The Big Bang as evidence for God

[McBell]

I had already explained to outhouse in my post... Saturday at 9:36 AM #117.. and my post... Saturday at 12:56 PM #119
.... that the physical universe in the way I am using the concept is the divine manifestation...

I am saying there was no beginning of existence...big bang theory says there is a beginning 13.7 billion years ago... My question to you and outhouse in my post.. Saturday at 9:32 AM #11.. ..still stands as it is...and is not premised on any unsubstantiated theological issues because that is irrelevant to my question which is based on rational logic...."Existence is eternal...or are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?"

Now either you or outhouse answer the question of my post #116 without further obfuscation or slink away....

I have no interest in your rhetorical question.
Nice try though.

And yes, starting the question off with "But the universe is the manifestation of God" makes the question rhetorical becuase of the premise "But the universe is the manifestation of God".
And since that is all I was addressing...

Like I said, rather difficult to take you seriously when you are unable to keep track of the conversation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have no interest in your rhetorical question.
Nice try though.

And yes, starting the question off with "But the universe is the manifestation of God" makes the question rhetorical becuase of the premise "But the universe is the manifestation of God".
And since that is all I was addressing...

Like I said, rather difficult to take you seriously when you are unable to keep track of the conversation.

Reread my post #116....there is nothing rhetorical in it...

Existence is eternal...or are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

From post 116

RHETORICAL!!!!

On what basis do you say that is rhetorical....that is an understanding of many..including many RF members..... Existence is eternal is my understanding....I do not understand that existence started from non-existence.. Do you believe that existence came from non-existence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

are you really that dense or are you still unable to keep up with the conversation?
Hells bells, I even posted the conversation in one post and you are still unable to follow.

Ok....I presume you are referring to your post # .Today at 7:16 AM #162 ....But you did not indicate any context, nor reference as to where I made that comment....so please provide the post # number so it can be verified as being relevant to this exchange?

 

[Thief]

as apposed to meaningful?

 

[outhouse]

....I do not understand that existence started from non-existence..

Well it is painfully obvious you don't understand.

Who is stating besides You or other apologist the universe started from nothing.

Our knowledge stops at the singularity which was something.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

RHETORICAL!!!!

You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word rhetorical...I am not, and have never spoken of the eternal in rhetorical fashion...it is, and has always been my understanding.. Fyi, here is a Science Philosophy Forum discussing the topic.....Existence is Eternal..... http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=21402 . There are no calls of "rhetorical" as a means of dismissing genuine perspectives on existence.... so if you persist in calling it my comments on a forum titled "The Big Bang as evidence for God" rhetorical...you will need to provide a rational reason..

In the mean time I will try this and change the word "existence" to "eternal"... The universe is eternal...or are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?

So how do you respond to this question outhouse and Mestemia?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well it is painfully obvious you don't understand.

Who is stating besides You or other apologist the universe started from nothing.

Our knowledge stops at the singularity which was something.

Every reasonable soul who has not drank the big bang kool aid...

So if your knowledge stops at the singularity, where does it start?

 

[outhouse]

Simple Definition of rhetorical

• : of, relating to, or concerned with the art of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people
  
  
• of a question : asked in order to make a statement rather than to get an answer
  
  
• 
  
• This might help you

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Simple Definition of rhetorical

• : of, relating to, or concerned with the art of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people
  
  
• of a question : asked in order to make a statement rather than to get an answer
  
  
• 
  
• This might help you

Except that you are have some sort of mental anguish in imagining that asking a legitimate question is a statement...I usually do not ask any question in a debate unless I already know the answer... I actually know the answer to my question, but it seems you do not, otherwise you would quit your obfuscation and answer it as you understand it. Now please provide your best attempt without resorting to the usual or another form of obfustation

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Supply credible sources or proselytize your rhetoric elsewhere.

Now it seems you also getting upset at being in a corner.... So that does not pass muster either.... Ok..here's what I will do...I will drop anything and everything that you have considered rhetoric so far.. So here is the question cut to the bone..

Are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?

Also you have in another post claimed that your knowledge stops at the singularity, so I now ask where does your knowledge start?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Supply credible sources or proselytize your rhetoric elsewhere.

Ok...so I will proceed slowly and methodically so as not to give you any reason to complain, but first we need to understand where we stand...this forum, Science and Religion, is a debate forum and the thread title is... "The Big Bang as evidence for God" ... Now I understand the universe to be eternal....and I understand you to believe it to not to be eternal...so do I have that right so far and there is no problem for you?

Btw, I want to take this opportunity if I may, to convey to you that I am of the opinion that your incessant calls of "rhetoric" at every opportunity stifles debate and is not in the spirit of RF, not only in this thread at this time and context,. but constantly and persistently all over the board. This is supposed to be an environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate...in the spirit of productivity....and constantly responding to other members's posts as "unsubstantiated rhetoric" and such like is both unproductive content and, imho, an unproductive response in that context...bullying even...

 

[Thief]

Please note Psalms 90:2 because God was definitely ' before ' the beginning.
God was Not in the beginning, but ' before ' the beginning or start of creation - Revelation 4:11

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

Spirit first

been posting those two words for years

 

[gnostic]

Ok...so I will proceed slowly and methodically so as not to give you any reason to complain,

Fat chance of that happening...

Until you stop mixing your religion or this Brahman with existence or with the universe, or with science, then you are only expressing your unsubstantiated, and clearly unwarranted, opinions.

And btw, you keep throwing strawman at Mestemia. I don't recall him ever accepting or arguing for SOMETHING FROM NOTHING.

You should try asking Mestemia about what he think or believe about the universe, instead of putting your rubbish in his mouth.

I know what you say is rubbish, because you pull this same straw man on me in this very thread. You are just so full of rhetorical craps.

Find out what he has to say, instead of making things up about what others believe in.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?

An elementary introduction to the problems beset when simplistic notions are combined with simplistic language to argue:
Consider the claim "everything that exists has a cause". Then existence has no cause (for, if it did, there would be something that exists to cause existence). Therefore nothing exists.
Consider the claim that everything has a cause. Therefore, causality itself has a cause. Of course, the only thing that could possibly cause "causes" is a cause, which is nonsense (or circular causality, but once one allows this then one can allow a self-caused universe).
Now consider real physics: energy and matter come from nothing all the time even now. It makes no sense to speak of something pre-existing existence. If there were no big bang, then there would be no night.

Also you have in another post claimed that your knowledge stops at the singularity, so I now ask where does your knowledge start?

Where do positive numbers start (if you can answer this, you will have basically answered any and all possible mathematical questions by totally understanding all sets and more)? You can't answer this. But you can absolutely point to a positive number. It is not always possible to point to a specific starting or stopping point (or identify what these may be). This doesn't mean it isn't possible to identify a place beyond which there can be no stopping or starting (i.e., there are no positive numbers less than 0).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Fat chance of that happening...

Until you stop mixing your religion or this Brahman with existence or with the universe, or with science, then you are only expressing your unsubstantiated, and clearly unwarranted, opinions.

And btw, you keep throwing strawman at Mestemia. I don't recall him ever accepting or arguing for SOMETHING FROM NOTHING.

You should try asking Mestemia about what he think or believe about the universe, instead of putting your rubbish in his mouth.

I know what you say is rubbish, because you pull this same straw man on me in this very thread. You are just so full of rhetorical craps.

Find out what he has to say, instead of making things up about what others believe in.

Jimmie....Brahman represents all existence...universally...eternally...it is beyond knowledge so science must confine itself to the finite...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An elementary introduction to the problems beset when simplistic notions are combined with simplistic language to argue:
Consider the claim "everything that exists has a cause". Then existence has no cause (for, if it did, there would be something that exists to cause existence). Therefore nothing exists.
Consider the claim that everything has a cause. Therefore, causality itself has a cause. Of course, the only thing that could possibly cause "causes" is a cause, which is nonsense (or circular causality, but once one allows this then one can allow a self-caused universe).
Now consider real physics: energy and matter come from nothing all the time even now. It makes no sense to speak of something pre-existing existence. If there were no big bang, then there would be no night.


Where do positive numbers start (if you can answer this, you will have basically answered any and all possible mathematical questions by totally understanding all sets and more)? You can't answer this. But you can absolutely point to a positive number. It is not always possible to point to a specific starting or stopping point (or identify what these may be). This doesn't mean it isn't possible to identify a place beyond which there can be no stopping or starting (i.e., there are no positive numbers less than 0).

Correct...there was never a cause of existence because existence is eternal....but likewise there was never a beginning because existence is eternal.... Nothing does not exist...period...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Correct...there was never a cause of existence because existence is eternal

If there is no cause of existence, then there exists that which is uncaused. Ergo, not everything which exists is caused

....but likewise there was never a beginning because existence is eternal

What caused it to be eternal? You said "because existence is eternal", so what is the "cause" behind this "because"? Try answering your own little language games for once.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If there is no cause of existence, then there exists that which is uncaused. Ergo, not everything which exists is caused

What caused it to be eternal? You said "because existence is eternal", so what is the "cause" behind this "because"? Try answering your own little language games for once.

Yes naturally...existence is eternal....there was never a beginning...

The 'because' was used in the context of your claim that there was a beginning....in order to explain that the universe is eternal....and therefore it follows that the was no cause for a beginning...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes naturally...existence is eternal....there was never a beginning...

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.

The 'because' was used in the context of your claim that there was a beginning.

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 origin, 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.