Atlantis Online
January 22, 2021, 08:12:01 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Scientists Confirm Historic Massive Flood in Climate Change
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060228/
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

How was the Universe Created?


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How was the Universe Created?  (Read 2283 times)
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #120 on: August 17, 2008, 03:32:46 am »

Sarah

Member
Member # 2812

Member Rated:
   posted 02-16-2006 01:29 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time is a river.

WE made God.

God will be made in the future, not in the past. God will evolve into a being of all powers, beyond all flesh, blood and form and become a thing that - at first stretching the limits of our understanding - then defies all mortal comprehension.

God will evolve beyond all matter and the universe shall be reborn again, or born for the first time, whichever you prefer.

Then we will go back to the beginning again, and things will be like they were, sadly, no better or worse than they were before.

"All-powerful," we must remember, does not mean "perfect."

--------------------
"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand fail..." - King David, Psalms 137:5

http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/shoah/index.html

http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 822 | Registered: Oct 2005
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #121 on: August 17, 2008, 03:33:42 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 04-21-2006 07:06 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turing Machines and Universes

By: Dr. Sam Vaknin



In 1936 an American (Alonzo Church) and a Briton (Alan M. Turing) published independently (as is often the coincidence in science) the basics of a new branch in Mathematics (and logic): computability or recursive functions (later to be developed into Automata Theory).

The authors confined themselves to dealing with computations which involved "effective" or "mechanical" methods for finding results (which could also be expressed as solutions (values) to formulae). These methods were so called because they could, in principle, be performed by simple machines (or human-computers or human-calculators, to use Turing's unfortunate phrases). The emphasis was on finiteness: a finite number of instructions, a finite number of symbols in each instruction, a finite number of steps to the result. This is why these methods were usable by humans without the aid of an apparatus (with the exception of pencil and paper as memory aids). Moreover: no insight or ingenuity were allowed to "interfere" or to be part of the solution seeking process.

What Church and Turing did was to construct a set of all the functions whose values could be obtained by applying effective or mechanical calculation methods. Turing went further down Church's road and designed the "Turing Machine" – a machine which can calculate the values of all the functions whose values can be found using effective or mechanical methods. Thus, the program running the TM (=Turing Machine in the rest of this text) was really an effective or mechanical method. For the initiated readers: Church solved the decision-problem for propositional calculus and Turing proved that there is no solution to the decision problem relating to the predicate calculus. Put more simply, it is possible to "prove" the truth value (or the theorem status) of an expression in the propositional calculus – but not in the predicate calculus. Later it was shown that many functions (even in number theory itself) were not recursive, meaning that they could not be solved by a Turing Machine.

No one succeeded to prove that a function must be recursive in order to be effectively calculable. This is (as Post noted) a "working hypothesis" supported by overwhelming evidence. We don't know of any effectively calculable function which is not recursive, by designing new TMs from existing ones we can obtain new effectively calculable functions from existing ones and TM computability stars in every attempt to understand effective calculability (or these attempts are reducible or equivalent to TM computable functions).

The Turing Machine itself, though abstract, has many "real world" features. It is a blueprint for a computing device with one "ideal" exception: its unbounded memory (the tape is infinite). Despite its hardware appearance (a read/write head which scans a two-dimensional tape inscribed with ones and zeroes, etc.) – it is really a software application, in today's terminology. It carries out instructions, reads and writes, counts and so on. It is an automaton designed to implement an effective or mechanical method of solving functions (determining the truth value of propositions). If the transition from input to output is deterministic we have a classical automaton – if it is determined by a table of probabilities – we have a probabilistic automaton.

With time and hype, the limitations of TMs were forgotten. No one can say that the Mind is a TM because no one can prove that it is engaged in solving only recursive functions. We can say that TMs can do whatever digital computers are doing – but not that digital computers are TMs by definition. Maybe they are – maybe they are not. We do not know enough about them and about their future.

Moreover, the demand that recursive functions be computable by an UNAIDED human seems to restrict possible equivalents. Inasmuch as computers emulate human computation (Turing did believe so when he helped construct the ACE, at the time the fastest computer in the world) – they are TMs. Functions whose values are calculated by AIDED humans with the contribution of a computer are still recursive. It is when humans are aided by other kinds of instruments that we have a problem. If we use measuring devices to determine the values of a function it does not seem to conform to the definition of a recursive function. So, we can generalize and say that functions whose values are calculated by an AIDED human could be recursive, depending on the apparatus used and on the lack of ingenuity or insight (the latter being, anyhow, a weak, non-rigorous requirement which cannot be formalized).

Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics which describes the microcosm. It is governed by the Schrodinger Equation (SE). This SE is an amalgamation of smaller equations, each with its own space coordinates as variables, each describing a separate physical system. The SE has numerous possible solutions, each pertaining to a possible state of the atom in question. These solutions are in the form of wavefunctions (which depend, again, on the coordinates of the systems and on their associated energies). The wavefunction describes the probability of a particle (originally, the electron) to be inside a small volume of space defined by the aforementioned coordinates. This probability is proportional to the square of the wavefunction. This is a way of saying: "we cannot really predict what will exactly happen to every single particle. However, we can foresee (with a great measure of accuracy) what will happen if to a large population of particles (where will they be found, for instance)."

This is where the first of two major difficulties arose:

To determine what will happen in a specific experiment involving a specific particle and experimental setting – an observation must be made. This means that, in the absence of an observing and measuring human, flanked by all the necessary measurement instrumentation – the outcome of the wavefunction cannot be settled. It just continues to evolve in time, describing a dizzyingly growing repertoire of options. Only a measurement (=the involvement of a human or, at least, a measuring device which can be read by a human) reduces the wavefunction to a single solution, collapses it.

A wavefunction is a function. Its REAL result (the selection in reality of one of its values) is determined by a human, equipped with an apparatus. Is it recursive (TM computable and compatible)? In a way, it is. Its values can be effectively and mechanically computed. The value selected by measurement (thus terminating the propagation of the function and its evolution in time by zeroing its the other terms, bar the one selected) is one of the values which can be determined by an effective-mechanical method. So, how should we treat the measurement? No interpretation of quantum mechanics gives us a satisfactory answer. It seems that a probabilistic automaton which will deal with semi recursive functions will tackle the wavefunction without any discernible difficulties – but a new element must be introduced to account for the measurement and the resulting collapse. Perhaps a "boundary" or a "catastrophic" automaton will do the trick.

The view that the quantum process is computable seems to be further supported by the mathematical techniques which were developed to deal with the application of the Schrodinger equation to a multi-electron system (atoms more complex than hydrogen and helium). The Hartree-Fok method assumes that electrons move independent of each other and of the nucleus. They are allowed to interact only through the average electrical field (which is the charge of the nucleus and the charge distribution of the other electrons). Each electron has its own wavefunction (known as: "orbital") – which is a rendition of the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The problem starts with the fact that the electric field is unknown. It depends on the charge distribution of the electrons which, in turn, can be learnt from the wavefunctions. But the solutions of the wavefunctions require a proper knowledge of the field itself!

Thus, the SE is solved by successive approximations. First, a field is guessed, the wavefunctions are calculated, the charge distribution is derived and fed into the same equation in an ITERATIVE process to yield a better approximation of the field. This process is repeated until the final charge and the electrical field distribution agree with the input to the SE.

