The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Ben Dhyan]

I LOVE how you demanded answers from me about cause and accused me of refusing to answer you, as now the tables are turned. You are perfectly happy to demand that answers fit your preconceptions of causality, temporality, etc., so long as by demanding so you anticipate the answers will conform to your desires. When you can't rely on your own game and your little tricks don't work, then you simply avoid the answers as you accused me of doing. How expected. Your little game works only until you have to play by your rules, in which case you stop playing.

Wrong. Regardless of any beginning, I can still ask (in your simplistic, pedantic fashion) "what was the cause" for such processes/phenomena as "causation" or "existence". Just as you demanded I describe the state of affairs that existed before there was any time for a "before" to exist, I can ask what caused there to be any cause, or what caused existence, and you are even more bereft of anything remotely resembling an answer than I. Because while I could say that temporal terms couldn't be defined in the absence of temporality, you have to demand we stick to ad hoc nonsense you assert to be true because of your assertions.
You: Existence is eternal
Me: But what caused it
You: Existence is eternal

ad nauseum
You are defeated by your own game. I assert that, in coherence with all empirical evidence, spacetime had an origins, in which case it is meaningless to ask what "happened" during the state of affairs in which there did not exist any space for anything to happen in, nor any time for it to happen in. You object. You continue to play the language game and demand answers because you can use language to formulate questions. I decide to play the same game. I ask "what caused causation" and "what cause existence?
and you cannot answer such questions. But as you have no intellectually honest answer or even an intellectually honest framework to resort to, you must rely on repetition. "Existence is eternal" blah blah blah. Your own logic fails to support your own logic.

Haha....I truly was not aware that you can not see what I am saying to you... existence is eternal....existence had no beginning because it could not be any other way... Can all the science in existence make existence or any part thereof to cease to exist absolutely...of course not...it is an eternal fact of nature and science that it can not be done.. So there was never a need for a cause for existence....it was only when there is a focus on physical forms, whether they be galaxies or human beings that we can talk of causes....and that is where science plays its part...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Haha....I truly was not aware that you can not see what I am saying to you... existence is eternal

I am aware. I am aware of when a question can be phrased but has no meaning. You aren't. You accused me of avoiding a question despite the fact that it made no sense. It was the equivalent of asking the cause of causality or the cause of existence. But you STILL apparently don't recognize this:

Semantics....you know you are dodging and weaving to avoid dealing seriously with my question... If time came into existence...it either arose from nothing.......or something... To say to reasonable persons that my question is not reasonable because it is like asking what is north of the north pole is just unacceptable... If that's the best you can do you have little credibility to offer...

So, to use your approach:
If causality [or existence] came into existence...it either arose from nothing.......or something. So which is it? Did existence arise from nothing, or something? Did nothing arise from nothing, or something? How about cause? Can't answer because the questions are too clearly flawed? Well, that's EXACTLY how completely ludicrously irrational and flawed your demand that I define what happened what existed before there was any time or space for anything to exist (and only slightly less stupendously flawed than asking about what is North of the North-most point). You've just been defeated by your own little game.

....existence had no beginning because it could not be any other way.

I recall saying the same thing about time (or space, or spacetime). Your answer was to demand that I define things anyway. So, true to your own form: "what caused existence to be as it was and in no other way?"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am aware. I am aware of when a question can be phrased but has no meaning. You aren't. You accused me of avoiding a question despite the fact that it made no sense. It was the equivalent of asking the cause of causality or the cause of existence. But you STILL apparently don't recognize this:

So, to use your approach:
If causality [or existence] came into existence...it either arose from nothing.......or something. So which is it? Did existence arise from nothing, or something? Did nothing arise from nothing, or something? How about cause? Can't answer because the questions are too clearly flawed? Well, that's EXACTLY how completely ludicrously irrational and flawed your demand that I define what happened what existed before there was any time or space for anything to exist (and only slightly less stupendously flawed than asking about what is North of the North-most point). You've just been defeated by your own little game.


I recall saying the same thing about time (or space, or spacetime). Your answer was to demand that I define things anyway. So, true to your own form: "what caused existence to be as it was and in no other way?"

Causality in the context of manifestation is eternal...there was never a beginning... The concept of causality has no meaning in the context of eternal existence itself...only as it applies the manifestation of existence....

 

[gnostic]

I LOVE how you demanded answers from me about cause and accused me of refusing to answer you, as now the tables are turned. You are perfectly happy to demand that answers fit your preconceptions of causality, temporality, etc., so long as by demanding so you anticipate the answers will conform to your desires. When you can't rely on your own game and your little tricks don't work, then you simply avoid the answers as you accused me of doing. How expected. Your little game works only until you have to play by your rules, in which case you stop playing.

All too true.

And when you give an answer that disagree with his, he will still insist that you answer his question, when you already did. Getting to answer your own questions, is exercise in futility.

Often when I attempt to get straight answer from him, A) he would use one of the following tactics, B) he would try to turn the question back on me, C) move the goal posts when he don't want to answer, D) or he would simply ignore the question altogether.

This is why I find him to be as infuriating as some of the creationists here...and it isn't a compliment.

 

[gnostic]

Causality in the context of manifestation is eternal...there was never a beginning... The concept of causality has no meaning in the context of eternal existence itself...only as it applies the manifestation of existence....

And how is that in any way relate to Brahman?

I am not expecting a straight answer from you, because I have become of cynic, because of you.

All I know you will do, is just say that "Brahman is eternal"...that's not explanation, but circular reasoning...which I have come to expect from you, just as Thief love repeating his "Spirit, first" craps

ok...so I wasn't clear enough that we agree?

Spirit first

been posting those two words for years

.Yes, I know you are reading this, Thief. And it is a useless piece of #### of motto that you have repeated to ad nauseum.

You and thief must be kinsmen, because you both love repeating the same meaningless words.

Anyway, I don't really know what your particular brand of Hinduism that you followed Ben. Usually, I pretty neutral with Hinduism, because I don't know much about it, being such a very complex religion. But with your presence here, you are not making a pretty image of Hinduism.

I cannot say I hate Hinduism, because I know other Hindus who I get along well enough, and fortunately are nothing like the annoying you.

Enjoy the rest of your day, ben. I am going to bed.

 

[Thief]

sweet dreams.....angels and demons all around you....

nightie night

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator. To be fair, many scientists (including Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” derisively) objected to the idea that the universe ever “began” for precisely this reason (or at least something similar). The origins of the infamous cosmological constant began with Einstein’s attempt to make the universe static rather than having originated.

So let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe isn’t eternal (as basically all physics suggests). Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause and so on: In all of these arguments, it is assumed that cause is some (rather simplistic, naïve) “linear” processes whereby we can assert that causes MUST precede effects.

With this EXTREMELY minimal causal assumption (causes precede effects) we cannot say anything about the “cause” of the universe. The SAME PHYSICS which suggest the universe is not eternal but originated with the big bang suggests that time’s origins are the same: the big bang. The point is this:

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

I would second many of the responses here- the solution is in your own argument.

Time as we know it was a creation of, is particular to our universe- whatever created it- God or spontaneous blind mechanism, necessarily transcends time as we know it, by definition. The creator is not bound by the laws of it's own creation.

But there is a distinction between the first cause paradox regarding the timeline of cause and effect... and the first cause, conception of the design of the universe

The first applies to any explanation 'where did THAT come from?' and is a wash and moot point, because here we are either way.

The second is solved only by creative intelligence, because it alone has the capacity to create something truly original.

Spontaneous blind mechanisms in contrast must be supported by an infinite regression of further 'SBM's

 

[Thief]

I think it's simpler than that.

consider location

and all of this came from one 'point'

 

[`mud]

Legion and Ben,
Causality being the source of the effects of existing inertia in the implementation of the manifestation of the beginning of the concept...
WHAT ????
~
I get lost easily at my age.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about,
nor are you two, it seems.
Oh well, proceed as you will !!
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

hey Thief,
What was the causality of that 'point',
from which the 'spirit' came ?
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And how is that in any way relate to Brahman?

I am not expecting a straight answer from you, because I have become of cynic, because of you.

All I know you will do, is just say that "Brahman is eternal"...that's not explanation, but circular reasoning...which I have come to expect from you, just as Thief love repeating his "Spirit, first" craps

The reality represented by the concept of Brahman is the same reality represented by such concepts as eternal and infinite.......this is the absolute reality... so there is no circular reasoning to say that finite concepts like causes and beginnings are not relevant.. It is your finite mind that is trying to understand non-duality with duality that sends it around in circles...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Legion and Ben,
Causality being the source of the effects of existing inertia in the implementation of the manifestation of the beginning of the concept...
WHAT ????
~
I get lost easily at my age.
I'm not sure what you two are arguing about,
nor are you two, it seems.
Oh well, proceed as you will !!
~
'mud

mud, I do not understand what you mean by this...."Causality being the source of the effects of existing inertia in the implementation of the manifestation of the beginning of the concept..." Can you rephrase it to make it more decipherable...thanks?

Legion was playing word games to generally try and muddy the waters concerning my explanation and reasons for an eternal cosmos....when he asked me to give reason why the universe did not have a cause...and I said it was because it was eternal.....he grabbed onto my use of the word "because"....and tried a desperate gottcha ploy by pointing our there was a "cause" in "because" and thus I was still admitting there was a cause of eternity..... I can imagine how difficult it would be to try and understand my response without understanding the point I was responding to....he was desperate to win the debate....

 

[gnostic]

The reality represented by the concept of Brahman is the same reality represented by such concepts as eternal and infinite.......this is the absolute reality... so there is no circular reasoning to say that finite concepts like causes and beginnings are not relevant.. It is your finite mind that is trying to understand non-duality with duality that sends it around in circles...

There is nothing "absolute" - and nothing "real" about what you are claiming...whether it about Brahman or about existence. This is simply your personal opinion, your personal and very unsubstantiated belief.

You don't even have any evidences to support your claim about anything eternal, and without evidences, how can you even dare to say it is "absolute".

Your reasoning lack both logic and evidences, just more circular and wishful thinkings.

My finite mind, as you would call it, required evidences, otherwise you are just speaking through your a##, about nonsensical and nonexistent Brahman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is nothing "absolute" - and nothing "real" about what you are claiming...whether it about Brahman or about existence. This is simply your personal opinion, your personal and very unsubstantiated belief.

You don't even have any evidences to support your claim about anything eternal, and without evidences, how can you even dare to say it is "absolute".

Your reasoning lack both logic and evidences, just more circular and wishful thinkings.

My finite mind, as you would call it, required evidences, otherwise you are just speaking through your a##, about nonsensical and nonexistent Brahman.

Haha...my personal opinion huh? I have all the evidence in the universe to back my claim..so let me prove to you...

Do you agree that existence** actually exists now? If not...provide your evidence?
Now if you agree that existence exists now, then comes the question as to how existence came to exist...my explanation is that there never was a time when existence did not exist, so the question is moot. If you disagree, you need to provide an logical explanation of how non-existence came to exist where existence is now?

** by existence, I mean 'the state of being objectively real' represented by the concept of existence..

 

[gnostic]

Haha...my personal opinion huh? I have all the evidence in the universe to back my claim..so let me prove to you...

Do you agree that existence** actually exists now? If not...provide your evidence?
Now if you agree that existence exists now, then comes the question as to how existence came to exist...my explanation is that there never was a time when existence did not exist, so the question is moot. If you disagree, you need to provide an logical explanation of how non-existence came to exist where existence is now?

In all that, you have selective not mention Brahman at all, when you do so in other replies. How convenient that you left out Brahman, in the above quote.

Where are the evidences FOR Brahman?

You have none to connect any existence to Brahman.

Until you can provide evidences for Brahman, the whole Brahman is everything, is nothing but your circular & wishful thinking A1 CRAP.

 

[Thief]

hey Thief,
What was the causality of that 'point',
from which the 'spirit' came ?
~
'mud

we get to ask Him....when we get 'there'

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In all that, you have selective not mention Brahman at all, when you do so in other replies. How convenient that you left out Brahman, in the above quote.

Where are the evidences FOR Brahman?

You have none to connect any existence to Brahman.

Until you can provide evidences for Brahman, the whole Brahman is everything, is nothing but your circular & wishful thinking A1 CRAP.

Are you obfuscating so as to avoid answering or what...you have already been given an explanation of what Brahman represents in my post #191 above....one and the same as the eternal infinite existence... the matter...the energy...the forms...the life...etc.etc.....all is Brahman. Now are you happy with that as evidence...now do want to proceed with responding to my post?

 

[gnostic]

you have already been given an explanation of what Brahman represents in my post #191 above....one and the same as the eternal infinite existence... the matter...the energy...the forms...the life...etc.etc.....all is Brahman.

Again, say you.

I could say the pink unicorn is the -

"the eternal infinite existence... the matter...the energy...the forms...the life...etc.etc.....all is the pink unicorn."​

If I wrote what you wrote, that's not evidences, I would just be expressing my opinion...as what you have done. I could substitute Brahman with YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Isis, the Great Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, the fairy godmother, Homer Simpson, etc, and they would all be unsubstantiated .

(Though, I must say GIFSM have a greater possibility of being real, more so this Brahman of yours.)

Second, this "absolute reality" or "ultimate reality" or whatever you want to call it, is just nothing but shallow sophistry. I was grew up in the age when new-agey hippies thought everything was "absolute" or ultimate", but they never understood the meaning.

That you would use "absolute" reality, is not at all surprising.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, say you.

I could say the pink unicorn is the -

"the eternal infinite existence... the matter...the energy...the forms...the life...etc.etc.....all is the pink unicorn."​

If I wrote what you wrote, that's not evidences, I would just be expressing my opinion...as what you have done. I could substitute Brahman with YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra, Isis, the Great Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, the fairy godmother, Homer Simpson, etc, and they would all be unsubstantiated .

(Though, I must say GIFSM have a greater possibility of being real, more so this Brahman of yours.)

Second, this "absolute reality" or "ultimate reality" or whatever you want to call it, is just nothing but shallow sophistry. I was grew up in the age when new-agey hippies thought everything was "absolute" or ultimate", but they never understood the meaning.

That you would use "absolute" reality, is not at all surprising.

How can you say the matter and energy of the universe could be called the "pink unicorn"....I understand English is not your native language...but fyi...words have meanings...including "pink" and "unicorn" and they do not mean the eternal universe...Brahman actually does...get it..

I'm sorry Jimmie to have to raise the question of your lack of understanding of English again, but seriously....a meaningful debate is only possible if you are able to understand the rules of the English language...you can't just equate something that has one meaning with another word that according to the definition means something altogether different... Now Brahman means all existence.....there is nothing that exists that is not Brahman....see how that works...it is the same as saying "all that exists"....it is objectively real. A pink unicorn otoh does not exist as something objectively real....

 

[gnostic]

How can you say the matter and energy of the universe could be called the "pink unicorn"....I understand English is not your native language...but fyi...words have meanings...including "pink" and "unicorn" and they do not mean the eternal universe...Brahman actually does...get it..

No, I get you just fine.

My problem is not really with Brahman, but with you and with how you are trying to project your belief in the Brahman into what you believe to be "eternal" universe.

No one really know if the universe is eternal or not, but you are all-knowing, so you must know what you believe to be true...except your supposed grandeur of being Mr-know-it-all, is merely your superiority complex is just a delusion and pseudoscience of your own making.

I don't give a crap about what you believe, but your belief has no more credibility than any creationist's here.

You have presented no facts and no evidences in regarding to Brahman, except that delusional wishful thinking of yours.

Show me that Brahman exist in everything, and I am talking about you showing me evidences, not more of your meaningless sophistry.