Science seems to say the so-called physical realm does not have a beginning. Let's hear how you know that it did (if that is your position). The Law of Conservation of Energy, the best knowledge that we have, insists that it is eternal. Some believe god is eternal with no evidence that god exists, and some think energy is eternal with massive evidence for that claim.

Alter2Ego -

You do realize that Gravity is a theory correct?

Do you use a cell phone? Do you like using your cell phone?

Satellites were launched from the Earth into orbit so that your cell phone may operate using the "theory" of gravity calculations.

There are many theories in Science that have plenty of evidence.

I am no theologian, and I do not pretend to be.

Please do not pretend to be a Scientist.

No way something comes from nothing more easily. The simpler option is not this.

Eldrick:

You do realize that Gravity is not only a theory; correct? That's what I told another atheist a while back when he came with the same argument that you are using, namely: the "gravity is a theory" argument. Every informed person reading this thread can figure out what you are trying to accomplish with that argument. We are expected to draw the following conclusion:

Since we know gravity exists and gravity is a theory, then evolution must likewise be a reality because evolution, too, is a theory. You seem ignorant of the fact that gravity is not merely a theory. It is also a scientific LAW.

A scientific theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses aka educated guesses. A scientific law, on the other hand, is defined as "a statement of fact, deduced from observation."

https://www.britannica.com/science/N...of-gravitation

At no time has any theory been given the definition "fact." Not once.


BTW: I never claimed to be a scientist. Your "Please do not pretend to be a Scientist" comment applies to you as well.



Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Pletho:

You are right on point. Ask any atheist where the various materials came from so that the Big Bang would cause the universe to expand, and they have no credible answer. They will dream up something that makes no senses and for which they have no evidence. In fact, ask them what caused the Big Bang, and you will hear every type of science fiction aka fairytale known to man.


Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Yeah because the answer is "We don't know" ... instead of "Therefore Jesus did it." LOL.

Alter2Ego -

*sigh* The law of Gravity that you listed is the formula by which you calculate the gravitational force that 2 objects exert on each other.

The Theory - which we do not exactly know why - is why this happens. The general consensus is that it is a warping of space time.

Why bring up evolution? I've always wondered why religious people get so butt hurt about evolution?

Why can't your imaginary being have actually created evolution as well?

Do you understand what a singularity is? There is plenty of literature out there if you would like to understand it.

I also wonder if you would be the same person 400 years ago arguing that the Earth is the center of the Universe and wanting to put to death anyone who thought different.

Have a good day!

Just to educate you (and yes I AM a scientist, so IÂ’m not pretending to be one) - theories donÂ’t become laws. Theories and laws are two completely different things in science. A law is simply a description of some regular pattern in nature. The law of gravity, for example states that there is an attraction between any two bodies in the universe that is directly proportional to the masses of the bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. A law is ONLY a description.

A theory on the other hand is an explanation of some set of phenomena. General relativity is a theory of gravity. It says that the apparent attraction between bodies is caused by the curvature of spacetime created by the presence of energy. Theories provide an overarching framework for understanding some aspect of the universe. They suggest further observations and research and are supported by multiple lines of evidence. Theories are really the goal of science.

It is not true that laws are somehow on firmer footing than theories. For the case of gravity the opposite is actually true. The law of gravity is superseded by the theory, and the law gives wrong answers in certain cases. The first of these to be discovered historically was the orbit of the planet Mercury. The law of gravity predicts a slightly diffeeent orbit than what actually is observed. The theory of gravity gives the correct orbit.

Neither laws nor theories can ever be proven - science doesnÂ’t do proof, not in the logical sense anyway. The law of gravity (besides being demonstrably wrong in some situations) cannot be proven because is says that ALL bodies attract and gives the quantitative attraction. Unless you measure the attraction between all pairs of bodies and confirm that it matches the law, you cannot prove the law. You can provide evidence for the law though by working out observations that youÂ’d see if itÂ’s true - like calculating planetary orbits for example. If observations and calculations agree, you have evidence. The best way to try to establish a law is to find situations where it is disproven. If we cannot find such situations, despite our best efforts, we gain confidence in the law.

The process for theories is identical. We work out what we should observe if itÂ’s true and try to find observations that disprove the theory. If we do, we reject the theory; if we canÂ’t we gain confidence in it. Nothing ever is proven, though, whether law or theory.

Ouf….
That doesn’t mean anything .
It’s called evolution .
Did u ever heard of this quote « survival of the fittest » ?

