Creation Muesum

[Esquilax]

the reason you can't understand the concept of a "timeless creator", is because you're not spiritual. the bible states that God is a spirit,

So, I just want to be clear here: I literally just get through pointing out that the majority of the aspects of creationism have not been demonstrated as possible, and your immediate response is to lean heavily on an aspect of creationism that hasn't been demonstrated as possible?

Besides, the incoherent nature of the "timeless creator" concept has nothing to do with the physicality- or otherwise- of god. It has to do with the nature of time, which is measured in specific demarcations as applied to events that happen and are apprehended by minds. If god exists, chose to create a thing, and then had creation happen, those things are all distinct events that happened and can be measured in units of time. Events occur in a temporal framework, there is literally no possible way they could not.

can you tell me what a "spirit" is made of? If you don't know what a spirit is, how can you understand it's existence? The closest thing you'll get to describing God from a natural point of view, is as light.

I don't really care. It's not my job to learn every detail of your specific fanfiction of your religion's undemonstrated claims. You can't come into a discussion like this one and seriously expect us to follow along with you before you demonstrate the shit you're talking about even exists first.

Light is formed from energy. mass is also formed from energy.... Do the math.

The math says that "it's in the bible!" is not sufficient justification for a concept or claim.

Strawman you say? Not according to Lawrence Krauss, who stats that (around 40:40 of the video)

Why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is there had to be, if you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something.

Am I Lawrence Krauss? Is any other cosmologist besides Lawrence Krauss, Lawrence Krauss? No? Then why do you think we should all be beholden to what Krauss says, rather than what we actually think?

Oh, and just as further evidence that you have no idea at all what you're talking about: You apparently don't know the difference between the big bang, which is an event describing the expansion of a singularity- the nature and previous history of which is currently unknown- of spacetime into a universe which gradually developed into the one we had now, and the creation of the universe. Because I'll give you a hint, Huggy: that singularity wasn't nothing. It was, in fact, everything there ever has been. Literally the opposite of nothing, so if you're going to talk about the big bang, then "from nothing" is, indeed, a strawman.

Then he should of left it at "I don't know". He's bitten by his own snake, if he want to offer suggestion on how the universe began, then he has to provide the evidence along with it.

He did leave it at "I don't know," genius. He then proceeded to point out how the "began to exist" language unjustifiably taints the discussion with certain assumptions that are, themselves, unjustified. There's a quote from Aristotle here that I think is apt, and illustrates so clearly the difference between yourself and people like Rob:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.