I.D. proponents: Make up your mind!

No.Your missing mine. God is beyond religion. Religions explain God. as a man of science and religion, i divorce the religious contexts (since they also vary on large degrees) and examine God in a scientific perspective.You cannot do that unless you see God in a natural sense as i do, which the definition i have for God is :existence: the energy that was first before all things, that created all that is from itself, based on faith that it was.this definition means that we exist inside a universe that exists inside of the initial energy of t=0. that this universe began expansion inside that body, and space has an edge we cannot see; that marks our existence inside of that first energy. the same way as a child exists inside of a mothers womb.With this definition religion need not be a part of enquiry for scientific analysis. however, with this definition being accepted ultimately it would be tested against religions for any evidence of a religion that actually supports the definition. But scientifically the definition and what the math says to support or refute the idea is relevant to science.for instance, if there is a body we are expanding in and space has an edge, the edge could be guessed by the shape, and the big bang scenario would look different because the energy would not condense into infinite density, but rather be returned to the body it is coming from. again, much like a baby's growth in the womb being reversed and the energy being returned to the mother.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Teaching and Learning STEMWithout the edge of the universe in the equation you get a negative like this ball analogy in this physics paper.infinite density with no area sound familiar? The body the universe is expanding in is overlooked. like the vacuum and what it signifies. Do they even calculate the pull of that vacuum on the masses of matter when doing gravitational calculations? if no, and its because its irrelevant, why is it irrelevant?sure your pretty educated and pretty smart. but your not all educated and all smart. and the ignorance of God is proof of that. So i say, lets understand existence. and most say: you never will, you cannot, etc. I dont believe that. i think its thinking like that; that has kept us from knowing sooner. so i keep looking and my education will come. For now, I'm testing the educated. Because if the educated take the position they will never know, then i will ignore them and do what i must for my degree, yet learn and grow and prove and invent and teach in the end, what IS true.Only when you understand what IS true, can you begin to work on what "may" be true.Do we know now? certainly not verified. CAN we know? i say yes. time will tell.Edited by tesla, : fixed link.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Teaching and Learning STEMsorry; this link.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

you found the wrong link. this one :Teaching and Learning STEM

quote:

---

It is irrelevant because "vacuum" has no intrinsic force.

---

i know, that if you take a closed container and empty it, it will have a force attempting to correct the imbalance in pressure. you can measure that.So if this area of the earth contains a certain amount of pressure due to gravity, it also will have SOME pull against it because space does not have that gravity. yes gravity holds it together, but there must be some pull against it. but its relative.for instance, if you exist within the gravity of a much larger mass than the earth, elements will then have the potential to exist in a heavier structure than can be mimicked on earth, because without the extra pressure, it would not maintain the density. because the vacuum of the gravity of the earth would rip it apart. because the earths gravity in comparison, is a vacuum. so its relative.why do you think you have not been able to compose heavy stabilized elements greater than the ones the physicists of the day have made? it cannot remain stable under the earths "conditions".maybe your right, maybe I'm just uneducated and a moron, but maybe I'm right. just because you learn something does not mean its correct. like a flat earth? remember that? einstein said " a question oft repeated in my mind, are they the crazy ones, or am i?" If I'm wrong time will tell. i will learn. but for what i have observed of the dynamics of a vacuum, i cannot as of yet rationalize the mechanics of it any other way at this time.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

nothing is supernatural and the way you understood it is fine. the point is the things you call supernatural like a God who cares and answers prayer, is natural to the dynamics of existence, but is not understood.I'm not asking you to accept anything supernatural, I'm asking you to accept nothing is truly supernatural. we have ignorance, and then their is the truth. but the truth although now speculation,. can one day be known.Too many look at "supernatural things" then ignore it, what hope do you have when you have limited your mind by deciding it cannot be known? perhaps it can. if your mind is open to the possibility.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Ive given the definition. i dont have all the answer's. I'm still looking, I'll let you know if i get better data. I'm still learning and much to learn; much to observe.Time will tell.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

because i know supernatural is a lie. it's just what we call things beyond our comprehension. it does not mean it will always be beyond our comprehension. it just means it still is right now.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

short answer is yes. but you want that explained and i don';t have the data together yet to "prove" it.so yes. newtons formula's with the data of the edge and body we exist in show a whole different ball game than a universe returning to an infinite density with no area.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You can trust your knoledge too much. in your case, that is what your doing. the vacuum of space does have an effect. it just has not been determined.There is much to be said i believe, on what a vacuum is and how it interacts with other matter.All of your posts are a show of arrogance. as educated as you are, you are trying to say definitly what science Say's tentatively. and that means debating with you is pointless because you already trust your knoledge regardless whether it is correct or not.i will get educated, but i will not trust tentative data accept tentatively. but it is what i can say definitely that i will record and examine to build on. too much is misunderstood, and i will not understand it if i listen to those who do not understand it and are unwilling to examine past what they have been taught.It isn't the interpretations i want, its the data that led to the interpretation. because ONE missing link will mean a wrong interpretation and years of building false data on top of a lie.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides