GOD-Who created GOD?

"Who created God?"

God is eternal. Meaning: He had no beginning and will have no end. God was not created.

"Why can't the universe be eternal?"

Because it violates the most fundamental laws of physics. An eternal universe was debunked in the 19th century, and utterly disproven when the Big Bang was thought up. The idea of an eternal universe is the physics equivalent to YEC.

I hope that sums it up.

"Who created God?"

God is eternal. Meaning: He had no beginning and will have no end. God was not created.

"Why can't the universe be eternal?"

Because it violates the most fundamental laws of physics. An eternal universe was debunked in the 19th century, and utterly disproven when the Big Bang was thought up. The idea of an eternal universe is the physics equivalent to YEC.

I hope that sums it up.

Dracargen

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]

"Who created God?"

God is eternal. Meaning: He had no beginning and will have no end. God was not created.

"Why can't the universe be eternal?"

Because it violates the most fundamental laws of physics. An eternal universe was debunked in the 19th century, and utterly disproven when the Big Bang was thought up. The idea of an eternal universe is the physics equivalent to YEC.

I hope that sums it up.

yoshi-lnex

It can't, if it's a natural one, like the Egyptians' deities.

If the deity in question is defined as supernatural, then physics can't apply.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

"Who created God?"

God is eternal. Meaning: He had no beginning and will have no end. God was not created.

"Why can't the universe be eternal?"

Because it violates the most fundamental laws of physics. An eternal universe was debunked in the 19th century, and utterly disproven when the Big Bang was thought up. The idea of an eternal universe is the physics equivalent to YEC.

I hope that sums it up.

Dracargen

It can't, if it's a natural one, like the Egyptians' deities.

If the deity in question is defined as supernatural, then physics can't apply.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Dracargen"]

"Who created God?"

God is eternal. Meaning: He had no beginning and will have no end. God was not created.

"Why can't the universe be eternal?"

Because it violates the most fundamental laws of physics. An eternal universe was debunked in the 19th century, and utterly disproven when the Big Bang was thought up. The idea of an eternal universe is the physics equivalent to YEC.

I hope that sums it up.

Dracargen

It can't, if it's a natural one, like the Egyptians' deities.

If the deity in question is defined as supernatural, then physics can't apply.

just watch this movie

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

then learn that the modern zodiac presented in the movie didn't exist until the 2nd century:P

Manzepman71

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

A zygote is more complex than a fully grown human? tsk!

You throw in thermodymanics as if it adds something to your argument, without explaining why, or why you believe in this law.

Not really the idea, as it breaks your concept?

Its exactly the point! The point you asserted incorrectly and I have proved wrong from many angles.

I depends on how you describe the term "complex". It is possible. Revinh

Ok, let's try this again: a zygote is a lot more complex than the individual cells of organs, bones and limbs.

Yeah, I threw it in...thinking you'd get the comparison :roll:

The 2nd law is that everything tends to die away in the same way that copies become poorer. You can't create something more complex than you. It's complex-to-simple. In the xerox copies example, a copy cannot be better than the previous one, it always gets worse and you literally put "complex" to mean worsening. I was giving an ANALOGY.

No arm parent gives birth to normal baby - That's a funny description of "complex." It's bodily system is the same as the parent. It's not like all the parent's ancestors didn't have limbs and it's not like there's a progression of additions of limbs.

How does it break my concept if it's not the idea? How are you proving me wrong when you're not even on the same page?

Why would you think that it's more logical for something as simple as the universe to be eternal than God, anyway? For something to be always existing obviously must be extremely complex.

Erm, a zygote is an individual cell.

Your explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is utterly hilarious! I hope you don't really believe that tosh and do look up what the real meaning of thermodynamic theory is.

My limbless argument still proved you wrong, as the offspring will be more complex than the parent - Unless you want to start caveating your original supposistion, that is.

Not on the same page? You twist and usurp physical laws of dynamics to try and explain your incorrect and foolish suppositions, then resport to insults when the argument turns against you.

You talk about something always existing, then talk about it being extrememly obvious that its complex. Why is it obvious? Surely this leap of logic should be explained. Would it not be more obvious for an eternal being to be simple, for example?

"EVEN IF YOUR AETHEST JUST THINK OTHERWISE FOR A SEC"

m religious BUT HOW!! HOW DID THE CREATOR BECOME?there was nothing then poof =GOD?? my head is seriously hrting thinking about it?!1 arghhhhh

kirk4ever

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]A zygote is more complex than a fully grown human? tsk!

You throw in thermodymanics as if it adds something to your argument, without explaining why, or why you believe in this law.

Not really the idea, as it breaks your concept?

Its exactly the point! The point you asserted incorrectly and I have proved wrong from many angles.

I depends on how you describe the term "complex". It is possible. Revinh

Ok, let's try this again: a zygote is a lot more complex than the individual cells of organs, bones and limbs.

Yeah, I threw it in...thinking you'd get the comparison :roll:

The 2nd law is that everything tends to die away in the same way that copies become poorer. You can't create something more complex than you. It's complex-to-simple. In the xerox copies example, a copy cannot be better than the previous one, it always gets worse and you literally put "complex" to mean worsening. I was giving an ANALOGY.

No arm parent gives birth to normal baby - That's a funny description of "complex." It's bodily system is the same as the parent. It's not like all the parent's ancestors didn't have limbs and it's not like there's a progression of additions of limbs.

How does it break my concept if it's not the idea? How are you proving me wrong when you're not even on the same page?

Why would you think that it's more logical for something as simple as the universe to be eternal than God, anyway? For something to be always existing obviously must be extremely complex.

Erm, a zygote is an individual cell.RationalAtheist

Did I say it's not?

Your explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is utterly hilarious! I hope you don't really believe that tosh and do look up what the real meaning of thermodynamic theory is.RationalAtheist

Umm, okay, where exactly was the funny part?

2nd law of thermodynamics
1. Heat flows spontaneously from a hot body to a cool one
2. One cannot convert heat completely into useful work.
3. Every isolated system becomes disordered in time.

My limbless argument still proved you wrong, as the offspring will be more complex than the parent - Unless you want to start caveating your original supposistion, that is.RationalAtheist

No, because I already explained why. It's not like all the parent's ancestors didn't have limbs and it's not like there's a progression of additions of limbs, which makes your example not so different from someone who burned their arm and had a child with complete set of limbs.

Not on the same page? You twist and usurp physical laws of dynamics to try and explain your incorrect and foolish suppositions, then resport to insults when the argument turns against you.RationalAtheist

Try again, please.

You talk about something always existing, then talk about it being extrememly obvious that its complex. Why is it obvious? Surely this leap of logic should be explained. Would it not be more obvious for an eternal being to be simple, for example? RationalAtheist

Complex > simple

Eternal > passing

If you still just cannot get the comparison, and you most likely won't, then I give up. This is probably my last reply in our conversation.

Well, sorry if I've been insulting, I didn't mean to be.