Recursion and iteration are close cousins. The Hartree-Fok method demonstrates the recursive nature of the functions involved. We can say the SE is a partial differential equation which is solvable (asymptotically) by iterations which can be run on a computer. Whatever computers can do – TMs can do. Therefore, the Hartree-Fok method is effective and mechanical. There is no reason, in principle, why a Quantum Turing Machine could not be constructed to solve SEs or the resulting wavefunctions. Its special nature will set it apart from a classical TM: it will be a probabilistic automaton with catastrophic behaviour or very strong boundary conditions (akin, perhaps, to the mathematics of phase transitions).

Classical TMs (CTMs, Turing called them Logical Computing Machines) are macroscopic, Quantum TMs (QTMs) will be microscopic. Perhaps, while CTMs will deal exclusively with recursive functions (effective or mechanical methods of calculation) – QTMs could deal with half-effective, semi-recursive, probabilistic, catastrophic and other methods of calculations (other types of functions).

The third level is the Universe itself, where all the functions have their values. From the point of view of the Universe (the equivalent of an infinite TM), all the functions are recursive, for all of them there are effective-mechanical methods of solution. The Universe is the domain or set of all the values of all the functions and its very existence guarantees that there are effective and mechanical methods to solve them all. No decision problem can exist on this scale (or all decision problems are positively solved). The Universe is made up only of proven, provable propositions and of theorems. This is a reminder of our finiteness and to say otherwise would, surely, be intellectual vanity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://samvak.tripod.com/turing.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2006   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #122 on: August 17, 2008, 03:35:02 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 05-02-2006 12:00 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stellar dynamics in the innermost region

Time resolved astrometry over a time span of now already 12 years allows a description of the proper motions of the Galactic Centre stars. The observations clearly show, that some stars in the immediate vicinity of Sgr A* - i.e. in distances up to around 30 light days - move on Keplerian orbits around the central mass. From the shape of these orbits, the distance between earth and Sgr A* and the mass of Sgr A* could be calculated.

Radio and X-ray emission from Sgr A*

The supermassive black hole in the centre of the Milky Way was discovered as a bright non-thermal radio source in the 1970s and termed Sagittarius A* Sgr A*. Potential X-ray radiation by Sgr A* was detected with the X-ray observatory Rosat in the 1990s. A reliable identification of X-rays from Sgr A* was finally possible with the new X-ray satellites Chandra and XMM, with their high spatial resolution and sensitivity. The radio emission of SgrA* only varies slowly on time scales of several days to a few hundred days and generally with an amplitude <10%. However, in the X-ray regime, SgrA* was found to exhibit two different states. On the one hand, in the quiescent state, weak X-ray emission appears to come from a slightly extended area around the black hole that appears to be evidence of hot accreting gas in the environment of SgrA*. On the other hand, SgrA* shows X-ray flares with a period of about one per day. During these flares, the emission rises by factors up to 100 during several tens of minutes and a distinctive point source becomes visible at the location of SgrA*. The short rise-and-decay times of the flares suggest that the radiation must origin from a region within less than 10 Schwarzschild radii of a 3.6 million solar mass black hole.

Near-infrared flares from the black hole

Near-infrared high-resolution observations of the galactic centre GC became possible since the beginning of the 1990s. Since then, the GC stellar was regularly monitored by high-resolution NIR imaging. However, in spite of all efforts, no unambiguous NIR counterpart of SgrA* could be detected up to 2003. On the 9th of May, during routine observations of the GC star cluster at 1.7 microns with NAOS/CONICA at the VLT, we witnessed a powerful flare at the location of the black hole. Within a few minutes, the flux of a faint source increased by a factor of 5-6 and fainted again after about 30 min. The flare was found to have happened within a few milli-arcseconds of the position of Sgr A*. The short rise-and-decay times told us that the source of the flare was located within less than 10 Schwarzschild radii of the black hole. During subsequent observations in 2003 and 2004, we could observe more flares from Sgr A* in the H, K and L-bands 1.7, 2.2 and 3.8 microns and also quiescent emission from a source at this location. With hindsight, we could also detect a flaring source in older, longer wavelength data from 2002. Independently, flaring and variability of SgrA* in the L-band was also observed at the Keck telescope by researchers from the University of California, LA, in June 2003.

The quiescent and flaring NIR emission from Sgr A* fills an important gap in our knowledge of the spectrum of this source and will allow to constrain the existing models on how the radiation is produced. While the quiescent emission appears to be largely consistent with an origin in the high-energy tail of a synchrotron spectrum, the mechanism of the NIR flares is uncertain and its explanation one of our main goals. Simultaneous, multi-wavelength NIR and X-ray observations of the GC were executed in 2004. Additionally we observed Sgr A* with the AO-assisted near infrared integral field spectrometer SINFONI in July 2004 and were able to detect and measure a weak flare, providing the first spectrum of a Sgr A* flare ever obtained.



A weak flare as seen by SINFONI on July 15, 2004. The time in minutes is shown in the images.

The chances are high that these observations will provide the required data to constrain the models and to establish or exclude a relation between the X-ray and NIR variability.

A spin measurement of the black hole?


Light curves of the Sgr A* NIR flares in 2002 and 2003, observed with NACO/VLT. The L'-band flare on August 30, 2002, was only partially covered by observations. Gaps in the time series of the H-band flare on May 10, 2003, and of the KS-band flare on June 15, 2003, are due to sky observations and instrument failure, respectively. For comparison, the emission of the steady emission of the star S1 near Sgr A* is shown in all the plots light grey data points. Arrows in the plots of the two KS-band flares indicate substructure peaks of the flares. Both KS-band flares show very similar quasi-periodicity, although the second flare was observed more than 24 h after the first one and must thus have been an unrelated event. The upper right panel shows the normalised power spectrum of the two KS-band flares. Both of them show a significant peak at a frequency corresponding to time scales of 16.8±2.0 min. In both cases, the power spectrum of S1 does not show such a frequency.

The two K-band flares observed on the 15th and 16th of June 2003 are the flares that were completely covered by observations. Although they happened more than 24 hours apart and thus appear to be unrelated events, they both show a striking quasi-periodicity of the flare with a period of about 17 min. Of all possible periodic processes near a black hole acoustic modes of a thin disk, Lense-Thirring precession, precession of orbital nodes, orbital motion, the period of matter circling the black hole near the last stable orbit is the shortest one. The observed period of 17 min is so short, however, that the only reasonable explanation is that the oscillations are produced by Doppler boosting of hot gas near the last stable orbit of a spinning Kerr black hole. The spin of the black hole will allow for a last stable orbit closer to the event horizon and thus with a shorter orbital frequency. From the observed 17 min period we estimate that the supermassive black hole Sgr A* has a spin that is half as big as the maximum possible spin of such an object. Additional observations of flares and their quasi-periodicity will be needed in order to confirm this result. Should the quasi-periodicity indeed be an intrinsic feature of the flares then this will mean that the era of black hole physics has begun with the properties of black holes accessible to direct measurements!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Infrared and Submillimeter Astronomy Group at MPE
last update: 25/11/2004, editor of this page: Thomas Ott


http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #123 on: August 17, 2008, 03:35:59 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 05-02-2006 12:06 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the Universe Created by Angels? - Marcus Chown

The discovery that it might be possible to make a universe in the laboratory could have profound implications for the origin of our Universe

The ultimate experiment is about to begin. On a cold, lonely moon, shrouded in purple-pink fog, a sentient ocean marshals the energy of a galaxy and focuses them onto a tiny mote of matter. A hundred billion stars flicker and dim. The air above the ocean sizzles and catches fire. Crushed by stupendous energies, the tiny mote twists and bucks and, with a violent shudder, implodes. Somewhere else--in another space, another time--a searing-hot fireball explodes out of nothingness and begins to expand and cool. The ultimate scientific experiment has produced the ultimate experimental result: the birth of a new universe.

