you refuse to answer any question as to why so many human gods before Jesus all the same...And refusing to address that one question tells me that you are not interested in the slightest as to where the truth lays...you are only interested in standing before a croud of similarly deluded folk and lieing, and it is lieing when you both corrupt the truth or ignore the truth, all to present as a scholar whilst not recognising you are ego driven seeking approval from the mob. Seriously take a long look and ask if that is a good roll model for your children.


Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Please provide more evidence for these claims.

You have the artists impression what more do you need?
Alex

 

[billvon]

And that a pre-biology system would have to be able to keep that natural tendency in check, for perhaps millions of years, before a biological system could develop to keep this natural tendency in check by specified order, or design, in the same way that a single cell organism can.

But this happens right now. Disordered salt lakes organize themselves into beautifully organized salt crystals without being alive. The Giant's Causeway is hundreds of thousands of perfectly organized hexagons coming from disordered lava - but again, no life. Just physics.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I get a note that this video is blocked on copywrite grounds. Not your fault of course but I would have liked to watch it as I like that stuff.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

My Dad was healed by God through prayer.

I am happy that your Dad was healed..tell me..did you rely only on prayer or did he see a doctor?

Apparently statistics were gathered about the results where people were prayed for or not...which showed if you were prayed for and the person knew this their chances of recovery became less than those who were not prayed for...you could see how that could work..if people are praying for you it would destroy your confidence in a recovery.

If we all prayed that all war cease do you think that could work? If we all prayed that blind people could see do you think that could work? If we all prayed that Jesus appears do you think that could work? If we all prayed that xxx xxx do you think that could work?

Why don't you ring in and talk to these folk.

Alex

 

[billvon]

My Dad was healed by God through prayer.

Yep. And similarly you can be healed after praying to Satan. But that's more just that people are sometimes healed.

Yes, of course natural processes can do these kinds of things. It needs to be studied more. Certainly scientists could find out where the water originated from. Right? There should be a break of some kind below the Split in the Rock.

Or there was a microscopic flaw in the top of the rock. And water got into it, and froze, and made the flaw a millimeter wider. And then a few hundred thousand years passed. Scientists have seen this happen over and over again.

 

[Seattle]

Yes but that is precisely what seems to my mind something of a non-explanation.

How can you have quantum fluctuations unless you have at least:

a) space in which these fluctuations can occur (if the universe started from a singularity then there is no such space at t=0) and

b) existing laws of physics, to determine the behaviour and properties of these fluctuations?

So he seems to be saying that before the universe began there were laws of physics. Einstein's God, in fact.

The BB doesn't address the beginning of the Universe. It's an unknown. One Universe could have ended resulting in a new Universe (or many other possibilities).

I think he is just positing that there is no "nothing".

 

[SetiAlpha6]

My post sort to demonstrate to some degree how "probably" and "it is thought" which are casual supposition turn into "irrefutable evidence"
Something you appear to being doing.
The main evidence is the absence of copper children's toys in the ancient grave sites yet to be found.
You have found a rock with a split, and first assume it must be "your rock" etc etc etc and even if it may be so the point that you just can't understand is nothing you offer proves there is a god...let's say the rock is there the water at some point flowed out that does not prove God it proves perhaps that ancient folk found a rock which when struck opened and water flowed out which does not prove there is a god. Now get a superman comic find a drawing of the statue of liberty take a photo of the statue of liberty throw your photo on the table and announce "Here is proof of superman".

You may also want to offer evidence that Moses was a real character...there is no evidence to suggest that he was real in fact I think you may find scholars believe him to be mythical.
And I guess you will say "But it's in the bible" to which the only reply can be "given the huge number of mistakes in the bible it has proved to be too unreliable to be offered in support of any proposition whatsoever"
You can not prove God and most importantly you can't prove that you could ever know what he was thinking or what he expected...humans create gods Gods do not create humans...your ingrained belief leaves you totally incapable of appreciating any view that is opposite to yours...you refuse to consider that Jesus can only be a myth based upon ma y similar myths that came before...and that is real evidence ...some 15 human gods before Jesus all based in astrology all the same and you dont think Jesus was just another made up human god...honestly mate that is ignoring reality. You are not interested in real evidence that brings it home that your belief is in a myth so you won't even look...well I have looked and I am afraid that evidence will not go away even if you refuse to look at it...I have said many times and you prove the point...you will never change belief with facts...And you refuse to answer any question as to why so many human gods before Jesus all the same...And refusing to address that one question tells me that you are not interested in the slightest as to where the truth lays...you are only interested in standing before a croud of similarly deluded folk and lieing, and it is lieing when you both corrupt the truth or ignore the truth, all to present as a scholar whilst not recognising you are ego driven seeking approval from the mob. Seriously take a long look and ask if that is a good roll model for your children.


Alex

Supposedly Cadmus was a holy figure who took the form of a man and then ascended into heaven.

I have not researched him exhaustively yet, but after checking him out quickly, so far I am not persuaded that he had much at all in common with Jesus Christ.

In what ways is he like Jesus?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Supposedly Cadmus was a holy figure who took the form of a man and then ascended into heaven.

I have not researched him exhaustively yet, but after checking him out quickly, so far I am not persuaded that he had much at all in common with Jesus Christ.

In what ways is he like Jesus?

May I suggest you start here
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/the...he-solar-messiahs-theology-religion-essay.php

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It seems human gods were built on astrology, the 25 th December seems to be the birth day selected because that is the percieved day that the Sun is "born"...the death of the Sun..in winter it "dies" and seems to remain "dead" for three days...and we can perhaps understand why all the human gods including Jesus have this feature in the mythology. The "wise men" are the "three kings" in the constalation of Orion who line up with Sirius the "Bethleham star" to point where the Sun will be born on the 25 th December. Also the Sun also will be on the "cross" early morning which you can't actually see but certainly the Eygiptians could extrapolate such. It also seems that the Sun on the cross is best observed (or extrapolated) from the region of the great pyramid (I have looked on a planetarium for the time but have yet to refine things such that we can be reasonably certain of when the myth was first written) but it seems reasonably certain because of this one aspect that the myths originated from the astronomy conducted by the Eygiptians at that specific location...but as I said more exacting work with planetarium software is required to confirm the Eygiptians invented the myth...but where the myth originated is somewhat irrelevant in so far as it was used in various forms as the foundation of the various human gods with Jesus coming at the tail end.

The repetition can only suggest the myth was a standard way of inventing a human god.

So it is clear the myths had to do with paralleling the human god with the Sun who had been worshipped as God in earlier times ...the 12 followers are clearly a reference to the 12 constellations of the zodiac for example,birthday, death and rising after three days..it can't all be coincidence or the work of the devil.

The link I gave you is the tip of the iceberg...folk like yourself become preoccupied with the Hebrew discussion etc and get tired up there without stepping back to look at the big picture which is one of Sun worship and astrology and repeating the same human god format.

If you are so inquisitive and looking for evidence of God perhaps you should become familiar with the aspect of Sun worship and the astrology...heck that circle on many crosses it the ring of the zodiac..the Christian fish is reference to an age...

My view is simple...the history suggests beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus was just more of the myth that was based in astrology.
That is from real evidence..the human gods are recorded and you can read their attributes...so simple really.

Now why did christianity spread..it was adopted by the Romans as a way of controlling the rebels in the "holy" lands...they promoted an image that would favour Rome...And it spread thru the empire because it was allowed to and any other cult could not they controlled the roads you know.

You cannot examine any history if the only thing you refer to is the bible but if you look at just the stuff I suggest you may start to realise the biblical account is circular ..and you cant use what it says to prove what it says...whereas all the stuff I know is out there is independent of the bible and the researchers are different for each human god.

You seem a little different to so many Christians that I run into so I hope you can look at what I point out objectively...And as I said that link is a start as there is much much more that expands upon the premise and offers hard evidence that the Jesus myth was old hat well before whoever used it to build the Jesus myth.

And all I can say is good luck managing all the evidence that will tell you that you have been conned to believe a myth was true.

If you can fault any of it please point to what aspect you find difficult and I will supply hopefully mountains of evidence... because there is more than enough you see...it is so compelling I have yet to find a Christian who can read any of it...but lets say it is the truth with hard real linked supported evidence...good luck...put it this way the case I make would beheld up in court and that is a great test...if you can prove it in court do you really think it is not the truth.
Alex

 

[Yazata]

Agree about Krauss. I don't think he even sees the issue that, even if it is only physical that laws exist, i.e. with no matter or radiation for them to operate on, you do not have "nothing". But that is what comes of being so dismissive about philosophy, I suspect.

He's just returning to Plato without realizing it, trying to spin observed reality out of the Forms, in his case the forms favored by contemporary theoretical physics.

(As a matter of fact, in that scenario, what you have, it seems to me, is the "God" of Spinoza and Einstein!)

Or the Neoplatonists more broadly, perhaps.

I regard it as telling that Krauss feels the need to drag in ID (in order to be contemptuous of it), in this passage. Seems to me it speaks of this shallow New Atheism agenda that he and Dawkins do so much to promote.

I agree. His preface kind of suggests why he does it.

