And

 somebody please shut this guy up about Theology.

Dude?

Please, you are no where near the expert on the subject 

you like to think you are.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson

(Review time and then there's more 

added at the end of the review :-)

"So what happened was, when science discovers things, and you want to stay religious, or you want to continue to believe that the Bible is unerring, what you would do is you would say, "Well, let me go back to the Bible and reinterpret it." Then you'd say things like, "Oh, well they didn't really mean that literally. They meant that figuratively."

So, this whole sort of reinterpretation of the, how figurative the poetic passages of the Bible are came after science showed that this is not how things unfolded."

(The creation story in Genesis (and other things as demonstrated above) matches up with the science we know and other scientist have agreed, just not the ones who like seeing their faces on TV/social media etc. The creation story was never meant to be taken literally, it is a Hebrew parable set to poetry.

THAT IS 

YOUR WRONGFULL REINTERPRETATION

Proving as I stated I already knew,

He doesn't know more about my faith, 

than I do,

quite obviously.

Nachmanides

1194–1270

"...was a leading medieval Jewish scholar, Catalan rabbi, philosopher, physician, kabbalist, and biblical commentator. He was raised, studied, and lived for most of his life in Girona, Catalonia. He is also considered to be an important figure in the re-establishment of the Jewish community in Jerusalem following its destruction by the Crusaders in 1099."

"His commentary on the creation of the world 

describes the heavens and the earth 

being created out of a noncorporeal substance:

"Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition."

Explanation/translation?

God created the stuff,

that he ended up 

making the stuff with.

And its exactly how it happened!"

Now?

Now lets add a whole bunch more to that.

What Does the Bible Say about the Big Bang?

"Hindsight or Foresight?

In one university forum debate I had with the executive director of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer, he told the audience that my claims of the Bible predicting some of the big bang features of the universe were examples of hindsight biblical interpretation. He declared that I was falsely reading into biblical passages features of the universe that I knew were true based solely on astronomical observations made in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries."

(This is one of their "go-to's" it's not just NDT.)

"Shermer contended that I was imposing literal interpretations upon Bible passages that are clearly intended to be figurative. As proof that I was falsely reading details about the universe into biblical texts, he asserted that no one previous to the twentieth century had ever interpreted these biblical texts in the manner I was claiming. He emphatically declared that the Bible did not predict any of the big bang features of the universe."

 "To be clear, neither John Rea nor I have ever claimed that the Bible teaches all the fundamental features of the big bang creation model. We are saying that it teaches three or four of the several dozen big bang features of the universe that astronomers have identified."

(And they left out cosmic inflation!)

"Is It Just Hindsight Interpretation?

The nontheists, besides Shermer, who have engaged me about the Bible and the big bang avow that they do not need to read my articles on the Bible and the big bang or the biblical passages I cite to know that my claims are wrong." 

(Arrogance much?)

"They say, like Shermer, that no theologian previous to the twentieth century ever commented on the Bible making such claims. This lack, they insist, is sufficient evidence that it is just my twenty-first–century astrophysical bias that makes me think the Bible teaches big bang features of the universe."

"Pre-Twentieth-Century Theologians on Ex Nihilo Creation

"Michael Shermer and the nontheists I have engaged dispute that any theologians previous to the twentieth century had ever discerned that the Bible teaches an ex nihilo (from nothing) beginning for the universe or that the Bible teaches the universe has expanded and is expanding. However, many pre-twentieth-century Jewish and Christian theologians wrote about the Bible’s teachings concerning the characteristics of the universe. For the sake of brevity, I will highlight only some of the comments by a few of the more prominent ones."

"Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (120–202), stated, “God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist.”

"Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote in his Confessions, “You [God] were, and besides you nothing was. From nothing, then, you created heaven and earth.” Later in Confessions he added, “You created them [the heavens and the earth, that is, the material universe] from nothing, not from your own substance or from some matter not created by yourself or already in existence. . . . You created the matter from absolutely nothing and the form of the world from this formless matter.”