It’s a normal mechanism of natural selection .
Everything try to accommodate to its environment the best way it can .

If the universe was that fine tuned , why is there so much destruction in it and so few life forms out there in this gigantic space ?
What a waste of space , far from being « fine-tuned »….

Ps: if it was that fine tuned , why so many extinction of living species through the life of earth ?
Why so many species changed so much to be better over time?
DUCY earth isn’t that fine tuned ?
If it was that « fine tune » nature would stop improving since it couldn’t improves h ore , it would beat is zenith …..

You are the perfect example of what happened when a non scientific individual try to do science ….

So many errors here. Airplanes weren't remotely modeled from birds, at least the successful ones weren't. Birds flap their wings to produce lift, no planes have ever done that successfully. Designing an airplane using a propeller driven engine is massively different than the design needed for a flapping wing bird.

And I have birds crash into my house on a regular basis, while modern commercial airlines go over a million flights between crashes.

My hip and my shoulder have worn out and required replacement. That "intelligent designer" certainly scrimped on the amount and strength of the cartilage in my joints, and made replacing it incredibly difficult (and impossible for most of human civilization), unlike the trivial parts replacement on my car.

Yea, you stop there because you don't want to talk about the laryngeal nerve, where apparently your idiot designer ran it all the way down from our skull to our heart, only to make a u-turn and come straight up to its destination to its destination in our neck. As bad as it is for us, its terrible for Giraffes. This is clear evidence for evolution BTW.

Or lets talk about how terrible your designer was when they designed human eyes. They laid down the wiring backwards! Light has to travel through layers of blood cell to reach the photo receptors, greatly diminishing our capacity to capture photons. And also a big blind spot where our optic nerve exits the eye!

Why did your designer give octopuses much better designed eyes? Are they gods real chosen people?

This logical argument could have been written with a crayon. Its called argument from ignorance, where you disbelieve something just because you personally can't conceptualize it. No one a thousand years ago could conceive the sun was a giant nuclear fission reactor, so it must actually be a coal burning furnace.

Singularity expands, hydrogen forms, gravity pulls concentrations together to form stars, as those stars die they collapse and explode in supernova we see and measure daily, spreading heavier elements across the universe, which form concentrations making new stars and their accretion disks forming planets, eventually forming our Sun and the earth.

Its not that hard. Whats hard is deciding you only want to belief true things. Do you? If you truly do, start examining the evidence for your claims, and think hard about why its so weak or non-existent.

Why do you believe anything in a gospel written 50 years after Jesus was crucified, by an anonymous greek author who probably never even met any of the original apostles.

All gospels were written anonymously by church members 30-50 years after the fact. The first was titled "Mark", with the rest almost directly plagiarizing Mark to add their own embellishments. The changes each following author made to Mark is a good record of how they were attempting to reach more converts by honing and improving the message. By the time you get to John, the author does a nearly entire rewrite to make the claim Jesus was actually God and actually claimed to be the Messiah. Clearly it was an incredibly powerful invention by the author, you yourself are evidence of it.

Sigh, you are so confused.

When someone thinks they have a description (model) of how something in the universe works, its called a hypothesis. If their model is tested and becomes the most accurate description of that phenomena, it's called a "theory".

Its a fact that some attractive force between masses that we call gravity exists, we can all see and test this independently and easily.

"How" it works is what we describe in our current best model, or theory. When our model that describes an observed relationship is extremely well tested for a very long time it might even be anecdotally called a "law". Newton's "Law of Gravity" was just his model for how the attractive force of gravity can be calculated between bodies.

And guess what? Newton's "Law of Gravity" is wrong! Not in any substantial way, its still in common use today because of its ease of calculation, but we've known for hundreds of years that it consistently fails at accurately calculating certain edge cases, such as predicting the orbit of Mercury. Instead, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity replaced it, because its a more accurate model, specifically when huge amounts of mass are packed relatively close to each other, like the Sun w/Mercury.

And now, there are indications that General Relativity isn't wholly complete in how it describes gravity, and that we need a new theory of gravity to cover more edge cases we've found!

This is the great thing about science. There are no "eternal" tablets in space listing out the "eternal laws" of the universe. Every "law" is merely a model, that can be fine-tuned further or even thrown out entirely when new evidence warrants it.

I think you struggle with these concepts because you believe that biblical laws were written down eternally on stone tablets, and you somehow think that scientific "laws" must be the same. Your religion may be unable to ever change but our understanding of the universe is constantly improving, and our accepted scientific theories (and "laws") are improved with them.