plus Nikola Tesla explicity explains how before "the big bang" All matter was at a stand still, and that the initial "big bang" absolutely required an electron to "desire" to move from an outside source...yet we are led to believe all energy and matter were compacted into a mass the size of a pinhead, with "nothingness" outside of it.
matter had to be created at some point and time, as you claim the consensus is that "matter existed before the universe". Yes but for how long, and how did it form? If your answer is "it's always there" That's like me saying the sperm and the egg had no carriers before fertilization, they were just always there...
following the basic scientific principles of Cause and Effect. Matter are complex molecules made up of certain atoms, made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons, the protrons and neutrons work together, the electrons form eliptical orbits around the nucleus. A system that can be broken down, had to at some point been broken down. That's just mathematics and physics. There had to be a cause of creation, and NOT attempting to explore a cause for atomic matter is intellectualy dishonest.
A breakdown of causality logic is known as questionable cause. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together.
Hydrogen is matter, and makes up 75% of te known universe. Hydrogen is the simplest (not complexed) element.
Systems are built up to the point they are at now.
you are being very very disnhonest in assuming there is no cause for creation. Cause and effect. I drink too much tea (cause) , later I have to piss (effect). To assume that something exists without even wanting to know why it is there and how it got there is extremely dishonest to science...good for justifying a religous position, but not truly in the search of truth.
There is nothing to indicate that creation occurred other than a religious belief.
Science does not assume a god created something as an alternative.
You brought up atheism, not me, I never claimed to be an atheist, because I am not one.
Having said that, science does not entertain the supernatural simply because science is the study of nature, and theories are our best explanations for the natural processes we (the scientific community) observe.
I can name several systems that can broken down to smaller parts. You see the Human body has serpate Independant yet codependant systems that on their own wouldn't survive very long, yet each system serves and committs a specialized function...Skeletal System, Nervous System, Respiratory system...and those systems can be broken down into muscles or in some cases tissues working together, and those tissues can be broken down to cells, which are made up of molecues, which are made up of atoms
there doesn't have to be a reason" just doesn't cut it as a scientific theory, especialy when that theory has not even beed tested. I understand if you take up the call of athiesm as a religous choice, that's your right, god bless you (lol), but that's not being true to science and the pursuit of truth...what information led you to your hypothesis? and more importantly how did you test it? If the answer to the 1st is lack of evidence of god, that doesn't cut it for the origin of matter, sorry
Beautiful. Goes to show they can't fake commonsense. They just follow & apply the same level of contradiction in their book & of their leaders to gloss over pesky details.
I might agree from the other side of the screen, but you aren't being objective only judgemental. Which is fine, I run into you every day. If people did more research & actually put their noodle to work to discover the truth I spout, then maybe they'd see this world & it's "authorities" for what they are. Do you have a specific topic to discuss? Maybe you'd like a "whack job's" view on it? I'm trying to literally wake people up, not tell them what they want to hear or already believe.
I totally agree! There are two reasons of which I can think why they don't reply here: 1) They don't want to get cought contradicting themselves; 2) They don't want people to see their half-baked theories as they try to substatiate their claim.
Well said, my friend! While I believe in the possibility of a Creator, I think it's possible to have that Creator plant the seeds of life on this planet to have the grow and evolve just like a farmer plants crops. The notion that a Creator would just magically make things appear while everything else on this planet grows and eveolves is ludacris.
And even today, seekerofyhwh continues to send me messages, which I request people do not do, on my profile, when responding to my videos. Text or video responses are preferred, and private conversations are pointless in my opinion. This is a public forum, let us keep discussions public.
plus Nikola Tesla explicity explains how before "the big bang" All matter was at a stand still, and that the initial "big bang" absolutely required an electron to "desire" to move from an outside source...yet we are led to believe all energy and matter were compacted into a mass the size of a pinhead, with "nothingness" outside of it.
EmptyBottleTherapies 2 years ago
Tesla makes a hypothesis, nothing more.
Besides, what occurred prior to this dense pinhead? (not insulting you)
It is easy to make assumptions of what one meant or inferred when they are not arround to agree or disagree with a critique.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
matter had to be created at some point and time, as you claim the consensus is that "matter existed before the universe". Yes but for how long, and how did it form? If your answer is "it's always there" That's like me saying the sperm and the egg had no carriers before fertilization, they were just always there...
EmptyBottleTherapies 2 years ago
Why?
Why did matter have to be created at some point?
