Thunder and lightning are not made by a god. Never has, never will.
Plants cannot absorb nitrogen directly out of the atmosphere, so guess what? They get their “nitrogen-fix” through lightning turning nitrogen and oxygen with some ammonia, which can then dissolve into the falling rain and becomes just the very best fertiliser. This requires intense heat from lightning (5 times hotter than the surface of the Sun). Also, with the help of nitrogen-fixing specialist bacteria.
Evolutionists, I defy you to explain how that all came about, perfectly in the first instance …or no life could be sustained on the Earth! These are non-living things and energy forces and elements that don’t evolve through “natural selection”. They have no mind or ongoing regenerated life of their own.
It did not come about perfectly in the first instance at all. In the first instance there was a purely chaotic inflationary epoch, during which a few elements were born by sheer accident. There is no precision involved in creating elements, only raw dynamic energy. It’s not that hard. We are now making new unnatural elements, can you believe it?
Super novas are not made by a god, never have, never will.
But how was the expansion rate finely tuned to 1 to 122 ? only its fine tuning makes it possible our universe to exist…...
Whatever rate there was, it was not a chosen rate, it was an accidental rate. You will admit there has to be at least one rate (out of an infinity of rates).
1:1222 was the accidental rate then, no? Answer me this. Was the speed of light chosen by god or is it an inherent ability of a particle? Does god make a particle travel at SOL when it has no restmass and at subluminal speeds when a particle does have restmass? Or are these the universal laws which describe the potential abilities of a particle. If God has no restmass does it travel at SOL?
The speed of a type Ia supernovae is also easily deduced from its spectrum. The speed and distance measurements are then used to measure the expansion rate of the Universe. From observations in the late 1990’s of distant type Ia supernovae, astronomers concluded that the expansion rate of the Universe was increases – the Universe was accelerating!
The Cosmological Constant Problem
The cosmological constant L, which is not usually part of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model but can be included, produces a rather unusual effect on cosmology. It yields a “negative pressure” causing a gravitational repulsion that drives matter apart at increasing rates. The data from type Ia supernova observations suggest the existence of a cosmological constant.
Theorists have been reluctant to introduce a cosmological constant in the theory because of a fine-tuning problem. It turns out that if L is non-zero then it should have a natural value that would cause a very rapid expansion and very dramatic cooling of the Universe. The current measured temperature of the Universe is 2.725 degrees Kelvin. Although extremely cold by human standards (just a few degrees above absolute zero), if L is present, it must be about 10122 times smaller than the natural value to agree with this temperature measurement. How could L be set to such a small value with such precision? This is known as the cosmological constant problem. Its solution had been to assume that L was exactly zero. Type Ia supernova measurements thus created a fine-tuning problem for cosmology.
What potential value would you prefer over that which became reality?
You don’t understand the concept of “potential”. It is Potential, the inherent but latent (spiritual) quality or excellence and functional abilities (force) of a thing that you identify as God, a living entity.
The Universe was not made by a god, never has, never will.
i see. A car was made by a intelligent being. A airplaine, much more complex, was made by a intelligent being. The universe, much much more complex, and finely tuned to permit life on earth, was a lucky accident ? Please explain what is rational to believe that.
A car was made by man for man. The universe was not made by God for God. You say it was made by God for man. And that is hubris.
The assumption of a sentient intelligent construct, existing in a vacuum
Where do i make the assertion God existed in a vacuum ?
Where does God exist again? I see two possible states, inside the Universe (matter/energy) or outside the universe (vacuum). So which is it?
, but being causal to the universe without a single clue as to how this construct could possibly exist is not reasonable,
Just because our mind is too limited to understand God, and its eternal existence, to believe in his existence is not reasonable ? Does that mean, that every cause, that we cannot explain, becomes not reasonable ? and that reasoning should be reasonable, why ?
Because wishful musings do not govern the universe. If we are too limited to understand then science is the only way to approach the subject, verify everything before you accept a proposition. You propose a God. Where is your proof that the wonderful ways Potential may become reality are the willful expressions of a motivated mind. An energetic sentient Mind, or a pseudo-intelligent (mathematical and chemical) Natural function how expressions of matter and energy are made explicate in this universe?
unless one discards all knowledge we have of how things work
please present therefore something, that came into existence from absolutely nothing.
POTENTIAL , I urge you to study the definitions of Potential in great depth. It is one the most profound terms in abstract reasoning.
and assume that god is not bound by any constants and that would be even more incredible.
So why is there something, rather than nothing ? what caused the universe into existence ? nothing ?
It is inevitable that there is something rather than nothing. Existence is a self caused causation. It is point where the argument becomes circular and cannot be further reduced by introducing intent.
Tell me how god manages to exist outside reality, yet have influence on reality?
Who told you that God exists outside of reality ? If he is the essence of reality ?
That argument makes god a result, not a causal agent.
A man with a white beard sitting on a golden throne high up in the sky
Thats not what we xtians believe. Thats folklore.
Really, have you looked at the illustrations in the old scriptures as written and illustrated by monks from divine inspiration. But unintentionally you have revealed the great divide that exists among dogmatic religions.
You still have not answered if you believe Xenu is real. Scientology does. Who is right? Your proof lies only in the amount of faith you have but faith is not proof of anything except imagination.
, with little winged people circling happily to the tune of a long golden trumpet? So far the only picture I see is a God in Man’s image. That is of course physically impossible. So paint me a picture of god, anyway you like. I’ll get it, even the most abstract representation. Have faith in me. I am real and I can think!
God is spirit, a bodyless mind.
How does it convert energy into thought?
Define god and specifically how it is able to “think” as an individual observer
God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.
Those abstract moral concepts can exist without the invocation of an intentional supernatural entity.
So far everything I have heard about a (any) god is unreasonable in its very conception, IMO.
please present a better explanation for our existence.
It was inevitable in this universe.
But we have not a single piece of evidence of God, except scripture
no kidding…... open your eyes….
And see what? The awesome destructive force of a super-nova? The empty space encircling an ever larger and hungrier black hole? The 7 day slow death after being bitten by a Komodo dragon? I am presenting the other side of “awesome beauty” here.
The more I see of both beauty and sheer horror, the more it becomes clear that the universe functions without emotion whatever.
Even if quantum was the very thought process of god, it would be impersonal, implacable and certainly not particularly interested in mankind.