Who Made God?

I don't know if you care about getting this right or not, but I do know that you are going to post this again, so I'll make the attempt at getting you to fix it for next time. 0⁴⁰ is just zero, and is definitely not what you mean to communicate here. Almost certainly, what you really meant was T=10^-40 second. (Might as well add some units while we are fixing things)

Hi NoNukes, You know I want to get things right so I edited my post to correct the time. I was writing from memory which is fading with my old age.Can I assume everything else was correct as you did not point out any other mistakes.If you was just in too big a hurry please go back and point out any other mistakes you found.God Bless,

You should also change the 0 to a 10. You did make the correction of making the exponent negative, but the 10 is equally important. The correct value is 10^-40 s. Since the majority of the work is your opinion about science, I don't see any reason to do that.

quote:

---

I am a fundamentalist and I do not believe our universe came from another universe. That is string theory.

​

I do not believe anything that exists came from nothing. Only scientist believe that.

---

What about Carl Wieland and his magazine?

quote:

---

Carl Wieland

​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Jump to: navigation, search

​

Carl Wieland

​

Born
1950[1]
Australia

​

Residence
South Australia

​

Occupation
Evangelist

​

Known for
Advocate of Young Earth Creationism

​

Spouse(s)
Margaret Buchanan

​

Website
Creation | Creation Ministries International

​

Carl Wieland (born 1950) is an Australian young earth creationist, author and speaker. He was the Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (formerly Answers in Genesis - Australia), a Creationist apologetics ministry. CMI are the distributors of Creation magazine and the Journal of Creation.
....

​

In 1976 Wieland formed the Creation Science Association (CSA), a South Australian creationist organisation modelled after the Creation Research Society. In 1978 this organisation began publishing a magazine, Ex Nihilo (later called Creation Ex Nihilo), "to explain and promote special creation as a valid scientific explanation of origins." In 1980, CSA merged with a Queensland group to form the Creation Science Foundation, which subsequently became Answers in Genesis (AiG).[4]

​

Carl Wieland - Wikipedia

---

Then.

quote:

---

Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe.

​

There is no scientific data until T=0-40 second.
This is due to a mathematical problem, General Relativity breaks down and can not give any information.

​

String theory was proposed to solve this problem. Since there is no data available anything that is devised by scientist that existed prior to T=0-40 second has to come from their imagination.

---

Well what fraction of a second is that, exactly?The telescopes can look back to about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.That is well over 99.9% of the universe age we can look back to.So, isn't a Universe with a documented "start", an indication of it not being eternal (perhaps?)?Some think the idea of a beginning and from nothing might very well be compatible with Genesis 1?(Will stop here. I will probably have a longer post in a few days, but am a little busy now)

Hi NoNukes, Since you do not refute any of my opinions I will assume that you are in agreement with each statement other than the time statement which I have corrected.God Bless,

Not wasting time responding to silly statements does not connote endorsement.

I guess you aren't going to answer my questions until you get a longer post?

quote:

---

I am a fundamentalist and I do not believe our universe came from another universe. That is string theory.

​

I do not believe anything that exists came from nothing. Only scientist believe that.

---

I'm not so sure what most scientists believe.I will skip commenting on String theory, except to say that it alone isn't the only theory that has multiple universes. Not by a long shot.The whole issue of saying that only scientists saying that something came from nothing is just a confused confusion that is really really confusing.On the "beginning" part.There is the issue of time and space being the same thing and space being created by some force (to counteract the gravity), then temperatures dropping. Temperatures below 1.2 billion degrees Kelvin allowed particle to fuse to form the elements (deuterium which is Hydrogen) when there is space to allow the temperature to drop.Space and Time and particles fusing to form the first elements.But is the "beginning" of space (time) really the very first thing?Do (all or most)scientists really say that?

quote:

---

Science has not and can not discover the origin of the universe.

​

There is no scientific data until T=10-43 s.
This is due to a mathematical problem, General Relativity breaks down and can not give any information.

​

Added by edit: The Planck epoch is the time during which physics is assumed to have been dominated by quantum effects of gravity.

​

String theory was proposed to solve this problem. Since there is no data available anything that is devised by scientist that existed prior to T=10-43 s. has to come from their imagination.

---

There is an issue of there being no space and no time in the math.As for observations via telescopes:There is also the issue of the temperature of the universe needing to be low enough to allow photons to be visible. That goes back to when the universe was less than 1 million years old(out of a total age of about 14000 million years old), so telescopic observations cover around 29,999/30,000 or the universe's age. But not the last 1/30,000 rough age of the Universe.Going back to the slightly earlier unobserved events (during the first few minutes of the actual Big Bang):It is known that a temperature above 1.2 billion degrees Kelvin will see the same photons smash into the proton and neutron that are creating a deuterium nucleus and break it apart. Fusion - creating the first elements - couldn't happen without space allowing the temperature to drop.The event in the 1/30,000 unobserved time period isn't seen via observations, but the same overall theories match the later 29,999/30,000 time periods observed via telescopes and such.And particle accelerators have shown what happens (plus fusion devices made by man).Space equals time and lower temperatures to allow elements.A creation event.But was it truly "nothing" before?Then

quote:

---

The Hebrew word translated "Lucifer"
exists 1 time in the Hebrew text. Isaiah 14:12

---

ben-shachar is son of the dawn.Heyleyl or heylel is Lucifer.Lucifer son of the dawn.You typed (or pasted) the word for dawn.(without the vowels or ben/son hyphen part)

Hello, Pastor. First let me address LNA: Some of us believe(though do not know nor can prove) that Christianity is a revealed religion. Granted, my ideas on Spiritual impartation,special knowledge, and wisdom that is not understood by the learned minds of today borders on a fusion with gnostic thought,but in regards to I CANT, keep in mind that he is probably more traditional evangelical...similar to Faith, though I commend and applaud Pastor I CANT for even taking the time to comment and participate here at our forum...to the limited degree that he does.He likely spends most of his time preaching and discussing Christianity in a far more Biblical Inerrant sense than what we do here...which of course jar laughs at.(jar is unimpressed with Biblical Christianity) Larmark, what you will find around here at EvC is that it is not easy to get a conversation going with many members. We too are creatures of the flesh and of matter as opposed to the spiritual plane of ideas which you seek to google and conceptualize. We often like to talk and teach rather than discuss and listen. I consider God to be Spirit rather than matter...hence no material need even be used in defining Him. Thus logically, the only conclusive element that could conceivably be of His eternal preexistent makeup would have to be Spirit rather than matter, whether dark matter or regular matter.I don't quite understand (nor likely believe) in what Plato describes as an eternal archetype.
Perhaps what Plato meant is that the father of all things is the God of our imaginations and the eternal archetype is GOD Himself. I agree with this belief and it touches on what the argument is about over at our thread The Science Of Miracles. Some believe that human wisdom is the origin of all philosophy and premise on all topics. Others believe that the universe itself is created by God and thus qualifies itself as a miracle...the original miracle, of course, being creation itself. Humans can only form a scientific theory out of a time in space that they understand. The entire definition of the word origin is among other things "cradle' and genesis.Im guessing that you also arrived at this conclusion in your Biblical Studies.

Our search for knowledge and truth continues! (Read my last post to I CANT by the way. I addressed you also.) One would guess that the very first thing would be an idea. The question is whose idea?

Often, in debates, one must respond to silly statements in order to resolve the inconsistencies in the discussion.I get the idea that you don't really respect Pastor I CANT. It seems that the very fact that he posts here in an unlikely den of wolves indicates more humility than arrogance on his part. If he is, in fact, ignorant, responding to his statements is not a waste of time.BTW have you ever heard this quote?
Immanuel Kant but Ghengis Khan.While searching unsuccessfully for the original author, I also found a funny joke for you, jar.
A bee is flying alongside another bee. He notices that his fellow apian is wearing a yarmulke. What’s with the headgear? he asks. You want I should be taken for a WASP? comes the reply.We need to ask I CANT why he chose that name. I suspect that he would reply "I CANT But HE CAN." You might change it to SHE CAN, knowing you.

See Message 201

oh okay, i get it. You were merely commenting on I CANTs response to NoNukes.Sorry I overlooked that.I hope that this morning finds you in good health, however. It is hell getting old, and I am only 58. I struggle with Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, neuropathy and loss of feeling in my legs and feet, and other maladies common to some older humans. In regards to this topic of Who Made God, it is important to me that the God of my imagination and desire exists. If I discovered that GOD was truly unknowable and unapproachable, my last fantasy and hope in life would be extinguished and i would be slapped yet again by reality.Doctors cant do everything, after all.

Hi jar, Would please point out exactly which statements you are talking about.God Bless,

Everything you post ICANT.

Hi LNA, I have never read his magazine and knew very little about him.
So I had to do some reading to get up to speed.I found him to be a young earth creationist, YEC for short version. He believes the same garbage put out by Ellen G. White which was spread by the 7th day Adventist over the past 85 years.He does not believe in what the original text says just a version of it that he has been taught by his peers.He has many good beliefs but when it comes to creation he is far from the truth.God Bless,