Symmetry and Asymmetry of the Universe: of Divine Origin?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

toolsoftrust

Junior Member
Aug 23, 2017
29
0
0
#1
[Posted also at thescienceforum.com]


It seems clearly that there is never a unit of nature, whether natural or "supernatural," that is perfectly symmetric, and that every unit of nature is perfectly asymmetric. Earth is a semi-symmetrical unit. Earth, moon and sun are a common unit. Earth, moon, "planets," sun and stars are another natural unit. Everything lacks perfect symmetry, and mandates perfect asymmetry. Regions of the seas appear at times to be ungoverned, but are clearly of one surface with the rivers and water tables, modulated by the ebb and flow of those rivers, and by the water tables under the earth, and by the winds and by vaporization and condensation. The passing of seasons on earth appear to be symmetric, but then they seem out of step with the moon's wax and wane. The passing of the earth's evenings and mornings seems perfectly uniform, yet no perfect number of days fits precisely within the bounds of seasons and moons. It would seem then, that necessarily, there is an eternal Creator, and that He fashioned the worlds by a perfect art, a discipline far weightier than science.


Moreover, those of a common faith with the Bible, would require that Genesis chapter 1 is perfectly uniform with nature. Those of a contrary view from the Bible, would require that nature is irrational and that asymmetry is dominant in the universe since it's symmetry is purely coincidental.


Since this discussion will probably evoke resentment in some, I thank any persons now, who participate, in case it is ever censored. The question at hand then, is this: Who made the universe? I say Jesus of Nazareth made the universe.
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,173
2,536
113
#2
The thing with theory of how everything came to be scientifically and from a non religious view is that it requires a complete and utter understanding of the mechanism of the universes birth growth and continual evolution. The basis of this is always with the big bang which for some reason or another suggests that the universe came from nothing or rather if you are to continue to dissect this theory it not merely come from nothing it came from a the tiniest single speck called the God particle and though I don't know or understand exactly what the God particle is I do know that it is said to have always simply existed and that it was that cause of the big bang.

However that still doesn't add up does it? And while I am not a scientist and by no means am intelligent compared to the brains of the evolutionists I cannot understand their reasoning for the God particle because while nothing in this universe can simple pop out from nothing it also cannot simply exist it always requires to be made or created in some way or form. If you were to present this to the scientific community they might add that our reasoning is that the intelligent creator has always simply existed and may challenge us to explain that.

But the thing is God is not of this universe he exists where time and space are non existent a realm completely separated and unattainable from ours and thus the reasoning to explain the unexplainable in his existence is moot, while in our universe of the physical and natural the same principles do not apply because while we acknowledge that we simply do not have the means to explain the unexplainable that is God and his realm and existence they are attempting to use intellect knowledge and science to explain the birth existence and continual evolution of our universe which in the end all comes down to how nothing can simply exist from nothing and cannot simply always have existed in this universe and the only reason why no matter how far down the line you go even if you were to go past the God particle you still need a reason to explain how the universe just popped up without the existence of an intelligent creator which sadly because they are specifically trying to figure this out with the intent of proving there is no intelligent creator they will never truly be able to explain it though they continually will attempt to find a loop hole of sorts.


As for the creator being Jesus himself that is true yet not true, Yes Jesus is God but at the same time is not the one who actually made creation, the trinity is one yet has different roles to play it says that the word was with God and was God but it also did not mention the word being the one that spoke existence into being
 

toolsoftrust

Junior Member
Aug 23, 2017
29
0
0
#3
The thing with theory of how everything came to be scientifically
People err here. Nothing came scientifically. Everything came naturally, from God.

and from a non religious view
nothing ever came from a view, religious or otherwise.

is that it requires a complete and utter understanding of the mechanism of the universes birth growth and continual evolution.
Christ was given birth before the universe. He Is--the firstborn of creation. The beginning of creation was in Bethlehem.

The basis of this is always with the big bang which for some reason or another suggests that the universe came from nothing or rather if you are to continue to dissect this theory it not merely come from nothing it came from a the tiniest single speck called the God particle and though I don't know or understand exactly what the God particle is I do know that it is said to have always simply existed and that it was that cause of the big bang.

However that still doesn't add up does it? And while I am not a scientist and by no means am intelligent compared to the brains of the evolutionists I cannot understand their reasoning for the God particle because while nothing in this universe can simple pop out from nothing it also cannot simply exist it always requires to be made or created in some way or form. If you were to present this to the scientific community they might add that our reasoning is that the intelligent creator has always simply existed and may challenge us to explain that.
God is, was, will be, always in the act of creation, including the earth and the universe. Proof is in that from the beginning of time the waters and the universe were fluent and in motion. "The Spirit of God was *hovering* over the surface (singular) of the waters (plural).[/QUOTE]

But the thing is God is not of this universe he exists where time and space are non existent
The Bible reveals that Holy Spirit transcends time and space. It appears, however, to always describe God, and Jesus, in physical terms, in time and space, with few exceptions.

a realm completely separated and unattainable from ours and thus the reasoning to explain the unexplainable in his existence is moot,
Clearly, God the Son came into this world; Holy Spirit has come into this world.

while in our universe of the physical and natural the same principles do not apply because while we acknowledge that we simply do not have the means to explain the unexplainable that is God and his realm and existence they are attempting to use intellect knowledge and science to explain the birth existence and continual evolution of our universe which in the end all comes down to how nothing can simply exist from nothing and cannot simply always have existed in this universe and the only reason why no matter how far down the line you go even if you were to go past the God particle you still need a reason to explain how the universe just popped up without the existence of an intelligent creator which sadly because they are specifically trying to figure this out with the intent of proving there is no intelligent creator they will never truly be able to explain it though they continually will attempt to find a loop hole of sorts.


As for the creator being Jesus himself that is true yet not true, Yes Jesus is God but at the same time is not the one who actually made creation, the trinity is one yet has different roles to play it says that the word was with God and was God but it also did not mention the word being the one that spoke existence into being
Actually, Gen 1:3-5 is Christ being in the world. He was born beforehand, in Bethlehem.
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,173
2,536
113
#4
Yes all good points but if you were to discuss these things with the kind of people I spoke of your answers would not suffice, It is one thing to be able to give your point and understanding but another entirely to not only be able to defend and uphold it but to be able to deal the opposing view being thrown at you.

When I speak of these things I do so with the mindset of being in an actual debate with such a person and so I take into consideration all the aspects of such a discussion would intact, it isn't enough to simply give our explanation or even use the bible to defend the explanation you also have to be able to take their views and their position head on.

Imagine it as a sword fight, it is not enough to simply swing your sword with your own moves and abilities and skills you have to be able to read their attacks learn and be able to avoid, block and retaliate their blade and their attacks and you have to be able to get into there head in a sense because in order to truly be able to not only defend but to retaliate their fighting style which could be entirely different from yours you have to be able to get into their heads you need to be able to read what kind of person they are how they think how and why their fighting style is the way it is.

All of this is found in the way they move attack dodge and block and in the same way debates and discussions with such people requires one to be able to know how they think why they think this way we need to be able to not only be prepared defend why we think and say what we do but we have to be able to take what they throw at us and be able to retaliate in logical and stable manner. You have to be able to speak and debate in the way they can understand and are accustomed to which is why a Christian who is unable to do so for whatever reason often times loses in such discussions
 

