Thief
Rogue Theologian
To believe this you must consider that dead things can sudden move.
Beware the gravel in your driveway!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What came before the Big Bang?
- Thread starter yoda89
- Start date
To believe this you must consider that dead things can sudden move.
Beware the gravel in your driveway!
Cause and effect is not only a human perspective. Science explains cause and effect in detail from the very big to the very small.
To suggest that the big bang has no cause is saying that God has no maker and suggesting both has no observable rules to comply with. To assume this, then you're ending further thought on the subject unless that is what you want to do?
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry. I have no idea what that means.
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
My thoughts do not end further thought on the subject. I just think the questions "Who created God?" or "What came before the big bang?" are presumptive questions that have little to no value.
Science explains causal events very effectively, but it 'is' an illusion. In three-dimensional space, energy exerts its forces in all directions at every moment. What we see as movement through space is the net result of those tiny interactions.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Not really.
Quantum tunneling, radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, etc, are considered to be something not quite caused. At least as far was we know currently. So, if science has explained the causes of these things, then I'd like to know if you have a source to that claim. I'm good with a link to some scientific article or similar. Simply because I'm curious if they've found something out, and I haven't heard about it yet.
Big bang might have a cause, or many, or multi-dimensional and multi-temporal causes, we can't know right now. Or perhaps our understanding of cause-and-effect is relating to this world, this place, this physics, this construct, and it doesn't apply at all in other dimensions. Who knows?
True. Currently we don't know if there is a cause to the universe, or multiple causes, or none. But we should continue to research it.
hey Turk and Thief,
Number one...maybe there wasn't a 'singularity', or a void !
Now....maybe there wasn't any cause to induce an effect, the effect was already occuring.
Even if 'god' started the whole shibang, we would still have the effect.
Remember....'god' created everything from nothing, no singularity needed, no 'cause' needed.
If that's right....same old question...where'd 'god' come from.
Confusing yet, but that's genesis.
~
'mud
Number one...maybe there wasn't a 'singularity', or a void !
Now....maybe there wasn't any cause to induce an effect, the effect was already occuring.
Even if 'god' started the whole shibang, we would still have the effect.
Remember....'god' created everything from nothing, no singularity needed, no 'cause' needed.
If that's right....same old question...where'd 'god' come from.
Confusing yet, but that's genesis.
~
'mud
Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's not the best summary. And I have to admit I over stepped the claim and should have been more specific concerning the fields of science.
Thanks
TurkeyOnRye
Well-Known Member
I simply see no reason to paint god anywhere in the picture. Ever. I've often suggested that theists consider that the universe itself is god, but they don't seem to bite.
hey Turk,
Firstly....I agree to the exclusivity from the point of science.
wellllll.....there isn't a really secondly....Saul (Paul) get's in the way !
~
I always get up in the before the BB argument, something from nothing !!
The theists need a creator, and that seems to help.
There always seems to need a cause, but the effects could be non-caused.
What the hell do I know !
~
'mud
Firstly....I agree to the exclusivity from the point of science.
wellllll.....there isn't a really secondly....Saul (Paul) get's in the way !
~
I always get up in the before the BB argument, something from nothing !!
The theists need a creator, and that seems to help.
There always seems to need a cause, but the effects could be non-caused.
What the hell do I know !
~
'mud
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Which in turn explains your viewpoint.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
One problem I have with the "First Cause" argument might be explained by an exercise.
What is the one and single cause the creates a cloud and makes it visible to us? Air drops? Wind? Light? Nothing in singular. So what is the single cause (scientifically speaking)?
I'm not a meteorologist but this is what I found on the internet.
How Clouds Form | Climate Education Modules for K-12
I'm not sure what you're exactly asking for though...
How Clouds Form | Climate Education Modules for K-12
I'm not sure what you're exactly asking for though...
Nobleson99
New Member
I was taught that the universe grows, it has a lifetime, it dies, then is reborn again. Nature is in control and that is how nature directs all things. It grows - like stars, planets, animals, trees, storms, etc.. and it's birth is what we know as the big bang. And then eventually it dies, like anything else in nature. But nothing in nature is truly unique, not even the universe. It is here now, and a time will come when it will cease to grow and will contract, but as a result, the cycle will begin again.