"The most famous of the medieval Jewish theologians, Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), also known as the Rambam, wrote extensively about Old Testament declarations concerning the beginning of the universe. In his 13 Principles of Faith, Maimonides stated, “We believe that this Oneness is necessarily primary. All that exists other than Him is not primary in relationship to Him. There are many references in the Scriptures. This is the fourth Principle, as affirmed by the verse (Deuteronomy 33:27): ‘God who preceded all existence is a refuge.’” Here, Maimonides explicitly states that the universe cannot be eternal; it must have a beginning."

(Side note:

I get Maimonides  and  Nachmanides mixed up sometimes lol.

Sorry about that.)

"In The Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides elucidated what the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) stated about God, the universe, space, and time. He wrote that the entire universe “was brought into existence by God after having been purely and absolutely nonexistent.”25 Maimonides declared that Moses in the Torah asserted “that there is nothing eternal in any way at all existing simultaneously with God.”26 Therefore, according to Maimonides, the Mosaic position puts forth a view of creation that is both ex nihilo and de novo (from [the] new)."

"Maimonides explains that creation de novo does not mean God exists in time and space and picks a particular moment to begin his creations."

(Did you hear that all you Stephen Hawking fan boys?

"We have finally found something that doesn't have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

Opps.)

"He asserts that time itself is one of these creations. It is not eternal; only God is eternal. Only God is responsible for creating the universe.

("A scientifically minded theist sees 

time space energy and matter 

as created entities I read somewhere.

I think in "The return of the God Hypothesis.")

"Maimonides also clarifies his definition of “nothing” and the impotence of nothing: “if nothing is pure and absolute, it cannot be the material cause of anything; it is, after all, nothing.”

(And this is what Atheist think life, rational thought, and reasoning

came from? Yall got far more faith than me to believe something like that, TRUTH!)

"Pre-Twentieth-Century Theologians on Cosmic Expansion

"Shermer and the nontheists I have engaged especially dispute that any theologian previous to the twentieth century had ever discerned that the Bible teaches that the universe has expanded and is expanding. There is at least one. Medieval Jewish theologian Moses Nachmanides (1194–1270), 

(My man!)

also known as Rabbi Moses ben Nahman Girondi, wrote in his Commentary on Genesis about the expansion of the universe:

“At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.”

"However, one reason why we should not expect a lot of written resources on cosmic expansion from scholars previous to the twentieth century is that cosmic expansion was not an issue for skeptics of Christianity whereas a cosmic beginning definitely was."

(Such a great point.)

"Nontheists throughout all centuries recognized that a cosmic beginning implies a cosmic Beginner and that an ex nihilo cosmic beginning implies that the Beginner must be an Entity possessing the capacity to operate freely and create independent of matter, energy, space, and time."

(And that's why non-theist scientist these days are currently changing course and saying anything but a creator, an eternal inflationary field, a multiverse, spacetime exhisted before the big bang etc. Any and all kinds of dumb shit they know they cant even test let alone ever prove.)

 "Therefore, while Christian and Jewish apologists felt compelled to defend the doctrine of a cosmic beginning and creation ex nihilo in particular, no such compulsion drove them to address cosmic expansion."

Translation:

"Hey you know that thing we really didn't know about until just recently?"

(Universe expansion)

"Yeah"

"Well your people weren't writing about it 1000's of years ago."

Only one problem.

Some of them were!

"A conclusion that can be drawn from the works of pre-twentieth-century Jewish and Christian apologists is similar to the “discussion” between Vern Poythress and John Rea. There is no reasonable doubt that the Bible taught at least three fundamental features of big bang creation models. A case can be made that the Bible also taught a fourth feature of the universe—expansion from the cosmic creation event."

From earlier in the article:

"...the Bible repeatedly and specifically 

declares three distinct features of the universe:

The universe had a single beginning of everything humans could possibly detect: matter, energy, space, and time (Genesis 1:1; 2:3–4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16–17; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 11:3).