toolsoftrust

Junior Member
Aug 23, 2017
29
0
0
#5
So your approach is to debate and discuss. My approach is to defend and discuss. I have my shield, with which to dodge attacks. I have truth to advance, and perhaps compel friendship. If 30 or 40 come against me, which is common in these places, I still stand firm. If I am humbled, it is of my own initiative, not theirs. If humiliated, I am granted honor, as was Christ.
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,173
2,536
113
#6
So your approach is to debate and discuss. My approach is to defend and discuss. I have my shield, with which to dodge attacks. I have truth to advance, and perhaps compel friendship. If 30 or 40 come against me, which is common in these places, I still stand firm. If I am humbled, it is of my own initiative, not theirs. If humiliated, I am granted honor, as was Christ.
Sometimes the best defense is to debate, If the truth needs defending then there are different ways of doing so as there is not just one way to advance and defend the truth. For instance a common tactic for fighting forest fires is to fight fire with fire yes? people of logic such as the people I spoke of will not receive what they deem illogical so you fight logic with logic. Take this for example when you teach a child something you do so in a way that they can understand and relate to so if you are to win over a lost soul of logic and reason it stands to reason to do so in a way that they can understand and take in right?

There is no right or wrong way in both of our ways of discussion but I do think there is a more effective way
 

toolsoftrust

Junior Member
Aug 23, 2017
29
0
0
#7
You might be right. I never cared much for the common formats of formal debates, where one party argues a position, whether they believe in the position or not. Most people who claim to argue from logic, argue illogically, in my view. For example, their first argument usually begins and ends that there is no evidence of God, which statement is error. The statement would be correct if they were to state that there is no proof of God (vs. evidence). Their whole usage of words is erroneous, so their logic is completely wrong. You cannot argue logically with someone without correct logic. You can only give them truth. They don't understand truth because they are dead to truth. But if you give them truth, under compulsion of God, then I think you've done well. Usually I gain plenty of attention; though primarily of opponents, and then usually I am banned, which I think I should expect as a resolute Christian.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,094
113
#8
It seems clearly that there is never a unit of nature, whether natural or "supernatural," that is perfectly symmetric, and that every unit of nature is perfectly asymmetric.
what about such fundamental things as momentum? charge? spin? time? space itself?
on what grounds could you say such things are "
clearly" not symmetric?

please define "
perfect asymmetry"
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,173
2,536
113
#9
You might be right. I never cared much for the common formats of formal debates, where one party argues a position, whether they believe in the position or not. Most people who claim to argue from logic, argue illogically, in my view. For example, their first argument usually begins and ends that there is no evidence of God, which statement is error. The statement would be correct if they were to state that there is no proof of God (vs. evidence). Their whole usage of words is erroneous, so their logic is completely wrong. You cannot argue logically with someone without correct logic. You can only give them truth. They don't understand truth because they are dead to truth. But if you give them truth, under compulsion of God, then I think you've done well. Usually I gain plenty of attention; though primarily of opponents, and then usually I am banned, which I think I should expect as a resolute Christian.
Yes sometimes you will get banned I once got banned from an Atheist forum the second they found out I was a Christian they liked me well enough before then we had a lot of good discussions and there were even some there who I became good friends with but once the admins learned of my faith I was instantly banned.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do about getting banned but a lot of times it also has to do with your approach to things, I find that discussing and debating in a calm mature and logical manner has great benefits no matter the topic or the people you are speaking to and often times that is how the truth is best represented and will not lead to opponents but rather changed allies
 

toolsoftrust

Junior Member
Aug 23, 2017
29
0
0
#10
what about such fundamental things as momentum? charge? spin? time? space itself?
on what grounds could you say such things are "
clearly" not symmetric?

please define "
perfect asymmetry"
These are constants, linear and/or rational, which constitute force; symmetry has to do with form and shape. As for time and space, time is a measure we use to orient intersections and appointments in space. Time may be compared with symmetry, as a way to evaluate events, but not subjected as being symmetric or asymmetric. Space, in my own view, is a surface in constant motions, as are the seas.