Please, tell me the answer to this question.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
following the basic scientific principles of Cause and Effect. Matter are complex molecules made up of certain atoms, made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons, the protrons and neutrons work together, the electrons form eliptical orbits around the nucleus. A system that can be broken down, had to at some point been broken down. That's just mathematics and physics. There had to be a cause of creation, and NOT attempting to explore a cause for atomic matter is intellectualy dishonest.
EmptyBottleTherapies 2 years ago
A breakdown of causality logic is known as questionable cause. This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together.
Hydrogen is matter, and makes up 75% of te known universe. Hydrogen is the simplest (not complexed) element.
Systems are built up to the point they are at now.
Systems may break down as well...
can you name one?
"There had to be a cause of creation..."
WHY?
Because you are being dishonest in assuming.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
you are being very very disnhonest in assuming there is no cause for creation. Cause and effect. I drink too much tea (cause) , later I have to piss (effect). To assume that something exists without even wanting to know why it is there and how it got there is extremely dishonest to science...good for justifying a religous position, but not truly in the search of truth.
EmptyBottleTherapies 2 years ago
There is nothing to indicate that creation occurred other than a religious belief.
Science does not assume a god created something as an alternative.
You brought up atheism, not me, I never claimed to be an atheist, because I am not one.
Having said that, science does not entertain the supernatural simply because science is the study of nature, and theories are our best explanations for the natural processes we (the scientific community) observe.
Stop being dishonest.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
I can name several systems that can broken down to smaller parts. You see the Human body has serpate Independant yet codependant systems that on their own wouldn't survive very long, yet each system serves and committs a specialized function...Skeletal System, Nervous System, Respiratory system...and those systems can be broken down into muscles or in some cases tissues working together, and those tissues can be broken down to cells, which are made up of molecues, which are made up of atoms
EmptyBottleTherapies 2 years ago
You said this:
"A system that can be broken down, had to at some point been broken down."
Then you cite several systems, skeletal, nervous and respiratory.
There is nothing to indicate that any of these systems "had to at some point been broken down", in your words.
You speak of dishonesty of others, yet fail to realize that you have not a clue of that which you speak of.
Stop being dishonest.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
there doesn't have to be a reason" just doesn't cut it as a scientific theory, especialy when that theory has not even beed tested. I understand if you take up the call of athiesm as a religous choice, that's your right, god bless you (lol), but that's not being true to science and the pursuit of truth...what information led you to your hypothesis? and more importantly how did you test it? If the answer to the 1st is lack of evidence of god, that doesn't cut it for the origin of matter, sorry
EmptyBottleTherapies 2 years ago
I am not sure which "theory" you are referring to when you say; "that theory has not even beed tested."
Please, make some sense.
Please, stop being dishonest...
Dishonest in your posts...
Dishonest in your reasoning...
Dishonest in your lack of ability to comprehend simple scientific concepts.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
Beautiful. Goes to show they can't fake commonsense. They just follow & apply the same level of contradiction in their book & of their leaders to gloss over pesky details.
Iggyocracy 2 years ago
Your arrogance is what prevents you from being taken seriously.
EmptyBottleTherapies 2 years ago
And you are to be taken seriously?
All you did was make a comment concerning arrogance, nothing more.
Pretty lame.
messiahjonz 2 years ago
I might agree from the other side of the screen, but you aren't being objective only judgemental. Which is fine, I run into you every day. If people did more research & actually put their noodle to work to discover the truth I spout, then maybe they'd see this world & it's "authorities" for what they are. Do you have a specific topic to discuss? Maybe you'd like a "whack job's" view on it? I'm trying to literally wake people up, not tell them what they want to hear or already believe.
Iggyocracy 2 years ago
I totally agree! There are two reasons of which I can think why they don't reply here: 1) They don't want to get cought contradicting themselves; 2) They don't want people to see their half-baked theories as they try to substatiate their claim.
ahunta2 3 years ago
Half baked is generous.
messiahjonz 3 years ago
Well said, my friend! While I believe in the possibility of a Creator, I think it's possible to have that Creator plant the seeds of life on this planet to have the grow and evolve just like a farmer plants crops. The notion that a Creator would just magically make things appear while everything else on this planet grows and eveolves is ludacris.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
ahunta2 3 years ago
Thanks...
And even today, seekerofyhwh continues to send me messages, which I request people do not do, on my profile, when responding to my videos. Text or video responses are preferred, and private conversations are pointless in my opinion. This is a public forum, let us keep discussions public.
messiahjonz 3 years ago
You could just post his comments on the appropriate video and advise him that all future communications will be transferred likewise.
tribidemp 3 years ago