Could our Universe have been born in such a way? According to Edward Harrison, it’s a real possibility. “Our Universe could easily be the outcome of an experiment carried out by a superior intelligence in another universe,” says the British physicist, formerly of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Why suggest such an outlandish thing? Because it sheds light on a deep puzzle: why the laws of physics appear “fine-tuned” for our existence. Surprisingly, even slight deviations in the laws would result in a universe devoid of stars and life. If, for instance, the force of gravity were just a few percent weaker it could not squeeze and heat the matter inside stars to the millions of degrees necessary to trigger sunlight-generating nuclear reactions. If gravity were only a few percent stronger, however, it would heat up stars, causing them to consume their fuel faster. They would not exist for the billions of years needed for evolution to produce intelligence.

This kind of fine-tuning turns out to be widespread. One possible explanation is that the Universe was “designed” by God. Some scientists accept this. "Unfortunately, it terminates further scientific enquiry," says Harrison. The other possibility is that the Universe is the way it is because, if it wasn't, we would not be here to notice. According to this topsy-turvy reasoning, known as the "anthropic principle", it is hardly surprising that we find ourselves in a universe which is fine-tuned for the existence of galaxies, stars and life. We could hardly have evolved in a universe that was not!

The anthropic principle leads to the idea that our universe is one of countless others. In each universe of this "multiverse", forces like gravity have different strengths. An unavoidable consequence, however, is that most universes lack the special conditions needed for the birth of galaxies, stars, planets and so on. "There will be countless lifeless universes," says Harrison. "This is waste on a truly cosmic scale.”

But in cosmology, as in politics, there may be a third way. According to Harrison, the multiverse could be far from a wasteland. It could be dominated by universes with galaxies and stars and life. The prerequisite is that life-bearing universes have a special ability: the ability to reproduce. Specifically, Harrison is suggesting that intelligent life actually makes new universes. "If so, then in offspring universes which are fit for life, new life evolves to a high level of intelligence, then creates further universes," says Harrison.

In Harrison's scheme, dubbed the “natural selection of universes”, the laws of physics most suited for the emergence and evolution of life are naturally selected by life itself. The origin of our Universe is explained. It was created by super-intelligent beings living in another universe!

If Harrison is right, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics has two possible explanations. New universes could inherit the characteristics of their cosmic parents as children inherit the characteristics of their human parents. Small "genetic variations" in the laws between generations would ensure new universes were not carbon copies of their predecessors. It follows that since the parent of our Universe was fine-tuned for life and similar to our own--if it wasn't, life would never have arisen in it to make our Universe--our Universe must also be fine-tuned. Another possible explanation for the fine-tuning is that the makers of our Universe actually engineered our Universe to have laws that promoted the evolution of intelligent life.

According to Harrison, the mystery of why the Universe appears designed for life has a straightforward solution: at a fundamental level it was designed for life. However, and this is Harrison’s novel twist, it was designed not by God--a Supreme Being--but by superior beings. Angels, if you like! "Intelligent life takes over universe-making business," says Harrison. "Consequently, the creation of the universe drops out of the religious sphere and becomes amenable to science."

Crucial to Harrison's reasoning is the assumption that it is actually possible to make a universe. Bizarre as it seems, this is not science fiction. The recipe was discovered independently around 1980 by Alexei Starobinsky in Russia and Alan Guth in America. In their “inflationary” picture, our Universe “inflated” from a super-dense "seed" of matter, perhaps only a thousandth of a gram. This prompted Guth to suggest that a universe might be made in the laboratory. Simply take a seed of matter and squeeze it to the extraordinary density that once triggered the inflation of our Universe. This will make a black hole. However, according to Guth, the super-dense interior will inflate--not in our universe, but in a bubble-like space-time connected to our own by the "umbilical cord" of the hole. This cord is unstable. When it snaps, a baby universe will be born! "The practical details are not important," says Harrison. "The important thing is that if beings of our limited intelligence can dream up wild, yet seemingly plausible, schemes for making universes, beings of much higher intelligence might know theoretically and technically how to do it."

Recreating the conditions of the first split-second of the Universe is way, way beyond our capabilities. But it may not be impossible. "It's conceivable that more intelligent beings--perhaps even our own descendants in the far future--might possess not only the knowledge but also the technology to build universes," says Harrison.

But why would they want to? One possibility, says Harrison, is simply to see what happens. There may be some beings so advanced that their children make universes in the same way human children make figures out of plasticine. Another possibility, says Harrison, is that an advanced civilization, out of a spirit of altruism, might make new universes which are ever more hospitable for life.

The observable Universe contains about 10 billion galaxies. If, during the lifetime of each, a single civilisation emerges which makes a new universe--a modest figure considering our Galaxy has 200 billion suns--then our Universe reproduces 10 billion times. Furthermore, if intelligent life in each galaxy of each daughter universe repeats the ultimate experiment just once, the result is 10 billion times 10 billion granddaughter universes. This rate of reproduction puts a flu virus to shame! Life-bearing universes could very quickly come to dominate the multiverse.

Einstein famously said: "The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible." According to Harrison, the explanation is that it was created by comprehensible beings--beings far in advance of us but basically like ourselves. Intelligent but also intelligible. They made our universe to be like theirs, and their universe was in turn understandable. After all, they had to have the understanding to manipulate it and make a new universe.

A difficulty with Harrison's vision is that, if our Universe was created by superior beings in another universe and theirs in turn was created by superior beings in an earlier universe, and so on, who or what created the first universe? One possibility, admits Harrison, is God. It seems a weak admission. However, Harrison distinguishes between his idea and the religious view. "In my scheme, God starts things," he says. "Thereafter, superior beings take over the creation of further universes." Another possibility is that in the beginning there was a large ensemble of universes, each with its own random variant of the laws of physics. Most of the universes were dead and uninteresting. But, by chance, the conditions in at least one—the intelligent “mother universe”--were right for life. "Thereafter, intelligent universes come to dominate the ensemble since they alone reproduce," says Harrison.

But if a Supreme Being made the first universe, who or what made the Supreme Being? And, if everything began with a mostly-dead ensemble of universe containing the intelligent mother universe, how did that come about? "Perhaps the supreme being occupied another universe created by an even higher form of intelligence, and perhaps the initial ensemble consisted of botched and bungled creations by a sorcerer's apprentice in another universe!" says Harrison.

One thing follows automatically from Harrison's vision. If humanity avoids destruction and survives into the far future, one day our descendants will have to make an important decision: whether or not to become parents!

Marcus Chown’s book, The Universe Next Door: Twelve mind-blowing ideas from the cutting edge of science, is published by Headline.

http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat9.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2006   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #124 on: August 17, 2008, 03:37:59 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 05-02-2006 12:08 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Created the Universe and Why ?

Can it Be that the Universe Created Itself?

The Scientific Proof

Some Unmistakable Signs of the Creator

Signs for the Aware

The Creation of Heaven and Earth

The Creation of Mankind

Signs in the Other Creatures

Allah, The Creator Subjected the Universe to Human Control

The Purpose of the Creation of Human Beings?

