God before the universe

[Kenny]

But this still begs questions.

How could god have done anything in a vacuum? How could he have accomplished anything? How could he have had any input, or effect, on anything?

Again, we are back to finite minds trying to understand the infinite.

A harder question is to answer the following. For there to be mass, there had to be space. Since we know that space continues to expand, the (back going backwards in time), there was a moment of time where it all began.

Thus, time/space/matter had to be created and thus, whatever created it, had to exist outside of it and, if it (He) created it, it must be within Him who created it for it was in His domain.

Additionally, you make parameters of assertion of your own making and then proceed to tear down what you made. Please note:

All I can imagine

You begin with a reality that it is all you can imagine as if, like unto God, you had the power to imagine all that there is to imagine. (a false premise)

Then you continue as if your premise is correct--an incorrect act.

is that he went through an eternity of self-reflexion.

Purely an assumption on your part. Maybe He wasn't in self-reflexion but rather in mediation of what He was going to create or some other thought pattern... you and I don't know and it would be wrong to assume we did.

But this would imply he was not completely self-aware, and therefore not omniscient.

Thus your conclusion is already wrong because it is based on a faulty premise.

Another question, if it is the doing, the creation, that is important, then why have a pre-existence period at all. The argument that there must be a primal cause, is not as strong as the argument that if there were a god, then existence must have always existed. If god exists, then his existence in a vacuum is meaningless, therefore all of creation must have always existed. We know this not to be the case.

Again, because space/mass/time had to be created at the same time. We know there was a beginning... that much science understands.

 

[Kenny]

Absolutely. Particularly, in regards to all the silly god concepts we've invented.

LOL - or the silliness that there is no God. How inconsistent we are again. Just emphasized my point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The concept of "before" assumes that time, whether or not there was space, existed before time existed. Time is relative to energy of motion and potential energy that are both connected to space and require space to exist so the question of time before time began or time without time is meaningless because it contradicts itself.
The idea that God is eternal means outside of time and it is difficult if not impossible to model it with our imaginations.

Since abrahamic god is eternal, what was he doing before he created the universe, including heaven and hell?

I think Robert is on the right track to answer this question

Remember that time is a construct of this universe. God is not restrained by the laws of his own creation.

 

[Kenny]

I think Robert is on the right track to answer this question

Remember that time is a construct of this universe. God is not restrained by the laws of his own creation.

If as the Bible declared that God is light, (abides in light?) time ceases and places Himself outside of time.

 

[Etritonakin]

I think Robert is on the right track to answer this question

Remember that time is a construct of this universe. God is not restrained by the laws of his own creation.

He may not be subject to the physical laws he set in motion as we are subject to them, but that is not to say certain laws/truths do not apply to him.
He is also accountable to himself and restrains himself knowingly by his word and somewhat by that which he creates (as he has determined he will bear with us for a certain time until his pan for us is accomplished, etc.)

He may not have the same perspective of time, but as he creates by a series of actions, etc., time applies to him/he applies time/time is an aspect of God himself. It is written that to God a thousand years is as one of our days, etc. -not that time is irrelevant to God.

Also.. time itself is not a product of the universe -universe time is a product of the universe. Any previous series of events and compound interaction would be a pre-existing reference for "time"

 

[Kilgore Trout]

LOL - or the silliness that there is no God. How inconsistent we are again. Just emphasized my point.

Yes, you did.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, you did.

And that's why there GOTTA be a God. Otherwise, we would self destruct. IMHO

 

[sayak83]

Since abrahamic god is eternal, what was he doing before he created the universe, including heaven and hell?

Raising young Jesus. Being a single dad is tough. Then Jesus grew up and God had a mid-life crisis and started to create stuff....

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Do you have a better explanation for the existence of matter, energy and life?

Yes! We have physical laws which describe the universe. One of which is the conservation of matter and energy.

Again, we are back to finite minds trying to understand the infinite.

Red Herring! There is nothing that has been conceived that can't be conceived. If it is YOUR position that understanding is beyond you, then admit it. But don't lay your shortcomings at my feet!

A harder question is to answer the following. For there to be mass, there had to be space.

I disagree! There is no physical law or theorem that suggests the impossibility of matter existing in singularity. In fact current theory demands it!

Since we know that space continues to expand, the (back going backwards in time), there was a moment of time where it all began.

I disagree with the statement (assuming I can use my editorial skill to know what you mean)! I do agree there was a moment that a singularity existed. But that does not imply the singularity was the 'beginning.' I would agree that it was the first moment of all subsequent moments. For there to have been a true 'beginning' we would have to have a very long discussion about the nature of time.

Thus, time/space/matter had to be created and thus, whatever created it, had to exist outside of it and, if it (He) created it, it must be within Him who created it for it was in His domain.

Even if my previous comments were removed and I gave you all points up till now, this would be non-sequitur. Even if there were a beginning, I'd object to the term 'created.' But in fact there is no evidence whatsoever that there weren't events leading up to a singularity that are completely within time, space, and matter.

Additionally, you make parameters of assertion of your own making and then proceed to tear down what you made. Please note:

You begin with a reality that it is all you can imagine as if, like unto God, you had the power to imagine all that there is to imagine. (a false premise)

False! I begin with a reality that i can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I infer from there. I may make an occasional statement that what someone else proposes is unimaginable, or that when considering certain propositions I've listed all the possibilities I imagine. But like I said earlier there is no conception outside the human mind. If it has been conceived, it can be conceived.

Then you continue as if your premise is correct--an incorrect act.

Ah, much like you have done throughout this post!!!! I am guilty of that as well.

Purely an assumption on your part.

?

Maybe He wasn't in self-reflexion but rather in mediation

With who and in the interest of what parties might he have been in mediation with/on behalf off?

of what He was going to create or some other thought pattern...

So you are suggesting he had to think about it? He didn't know? He wasn't sure or was undecided? These are qualities contradictory to perfection!

you and I don't know and it would be wrong to assume we did.

So it is beyond your ability to imagine what he was doing. And you equate my imagining, pondering, and questioning to assumption. You state I'm wrong for assuming? (Which I didn't do!)

I must have been misunderstood. What I did was list all of the possibilities I could currently conceive, AND ASK if anyone else could add any. So in my estimation I have given the best possible answers so far. Your answer is that it is beyond us, we can't possible know, la la la forgive me if I seem...whatever...but the fact is "I don't know and you can't possibly know" Is not an answer! And it certainly isn't a criticism of my attempt to understand!

Thus your conclusion is already wrong because it is based on a faulty premise.

Let's just ignore this for now! I don't have the fortitude to enumerate your fallacies!

Again, because space/mass/time had to be created at the same time. We know there was a beginning... that much science understands.

Ah, you do not speak for science! And you are wrong in your assertions!

 

[Aupmanyav]

God doesn't create you and you just popped up like that. Ok.

It took some efforts from my parents and nine months. Much depends on probability and chance (Heisenberg, Turing).

The argument that there must be a primal cause, is not as strong as the argument that if there were a god, then existence must have always existed.

Lord Vishnu was sleeping on the coils of Sheshanag in an ocean of milk. Shiva is supposed to be meditating on a snowy mountain, Kailasa. Creation and destruction i because of his dance - Tandava.

Just don't tell me there are no Oreos!

Chocolate benefit Corporations only and is injurious to teeth and health.

Raising young Jesus. Being a single dad is tough.

Thank Joseph for that. God only exploited Mary.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I.Lord Vishnu was sleeping on the coils of Sheshanag in an ocean of milk. Shiva is supposed to be meditating on a snowy mountain, Kailasa. Creation and destruction i because of his dance - Tandava.

Are your beliefs literal or symbolic?

Chocolate benefit Corporations only and is injurious to teeth and health.

I agree to an extent, but chocolate has chemicals which increase soothing and peace, in moderation!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are your beliefs literal or symbolic?

Neither. They are fun and part of our mythology.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Since abrahamic god is eternal, what was he doing before he created the universe, including heaven and hell?

There wouldn't be any before. Its an enternity in both directions. *grin*

 

[Kenny]

Red Herring! There is nothing that has been conceived that can't be conceived. If it is YOUR position that understanding is beyond you, then admit it. But don't lay your shortcomings at my feet!I

Strawman. You have not "conceived" all that there is to conceive which was my original premise.

disagree! There is no physical law or theorem that suggests the impossibility of matter existing in singularity. In fact current theory demands it!

Personal opinion and unsubstantiated.

I disagree with the statement (assuming I can use my editorial skill to know what you mean)! I do agree there was a moment that a singularity existed. But that does not imply the singularity was the 'beginning.' I would agree that it was the first moment of all subsequent moments. For there to have been a true 'beginning' we would have to have a very long discussion about the nature of time.

LOL... and we would have to wait a very long time since we hardly have enough information to nail the subject.

However, I still hold onto my premise.

Even if my previous comments were removed and I gave you all points up till now, this would be non-sequitur. Even if there were a beginning, I'd object to the term 'created.' But in fact there is no evidence whatsoever that there weren't events leading up to a singularity that are completely within time, space, and matter.

And this is where both operate on a faith basis because neither of us can substantiate our position.

However, mine is more logical IMHO

False! I begin with a reality that i can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I infer from there. I may make an occasional statement that what someone else proposes is unimaginable, or that when considering certain propositions I've listed all the possibilities I imagine. But like I said earlier there is no conception outside the human mind. If it has been conceived, it can be conceived.

As I said... my premise never was that "if it has been conceived, it can be conceived". My premise was we haven't conceived all that could be conceived.

I agree with your statement in as much as "God made man in His Image(ination) and in His likeness. He made us to image or imagine or conceive to create. Exactly as He did.

Ah, much like you have done throughout this post!!!! I am guilty of that as well.?

Yes, we both are operating in faith beyond our sense of smell, touch and feel.

With who and in the interest of what parties might he have been in mediation with/on behalf off?

I will ask Him when I see Him but my assumption is mankind.

So you are suggesting he had to think about it? He didn't know? He wasn't sure or was undecided? These are qualities contradictory to perfection!

Hardly. Any piece is created after meditation and pondering. After all, He had to create the worlds with balance and future. A 1 degree error on earth's orbit would have catastrophic consequences.

So it is beyond your ability to imagine what he was doing. And you equate my imagining, pondering, and questioning to assumption. You state I'm wrong for assuming? (Which I didn't do!)

No, I am stating that your conclusion after your imagining and pondering was based on an assumption and a faulty one at that. (Which you did)

I must have been misunderstood. What I did was list all of the possibilities I could currently conceive, AND ASK if anyone else could add any. So in my estimation I have given the best possible answers so far.

Nothing is sweeter than someone who congratulates himself saying "I did so good". Especially when its just an opinion.

Your answer is that it is beyond us, we can't possible know, la la la forgive me if I seem...whatever...but the fact is "I don't know and you can't possibly know" Is not an answer! And it certainly isn't a criticism of my attempt to understand!Let's just ignore this for now! I don't have the fortitude to enumerate your fallacies! Ah, you do not speak for science! And you are wrong in your assertions!

ROFL - Talk to me when you know all things.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Strawman. You have not "conceived" all that there is to conceive which was my original premise.


Personal opinion and unsubstantiated.

Actually it is substantiated. It's called the singularity and the big bang!

And this is where both operate on a faith basis because neither of us can substantiate our position.

However, mine is more logical IMHO

LOL, ok. I'll agree with you; in your opinion your opinion is more logical!

My premise was we haven't conceived all that could be conceived.

And this is the whole problem. Your premise is more or less that you can't possibly know, therefore you are correct (more or less). Ironically you implicitly state that you can't possibly understand what god was doing. Therefore every single thought you have about it, by your own standard of truth, is absolutely incorrect. It's fine with me if you choose to believe, without any reason that you can't possibly understand. But you err when you apply this unsubstantiated standard to everyone else. Personally I believe this intellectual laziness. You can't coe up with a single explanation that convinces anyone else, yet you refuse to carefully consider any positions which argue against your bias. So you DEFINE the subject as BEYOND UNDERSTANDING! That way you don't have to have any good explanation or argument, and you can whimsically dismiss any one else's views. Point being, given your position, you really have no dog in the hunt! You can't add to understanding, unless your intent is to convince everyone they are ignorant and will always remain so. I on the other had take the position that all is knowable, if not yet known.

I agree with your statement in as much as "God made man in His Image(ination) and in His likeness. He made us to image or imagine or conceive to create. Exactly as He did.


Yes, we both are operating in faith beyond our sense of smell, touch and feel.


I will ask Him when I see Him but my assumption is mankind.

How was he mediating between or on behalf of man before man existed? Oh, you didn't mean mediating, you meant meditating. Ok, so he had to sit down and collect his thoughts? Ok!

Hardly. Any piece is created after meditation and pondering. After all, He had to create the worlds with balance and future. A 1 degree error on earth's orbit would have catastrophic consequences.

So god had to sit down for an eternity and figure all this out? LOL that's the whole point of what I said, he obviously didn't know off the top of his head.

No, I am stating that your conclusion after your imagining and pondering was based on an assumption and a faulty one at that. (Which you did)


Nothing is sweeter than someone who congratulates himself saying "I did so good". Especially when its just an opinion.

Now you're just being plain dishonest. I didn't congratulate myself in anyway. I stated the fact that in my opinion I offered the the most logical explanations so far.

ROFL - Talk to me when you know all things.

You on the other had make up. You can say anything you want, then say "no one could comprehend" and you can laugh and misquote other people who are merely trying to ask questions and say "you couldn't possibly comprehend." Sounds to me like you will never lose a debate! Merely for the reason that you are intellectually dishonest with yourself.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes! We have physical laws which describe the universe. One of which is the conservation of matter and energy.

You don't have a law that describes the origin of matter. Matter can't be converted into energy. Energy is necessary to convert anything into something else.

Red Herring! There is nothing that has been conceived that can't be conceived.

Not true. You have no answer for the origin of matter. Prove me wrong.

f it is YOUR position that understanding is beyond you, then admit it. But don't lay your shortcomings at my feet!I disagree! There is no physical law or theorem that suggests the impossibility of matter existing in singularity.

You want to start in the middle. What is the origin of matter? The short coming is yours. If you don't know, admit it.

In fact current theory demands it! I disagree with the statement (assuming I can use my editorial skill to know what you mean)! I do agree there was a moment that a singularity existed. But that does not imply the singularity was the 'beginning.' I would agree that it was the first moment of all subsequent moments. For there to have been a true 'beginning' we would have to have a very long discussion about the nature of time. Even if my previous comments were removed and I gave you all points up till now, this would be non-sequitur. Even if there were a beginning, I'd object to the term 'created.' But in fact there is no evidence whatsoever that there weren't events leading up to a singularity that are completely within time, space, and matter. False! I begin with a reality that i can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. I infer from there. I may make an occasional statement that what someone else proposes is unimaginable, or that when considering certain propositions I've listed all the possibilities I imagine. But like I said earlier there is no conception outside the human mind. If it has been conceived, it can be conceived. Ah, much like you have done throughout this post!!!! I am guilty of that as well.? With who and in the interest of what parties might he have been in mediation with/on behalf off?So you are suggesting he had to think about it? He didn't know? He wasn't sure or was undecided? These are qualities contradictory to perfection! So it is beyond your ability to imagine what he was doing. And you equate my imagining, pondering, and questioning to assumption. You state I'm wrong for assuming? (Which I didn't do!)

First of all a theory is an ideas that has not been proven. Second uness you can explain how matter came into being, you are just blowing smoke.

I must have been misunderstood. What I did was list all of the possibilities I could currently conceive, AND ASK if anyone else could add any. So in my estimation I have given the best possible answers so far. Your answer is that it is beyond us, we can't possible know, la la la forgive me if I seem...whatever...but the fact is "I don't know and you can't possibly know" Is not an answer! And it certainly isn't a criticism of my attempt to understand!Let's just ignore this for now! I don't have the fortitude to enumerate your fallacies! Ah, you do not speak for science! And you are wrong in your assertions![/QUOTE]

You have not given me an answer. All you have done is say it happened, with no scientific explanation. Even sceince acknowledges lifeless can't be the source of life.

 

[Kenny]

Actually it is substantiated. It's called the singularity and the big bang!

OK, Oh wise one...

"General relativity is used to predict that at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point."
Where was that "point" housed in?

LOL, ok. I'll agree with you; in your opinion your opinion is more logical!

- certainly!

And this is the whole problem. Your premise is more or less that you can't possibly know, therefore you are correct (more or less). Ironically you implicitly state that you can't possibly understand what god was doing. Therefore every single thought you have about it, by your own standard of truth, is absolutely incorrect. It's fine with me if you choose to believe, without any reason that you can't possibly understand. But you err when you apply this unsubstantiated standard to everyone else. Personally I believe this intellectual laziness. You can't coe up with a single explanation that convinces anyone else, yet you refuse to carefully consider any positions which argue against your bias.

I disagree. Your logic isn't logical and, again, you constructed your own premise to then destroy it. That isn't hard. Let me give it a try.

Since you can admit that you don't know everything, you can't possibly know what happened. Therefore every single thought you have about it, by your own standard of truth, is absolutely incorrect. I call that intellectual laziness.

As with yours (and mine) it is totally absurd.

So you DEFINE the subject as BEYOND UNDERSTANDING! That way you don't have to have any good explanation or argument, and you can whimsically dismiss any one else's views. Point being, given your position, you really have no dog in the hunt! You can't add to understanding, unless your intent is to convince everyone they are ignorant and will always remain so. I on the other had take the position that all is knowable, if not yet known.

If not yet know, then it is BEYOND YOUR UNDERSTANDING. Therefore, your point is pointless.

How was he mediating between or on behalf of man before man existed? Oh, you didn't mean mediating, you meant meditating. Ok, so he had to sit down and collect his thoughts? Ok!So god had to sit down for an eternity and figure all this out?

? Do you always create your own stories to then tear them up?

LOL that's the whole point of what I said, he obviously didn't know off the top of his head.Now you're just being plain dishonest. I didn't congratulate myself in anyway. I stated the fact that in my opinion I offered the the most logical explanations so far.

Quote: "I must have been misunderstood. What I did was list all of the possibilities I could currently conceive, AND ASK if anyone else could add any. So in my estimation I have given the best possible answers so far."

You said you made a list of all possibilities that you can conceive (which obviously you can't conceive them all) and then I gave mine... God.

Then you determined that everyone else's (including mine) is not as good as yours, therefore becoming judge and jury and congratulated yourself on that fact that you gave "the best possible answers so far"

Point / Set / Game

Next?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

OK, Oh wise one...

"General relativity is used to predict that at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point."
Where was that "point" housed in?


- certainly!


I disagree. Your logic isn't logical and, again, you constructed your own premise to then destroy it. That isn't hard. Let me give it a try.

Since you can admit that you don't know everything, you can't possibly know what happened. Therefore every single thought you have about it, by your own standard of truth, is absolutely incorrect. I call that intellectual laziness.

As with yours (and mine) it is totally absurd.


If not yet know, then it is BEYOND YOUR UNDERSTANDING. Therefore, your point is pointless.



? Do you always create your own stories to then tear them up?


Quote: "I must have been misunderstood. What I did was list all of the possibilities I could currently conceive, AND ASK if anyone else could add any. So in my estimation I have given the best possible answers so far."

You said you made a list of all possibilities that you can conceive (which obviously you can't conceive them all) and then I gave mine... God.

Then you determined that everyone else's (including mine) is not as good as yours, therefore becoming judge and jury and congratulated yourself on that fact that you gave "the best possible answers so far"

Point / Set / Game

Next?

Good lord, how thick is a brick? Matter does not require an origin. It has always existed as far as I know. How many ways must I say this? How many times must I say this?

Now, even if it did have some origin, so what? What's your point? I can't explain it so it must be god? Hahaha!

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You don't have a law that describes the origin of matter. Matter can't be converted into energy. Energy is necessary to convert anything into something else.

Your lack of even rudimentary scientific understanding is overwhelming. Energy and matter are interconvertible. You are telling me you honestly have never heard of the equation E=mc^2, or else have no understanding of it? Matter-Energy Conversion

Not true. You have no answer for the origin of matter. Prove me wrong.

I've said there is no origin required. Prove me wrong. In fact, repeating myself for the third time, science tells us all matter, time, and space existed as a singularity.

You want to start in the middle. What is the origin of matter? The short coming is yours. If you don't know, admit it.




First of all a theory is an ideas that has not been proven. Second uness you can explain how matter came into being, you are just blowing smoke.

I must have been misunderstood. What I did was list all of the possibilities I could currently conceive, AND ASK if anyone else could add any. So in my estimation I have given the best possible answers so far. Your answer is that it is beyond us, we can't possible know, la la la forgive me if I seem...whatever...but the fact is "I don't know and you can't possibly know" Is not an answer! And it certainly isn't a criticism of my attempt to understand!Let's just ignore this for now! I don't have the fortitude to enumerate your fallacies! Ah, you do not speak for science! And you are wrong in your assertions!

You have not given me an answer. All you have done is say it happened, with no scientific explanation. Even sceince acknowledges lifeless can't be the source of life.[/QUOTE]
You are so wrong, science has explicit explanations for the evolutions of organic molecules then proto cells, then life as currently defined. One of my master's degree is in EVOLUTION! So talking to you is kind of like talking to a...well, and uneducated boor who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

I'm done with you because you have not established a single true assumption and you constantly twist what I say and put words in my mouth. As I said, you don't believe anyone can possible comprehend, therefore you assume you know it all. You're condescending and don't seem to be capable of carrying on a conversation without saying things like 'old great one' and numerous other personal attacks. go blow smoke up your own back side!

 

[Kenny]

Good lord, how thick is a brick? Matter does not require an origin. It has always existed as far as I know. How many ways must I say this? How many times must I say this?

Now, even if it did have some origin, so what? What's your point? I can't explain it so it must be god? Hahaha!

And how do you know?

Since apparently you are god because know all things and can create all that you can conceive