Perfect asymmetry means that a unit or object is asymmetric, with semi-symmetric parts or other similar instances. Lions are perfectly asymmetric because every lion is unique, yet there are many other instances of similar lions. Mass-manufactured products are identical, but broken down discretely, their substance lacks perfect uniformity. Every angel is quite unlike every other angel, but the angels are of one kind. So with humans.
 

toolsoftrust

Junior Member
Aug 23, 2017
29
0
0
#11
I just realized, I wasn't consistent in what I said about time not having to do with symmetry, and the passing of seasons in fact being of symmetry. Oops! Christ might ask, "Do you not teach yourself?"
 
Last edited:
Feb 28, 2016
11,311
2,972
113
#12
[Posted also at thescienceforum.com]


It seems clearly that there is never a unit of nature, whether natural or "supernatural," that is perfectly symmetric, and that every unit of nature is perfectly asymmetric. Earth is a semi-symmetrical unit. Earth, moon and sun are a common unit. Earth, moon, "planets," sun and stars are another natural unit. Everything lacks perfect symmetry, and mandates perfect asymmetry. Regions of the seas appear at times to be ungoverned, but are clearly of one surface with the rivers and water tables, modulated by the ebb and flow of those rivers, and by the water tables under the earth, and by the winds and by vaporization and condensation. The passing of seasons on earth appear to be symmetric, but then they seem out of step with the moon's wax and wane. The passing of the earth's evenings and mornings seems perfectly uniform, yet no perfect number of days fits precisely within the bounds of seasons and moons. It would seem then, that necessarily, there is an eternal Creator, and that He fashioned the worlds by a perfect art, a discipline far weightier than science.


Moreover, those of a common faith with the Bible, would require that Genesis chapter 1 is perfectly uniform with nature. Those of a contrary view from the Bible, would require that nature is irrational and that asymmetry is dominant in the universe since it's symmetry is purely coincidental.


Since this discussion will probably evoke resentment in some, I thank any persons now, who participate, in case it is ever censored. The question at hand then, is this: Who made the universe? I say Jesus of Nazareth made the universe.
===========================================

you are out of God's Loop son, seek Him with your heart,
and He will show you The Way...
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,530
13,094
113
#13
Perfect asymmetry means that a unit or object is asymmetric
this definition implies that "imperfect asymmetry" is symmetry. i.e. "perfect" is a redundant qualifier.

force isn't 'constituted' by such things as charge or spin or volume - regardless, forces that are uniformly symmetric exist all over nature - and those things can all be described discretely as unit, each of which unit is symmetric, having anti-states of equal & opposite measure.

measure isn't limited to volume in any mathematical sense, nor even in any physical sense.

but in your reply you constrained your talk of symmetry to volume ((form/shape)) and denied space is symmetric only on the basis of fluctuation, even though you discarded unit time as being irrelevant. i don't think you comprehended what i meant when i asked about space:

consider volume in a discrete sense: is a unit volume asymmetric?
why or why not?
is it arbitrary? if it's arbitrary, why shouldn't a symmetric volume be chosen as unit over an asymmetric one?
if you choose to define volume by asymmetric unit, aren't you imposing asymmetry on a universe that isn't necessarily asymmetric?
the same argument for space - which is a created thing. the matter and energy on a macroscale in the universe He created may be arranged asymmetrically as measured ((by a certain measure)) according to the prevalent dimension that we are accustomed to, but the same isn't necessarily the case for space itself, even if its uniformity deviates in a way correlated to mass and mass-equivalents. that distortion also, actually, in any single-body system has perfectly symmetric qualities.

granted it seems you are only considering macro-scale measures of multi-body, non-uniform systems. but the conclusion you stated in the opening lines of the OP isn't supported by those considerations because all those macro-scale phenomena are constructed of finer scale elements, which can in fact be described with perfect symmetry.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2009
24,574
4,262
113
#14
Asymetry is nature. Appearance of symetry is nature, but true symettry is man-made. Our bodies appear symetrical but our left arm and right arm are not exactly the same, neither are our left foot and right foot, etc... THey only appear symmetrical.. A smowflake looks symmetrical, but if you were to look closely you'll find that each side is slightly different from the rest..