Website is being redesign with new theme.
Please bear with us while we do this.
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
Website is being redesign with new theme.
Please bear with us while we do this.
YecHeadquarters

Literal 6 Day Creation
Your menu is empty or not selected! How to config a menu

Something from nothing?

In the big bang theory, it’s basically something from nothing. Science does not know where the matter came from, or the energy that made it expand (inflate or blow apart). In fact if you ask 10 different people, you will get at least 3 different stories about how the origins of everything happened. So what is believed is that matter and energy come from nothing. Why believe something they cannot even begin to prove empirically? It is because the alternative points to an intelligent being. But since most everyone knows about the big bang, let’s see how many answers the intelligent creation can answer that big bang does not and cannot.

1) Because God is eternal, He lives in a eternal dimension. Using matter and energy from that dimension to form this dimension answers many questions.
a) Where did the matter and energy come from? It always existed because it came from a dimension that has always existed.
b) How do laws come into being fully balanced to create order and not chaos? An intelligent being from an eternal dimension created them and balanced them.
etc…

When using deductive logic and reasoning, and you remove all that will not work. What is left is creation by an intelligent being. Science is supposed to follow the evidence where ever it leads, yet it is taboo to follow any evidence that points to the supernatural. Basically that rule makes science more about conformism, in the effect that all evidence has to conform to the naturalistic view of evolution or be rejected. Science cannot find the Creator because their own rules won’t allow it.

In the something from nothing argument below, both Krauss and Dawkins only prove they can B.S. with the best of them. Why do I say that? With all that talk there is zero evidence and a whole lot of assuming going on. Which by the way does not even qualify this as a hypothesis aka educated guess. That is because it’s more about opinions and a worldview then it is about science.

When something takes over 2 hours to explain and yet no one can observe this. It becomes more of selling it then proving it. And there is a big difference between the two.

And if you do not think this is about worldviews, then explain why most atheists cannot leave out trying to discredit God?