The laws governing the universe are constant, unchanging throughout cosmic history (Genesis 1–3; Jeremiah 33:19–26; Romans 8:22).

One of these unchanging laws is a pervasive law of decay, termed by physicists as the second law of thermodynamics or the law of increasing entropy (Ecclesiastes 1–3; 9–12; John 16:33; Romans 8:20–22; Revelation 21:4–5).

(And he left out inflation/star formation as light on two separate instances so I would say five.)

"Biblical Cosmology Implications

The Bible’s unique position among texts from the ancient world in its specific and unambiguous details about the origin and history of the universe has profound implications. Twentieth and twenty-first-century discoveries about the universe are bringing more attention to biblical texts describing the origin and characteristics of the universe. These discoveries establish that the universe has a beginning, which implies the existence of a cosmic Beginner. They also imply that the universe has been designed, extraordinarily fine-tuned, for the existence of life." 

"Ultimately, Hawking felt that 

the mainstream narrative failed to explain:

“How the Universe could have created conditions so perfectly hospitable to life.” 

"These discoveries demonstrate that the Bible possesses unique predictive power. Georges Lemaître, Edwin Hubble, Albert Einstein, and George Gamow were not the first humans to talk and write about the big bang creation model. That credit goes back to biblical authors Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Paul, and the author of Hebrews. This success in uniquely predicting specific features of the universe millennia ahead of scientific discoveries of such cosmic features provides strong evidence that the source of the Bible’s message is from the Being who created and designed the universe. 

(And you simply can not work around the truth t

that is right in front of you 

via the Multiverse or RNA world hypothesis, 

no matter how hard you try.

If certain "scientist" didn't see that truth

and didn't like it?

Then they wouldn't be coming up with this stupid crap to start with.)

"Such evidence implies that all humans would be wise to read, understand, and submit to the entire content of the Bible."

If these types cant even admit they are wrong about:

Hindsight Interpretation of the bible?

Which as shown above

they so obviously are?

Then the question becomes,

WHAT WILL THEY EVER ADMIT 

THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT?

I think you already know the answer.

I love you baby.

Hey Stefanie N Milam

 

and every other scientist 

working on the same question:

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Honey...These people...They are just Killing me...

"learning how 

common, or uncommon, 

the conditions for 

the evolution of 

life 

are in the universe,” 

They figured it out 

a while back already yo:

Via Plasma Universe.com

The visible universe is 99.999% plasma.

I've seen others saying it is 99.9%.

In any event, 

Plasma is electrified gases where 

"the atoms have been stripped of one or more of their electrons, resulting in a hot, fluid-like mix of positively charged atomic nuclei (ions) and free-floating, negatively charged electrons."

So if Atoms alone 

are only .1 to .001 

of the observable universe?

It's fairly simple to deduce that:

"the conditions for...life 

in the universe,” 

would be pretty 

uncommon.

So Dr. Milam  and everyone else

working on that question

can feel free

to move on to your next project

cause this one has been solved 

for a good while already.

"The term "Plasma Universe" refers to the concept—pioneered by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén—that over 99% of visible matter in the universe is in a plasma state, and that electromagnetic forces 

are just as critical as gravity 

in shaping cosmic structures."

"Electromagnetic forces" are actually 

way more critical 

as they are

"fundamentally about \(10^{36}\) 

(or a trillion trillion trillion) 

times stronger than gravity.

Genesis 1:3

 And God said, 

“Let there be light,” 

and there was light.

And that was 

the entire electromagnetic spectrum

from which everything else came 

as the stars didn't come till later:

Genesis 1:14-15

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 

I make it real simple for you:

He made the stuff

(Plasma)

that he made the stuff with.

And Nachmanides had this figured out

just by a careful examination 

of the text of Genesis

over 750 years ago or so:

See: Wednesday, April 24, 2024

And somebody please 

shut this guy up about Theology.

"Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead 

He brought forth from total and absolute nothing 

a very thin substance devoid of corporeality 

but having a power of potency, 

fit to assume form 

and to proceed 

from potentiality into reality. 

(Plasma into atoms anybody?

Or back into 

watever he wants it to be 

in the future?

New Heaven, New Earth, New Jerusalem

See: Revelation 21.) 

This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition."

I just can not stand 

the arrogance 

of these brainiacs.

(Not them, their arrogance)

I just absolutely despise it.

Because:

1) They either already know better

(see the plasma universe example above)

OR

2) If they don't already know better? 

They should.

So either which way 

they wanna cut it?

Their arrogance is negated.

This community is just not that stupid

to continue buying into their bull shit.

They are absolutely

just in love with 

their own minds.

I saw a post on social media yesterday

and the guy was doing "broad strokes"

so to speak, but he was pointing out 

how Genesis matches up

with the science we know to be true.

The "Top comment" was:

(keep in mind it was probably a bot)

"If you expect 

EDUCATED 

people to believe that?

You are nuts."

And I just laughed and thought:

"Here we go again

with missing the obvious.

Maybe?

Just maybe, your

EDUCATION

was/is the problem?

And if you dont think so?

How many people

have ever heard about 

how codes cant auto-generate, or evolve

in Biology class?

I would say I rest my case

but were really just now getting started.

Promise.

Love ya everybody.

Hold your heads up high:

Luke 21:28

And when these things 

begin to come to pass, 

(The end of this age starting)

then look up, 

and lift up your heads; 

for your redemption 

draweth nigh.

"You cant prove God exist."

 

Probably right.

But I can get about 

as close as anybody you ever met

I suppose.

"Where did math come from?"

My argument is everything that exist from subatomic particles to the wind have some sort of mathematical component, therefore math was the language, by which God spoke the universe into existence.

2nd Peter 3:5

by God’s word the heavens came into being 

and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

And when your done

figuring out where math came from?

Then we can start on where did the information in the genetic code come from and how did it find its way into every cell of everything that has ever processed oxygen to live the only place we know of that has life.

And when you are done

with those two?

We cant talk about the 26 physical constants of the universe and how unlikely it is for a pantheon of deity's to have worked together on them.

Here is a list 

along with some other things

to consider.

"Here are the most celebrated 

and widely accepted examples 

of fine-tuning for the existence of life:

Cosmic Constants

Gravitational force constant

Electromagnetic force constant

Strong nuclear force constant

Weak nuclear force constant

Cosmological constant

(expansion of space)

Initial Conditions and “Brute Facts”

Initial distribution of mass energy

Ratio of masses for protons and electrons 

Velocity of light

Mass excess of neutron over proton

“Local” Planetary Conditions

Steady plate tectonics 

with right kind of geological interior

Right amount of water in crust

Large moon with right rotation period

Proper concentration of sulfur

Right planetary mass

Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone

Low-eccentricity orbit 

outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances

A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors

in large circular orbits

Outside spiral arm of galaxy

Near co-rotation circle of galaxy, 

in circular orbit around galactic center

Within the galactic habitable zone

During the cosmic habitable age

Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters 

The polarity of the water molecule

and here is what 

the "Golden Boy of Cosmology"

"The Chosen one"

 if you will 

had to say:

“The remarkable fact is 

that the values of these numbers 

[the constants of physics] 

seem to have been very finely adjusted 

to make possible the development of life.” 

Stephen Hawking

A Brief History of Time,

p. 125.

And when you are done

with all of that?

We can talk about 

the initial conditions 

of the universe 

that led to it being 

so perfectly designed to have life in it.

And when you are done

with that?

We can talk about 

the initial conditions 

of the laws of nature

(Thats right 

there's two different sets 

of initial conditions 

one for the universe itself 

to emerge as it has 

and another for 

the laws that were to govern it

THEY HAD TO BE IN EXISTANCE

BEFORE 

the universe emerged as it did.

