Scientists say...

[Tomef]

There was a start to the universe. Kind of, more or less. Like it blasted from a teeny, tiny substance. Moses knew the universe had a beginning. How did he know that? No telescopes, no space travel...so how do you think Moses knew that there was a beginning to the existence of the universe including the earth?

Every creation story I’ve ever come across posits a beginning to the universe. What is it that makes you single out Moses? It seems that everyone in his day had that belief. The idea of the universe being eternal doesn’t seem to have entered mainstream discourse (to the extent that existed) until Heraclitus or near his time.

 

[danieldemol]

What is it that makes you single out Moses?

His indoctrination as a Jehovah's Witness in my view

 

[PureX]

Don't scientists agree on a "Big Bang"? I mean they posit that something (a real small concentrated something) exploded. So --put more succinctly, those scientists that believe in the "Big Bang" seem to believe that there was something there before it exploded. Or caused the so-called Big Bang.

What they ‘believe’ is irrelevant as they have no evidence whatever of the source of the big bang. Nor does anyone have any idea of what, how, or if anything even existed prior to it. What does existence even mean without the universe? All of the tools of science are tied to the laws of physics after the event, and so are useless in exploring any possible source.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There was a start to the universe. Kind of, more or less. Like it blasted from a teeny, tiny substance. Moses knew the universe had a beginning. How did he know that? No telescopes, no space travel...so how do you think Moses knew that there was a beginning to the existence of the universe including the earth?

He didn't know.

... though Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) certainly didn't invent the idea of a creation myth. There would have been plenty of examples to draw from.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I saw a house I might wonder how long ago was it built.

Yes, that is the kind of "common sense" that ancient humans used also to come up with their many many many creation myths.

Not sure why you consider such to be particularly impressive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not a question that scientific processes or instruments can answer. It's a philosophical question.

Why?
That's quite a claim. It requires some explanation.

 

[sayak83]

Many think he did not. I've been thinking about that lately. For instance, I was reading about Charles Dickens, the English author. There are some things about him that many do not really know but were discussed in a more recent book about his life and relationship with his wife. It's kind of a sad story. But if that had not been revealed people would believe only one side of it, namely, Dickens' side. And why am I saying this? Because many things that happened against the earthly rulers do not come to light. Printing presses and newspapers weren't around thousands of years ago and even if they were, nothing might have been written explaining the real stuff that happened if it looked bad for the ruler. Or the writings simply did not survive.

Well God is eminently capable of creating an untarnishable unerodable material on which to record His teachings if He really considered it that important. The fact that He did not and nothing original survives today tells me a lot about how important these texts from God are.
Same with the resurrection thing. Apparently the most important event in the history of the world happened with a only a handful of fairly unreliable witnesses. Credulity is stretched beyond repair personally.

 

[PureX]

Why?
That's quite a claim. It requires some explanation.

Everything science thinks it knows has been derived from experience of the universe and within the universe. And so cannot logically be presumed to apply to whatever is responsible, beyond, apart from, or prior to the universe.

 

[F1fan]

What they ‘believe’ is irrelevant as they have no evidence whatever of the source of the big bang.

Assuming there was a source, of which there is no evidence for. It's possible (you love your possibilities) that the Big Bang was self-caused.

Nor does anyone have any idea of what, how, or if anything even existed prior to it.

There are explanations about the existence of material.

What does existence even mean without the universe?

Or before humans evolved? Nothing.

All of the tools of science are tied to the laws of physics after the event, and so are useless in exploring any possible source.

Yet humans got along fine without knowing what we know today. Science is a process that gathers more data every day, and more answers are reported.

 

[PureX]

Assuming there was a source, of which there is no evidence for. It's possible (you love your possibilities) that the Big Bang was self-caused.

The evidence Is that existence as we know it had a beginning. And no, that is not logically possible, unless perhaps the universe is the expression of some illogical omnipotent Creator.

It's also illogical to presume that a universe in constant change is an expression of perpetuity.

There are explanations about the existence of material.

Existence is more than material.

Or before humans evolved? Nothing.

Yet humans got along fine without knowing what we know today. Science is a process that gathers more data every day, and more answers are reported.

Data is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Moses knew the universe had a beginning. How did he know that? No telescopes, no space travel...so how do you think Moses knew that there was a beginning to the existence of the universe including the earth?

I suspect that it somehow involved the same forced that caused Humpty Dumpty to have a great fall.

The point being that declaratives such as "Moses knew the universe had a beginning." are statements of faith that you presumably believe others should accept as fact. You're wrong.​

 

[RestlessSoul]

What they ‘believe’ is irrelevant as they have no evidence whatever of the source of the big bang. Nor does anyone have any idea of what, how, or if anything even existed prior to it. What does existence even mean without the universe? All of the tools of science are tied to the laws of physics after the event, and so are useless in exploring any possible source.

The Big Bang is a mathematical model, derived from Einstein’s field equations and subsequently supported by observation.

Theoretical physicist, mathematician and Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose, has modelled a cosmological concept wherein ours is one of a chain of recurring universes. Penrose says the maths checks out (if anyone is qualified to make such a claim, it’s him). But the model is not supported by observation, and may in principle be unfalsifable. So yes, at this point we are deep into philosophy and some distance from empirical science. As we are bound to be when, both literally and metaphorically, we find ourselves looking out over vast oceans of space and time.

 

[F1fan]

The evidence Is that existence as we know it had a beginning.

Only in the way that you had a begnning. The existence of material has some plausible explanations, and none suggest a supernatural cause. Agreed?

And no, that is not logically possible, unless perhaps the universe is the expression of some illogical omnipotent Creator.

What creator? Where did that idea come from?

It's also illogical to presume that a universe in constant change is an expression of perpetuity.

Why? Material exists. There is no supernatural phenomenon known to exist as a cause. There is no explanation about material being created in the way theists claim. It's a more plausible assumption that material has always existed in some form or another.

Existence is more than material.

Explain. What exists that is not material? Use facts.

Data is not knowledge,

Only in the sense that data represents reality, and how intekllkect uses data becomes knowledge. In essence data is like a tool.

and knowledge is not wisdom.

Then what is wisdom if it's not known?

 

[YoursTrue]

I suspect that it somehow involved the same forced that caused Humpty Dumpty to have a great fall.

The point being that declaratives such as "Moses knew the universe had a beginning." are statements of faith that you presumably believe others should accept as fact. You're wrong.​

ok, perhaps we'll see who is right. I believe that will happen. Meaning I believe God will make sure people know what's happening.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Big Bang is a mathematical model, derived from Einstein’s field equations and subsequently supported by observation.

Theoretical physicist, mathematician and Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose, has modelled a cosmological concept wherein ours is one of a chain of recurring universes. Penrose says the maths checks out (if anyone is qualified to make such a claim, it’s him). But the model is not supported by observation, and may in principle be unfalsifable. So yes, at this point we are deep into philosophy and some distance from empirical science. As we are bound to be when, both literally and metaphorically, we find ourselves looking out over vast oceans of space and time.

Einstein may have posed a model, but this only shows me that Einstein had brainwaves...not that I agree with his use of them all. Or that he thinks maybe he found out the answers.

 

[YoursTrue]

What they ‘believe’ is irrelevant as they have no evidence whatever of the source of the big bang. Nor does anyone have any idea of what, how, or if anything even existed prior to it. What does existence even mean without the universe? All of the tools of science are tied to the laws of physics after the event, and so are useless in exploring any possible source.

That makes sense. Although I believe God existed before the universe was created.

 

[PureX]

Only in the way that you had a begnning. The existence of material has some plausible explanations, and none suggest a supernatural cause. Agreed?

Or it all demands a supernatural cause in that the cause of natural existence would by definition have to be supernatural. So to my mind, the whole natural/supernatural debate becomes semantic.

What creator? Where did that idea come from?

Well, since existence can't logically make itself happen, something else must have. And since that something else is clearly equal to or more potent than what it made happen, it must be considered omnipotent, and able to defy logic.

Why? Material exists. There is no supernatural phenomenon known to exist as a cause.

Your brain is stuck inside existence with that comment, just as science is. But clearly something transcends this existence. If it had a beginning. So if we want to investigate it beyond the here and now, them we need philosophy. And materialism is a failed philosophy. So unless you let go of it, you're brain will stay stuck in it.

There is no explanation about material being created in the way theists claim. It's a more plausible assumption that material has always existed in some form or another.

That is not a plausible assumption. A creator God is actually more plausible than perpetuity. Especially a material perpetuity.

Explain. What exists that is not material? Use facts.

Your brain is still stuck in materialism.

Only in the sense that data represents reality, and how intekllkect uses data becomes knowledge. In essence data is like a tool.

It's a system frought with error.

Then what is wisdom if it's not known?

It's accepting the unknown. And living with it.

 

[PureX]

That makes sense. Although I believe God existed before the universe was created.

Very likely, but I still have no real idea what that means.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Einstein may have posed a model, but this only shows me that Einstein had brainwaves...not that I agree with his use of them all. Or that he thinks maybe he found out the answers.

Einstein had a lot of humility. That was part of his genius, he was always questioning, always doubting himself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ok, perhaps we'll see who is right. I believe that will happen. Meaning I believe God will make sure people know what's happening.

I honestly couldn't care less what you believe. What I find to be pathetic is the inability to distinguish the difference between belief and facts. It is a defect that facilitates societal decay.