Is the creation real?
Código VO07-E0003-I
VIEW:413 DATA:2020-03-20
For many scientists, the definition that the universe is created is considered ignorance. And this type of ideology, that creation is the meaning of ignorance, is simply a prejudice of the scientist, who, in fact, has ceased to be a scientist and has become prejudiced, with this definition.
For example, the Big Bang that scientists define is also a belief, there is no way to do an experiment in the laboratory to defend this theory. Many scientists say that creation has no basis for acceptance. But this is also a prejudice, because many scientists, do not want to accept the concepts of fine tuning, and intelligent designer, merely for prejudice, and not for logical analysis.
For example, let's do an analysis, let's use the big bang theory and simulate a return of the universe to the starting point. Now we have the moment of nothing. There is nothing, and the universe has not expanded. Now we are going to define a law of physics, for example the gravitational constant, which is a value that relates the whole mass to an energy. But when was this constant developed? For example, physical laws are not defined as the law of the strongest, or physical laws evolve, so that physical laws after billions or trillions of years, become more adapted.
Laws do not evolve, they just exist. No rational physical scientist would define that laws evolve. But if a law doesn't evolve, then it exists. And when does it exist? At this point, the scientists avoid the question. No scientist wants to get to that point. For a problem. When looking at physical laws, one does not analyze the beginning of laws, as they are complex, and did not start from an evolution. In fact, physical laws just are. They have not become.
So at the bottom of science, physicists define laws as god. For it does not have a beginning, nor does it define an end. Only scientists wish that physical laws are not conscious. It is not so difficult to understand that physicists at the end of their analysis have the belief that laws have the same characteristic as God. That is, physical laws for physicists are eternal, and regardless of time, in fact even time is a physical law.
See how interesting. Any scientist, who is against a religion, is merely hypocritical, because he has his religion in physical laws, he just does not accept that such laws are conscious. The true religious, on the other hand, accepts that God is the conscious law. And on second thought, in the way that everything exists, accepting that the universe is conscious is much more rational than looking at everything and thinking that everything we see, and ourselves and considering that the universe is unconscious.
For example, the Big Bang that scientists define is also a belief, there is no way to do an experiment in the laboratory to defend this theory. Many scientists say that creation has no basis for acceptance. But this is also a prejudice, because many scientists, do not want to accept the concepts of fine tuning, and intelligent designer, merely for prejudice, and not for logical analysis.
For example, let's do an analysis, let's use the big bang theory and simulate a return of the universe to the starting point. Now we have the moment of nothing. There is nothing, and the universe has not expanded. Now we are going to define a law of physics, for example the gravitational constant, which is a value that relates the whole mass to an energy. But when was this constant developed? For example, physical laws are not defined as the law of the strongest, or physical laws evolve, so that physical laws after billions or trillions of years, become more adapted.
Laws do not evolve, they just exist. No rational physical scientist would define that laws evolve. But if a law doesn't evolve, then it exists. And when does it exist? At this point, the scientists avoid the question. No scientist wants to get to that point. For a problem. When looking at physical laws, one does not analyze the beginning of laws, as they are complex, and did not start from an evolution. In fact, physical laws just are. They have not become.
So at the bottom of science, physicists define laws as god. For it does not have a beginning, nor does it define an end. Only scientists wish that physical laws are not conscious. It is not so difficult to understand that physicists at the end of their analysis have the belief that laws have the same characteristic as God. That is, physical laws for physicists are eternal, and regardless of time, in fact even time is a physical law.
See how interesting. Any scientist, who is against a religion, is merely hypocritical, because he has his religion in physical laws, he just does not accept that such laws are conscious. The true religious, on the other hand, accepts that God is the conscious law. And on second thought, in the way that everything exists, accepting that the universe is conscious is much more rational than looking at everything and thinking that everything we see, and ourselves and considering that the universe is unconscious.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags
physics, creationism, evolutionism, physical laws, belief