Or no universe jack asses.

Otherwise gravity wouldn't be instrumental

in making the atoms that make up everything.

Natural Laws don't invent themselves.

Laws require a law giver.

Got it?

Pretty simple stuff really.

I plan on teaching it to middle schoolers someday

since the Harvard PHD types 

just cant quite seem to grasp it.

Harvard Scientist Claims 

He Can Prove God’s Existence 

With Formula for the Divine

greekreporter.com 09/01/25

"Religion and science have often been viewed as opposing forces..."

(Thats a new thing invented by Satan

that just wasnt always the case.

If it wasnt for 

the Judeo-Christian tradition?

you wouldn't have the 

"true science" 

that we know today:

See:

Copernicus, 

Kepler, 

Descartes, 

Galileo Galilei:

Issac Newton, 

Georges Lemaître, 

Gregor Mendel.

The idea that faith and science have always been diametrically opposed to one another is just a flat out blatant falsehood.

(And thank you Stephen C. Meyer)

"Standing on the shoulders of giants 

doesn't make you one."

"Dr. Willie Soon has entered the debate with a provocative claim: the mathematical formula itself may serve as evidence of God’s existence."

(Dude?

Been saying it for years already.

If math is a man made construct?

Then why are we still discovering things about it

if we constructed it?

Logic is flawed.

Severely.

"But the Mayans added the zero"

Somebody once told me.

Yeah and their creation Myth said 

they came from star people as well.

See Genesis 6:1-4.)

"Soon argues that 

laws of physics are too precise to be chance

Dr. Soon, an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer, outlined his position during a recent appearance on the Tucker Carlson Network. He argued that the universe operates under laws so finely calibrated that they cannot be explained by coincidence alone.

(Well thank you Captain obvious.

You aint gotta be 

a Harvard scientist to figure this stuff out!

I promise you, you don't.)

"His research draws on the concept of “fine-tuning,” which suggests the extraordinary precision of forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear interactions. A small shift in any of these constants, he said, could have made galaxies, planets, and life impossible. The precision, he suggested, resembles a formula for creation."

"Inspiration from Paul Dirac’s mathematical vision"

Soon’s ideas trace back to the work of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Paul Dirac. In 1963, Dirac observed that the mathematical harmony of the cosmos might reflect the hand of a 

“mathematician of a very high order.”

("math was the language, 

by which God spoke the universe into existence.

2nd Peter 3:5

by God’s word the heavens came into being"

So no kidding.

Duh.

Subatomic particles have mass.

Wind has velocity.

Everything that exist

EVERYTHING

has a mathematical component to it.

These people are just so smart.

Like they figured out something right?

There's a community 

that has know this for a long time yo.

What do you think you are telling us?)

"Though Dirac was not religious, his remark hinted at intelligence woven into the laws of the universe. Dr. Soon extends that thought, arguing that the harmony revealed through mathematics could itself be proof of design.'

(No shit Sherlock.

Design imply a designer.

We see evidence of design everywhere

we look.

Therefore there had to be a designer.)

"The divide between design and natural explanation

Supporters of fine-tuning argue that the flawless balance of the cosmos cannot be random and instead point to intentional creation. Others, however, insist the order is simply the outcome of natural processes on a vast cosmic scale."

(Yeah so, 

how did those get there then?

Natural processes that is.

By what "natural process"

did the "natural processes" 

come into existence by?

See the dilemma here?

And then don't forget

that the  

"natural process"

by which the 

"natural processes" 

come into existence by? 

Apparently they just stopped 

for some strange reason

 cause we don't see any more

"natural process"

continuing to cause

any new

"natural processes"

these days yo.)

"Skeptics take a different approach, offering explanations like the multiverse theory. This idea suggests that our universe is just one of countless others, each with its own laws of physics. In such a framework, the conditions that allow life here would not be extraordinary, but one possibility among infinite variations."