A Question for the Atheist



Can it Be that the Universe Created Itself?
Virtually every human being has pondered this question. Some answered by saying that the formation of the universe was merely a coincidence. Others felt there must be an unseen Creator. In what will follow, we will try to assist you in answering this question. Our approach will depend primarily on the text of the Qur'an (the Word of Allah (i.e. God), inspired to Prophet Muhammad (saws)). We request only that you open your mind and read.

Allah asks in the Qur'an:

35. Were they created out of nothing? Or were they themselves the creators?

36. Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they are sure of nothing!

(Qur'an 52:35-36)

Most deny or ignore the existence of The Creator because they cannot see Him. However, there are many things which we do not see, but yet we believe in their existence. Further, most of us believe in creatures which exist yet undiscovered and undocumented.

Many reject the existence of The Creator, believing only in science and data gathered and confirmed by its canonical methods. But, on any given day, the same person might find himself in love, deep remorse or sadness. And while contriving the most complex and personal thoughts, he does not, at the time, suppose that his feelings are a random product of firing neurons. How can he then believe that the only distinction between a corpse and a living person is the absence of organ functionality. That we need only revive his physical body to restore him to normality.

The Scientific Proof
Let us imagine ourselves standing in a laboratory stocked with beakers and test tubes containing all sorts of chemical compounds. Then suppose an earthquake has just occurred upsetting the shelved vessels, sending their contents spilling onto the laboratory floor. It would be a very strange coincidence indeed to find new life forms generating themselves where none had existed before.

You might say, 'Your analogy didn't account for time - these organisms need time to evolve.' We ask, 'How much time should we have allowed? Was there enough time since the beginning of the universe to allow for their self-induced formation?'

Let's hear from Swiss mathematician Charles Eugene Jai. In an experiment aimed at answering this very question, Jai set out to calculate the probability of the random formation of a single protein molecule. Jai 'helped' the situation by assuming the existence of formative elements, and by selecting a protein consisting of only 2,000 atoms (An average protein might consist of 32,000 atoms or more). Jai also assumed that the protein would consist of only 2 unique formative atoms.

He determined the value of probability by considering the size of the material and the time necessary for the random formation to occur. He calculated that the probability of forming even a simplified protein molecule was approximately 1 in 5 x 10 e+320 !

The size of the material necessary to produce that almost zero probability would have been a sphere with a diameter of approximately 6 x 10 e+176 miles - about 10 e+63 times bigger than the imagined size of the universe. Finally, the time necessary for the molecule to form was 10 e+243 billion years. This was far greater than the supposed age of the universe - only about 2 billion years.

He concluded that the universe was neither old enough, nor big enough to allow for the random formation of even a simple protein molecule. It was impossible for the universe to have created itself, and for life to randomly form. We must then consider another course. There is a Creator who created the universe.

Some Unmistakable Signs of the Creator
Allah said in the Qur'an:

53. We* (Allah) shall show them Our Signs on the horizons and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that it is the Truth. Is it not sufficient that the Lord is Witness over all things?

(Qur'an 41:53)

* One of the usages of 'we' in Arabic is for glorifying and indicating the greatness of a person. Here it indicates greatness and not plurality.

We live in an amazing universe. It is a universe peculiarly balanced, and purposefully tempered as if to provide a safe host for living creatures.

According to modern astronomers, the universe is expanding. They hold that if gravity had been only slightly stronger, it would have overtaken expansion very early and caused the universe to collapse. Had gravity been slightly weaker, universe expansion would have become a runaway process, not allowing time for the formation of galaxies and stars.

If either of these had occurred, there would never have been an Earth on which creatures could live. This universe seems designed, even meticulously tailored to provide suitable conditions for living. If other basic ratios and constants had been just slightly different, the universe would not have been favourable to our existence.

If, for instance, the strong and weak nuclear forces were slightly stronger relative to the electromagnetic forces, hydrogen would not exist in its ordinary form. This would mean that heavier elements, such as carbon and oxygen - two of the essential building blocks of life - would never have existed.

The strength of gravity is crucial to the existence of life in the universe in another way. If it were weaker, then it could not crush the material in a star the size of the Sun with enough force to ignite its thermonuclear reactions. Only very massive stars would shine, and such stars would probably have too short lifespan to allow for the development of life.

These indications that the universe has been arranged to favour the appearance and survival of life has been taken very seriously by certain scientists. Prominent among them is astronomer Brandon Carter. Modern science estimates that it has taken 4 billion years for human beings to evolve from unicellular life forms. Carter has calculated that the average period for any evolution of this magnitude should take much longer - about 10 billion years. That is longer than the lifespan of a Sun-sized star, and much longer than the period of life-favourable conditions on Earth.

It would seem that intelligent life appeared on Earth despite its high improbability. We are again pulled towards recognizing the Creator.

Signs for the Aware
164. Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of the night and day, and the sailing of ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind, and the water which Allah sends down from the skies, thereby reviving the earth after its death, and dispersing therein all kinds of beasts, and (in) the ordinance of the winds, and the clouds subjugated between heaven and earth: are signs for people who have sense.

(Qur'an 2:164)

The Creation of Heaven and Earth
60. Who has created the heavens and the earth, and Who sends down for you water from the sky? Yea, with it We cause to grow well-planted orchards full of beauty and delight: it never has been yours to cause to grow. Could there be another god besides Allah? Nay, but they are people who swerve from justice.

61. Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in, and placed rivers in its folds, and set upon it immovable mountains, and made a barrier between the two seas (fresh and salt waters)? Could there be another god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not.

62. Or, Who answers the one distressed when he calls unto Him, and Who relieves the harm, and makes you (mankind) inheritors of the earth? Could there be another god besides Allah? Little do they reflect!

63. Or, Who guides you through the depths of darkness in the land and the sea, and Who sends the winds as heralds of His Mercy? Could there be another god besides Allah? High is Allah above what they ascribe to Him!

64. Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and Who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? Could there be another god besides Allah? Say, " Bring your proof, if you are truthful!"

65. Say: None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah, knows what is hidden. Nor are they able to perceive when they shall be resurrected (for Judgment).

(Qur'an 27:60-65)

9. Allah is He Who sends the winds which push up the clouds. Then He leads them unto a dead land and revive therewith the earth after its death. Such is the Resurrection!

(Qur'an 35:9)

27. Have they not seen that Allah causes water to fall from the sky? Then with it We produce fruit of various colours; and among the hills are streaks white and red, and of various colours, and (others) of raven-black.

28. And so amongst men and beasts and cattle, in like manner, various colours. Verily those who truly fear Allah, among His Servants, are those endued with knowledge, and Allah is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving.

(Qur'an 35:27-28)

65. Allah sends down water from the sky and therewith revives the earth after its death. Verily in this is a sign for those who listen.

(Qur'an 16:65)

6. Have they not then observed the sky above them, how We have constructed it and beautified it, and how there are no rifts in it?

7. And We have spread out the earth, and have flung firm hills therein, and have caused every lovely thing to grow thereon (in pairs).

8. A vision and a reminder for every repentant servant.

9. And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops,

10. And lofty date-palms with ranged clusters.

11. Provision (made) for (Allah's) Servants; and therewith We quicken a dead land. Like so will be the resurrection of the dead.

(Qur'an 50:6-11)

2. Allah is He Who raised the heavens without pillars that you can see, then mounted the Throne, and compelled the sun and the moon to be of service (to his Law)! Each runs (its course) unto an appointed term. He regulates all affairs, explaining the revelations, that you may be certain of the meeting with your Lord.

