Creationist model

that's were it becomes hard for any human mind to fathom at first.nothing outside of energy is real. and there cant be a now without a used to be.that's where this law becomes solid is understanding this:what was before energy?nothing. wait..cant be nothing..has to be something..or nothing is..and i am. so it is. so what is it.ok a "god" made earth? hrm. who made Saturn? hrm. cant be. its to natural to the order that is. ok, so there was an energy..where did that come from..what was before that? a greater heaven..outside all known space..hmm. ok where did that come from..an even greater heaven..before that..before that...before that?so eventually it doesn't matter what the before the first to now is, because you eventually realize that a start was, because we are. the universe is. so it was.had to be. because nothing would be without it. so whatever the genesis energy was, was before ALL things that ever were and just WAS.and had to be. because if not..nothing is.one thing. the one thing that was first. and existed with a consciousness, and a body, and only is because it had faith it was. and all after it only exists on that faith.

---

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

That doesn't solve your problem. You claim that nothing can come from nothing and then you claim that one thing must always have been. Why couldn't more than one thing always have been?If you're going to postulate a "law" and then special-plead an exception to the law, how do you prevent other exceptions?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

it didnt "come from nothing"it always "was"if it wasnt. nothing else would be.

---

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

The universe always was.Where is the problem?

---

Let's end the political smears

the universe is multiple energies.complex and ordered.it could not exist in its form without direction. (intelligence)which is what leads to the "before that"

---

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

That's my point. How can you determine what "it" was? Why does "it" have to be God? Why couldn't "it" be something else?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

It looks rather disorderly to me. So you claim. But you present no basis for this, other than circular arguments and your own beliefs.

---

Let's end the political smears

the "it" is :pure genesis energy of all things.intelligent.created from its singularity.see, all roads lead to Rome, single genesis energy that just was.split off into a different energy in an ordered fashion: intelligencesingular and created: act of faith.what else should THAT be called?

---

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

you claim to know me...i observed reality first, which led to God..not God to reality, but because of reality i found God.

---

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

You have shown no evidence for any of that. And you've shown no connection between any of that and "creation". This isn't the "Act of Faith" forum. You need to provide evidence that any of your fairy tale actually happened.Edited by Ringo, : Speling.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

I'm not sure where you think I made such a claim. I know you only through your posts at evcforum. And since your posts mainly seem confused and incoherent, that would mean that I surely don't know you at all well. Science is based on evidence - evidence that is repeatable in the sense that others can check it. Science is not based on personal reminiscences.

---

Let's end the political smears

ringo..the evidence is staring everyone in the face.because we definitely are. and are energy. nothing outside energy is real.so how can anything exist at all.it did. and its ordered. its beautiful.its perfect. only man exists outside the natural order by destroying balances of nature. everything else is in a perfect harmony for the condition it exists in.so..the debate for me comes to a close, and the debate by others with the law itself can either happen, or not. but it is reality as i have observed it. and has no flaws, accepts the willingness or ability for the human mind to be able to come to terms with it.i wish you all well in your lives and debates within it-Tim Brown

---

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

here is the evidence nwr. but i wont debate it with you any further. you debate it. or not.The laws of science that prove God:Under this basis: you are. not maybe are. not could be are. but do, exist:Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but changed from form to form.No ordered form can exist on top of chaos without direction. (remember direction.)Something cant come from nothing. (it can "appear" to, but impossible to "litteraly" not come from nothing.(because we are)This means: although we cant see the energy of God, nothing outside of energy is real. that is reality.Existence had to be established, and all the elements are too ordered to have existed without direction.So existence is a synonym for God, in that in the begging, there was intellegent energy that existed singularly, and created all that is based on faith that it was/is.Debate the law. its sound.

---

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

There's no evidence of that staring anybody in the face. If there was evidence, you'd be able to present some. And I'm still asking: How do you know that the "it" has anything to do with "creation". A creation model can't just postulate an "it" and claim all things came from "it". You need to show the connection.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

That's a philosophical assertion. It is not a law of science. Okay. But that's an empirical law, well supported by the evidence. But it still could turn out to be mistaken. That's not a scientific law, and in fact is false. That's questionable, because "something" is quite vague. Where did the "God" come from. It does not appear in your earlier "laws". The way logic works, is that you start with agreed premises, and then make deductions from those premises. You seem to be smuggling in an additional assumption. That's faulty logic. Why? You have not given any evidence or reasoning that could support such a claim. I just love that "begging". It was probably a typo, but your argument amounts to begging the question. You are smuggling in unstated premises, and your conclusion is just those premises. The only thing that is sound around here is my laughter at the inanity of your "evidence".

---

Let's end the political smears