Thank you, Anton, for your reply.
You could say that it is about starting with 1 and then ending up with diversity. In religion, one can do that. In science, one cannot do that. Religion and science do not follow the same constructs.
--
Let me step back here a little. God is not a word that is found inside the scientific dictionary. It is a word that is found inside the religious dictionary.
Once we accept God (in the religious meaning of the word), then we are required to make God real. For instance, we must ask ourselves what God used to create creation.
When replying that God willed creation into being, then we did not make God real, but rather turned God into some kind of Superman from a comic book. We have to make God real, and make sure we are not embracing a false idea of God.
Here is the construct how God willing creation into being is weak.
1. One must accept God first and then...
2. One must accept that God can do something that cannot be done, creating something from nothing.
Our task is to make God real, and there are two different ways to accomplish that.
1. God used all of God godself, and established creation this way, or...
2. God used parts of God godself, and established creation this way.
So, these are our choices. With the first option, there is no God left other than the resulting outcomes. With the second option, God is still there, and perhaps with nearly all abilities as before, yet God will no longer be the original God that God once was.
Most people claim God willed creation into being, but they do not have the real God then in their minds; they have the fake God in their minds. They are fooling themselves.
Naturally, all people can believe what they want to believe. I will not stand in anyone’s way to believe something that either cannot be or that is childish to think. Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe. Yet I will point out structural falsehoods where I see them plain and clear.
--
The article itself is particularly written for non-religious purposes. In science, one cannot meld everything into one unless one has evidence for it.
So, when investigating the most popular Big Bang model, then one can see a real mistake.
The data is that:
1. Matter came into being some 13.8 billion years ago.
2. Energy does not get lost.
However, many physicists add into the beginning of matter also the beginning of time, space, and energy.
In reality, there is no scientific data (at all) about the beginning of space, the beginning of time, or the beginning of energy. So, melding what we know together with what we do not know, that is real bad science.
In effect, these scientists are following the religious method and that is plain wrong.
By speaking the truth to ourselves, we can investigate our existence. While the mystery will remain intact to some extent, we can also see what happened.
Like an omelet telling us loud and clear that the egg broke, we can see that the establishment of matter was a complicated affair. It happened just once, just like one can break an egg just once.
Thank you for you reply.