3. And Allah is He who spread out the earth and placed therein firm hills and flowing streams, and of all fruits He placed therein two spouses (male and female). He covered the night with day. Behold! Herein verily are signs for people who take thought.

4. And in the Earth are neighbouring tracts, vineyard and ploughed lands, and palm trees, like and unlike, watered with one water (the same water). And We have made some of them to excel others in fruit. Behold! Herein verily are signs for people who have sense.

(Qur'an 13:2-4)

The Creation of Mankind
12. Verily We created man from a product of wet earth (clay).

13. Then placed him as a drop (of sperm) in a safe lodging.

14. Then We fashioned the drop into a clot, then We fashioned the clot into a little lump, then We fashioned the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!

15. Then Behold! After that you surely will die.

16. Then, on the Day of Resurrection you will be raised (again).

(Qur'an 23:12-16)

78. And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that you might give thanks.

(Qur'an 16:78)

19. He brings forth the living from the dead, and He brings forth the dead from the living, and He revives the earth after its death. And like so you will be brought forth (from death).

20. And of His Signs is this: He created you from dust, and then, behold you are human beings, ranging widely!

21. And of His Signs is this: He created for you mates from yourselves that you might find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy. Behold! Herein indeed are Signs for those who reflect.

22. And of His Signs are the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the variations of your languages and colours. Behold! Herein indeed are signs for those who know.

23. And of His Signs is your sleep by night and by day, and your seeking of His Bounty. Behold! Herein indeed are signs for those who heed.

24. And of His Signs is this: He shows you the lightning for fear and for hope, and sends down water from the sky, and thereby revives the earth after its death. Behold! Herein indeed are signs for those who understand.

(Qur'an 30:19-24)

Signs in the Other Creatures
66. Behold! In the cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies, from between the refuse and the blood, pure milk palatable to the drinkers.

67. And of the fruits of the date-palm, and grapes, you derive strong drink and (also) good food. Behold! Therein is indeed a sign for people who have sense.

68. And the Lord inspired the (female) bee: "Choose your habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they (humans) dwell."

69. "Then eat of all fruits, and follow the paths of your Lord (which were) made smooth". There comes forth from their bellies a drink of diverse hues (honey), and wherein is healing for mankind. Behold! Herein is indeed a sign for people who give thought.

(Qur'an 16:66-69)

34. And We have placed therein gardens of the date-palm and grapes, and We have caused springs of water to gush forth therein.

35. That they may eat of the fruit thereof, which their hands did not make. Will they not, then, give thanks?

36. Glory be to Him Who created all the pairs of that which the earth grows, and of themselves, and of that which they know not!

37. And a reminder for them is night. We strip it of the day, and behold! They are in darkness.

38. And the sun runs on unto a resting-place (orbit) for it. That is the measuring of the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

39. And for the moon We have appointed mansions until it returns like an old shriveled palm-leaf.

40. It is not permitted that the sun catch up to the moon, nor can the night outstrip the day: All float in an orbit.

41. And a reminder for them is that We bear their offspring in laden ship,

42. And We have created for them similar on which they ride.

43. And if We will, We drown them, and there is no help for them, neither can they be saved.

44. Unless by mercy from Us and as comfort for a while.

45. When they are told: Fear that which is before you and that which is behind you, that you may find mercy (they are heedless).

46. Never did a sign come to them (the unbelievers) of the signs of their Lord, but they did turn away from it!

(Qur'an 36:33-46)

Allah, The Creator Subjected the Universe to Human Control
5. And the cattle He has created for you. From them you have warm clothing and uses, and whereof you eat.

6. And wherein is beauty for you, when you bring them home, and when you take them out to pasture.

7. And they carry your loads unto a land you could not reach except with souls distressed. Behold! Your Lord is indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful.

8. And (He has created) horses and mules and donkeys that you may ride them, and for ornament. And He creates that which you know not.

9. And depend on Allah for direction to the Straight Path, but some (paths) go not straight: And had He willed He would have led you all aright (by His Guidance).

10. Allah is He Who sends down water from the sky, from it you have drink, and out of it (grows) the vegetation with which you feed your cattle.

11. Therewith He causes crops to grow for you, and the olive and the date-palm and grapes and fruits of all kinds. Behold! Herein is indeed a sign for people who reflect.

12. And He has constrained the night and the day and the sun and the moon to be of service unto you, and the stars are made subservient by His command. Behold! Herein indeed are signs for people who have sense.

13. And whatsoever He has created for you in the earth of diverse hues, Behold! Therein is indeed a sign for people who take heed.

14. And Allah is He Who has constrained the sea to be of service that you eat thereof flesh that is fresh and tender, and bring forth from it ornaments to wear. And you see the ships plowing therein, that you (mankind) may seek of His bounty and that you may be grateful.

15. And He has cast into the earth firm hills that it quakes not with you, and streams and roads that you may find your way.

16. And landmarks (too), and by the stars they find their ways.

17. Is He then Who creates like one who does not create? Will you not then remember?

18. And if you try to count the favours of Allah you cannot number them. Behold! Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

(Qur'an 16:5-18)

80. Allah has given you in your houses and abode, and has given you (also), of the hides of cattle, houses which you find light (to carry) on the day of migration and on the day of pitching camp; and of their wool and their fur and their hair, caparison and comfort (to serve you) for a time.

81. And Allah has given you, of that which He has created, shelter from the sun; and has given you places of refuge in the mountains, and has given you coats with which to ward off the heat, and coats (of armour) to save you from your own foolhardiness. Thus He perfects His favour unto you, in order that you may surrender (unto Him).

82. But if they turn away, your duty is only to preach the Clear Message.

83. They (the unbelievers) know the favour of Allah but then deny it. Most of them are ingrates.

(Qur'an 16:80-83)

5. Allah is He Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light, and measured for it stages, that you might know the number of the years, and the count (of time). Allah did not create (all) that but in Truth. He details the revelations for people who have knowledge.

6. Behold! In the difference of day and night and all that Allah has created in the heavens and the earth are portents, for those who fear Him.

(Qur'an 10:5-6)

17. Will they not look at the camels, how they are created?

18. And the heavens, how it is raised?

19. And the hills, how they are fixed firms?

20. And the earth, how it is spread out?

21. Remind them, for you are not but a reminder.

(Qur'an 88:17-21)

The Purpose of the Creation of Human Beings?
16. We did not create the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in play.

17. If We had wished to find pastime, We could have found it in Our Presence - if ever We did.

(Qur'an 21:16-17)

56. I have not created jinn nor men except to worship Me.

57. I seek no livelihood from them, nor do I ask them to feed Me.

58. Behold! Allah is He Who gives livelihood, the Lord of Unbreakable Might.

(Qur'an 51:56-58)

A Question for the Atheist
Suppose that your belief is right (i.e. there is no God), then what are we (who believe in Allah) going to lose after death? But on the other hand what will happen to you if we are right? Nothing but hell. So make your choice wisely either believe in Allah, or stay hopeless in this life without knowing where you came from, where are you going to or why are you in this life.

Perhaps you may live another fifty or sixty years ignoring Allah, then you will return to Him and His Severe Punishment because of your disbelief.