As for God, that's just a name. The actions people attribute to God are real. We exist. Earth exists. The universe exists. I think labeling God a "being" belittles the idea of a God. Beings exist within the universe, but God is bigger than the universe and in fact created it, so God is much more than a being. If we all focus on the actions attributed to a "God", we will see that only one thing comes into view, and that is nature itself. Nature controls birth. Nature controls death. Nature controls the earth. Nature controls the sun. Nature controls the galaxies. Nature controls every aspect of the universe we know and don't know. Nature controls the atomic world. Name one thing in reality that nature doesn't control - you can't. Instead of focusing on names, I suggest we all focus on the real actions we attribute to these names, and what we'll find is that we'll all end up looking at the same one thing, whether religious, atheist or any or other human label we can make up.
As for God, that's just a name. The actions people attribute to God are real. We exist. Earth exists. The universe exists. I think labeling God a "being" belittles the idea of a God. Beings exist within the universe, but God is bigger than the universe and in fact created it, so God is much more than a being. If we all focus on the actions attributed to a "God", we will see that only one thing comes into view, and that is nature itself. Nature controls birth. Nature controls death. Nature controls the earth. Nature controls the sun. Nature controls the galaxies. Nature controls every aspect of the universe we know and don't know. Nature controls the atomic world. Name one thing in reality that nature doesn't control - you can't. Instead of focusing on names, I suggest we all focus on the real actions we attribute to these names, and what we'll find is that we'll all end up looking at the same one thing, whether religious, atheist or any or other human label we can make up.
hey Thief,
You said that "the singularity repesents the void", how was the 'singularity' which was all known 'energy' or 'plasma', be nothingness ?
You said..... no secondary point.....in respect to what, the 'void', the 'void' was nothingness ?
You said..... no form.....how did the 'singularity' exist without 'form' ?
~
If and when the BB occurred, first had to be a 'void' surrounding a 'singularity'.
Then sometime in a 'timeless' environement, something 'caused' the 'singularity' to inflate outwards.
And if we agree with the priest, what was his name, LaFarge or something, the Big Bang happened.
~
If that be possible, same question that's been asked before, so many times, where was God ??
In the 'void' or in the 'singularity' or containing the whole damned thing ?
And if that containment was the case....where was God ?
~
I don't believe it but.....I don't know !
~
'mud
You said that "the singularity repesents the void", how was the 'singularity' which was all known 'energy' or 'plasma', be nothingness ?
You said..... no secondary point.....in respect to what, the 'void', the 'void' was nothingness ?
You said..... no form.....how did the 'singularity' exist without 'form' ?
~
If and when the BB occurred, first had to be a 'void' surrounding a 'singularity'.
Then sometime in a 'timeless' environement, something 'caused' the 'singularity' to inflate outwards.
And if we agree with the priest, what was his name, LaFarge or something, the Big Bang happened.
~
If that be possible, same question that's been asked before, so many times, where was God ??
In the 'void' or in the 'singularity' or containing the whole damned thing ?
And if that containment was the case....where was God ?
~
I don't believe it but.....I don't know !
~
'mud
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Emphasis on "one" and "single". Means one and only one and nothing but one.
The causes to a cloud, I know them of course, are plenty. There aren't a single cause to a cloud, but several, many, not 1, but n causes (like in math, n representing an arbitrary whole number).
So, when the argument from natural law and observations of reality that everything that begins to exist has a first cause, it's already faulty because the observations confirm that there are always many causes and never one single cause.
Unless someone can give me the "First Cause" (singular, it's not a plural word since a plural would be "First Causes") to a cloud showing up.
So are you asking why the exact same cloud is created again? Similiar to asking why the same person is not born again? Trying to understand further as I'm not all caught up.
[Edited: After reading a bit more, so you're saying there are several causes of a cloud.]
How about this...
A + B + C = Cloud.
B = D
A + D + C = Cloud.
So B and D can all have the same results but could be derived differently? So your asserting that cause can only be singular?
so B and D has to be the exact same formula as opposed to result?
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I'm not sure what you're talking about. No, I wasn't talking about being born again. I was talking about "What came before the Big Bang?" and the "First Cause" argument (in the form WLC talks about it).
William Lane Craig says in his first premise:
p1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
I disagree with his premise because we have nothing in the world that comes into existence because of "a" cause but rather because of many causes.
Essentially, the conclusion to "what came before the Big Bang" must be "many things" or "many causes", not just "one cause" or "a first cause."
I'm not asserting that cause can only be singular. I'm asserting the absolute opposite. There are never a single cause. If there's anything causing anything then there must be many causes.
Cooking breakfast for the family. Very interesting conversation but probably will get back to this much later. Thanks