The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[outhouse]

It is difficult to image so many gods out there. For one, how did they all agree to on set of physical laws. There are countless problems with so many gods. .

There are countless problems with every deity ever created.

People attribute things too deities through faith alone, once they define a deity they are doing so blindly with no evidence at all.

The whole universe can be attributed to one God.

False

It cannot be attributed to any deity. You have zero evidence.

Unless science can provide a natural science explanation for the big bang, God, the invisible force did it.

This is wrong

You may lack a understanding of human nature and mistakes our ancestors have always made.

They have always stuck a god in the gaps in their knowledge, as your doing now.

Because we don't know, doesn't mean you can attribute anything to mythology.


People used to blame the lack of rain on a god until they learned. Volcanos were angry gods. Earthquakes, angry gods again


The big bang is a scientific ONLY term that we do not need to keep making mistakes of placing god where he has no business.

Neither can atheist prove a natural science explanation for the big bang. It appears to be a draw.

Its not a draw. Not knowing doesn't mean any god is on equal footing.

I already state which God I believe in. It is Yahweh, the Jewish God

Why?

Yahweh as we know him is a compilation in scripture of a few deities. El was Yahweh's father, and before 800 BC certain groups started giving Yahweh all El's attributes including his wife Asherah.

The bible was redacted to monotheism after 622 BC, and all deities attributes were given to Yahweh by King Josiah a strict Yahwist. Not all the people were on board with this change and it took hundreds of years before "the one" god ever was mainstream. Most scholars claim this was roughly 200-400 BC.



God is only attributed to creating a world in 6 days in theology, what many claim as mythology through allegory, has ZERO place in any science department. Any attempt to try and pervert the bible to fit science is just that, a perversion of ancient mythology of beauty that started long before Israelites existed in the cultures that folded, and the Semetic people that formed the Canaanite culture that factually evolved into Isrealites after 1200 BC. [factually per Finklestein and Dever]

 

[Tranquil Servant]

Someone said something in a documentary I was watching one time which made a lot of sense to me. The person said (I'm paraphrasing) "believing in the big bang theory is like believing in a hurricane that passed through a landfill with airplane parts and left behind a Boeing 747."

All I have to say is the chicken or the egg?

 

[Repox]

Someone said something in a documentary I was watching one time which made a lot of sense to me. The person said (I'm paraphrasing) "believing in the big bang theory is like believing in a hurricane that passed through a landfill with airplane parts and left behind a Boeing 747."

All I have to say is the chicken or the egg?

Sounds like what happened. Then, there is that old saying, what came first the chicken or the egg.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Thread closed for staff review.
​

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

Some posts in this thread and responses to them have been deleted, and the thread has been reopened for posting.

Please keep all forum rules in mind while posting, especially Rules 1, 3, and 11.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

 

[ruffen]

Someone said something in a documentary I was watching one time which made a lot of sense to me. The person said (I'm paraphrasing) "believing in the big bang theory is like believing in a hurricane that passed through a landfill with airplane parts and left behind a Boeing 747."

Well, if you look at it from an evolutionary viewpoint, all 747's have occured from natural processes in the same way that bees build hives, birds build nests, and ants build.. those thiniges that ants build.

The Big Bang formed matter which coalesced into stars, which exploded as supernovae which spread heavier elements into space and coalesced into heavier stars that also exploded as supernovae to create even more heavy elements. The Sun is hypothesized to be a third-generation star. Some of the leftover heavy elements accreted to form planets including Earth, with enough heavy elements to start some complicated chemistry going, which gave rise to life.

Life evolved over millennia to form new organisms ever so slightly better adapted to their environment than their predecessors. This was a long and painful process that involved a lot of dying. Entire species became extinct (infact more than 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct) while others managed to thrive and evolve. Some hominids were strong and adapted to a cold, hard world and fighting dangerous animals, while others had more brains and used their intelligence to improve their chance of survival.

Those hominids were smart enough to build tools. At first simple weapons, clothing items, and simple tools, but as time went on more and more complicated tools, buildings and machines were build. Some started pondering how to move faster than walking or riding horses, and built cars, trains and aircraft. A large group of engineers at the Boeing Company came up with plans for the Boeing 747.

A complicated machine? Yes. Arisen from ultimately natural processes? Yes!

 

[Repox]

there are countless problems with every deity ever created.

people attribute things too deities through faith alone, once they define a deity they are doing so blindly with no evidence at all.

again, there is no evidence for a natural cause explanation for the universe. As for god, old testament prophets were witnesses to the lord.

it cannot be attributed to any deity. You have zero evidence.

you have zero evidence for natural science explanation. As long as neither of us has evidence, this argument is dead on arrival.

this is wrong

you may lack a understanding of human nature and mistakes our ancestors have always made.

They have always stuck a god in the gaps in their knowledge, as your doing now.

There is no god of the gaps point to my argument. God created the universe, and humans discovered how he did it.

because we don't know, doesn't mean you can attribute anything to mythology.

I believe god communicated with humans and choose jews as his chosen people, those events are recorded in the bible.

people used to blame the lack of rain on a god until they learned. Volcanos were angry gods. Earthquakes, angry gods again

I believe the thread is also about the big bang. According to science the big bang explains much of what we know about the universe, but science has no explanation for what caused the big bang. I claim god caused the big bang. When scientist can explain it, god will no longer be a possibility. However, i don't believe that will ever happen.

the big bang is a scientific only term that we do not need to keep making mistakes of placing god where he has no business.

God caused the big bang, so it's his business.

its not a draw. Not knowing doesn't mean any god is on equal footing.

You are wrong, if science has no explanation, there is no reason to exclude god as the explanation.

yahweh as we know him is a compilation in scripture of a few deities. El was yahweh's father, and before 800 bc certain groups started giving yahweh all el's attributes including his wife asherah.

The bible was redacted to monotheism after 622 bc, and all deities attributes were given to yahweh by king josiah a strict yahwist. Not all the people were on board with this change and it took hundreds of years before "the one" god ever was mainstream. Most scholars claim this was roughly 200-400 bc.



God is only attributed to creating a world in 6 days in theology, what many claim as mythology through allegory, has zero place in any science department. Any attempt to try and pervert the bible to fit science is just that, a perversion of ancient mythology of beauty that started long before israelites existed in the cultures that folded, and the semetic people that formed the canaanite culture that factually evolved into isrealites after 1200 bc. [factually per finklestein and dever]

Because biblical prophets lacked our education, they had misconceived ideas about nature. I don't believe in the 6 day, etc, version.

 

[camanintx]

Yes, I agree if there was no time before the big bang then we have "nothing" ha. ha. to go on. However, assuming God is eternal, which is the absence of time, there is an explanation. God, an eternal spiritual being, created a material universe based on time.

Eternal means through all of time, not the absence of it. Time is nothing more than how we measure change, and as such applies to anything that changes. Since creation by definition is a change, nothing that creates can exist independently of time. If you accept the theory that time began with the creation of the universe, then there was no time when the universe did not exist, hence the universe is eternal.

 

[idav]

For not being able to see outside the box we call a universe, we sure can speculate about it. If we could even truthfully answer whether there is an "outside" of the universe then we might be getting somewhere. As it stands the universe is all there is, thus far.

 

[Repox]

Eternal means through all of time, not the absence of it. Time is nothing more than how we measure change, and as such applies to anything that changes. Since creation by definition is a change, nothing that creates can exist independently of time. If you accept the theory that time began with the creation of the universe, then there was no time when the universe did not exist, hence the universe is eternal.

I disagree with your statement, "nothing that creates can exist independently of time." You are assuming God's creation is a process of change. There is no evidence for that conclusion. Creation is generally defined as "an original product." In the context of human experience it is defined as "an original product of human invention or artistic imagination." However, in the context of our discussion, it is defined as "the act of God by which the universe was created." In other other words, matter and energy cannot create itself. The only logical explanation is God, a spiritual being, created matter and energy (the universe).

Science has concluded that time began with the big bang. Based on scientific studies, the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. You claim "there was no time when the universe did not exist, hence the universe is eternal." That is play on words, not a logical statement. Time is part of the universe, not part of eternity. We can conclude, based on science, that time began with the big bang. Outside of time, God's eternity exists. To state otherwise is illogical. It's impossible to explain the origin of matter and energy without God.

 

[McBell]

I disagree with your statement, "nothing that creates can exist independently of time." You are assuming God's creation is a process of change. There is no evidence for that conclusion. Creation is generally defined as "an original product." In the context of human experience it is defined as "an original product of human invention or artistic imagination." However, in the context of our discussion, it is defined as "the act of God by which the universe was created." In other other words, matter and energy cannot create itself. The only logical explanation is God, a spiritual being, created matter and energy (the universe).

How is God creating something not a change?

Your use of the word "logical" strongly indicates you do not know what the word means.

Science has concluded that time began with the big bang. Based on scientific studies, the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. You claim "there was no time when the universe did not exist, hence the universe is eternal." That is play on words, not a logical statement. Time is part of the universe, not part of eternity. We can conclude, based on science, that time began with the big bang. Outside of time, God's eternity exists. To state otherwise is illogical. It's impossible to explain the origin of matter and energy without God.

You have as yet shown that your "outside of time" exists or is even possible outside your insistence that it must be.

Explaining anything with the answer "god did it" is no explanation at all.
It is nothing more than a lazy cop out.

 

[zaybu]

The problem with God creating the universe is that he has to create something out of nothing. How is that possible?

 

[Repox]

how is god creating something not a change?

Your use of the word "logical" strongly indicates you do not know what the word means.

you have as yet shown that your "outside of time" exists or is even possible outside your insistence that it must be.

If we assume as you propose that nothing exists outside of time, how do you explain the big bang, or the existence of a material universe? Did the universe create itself? If so, how is that possible?

explaining anything with the answer "god did it" is no explanation at all.
It is nothing more than a lazy cop out.

it is the only possible explanation for the big bang. Again, science has no explanation for how matter and energy came into existence. They can use physical laws to explain

 

[zaybu]

If we assume as you propose that nothing exists outside of time, how do you explain the big bang, or the existence of a material universe? Did the universe create itself? If so, how is that possible?

We know that such phenomena as the Casimir effect, Hawking radiation, and the Higgs boson are all based on the notion that particles can be created from a vacuum. And there is convincing argument that the total energy of the universe is zero. So Hawking's hypothesis, that the universe came out of the vacuum, is not by any means farfetched, and far more plausible than a god creating the universe out of nothing, which at this point is rather superfluous.

 

[Repox]

We know that such phenomena as the Casimir effect, Hawking radiation, and the Higgs boson are all based on the notion that particles can be created from a vacuum. And there is convincing argument that the total energy of the universe is zero. So Hawking's hypothesis, that the universe came out of the vacuum, is not by any means farfetched, and far more plausible than a god creating the universe out of nothing, which at this point is rather superfluous.

If you assume there is no such thing as God, an eternal being, you must explain the universe or the beginning of matter and energy by other means. The only other means remaining are by physical laws and what we know about the universe. If you assume, that it came from a vacuum, then you must explain where that vacuum came from. Hawking theorized about a vacuum, but science has no evidence that it existed before the big bang. There are a many theories by atheist scientists about origins, including multiple universes, parallel universes, bubble universes, etc. However, not one of those theories has evidence.

Until science can provide and natural science explanation, God is the logical explanation.

Skipping ahead to other theories out there. Some scientists have claimed the universe is eternal. For that, you must suspend physical laws. Some have proposed there are undiscovered laws that can explain an eternal universe. Here is where science fiction kicks in.

The problem for all of these theories they defy physical laws and they lack evidence.

It is not possible for matter or energy, whether it is VPs in a vacuum, or a spark of rapidly expanding energy (big bang), to created itself. There has to be a logical explanation. So far, science has none.

 

[outhouse]

.

Until science can provide and natural science explanation, God is the logical explanation.

.

False

Scientifically no god exist.


Man used to blaim the lack of rain on gods, your making the same mistake.

 

[Repox]

False

Scientifically no god exist.


Man used to blaim the lack of rain on gods, your making the same mistake.

I have not said science can explain God. I have said science cannot explain the beginning of the universe (big bang).

By default God, God did it. What other explanation is there?

If science can explain, what is the argument?

 

[fantome profane]

Until science can provide and natural science explanation, God is the logical explanation.

Extremely sloppy thinking.

Do you really expect anyone else to accept this poorly thought out premise?

And what exactly does "God" explain and how?

 

[adi2d]

Yes, virtual particles fluctuation theory. The problem is we have no evidence of it before the big bang. Then, there is the argument based on time, where did that vacuum with VPs come from? At what point in time, or from where did it derive. Assuming physical laws, we must have an explanation for origins.

I know about God of the gaps. This however this is a huge gap. Also, I am not proposing that science is wrong in most explanations, I'm assuming God caused the big bang and science explains what happened thereafter.

It is interesting that science has not seriously regarded laws of probability for cosmological events. As an example, what are the probabilities for matter and anti-matter producing galaxies? what are probabilities for life happening on earth, one of billions of planets?

The odds of life happening on earth ----1. As are the odds of anything else happening after the fact

 

[Repox]

Extremely sloppy thinking.

Do you really expect anyone else to accept this poorly thought out premise?

And what exactly does "God" explain and how?

The thread is about the big bang. Who or what caused it? So, to eliminate God, propose a natural science explanation.

Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean He doesn't exist.