On the contrary, if you believe in Allah and do good, you will return to Him and dwell in Paradise having whatsoever you wish. Whatever be your decision, we have given you the message but it is as Allah has said:

80. Behold! You can not make the dead to hear, nor can you make the deaf to hear the call, when they have turned to flee.

81. Nor can you guide the blind out of their straying. You can make none to hear, except those who believe in Our Revelations, and who have surrendered.

(Qur'an 27:80-81)

http://www.missionislam.com/discover/who_created.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2006   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #125 on: August 17, 2008, 03:40:18 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 05-02-2006 12:11 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God did not create the Universe
By Vexen Crabtree 1999 Jun 10

This page
... briefly iterates through some similar arguments, each answers some similar assertions that theists make about the logical necessity of God. The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe. If the Universe can logically exist, then no God is needed to create it. If it is valid to say "everything has a cause except God", it is more likely that everything has a cause except the Universe. If God doesn't need a cause because it is infinite, it is more likely that the natural Universe has existed forever and therefore doesn't need a cause.

The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe, 1999 June
The Universe cannot be younger than God or Logic is more powerful than God, 2002 Aug
Is the Universe logically possible?
Everything must have a cause therefore God exists, 2002 Aug 23
God doesn't need a cause because he has existed forever, 2002 Aug 23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe
By Vexen Crabtree, 1999 June 10

We all find ourselves asking what the origin of existence is. Where did it all start? The Big Bang theory is one theory, there are many other theories, for example Teloscopic Creation (where matter is repeated in - or wraps around - the middle, and expands, for infinity) also the Biblical Theory.

At some point in time, the universe was created. If the universe was infinite then it was never created - this is something that could be true but it would certainly mean that a god did not create it. Within the context of this discussion, for the sake of the theists, we will assume the universe is finite. Now given that something must have caused the universe to exist the question is, what was it? And what caused that?

"Why could the cause of the universe not be something like an eternal, immutable God who needs no cause for his existence? Well, the mere existence of God, or of any other object, could not causally explain why the universe came into existence. It must be something about God which does the explaining, such as his willing the universe to exist. But has he, for all time willed the universe to exist? Why then, did it not come into existence sooner?
"If there is a cause of the Universe's coming into existence at precisely the moment it did, then it is something which obtained just before that event. We are then led to ask why that cause obtained when it did."

Robin Le Poidevin, "Arguing for Atheism", pp13

What this is saying is: If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe did. Why did God create the universe at the time He did? Why not earlier, or later?

The problem of what caused God to create the Universe pretty much means that there were other things going on before God created the universe and this is a contradiction! So, it cannot be true that God created the Universe. It is also true that God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, which of course it can't be, because the creation of time must have occurred before time, which is not possible.

This is a problem if we want to believe in standard monotheism - for it cannot be that a god created the universe. If god did not create Time, or the Universe, what else can we extrapolate that it did not create? It must be the things that are properties of Time and of the Universe and the things that defined those. So, such things as the Dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total were not created by God.

God(s), if any exist, must be therefore be products of the Universe, perhaps evolving during the initial expansion of the universe? Our god would be more local, not infinite and not omniscient. Omniscience requires a certain non-physical nature, and as god is a product of the universe it could not be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. I.e., not all-knowing all-powerful or all-seeing.

2. The Universe cannot be younger than God or Logic is more powerful than God
By Vexen Crabtree, 2002 Aug 27

2.1. Instant Creation
If God is all-knowing, then the instant God was conscious it would have known all the pros and cons of creating a Universe and knew that it was going to do it. Therefore there is no reason for God to wait. If God chooses to wait then what is the reason?... there must be a reason. This reason, to cause God to wait, would be a limit on his omnipotence. If there is some reason why God hesitates in creating the Universe then at some point that reason no longer existed and he went on to create the Universe. What caused the "reason" for the wait to go away? Therefore the Universe must have existed for infinity, it must have been automatically created the same instant God was.

2.2. Logical cause and effect is more powerful than God's will
It seems that if God is all-powerful, there could have been no reason for God not to auto-create: Therefore God created the Universe as soon as God itself was conscious or omniscient. This means that the Universe cannot be younger than God; as God would have auto-created the Universe. (He didn't need to wait for planning permission, I'm sure).

The Universe must be infinite, like God, or God itself also follows rules of logic and reason. (I.e., if God did not auto-create, there was a reason, if there was a reason then God is following logical rules which were beyond its own control). There is a contradiction. Something is wrong. God has either not existed for all time, the Universe is infinite like God or God is not omnipotent.

Is the Universe logically possible?
3. Is the Universe logically possible?1
"God is thought of a being who is all-powerfull, but can he make a square-circle, or a triangular-square? If he can do these things, then it would push God into the realm of that which cannot possibly exist. This is why most philosophers understand the meaning of "omnipotence" as the ability to do that which is logically possible, and any questions as to whether He can do things that are logically impossible are thought to be meaningless.
This is why I want to ask, is it logically impossible for the universe to come from nothing? If it is logically impossible, then god cannot do it. However, if it is logically possible, then it could be reasonably said that the universe came on its' own. Then to postulate the idea of God might be explanitorily superflous."

By Samuel Owens in an email 2002 Nov 05

4. Everything must have a cause therefore God exists
By Vexen Crabtree, 2002 Aug 23

This statement is sometimes used as argument that there must be a god. But, it doesn't work. Because if god was not created by something, then god exists without a cause. And therefore the argument is "Everything except god must have a cause". If this argument is valid then it must also be valid to say "Everything except the Universe must have a cause".

Employing Occam's Razor we see that as a general rule of thumb, by this argument, the Universe is more likely to exist without a Creator than with one, as in both cases there is a single "uncaused cause" but without a god there is a lesser degree of complexity. Another reason for it being more likely that the uncaused cause is the Universe is that God requires many properties and complexities such as thought, logic, consciousness: All of them must have been derived from somewhere. There are fewer unanswered questions if we discard the idea of God.

5. God doesn't need a cause because it has existed forever
By Vexen Crabtree, 2002 Aug 23

In order to avoid the problem of the Universe being an uncaused cause some say that god has always existed and has therefore never been created: It therefore needs no cause. But I find this is an argument that can be used in conjunction with big bang theory to prove, again, that god is not likely to exist as a first cause. Because according to some Big Bang theories there has been an infinite number of cycles of Big Bang / Big Crunch (where the Universe ends in a big black hole after contracting) and that the Universe has existed forever. If it is possible for something to exist forever and not need a cause then it is likely to be the Universe, not God, and once again we can theorize that this is likely to be true because there would be no reason for god if it was true that something could exist with no cause.

Big Bang models describe the creation of all the dimensions of space including time itself, so that to ask "what happened before the big bang?" is meaningless in the same way as asking "what was god doing before it created time?".

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2006   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #126 on: August 17, 2008, 03:40:46 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 05-02-2006 12:14 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we can look at Bible Chronology. This was the work of a Bishop Usher in the last
century trying to place a date on events recorded in the Bible. He placed creation at 4004
BC, Christ's birth at 4 BC and the end of 6000 years would be approximately 1997 AD
since there is no year 0....