"For more than two thousand years, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been presented as a challenge to the proposition that our universe... might have arisen without design, intent or purpose. While this is usually framed as a philosophical or religious question, it is first and foremost a question about the natural world, and so the appropriate place to try and resolve it, first and foremost, is with science." (xiii)

So he seems to starts out by treating the 'Something from Nothing' problem as if it was nothing more than one of the theistic proofs, a vehicle for introducing design, purpose and intent (and hence by implication God) . His underlying purpose seems to be to knock it down, without realizing that even if we never introduce the concept of 'God', 'Why is there Something rather than Nothing' would still remain as perhaps the ultimate and most fundamental question of ontology. Even scientific ontology.

"The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science, in various guises, can address and is addressing of why there is something rather than nothing. The answers that have been obtained... all suggest that getting something from nothing is not a problem..." (xiii)

Perhaps it isn't a problem, if we want to ignore the 2000 year old question and instead substitute Krauss' new question. Which still leaves us with the original problem, which hasn't even really been addressed.

 

[James R]

Thanks for the nice pics...

No. Not so far. But if you could please provide more evidence for your claim, I would be open to investigating it further. If you ever find another one in Saudi Arabia, please present that here, along with the Google Earth coordinates! There is probably a second one in that area someplace. That could possibly confirm the Bible events even more.

I don't understand.

Why are my rock photos not evidence of Moses visiting Australia, if your rock photos are solid evidence of Moses visiting Saudi Arabia?

 

[exchemist]

The BB doesn't address the beginning of the Universe. It's an unknown. One Universe could have ended resulting in a new Universe (or many other possibilities).

I think he is just positing that there is no "nothing".

Hmm, I agree that is a reasonable conclusion one might draw from what he says, but it does not seem to be what he thinks he is saying. If you see what I mean .

 

[James R]

It is a working hypothesis in process. Prophecy might be able to pull that off. What do you think?

Prophecy might provide some evidence, but we'd need some solid evidence that the supposed predictions were made before the events that they predicted, rather than afterwards. Predicting stuff after the event turns out to be a lot easier than predicting it before it happens.

The problem with a lot of prophecies is that we can't verify that the prophecy came before the events that "confirm" the prophecy. For example, there are certain supposed prophecies in the bible that have been shown to be very likely later editions to the text, made after the "prophesied" events. In some other biblical examples, there is evidence some of the details of later accounts have been altered to match an earlier "prophesy".

Another common problem is that prophecies are extraordinarily vague. The prophecy almost always says something like "In times to come, a great calamity will fall upon your people". They almost never say things like "At 12:53 pm on Tuesday 13 October, 2021, there will be an earthquake of magnitude 7 whose epicentre is San Franciso, causing the Presidio to collapse into rubble." Obviously, there are lots of "calamities" that might fit the description in the first example prophesy - a shark ate the President who everybody loves; a blackout at a hospital kills patients as life-support fails; climate change makes the town of Timbuktoo uninhabitable; somebody who everybody hates wins American Idol; etc. etc.

My Dad was healed by God through prayer.

Yeah. So you said. And I ask you how you know God healed your Dad.

Then some tumbleweeds blew past and the silent desert kept its lonely vigil.

God has revealed Himself in many ways, to millions of people, and is, of course, still doing so today.

How do all those people know it was God?

Yes, of course natural processes can do these kinds of things. It needs to be studied more. Certainly scientists could find out where the water originated from. Right? There should be a break of some kind below the Split in the Rock. Which allowed pressurized water to escape from an underground reservoir over the length of time it would take to create all of the erosion there. If an underground reservoir was found, that could indicate natural processes were involved. Whether or not God broke the Rock in half to release the pressure, would be another matter. It needs to be studied more by trained and experienced scientists who specialize in these things.

So you're saying that we can't tell at this stage whether a natural process caused the rock to split or whether it was God, because more study is needed.

If that's the case, what convinces you it was God? What convinces you that this particular split rock in Arabia is the fabled Rock of Exodus?

 

[SetiAlpha6]

That was really fun to watch.

We need these guys and many others to research the Biblical Exodus Sites in Saudi Arabia.

The Site there is massive and will require years of research to figure out.

Thank You!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

May I suggest you start here
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/the...he-solar-messiahs-theology-religion-essay.php

Alex

Thanks Alex, I will take a look!

 

[SetiAlpha6]

May I suggest you start here
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/the...he-solar-messiahs-theology-religion-essay.php

Alex

I took a look at the website you recommended, and started looking into his first candidate, Horus, at the website below. That website claims that such claims are unfounded.

https://www.ancient.eu/Horus/

What do you want me to do next?
Check into his second candidate?

I will if you want me to, Alex!

We have snow here.
Hope you have a great day!