The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[Repox]

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

You have the wrong reference for this posting. Not that it matters, but this is from my #130 post.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Whether or not I believe is beside the point. I am more than happy to consider the idea.

So assuming for the sake of argument let's just assume "God" exists.

So how did "God" cause the big bang? What exactly did "God" do and how?

You claim that "God" is the only possible explanation. Ok, so explain it.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Eternity mean there is infinite amount of time and that changes can happen at any point in time. Eternity doesn't mean being "outside of time" and it doesn't mean "time doesn't exist".

You cannot possibly prove there is "outside of time" or "absence of time" in relation to eternity any more than you can provide evidences for the existence of your god.

If anything, history showed that man had created god(s), not god(s) created man.

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?

Only an ignorant fool make statement like "By default God, God did it."

People used to believe that thunderstorm or flood or drought or earthquake or volcano eruption or any other natural disaster was caused by an angry spirit(s) or deity (deities) because they could never explain these natural occurrences.

You are proposing that we continued to rely on superstition to explain the unexplainable with same primitive fear and ignorance by saying that god-did-it as an explanation?

Just because there is no current explanation to what happen before the Big Bang, it doesn't default to god of yours. "God did it" isn't an explanation, let alone a "logical" explanation. It is nothing more than fear, utter ignorance and primitive superstition.

You can easily substitute "god" in this "- did it" with a demon or fairy, or ghost, giant, Flying Spaghetti Monster, alien, or unicorn, etc.

Mestemia is right, the "god did it" is nothing more than a "cop out" and there is nothing logical about your claims, just ignorance and superstition.

You might as well as live back in the Dark Ages when Christians in Western Europe thought that the Earth was flat, and you would fall if you sail off the world's edge.

And you say that you not a typical, average creationist...that's laughable, because you have exhibited all the signs of being one.

And btw, we are still waiting for you to explain this Big Bang to us. All you have done so far, is make one unsubstantiated claim after another about "god did it" which is not a logical explanation at all. That's just lazy ignorant superstition.

 

[zaybu]

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.

But any of those theories are better than a god-of-the-gap solution.

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

But they are based on General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, which have overwhelming evidence supporting them. Your hypothesis, God did it, is a cop-out.

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 create itself.

But we have observed the effect of particles being created from the vacuum. You're given the evidence but you keep denying it.

There has to be a logical explanation. So far, science has none.

Yours, God did it, is worse.

 

[camanintx]

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."

To create something is to turn non-existence into existence, regardless of the specific mechanism used. How can the creation of the universe not be a process of change?

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).

You keep saying this but you fail to back it up. Quantum physics gives us evidence that matter and energy can create itself. Until you provide a mechanism which prevents this, God is the least logical explanation.

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.

It is not a play on words when it accurately describes a concept. You keep claiming that time is something that God can exist independent of when that has never been demonstrated. If time began with the big bang then there is no time when the universe has not existed which makes it "eternal". If this concept confuses you, I suggest you read Chapter 31 of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Chapter 31. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

 

[fantome profane]

I think the point that Repox is missing is that "God did it" is not an explanation. It explains nothing. It doesn't add anything to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is a place filler, something that he may choose to put in place of an explanation, but it is not an explanation.

Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie.
Why does a chicken, I don't know why.
Ask me a riddle and I reply:
COTTLESTON, COTTLESTON, COTTLESTON PIE.

He is correct that our scientific understanding is incomplete. But the understanding of "God did it" is not only incomplete, it is completely non-existent. I don't understand "God did it" and I don't think he does either. I have asked him a couple times in this thread "how God explains the big bang" and he has not responded. "God" does not explain the big bang anymore than "cottleston pie" does. Ask him a riddle and he will reply "God did it". He might as well say "cottleston pie", at least that rhymes.

 

[Repox]

eternity mean there is infinite amount of time and that changes can happen at any point in time. Eternity doesn't mean being "outside of time" and it doesn't mean "time doesn't exist".

I disagree. Time cannot be a measure of eternity. Time is part of the universe in relationship to functions of matter and energy. Time has no meaning outside of the universe. Because god has no beginning and no end, there is no human measure for god in relationship to time.

you cannot possibly prove there is "outside of time" or "absence of time" in relation to eternity any more than you can provide evidences for the existence of your god.

you cannot prove the existence of a natural cause explanation for the universe. I never said I can prove god, a spiritual being. However, if science can't explain the cause for the big bang, god is the logical answer.

if anything, history showed that man had created god(s), not god(s) created man.

it also may be the case that humans discovered god. The bible is a record of such a discovery.

only an ignorant fool make statement like "by default god, god did it."

Calling me names will not win your argument.

people used to believe that thunderstorm or flood or drought or earthquake or volcano eruption or any other natural disaster was caused by an angry spirit(s) or deity (deities) because they could never explain these natural occurrences.

So, we are more advanced. Therefore, science should explain it. What caused the big bang?

you are proposing that we continued to rely on superstition to explain the unexplainable with same primitive fear and ignorance by saying that god-did-it as an explanation?

Just because there is no current explanation to what happen before the big bang, it doesn't default to god of yours. "god did it" isn't an explanation, let alone a "logical" explanation. It is nothing more than fear, utter ignorance and primitive superstition.

You can easily substitute "god" in this "- did it" with a demon or fairy, or ghost, giant, flying spaghetti monster, alien, or unicorn, etc.

Mestemia is right, the "god did it" is nothing more than a "cop out" and there is nothing logical about your claims, just ignorance and superstition.

You might as well as live back in the dark ages when christians in western europe thought that the earth was flat, and you would fall if you sail off the world's edge.

And you say that you not a typical, average creationist...that's laughable, because you have exhibit all the signs of being one.

And btw, we are still waiting for you to explain this big bang to us. All you have done so far, is make one unsubstantiated claim after another about "god did it" which is not a logical explanation at all. That's just lazy ignorant superstition.

Skip the derogatory remarks. With or without your interpretation of history, there is no natural cause explanation for the big bang. To end this debate, present that argument. A word of advice, don't waste your time. Science will never, and can never do it. All science can do is discover how "God did it."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

you cannot prove the existence of a natural cause explanation for the universe.

Apparently the world's leading cosmologists and physicists who are working over at the Large Hadron Collider disagree with you.

I never said I can prove god, a spiritual being. However, if science can't explain the cause for the big bang, god is the logical answer.

This is called an argument from ignorance. If something is not yet known then the logical answer is "I don't know", the logical answer is not "magic".

it also may be the case that humans discovered god. The bible is a record of such a discovery.

It may be, but can you demonstrate that that is the case?

So, we are more advanced. Therefore, science should explain it. What caused the big bang?

Again, "we cannot answer it yet" is not sufficient reason to conclude "magic did it".

 

[camanintx]

I disagree. Time cannot be a measure of eternity.

Just try defining eternity without any reference to time.

 

[Repox]

I think the point that Repox is missing is that "God did it" is not an explanation. It explains nothing. It doesn't add anything to our understanding of the phenomenon. It is a place filler, something that he may choose to put in place of an explanation, but it is not an explanation.

He is correct that our scientific understanding is incomplete. But the understanding of "God did it" is not only incomplete, it is completely non-existent. I don't understand "God did it" and I don't think he does either. I have asked him a couple times in this thread "how God explains the big bang" and he has not responded. "God" does not explain the big bang anymore than "cottleston pie" does. Ask him a riddle and he will reply "God did it". He might as well say "cottleston pie", at least that rhymes.

I thought I made myself clear. If you had read my postings about the limits of science you would understand that science cannot violate physical laws, or explain how matter and energy can create itself. Science has only one option, it must claim the universe to be eternal. Science knows however that is not possible.

God, an eternal being, is the only explanation.

 

[camanintx]

I thought I made myself clear. If you had read my postings about the limits of science you would understand that science cannot violate physical laws, or explain how matter and energy can create itself. Science has only one option, it must claim the universe is eternal. However, science cannot do that.

God, an eternal being, is the only explanation.

What physical law does a self-creating universe violate?

 

[Repox]

Just try defining eternity without any reference to time.

Time is a human construct. Before the universe, time didn't exist.

I conceive of heaven as eternal, whereby God is always, not a condition of time. Without the concept of time, God and heaven would still be eternal.

 

[Repox]

What physical law does a self-creating universe violate?

In particular, the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy. It's a function of time, it could not exist if matter and energy were self-creating.

 

[gnostic]

"God did it" is an unsubstantiated claim, not a logical explanation. It is a claim based entirely on ignorance and superstition; it is argument from ignorance.

No one here is denying that there may be limits to what science can explain, but what they can't explain it is far more honest to say "I don't know" or "we don't know" than jump to utterly idiotic and dishonest conclusion that "god did it".

How many times must we tell you, repox, that god is not explanation, but a claim - and baseless one at that - if you no evidences or proof to support your fictitious claims.

We are still awaiting your explanation on the Big Bang to us. That you had told me that you would explain your version to the Big Bang, only to have you ignore our request yo do so, make your words as hollow as your claims. You have evade explaining the Big Bang like a used car salesman or lawyer.

 

[idav]

In particular, the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy. It's a function of time, it could not exist if matter and energy were self-creating.

The law violates any sort of creation. The law would have it that the energy of the universe has always existed even prior to expansion. Any how a self creating energy is no more preposterous than a self creating god.

 

[camanintx]

In particular, the Second Law of Thermodynamics about entropy. It's a function of time, it could not exist if matter and energy were self-creating.

Not if the sum total of all energy in the universe was zero.

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

 

[Repox]

Not if the sum total of all energy in the universe was zero.

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

This came from the link:

"Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable."

It sounds conceivable, but how about a time line? When and where did the first fluctuation come from? I know science doesn't take those questions seriously, but why don't they? If it came from nothing, how is that possible?

The article admits there is no evidence for anything existing prior to the big bang. For this theory to take off, evidence is required.

 

[Repox]

The law violates any sort of creation. The law would have it that the energy of the universe has always existed even prior to expansion. Any how a self creating energy is no more preposterous than a self creating god.

By assuming God is a material being, you conclude He cannot be any different than humans. If humans can't create, then neither can God. However, if God is a spiritual being, our rules don't apply.

Matter and energy creating itself is preposterous. If that were true, science would have discovered it. To date, science has not proposed such an event.

 

[fantome profane]

I thought I made myself clear. If you had read my postings about the limits of science you would understand that science cannot violate physical laws, or explain how matter and energy can create itself. Science has only one option, it must claim the universe to be eternal. Science knows however that is not possible.

God, an eternal being, is the only explanation.

You certainly have made yourself quite clear. And it is clearly a case of very sloppy thinking.

You certainly have not explained how "God" could possibly create matter or energy, you haven't even attempted to explain this. It would not surprise me if you haven't even thought about it.

I understand you. Do you understand me when I say that "God did it" is not an explanation unless you can explain it. Cottlleston pie.

 

[Repox]

You certainly have made yourself quite clear. And it is clearly a case of very sloppy thinking.

You certainly have not explained how "God" could possibly create matter or energy, you haven't even attempted to explain this. It would not surprise me if you haven't even thought about it.

I understand you. Do you understand me when I say that "God did it" is not an explanation unless you can explain it. Cottlleston pie.

Just because there are many here who cannot consider the possibility that God created the universe, doesn't mean I have to cower and obey their demands.

Of course, I can't explain how God did it. I am not God.