Bible Chronology identifying the approaching end of the sixth "1000 year day"

1,656 years Creation to the Flood AM 0000 4004 BC Adam created
429 years Flood to Abram depart Haran AM 1657 2347 BC Flood
430 years Abram departure to Exodus AM 2085 1919 BC Abram departs
480 years Exodus to 4th of Solomon AM 2995 1009 BC 4th Solomon
407 years 4th of Solomon to Nebuchadnezar AM 3401 603 BC 1st Nebuchadnezar
147 years 1st Nebuchadnezzar to
7th Artaxerxes I AM 3471 533 BC 7th Artaxerses I
490 years 7th Artaxerxes I to
Cornelius¹ conversion AM 4039 33 AD Cornelius
4,039 years Creation-Cornelius¹ conversion AM 4543 537 AD Mosque of Omar
1,962 years Cornelius conversion-A.D. 1995 AM 6000 1997 AD Return of Christ...

The following is a detailed listing from the Bible showing how the last 6000
years are identified:


AM DATE REFERENCE ----------------------COMMENTS--------------------
0 4004 BC Gen 1:26 Adam and Eve Created by God
131 3873 BC Gen 5:3 Seth was born in Adam¹s 131st year
236 3768 BC Gen 5:6 Enos was born when Seth was 105
326 3678 BC Gen 5:9 Cainan was born when Enos was 90
396 3608 BC Gen 5:12 Mahalaeel was born when Cainan was 70
461 3543 BC Gen 5:15 Jared was born when Mahalaeel was 65
623 3381 BC Gen 5:18 Enoch was born when Jared was 162
688 3316 BC Gen 5:21 Methuselah was born when Enoch was 65
875 3129 BC Gen 5:25 Lamech was born when Methuselah was 187
1057 2947 BC Gen 5:28 Noah was born when Lamech 182
1656 2348 BC Gen 7:6 Noah was 600 when Flood occured
1659 2345 BC Gen 11:10 Arphaxad was born 2 years after the flood
1694 2310 BC Gen 11:12 Salah was born when Arphaxad was 35
1724 2280 BC Gen 11:14 Eber was born when Salah was 30
1758 2246 BC Gen 11:16 Peleg was born when Eber was 34
1788 2216 BC Gen 11:18 Reu was born when Peleg was 30
1820 2184 BC Gen 11:20 Serug was born when Reu was 32
1850 2154 BC Gen 11:22 Nahor was born when Serug was 30
1879 2125 BC Gen 11:24 Terah was born when Nahor was 29
2084 1920 BC Gen 11:32 Terah dies age 205 (during his 206th year)
2085 1919 BC Gen 12:4 Abram leaves Haran to enter Canaan (he departed at age 75)
2095 1909 BC Gen 15:18 Typical confirmation of Covenant: Abram age 85
2096 1908 BC Gen 16:16 Ishmael born when Abraham was 86
2110 1894 BC Gen 21:5 Isaac was born when Abraham was 100
2144 1860 BC Gen 23:1 Isaac offered at age 33 1/2
2147 1857 BC Gen 23:1 Sarah died at age 127
2170 1834 BC Gen 25:26 Jacob and Esau born when Isaac was 60
2300 1704 BC Gen 47:9 Jacob enters Egypt at 130
2515 1489 BC Gen 15:13 see Gal 4:28-30, Israel in Egypt 215 years to Exodus
2995 1009 BC 1 Kings 6:1 Solomon laid the temple foundation 480 years after the Exodus (4th year of his reign)
3031 973 BC 1 Kings 11:42 Solomon reigned for 40 years
3048 956 BC 1 Kings 14:21 Rehoboam reigned for 17 years
3051 953 BC 1 Kings 15:2 Abijah reigned for 3 years
3092 912 BC 1 Kings 15:10 Asa reigned for 41 years
3117 887 BC 1 Kings 22:42 Jehoshaphat reigned for 25 years
3122 882 BC 2 Kings 8:17 Jehoram reigned for 5 years (+3 pro-rex)
3123 881 BC 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah reigned for 1 year
3129 875 BC 2 Kings 11:3 Athaliah reigned for 6 years
3169 835 BC 2 Kings 12:1 Jehoash reigned for 40 years
3198 806 BC 2 Kings 14:2 Amaziah reigned for 29 years
3250 754 BC 2 Kings 15:2 Azariah (Uzziah) reigned for 52 years
3266 738 BC 2 Kings 15:33 Jotham reigned for 16 years
3282 722 BC 2 Kings 16:2 Ahaz reigned for 16 years
3311 693 BC 2 Kings 18:2 Hezekiah reigned for 29 years
3366 638 BC 2 Kings 21:1 Manasseh reigned for 55 years
3397 607 BC 2 Kings 22:1 Josiah reigned for 31 years
3401 603 BC 2 Kings 23:36 Jehoiakim (Elialim) reigned 4 years before
being tributary to Nebuchadnezzar in his 1st year
3471 533 BC Jer 25:11-12 Land of Israel served Babylon for 70 years
3471 533 BC 2 Chron 36:22 The decree of Cyrus allowing the return
3549 455 BC Ezra 7:7-8 Artaxerxes Longimanus who made the decree
to rebuild Jerusalem
4036 33 AD Dan 9:27 Messiah to be cut off middle of 70th week
4039 36 AD Acts 10 End of 70th week, conversion of Cornelius
and opening of door to Gentiles
6000 1997 AD Heb 4:1-11 Return of Christ - End of 6th (1000 year)
day - start of the 7th (1000 year) day of rest...


While we do not know the actual day or hour, we could expect the return of Christ some time between Easter and the Jewish New Year in 1997.

http://daveola.com/Pages/World_Birthday_Party/Chronology.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2006   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #127 on: August 17, 2008, 03:41:05 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 05-02-2006 12:21 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:

CC:

DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA)

OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD

RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)

GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)

COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)

SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)

CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)

NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)

DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)

BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)

TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY

KENTUCKY GOVERNOR ERNIE FLETCHER

SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR MICHAEL L. FAIR


I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.


In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.


http://www.venganza.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2006   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #128 on: August 17, 2008, 03:41:35 am »

Raven:

Member
Member # 3027

Member Rated:
   posted 05-02-2006 12:30 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spectacle.org/0500/lizard.html

A Created Universe Would Not be Proof of God
By Lizard lizard@mrlizard.com

Some philosopher, commenting on the need for humans to be kept securely in line by means of fear, quipped that "If God did not exist, we would have to invent him". What he meant was that the idea of a God -- of an absolute force beyond reason, logic, or argument --- was needed to enforce social order. There had to be an ubercop, an inarguable absolute, a cosmic power stating, "Because I'm the mommy, that's why!"

While the idiocies of this idea are manifold, it has nonetheless resurfaced in the form of morons who claim that if only the Ten Commandments (which version of them? Blank out.) were posted in public schools, no one would kill anyone, there'd be no teenage sex, and everyone would be clean-cut, blonde and blue eyed, even the Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. The usual tactic is to attack evolution, apparently believing that if only Darwin was wrong, that means something.

Let's pretend they're right. Remember, this is only pretend.

Tomorrow, it is announced by the Union Of Old Guys in Labcoats that an experiment has conclusively proven that life does not evolve -- that all life was created by an outside intelligence. What does this mean to morality, to justice, to ethics?

Diddly-squat. If we're lucky.

When all is said and done, absolute evidence that all life, indeed, the entire universe, began as the result of a conscious act by a supernatural being or beings would at best leave the world in its current moral muddle, at worst reduce it to unending[1] war.

OK, Christians (and other dubious sorts)-- I am going to ask you to do something you aren't good at, that you are not trained to do, and that is probably very, very, painful for you -- I'm going to ask you to *think*. Not react. Not quote. Not reach for the gasoline and the matches and look for a pile of books. Think.