(Yeah...

we won the universe lottery.

Right.

Makes perfect sense.

That explains it

Bitch Plz...

When your position

just gets annihilated 

by the sheer volume of evidence 

presented in front of you,

to the point

where your only option

is to plead the unscientific position 

of every possible option

of everything 

that could have ever been 

has to be in play?

(And keep in mind we don't even know 

what the parameters would be

on a lot of the fine tuning items listed above are, 

where they would start, end and so forth)

Then you are toast.

You are done.

Your belief system 

is a crock of shit.

"THE HONEYMOON OF LIES

IS OVER!"

Its not even a hypothesis.

(The Multiverse fable)

It can never be:

 observed, tested, 

measured or validated

or invalidated.

It is the only option left available

to try and invalidate

the fine tuning 

we see of the universe for life.

When scientist are reduced down 

to putting their faith in something 

they know they can never even test

let alone prove, 

you have got to ask yourselves 

"Well why is that?"

 and the answer is just so stunningly simple

BECAUSE

THEY DONT LIKE WHAT THEY SEE!

Which is

the universe was fine tuned 

by its creator

for us, and life, to be in it.

"each (universe) with its own laws of physics"

Not one shred of evidence for that, 

none and besides,

where would those have came from?

And?

Adding entities: 

"every possible option

of everything 

that could have ever been

has to be in play?"

to get the results you want?

("We must have won the universe lottery Bob."

"I think so Jim.")

is generally not a good way to go:

"when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one is usually the best"

It violates the principal of Occam's razor 

as bad as it can possibly be violated.

The multiverse doesn't just add 

or multiply entities it says

(regardless of which version you go with)

all available entities 

have to be in play.

For us to have 

the universe we see today.

(Raise me the anthropic principal 

and I'll see ya 

with the Genetic Code right back.)

"Hawking stressed natural laws over divine proof"

(Where did they come from Stephen?)

"The late physicist Stephen Hawking addressed the same debate in his book “Brief Answers to the Big Questions.” Reflecting on his own disability, he dismissed the idea of divine punishment and 

argued that natural laws 

could explain the universe 

without invoking a creator."

(Same problem,

the natural laws just invented themselves then?

Its beyond assinine)

“If you believe in science, like I do, 

you believe that there are certain laws 

that are always obeyed,” 

Hawking wrote. “If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence.”

(So where did they come from then?)

Atoms

The basis of all solids, 

liquids, gases and plasmas

could not have formed

without gravity having been there first.

So how did gravity figure out 

it needed to 

"get on the scene" 

so to speak,

so that atoms could form?

Cause it had to be there 

before they were created.

Its a problem for these people 

that they dont wanna think about yo.

It proves 

an order 

and a sequence

 that requires logic

and pre-planning.

It 

REQUIRES

and intelligence to pull it off.

Seriously.

Nachmanides

figured this out in the 1200's

just by reading the text of Genesis.

"Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition."

Aren't we just so smart these days?

That was 800 years ago 

just by a careful 

critical analysis of the book.

Oh and BTW?

The case for why our Universe 

may be a giant neural network

bigthink.com 06/12/23

"The new book On the Origin of Time reveals that the great late Stephen Hawking believed that the reductionistic paradigm he defended  for much of his life is incorrect. 

Ultimately, Hawking felt that 

the mainstream narrative failed 

to explain:

“How the Universe could have created 

conditions so perfectly hospitable to life.” 

Because 

the universe didn't create 

the conditions 

so perfectly hospitable to life,

God did.

See, a scientist could conceivably

 tell you everything about a cake

you would ever want to know

(chemical makeup, age, 

process by which it was made etc)

but he would never be able to tell you:

WHY 

it was made.

This community 

doesn't have that problem.

The universe was fine tuned 

by its creator

for life

and therefore us 

to be in it.

Where did it get hard

to figure out exactly?