Incontrovertible evidence of intelligent creation is not incontrovertible evidence of the existence of your God -- or anyone elses, for that matter. To argue otherwise is to claim, in effect:"Here is a pocketwatch;it is obviously a made thing;the makers' name, therefore, was Fred, he was 52 years old, and owned a pet beagle named Lucy."[2]

So, the universe was made. What does this tell us about who or what made it? Nothing. What can we infer about his, her, its, or their nature? Zip. What moral guidance does it give us? None. What purpose does creation serve? Unknown. Why did he/she/it/they make the universe? No answer.

In other words, proof of a creator leaves us back at ground zero. Actually, it leaves us back at ground negative-infinity -- because while science might not know all the answers, it posits that the answers *are* *knowable*. In a created universe, nothing can be known. Ever.

Faith is meaningless, because it reduces to subjective perception. Every argument for the existence of the Christian God applies equally well to all the other gods imagined by all the men who have ever lived, and all the infinite gods yet to be imagined by all the men yet to come. With science, a baseline of objective evidence can be established;with faith, it all comes down to feelings. In a scientific universe, the basis of 'the good society' can be deduced, reasoned, argued, debated. In a creationist universe, it ends up as whims and whips. Morality and ethics become the province of priests, not philosphers. Which priests? The ones with the burliest soldiers. All ethics, all morality, all concept of right and wrong collapse to the rule of the loudest preacher with the largest army -- and there can be no argument. A universe run by the principles of faith is a universe in which two disputants cannot even agree that a yardstick exists, much less on how to use it to measure things.

So what becomes of humanity in such a world? Humans cannot live in a state of perpetual war. (Not for long, not with modern weapons, at any rate) So what will we do? In the abscence of any basis for moral value other than the whims of an unknowable creator or creators, we must come up with something. We must make up some credo, some code of behavior that will keep society creaking along until the creator(s) decide(s) to show up and give us instructions. We will probably do so by looking at human nature and human needs, acknowledging our fallibility and failings. Since we know we cannot know what the creator(s) want(s), we will allow a lot of leeway in terms of morality as applied to the individual, much less as applied to others.You know -- modern day liberal secular humanism, the bane of right-(non)thinking people everywhere.

Modern society cannot exist in a world run by faith. Faith works in worlds where the peasants never travel five miles from their village and, when told that their suffering is "the will of God", they never ask, "Which God?", because they've never heard of any others. It cannot exist in a world where any child can access the mythology of ten thousand years and ten thousand societies with the click of a mouse. Absolute proof that there was a creator or creators would not lead the world into peace and harmony -- it would smash it into a billion warring pieces, a war of all against all, until there was nothing left to fight for and no one left to fight against.

If God did exist -- we would have to destroy him.

[1]For sufficiently small values of 'unending'. About 15-30 minutes, I'd warrant, until the Earth is a nicely blackened radioactive ember. I'd like to hope that the next species to evolve would be smarter, but we're postulating a no-evolution universe, so that will be that. Game over, man, game over!

[2]Some of you, the more stupid of you, will now scream "But the watch was signed by the Creator! He wrote it all down in the Bible!" Except that there's another group who says it was signed by Allah, not Yahweh. And another who says it was signed by Odin, and another by Shiva, and another and another and another....Get it yet? Evidence of creation is not evidence of *a* *specific* *creator*. Fine, you've shown life can't evolve. Now, construct an experiment to prove that creation happened in accordance with a specific mythology. You can't. The Creator(s) will remain forever unknown *and* *unknowable*.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 130 | From: College | Registered: Mar 2006   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #129 on: August 17, 2008, 03:43:02 am »

Andrew Waters

Member
Member # 914

  posted 05-02-2006 01:08 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very good reading Raven, especially the one about God not creating the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2648 | From: Akron, Ohio, USA | Registered: May 2002   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #130 on: August 17, 2008, 03:43:18 am »

DingBatty Ole Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 05-02-2006 07:57 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is as far as I have gotten so far,

In other words, proof of a creator leaves us back at ground zero.

Yes? It does? WHY?

If we found proof of a creator, not of the religious kind but a creator of sorts, I think that would be most interesting.

Proof of the "nothing" seems boring.

Actually, it leaves us back at ground negative-infinity -- because while science might not know all the answers, it posits that the answers *are* *knowable*.

In a created universe, nothing can be known. Ever.

WHY?, I don't think that is true,

Now if we ever fully understand the Universe, or life, or why we are here, then what?

Eat, drink, and be merry, for in the future we die?

No hope?

Live for today?

What a depressing scenario, I was born into suffering, lived a long life, learned much, hopefully grow wise with age, drop dead, and rot, eventually becoming part of a dead planet floating endlessly in space.

Pointless.

I would rather think life has a meaning.

And I think spirituality is a good thing.

But then I'm an idiot.

« Last Edit: August 17, 2008, 03:44:10 am by Baphomet » Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #131 on: August 17, 2008, 03:44:50 am »

DingBatty Ole Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 05-02-2006 08:00 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOw would you live your life if there was proof there is "not" a God?

How would you live your life if we found proof there "IS" a god?

The fact of the matter is we humans are spiritual creatures, and I do understand religion has made the world a "horror" show, but lets set that aside for a moment and think of the chance we might find truth one day,leaving out the past and focusing on the "future of spirituality."

Personally I love to wake up in the morning and listen to drumming, and honor, and give thanks for the sunrise.

Another thought, isn't our "being" a spiritual experience?

I am in awe everyday of the fact, I stand on earth, set in motion, in a vast universe, and am able to observe this.

To me this is spiritual, not organized religion, but men alone with their thoughts.

1The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

2Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

4Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

[ 05-02-2006, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Ishtar ]
 
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #132 on: August 17, 2008, 03:45:18 am »

 
DingBatty Ole Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 05-02-2006 08:20 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart,be acceptable.

The words of wise men, since there was the word, is something to treasure.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,... "

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind

If not religion, men will find another reason to hate.

Its not about religion it is about control, one ethnic group hates another, atheists dislike Christian, Christians dislike Muslims, the rich despise the poor, the smart disrespect the unintelligent, or uneducated, yada, yada.

What is it?

Fear, being right, this gives one a sense of power, I am better then they.

I am so much more intelligent, why can they not see this?

My God is better then their God.

It is all an egotistical power trip, it is not religion it is "US"

I would like to add,

Let us contemplate,

What is our motivation?

Is it truly tolerance?

To make the world a better place?

Or are we motivated by hatred,and intolerance, Lets really do some self examination.

http://www.geocities.com/globalalan_2000/ControlDramas.html

http://www.businessballs.com/thefouragreementsdonmiguelruiz.htm

[ 05-02-2006, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Ishtar ]

 
 
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #133 on: August 17, 2008, 03:45:43 am »

Andrew Waters

Member
Member # 914

  posted 05-02-2006 09:34 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''Actually, it leaves us back at ground negative-infinity -- because while science might not know all the answers, it posits that the answers *are* *knowable*.''

And yes I did stop and looked at this one a little closer but it was much too late in the morning to get on it. Yup, I did have trouble with it.  Gotta run at 11:37 a.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2648 | From: Akron, Ohio, USA | Registered: May 2002   
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Baphomet
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3901



« Reply #134 on: August 17, 2008, 03:46:07 am »

DingBatty Ole Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 05-02-2006 09:34 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000110

--------------------
 
Report Spam   Logged

"The sleep of reason brings forth monsters." - Goya
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy