Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Ben Dhyan]

Again, that's just another baseless assumption; it's a leap of faith, not science.

Being a pantheist, don't make you a scientist or know more about science.

It has no more basis in reality if I was to claim "the material universe is the manifestation of the pink unicorn" or the "manifestation of Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "of Sauron" or even "of Gandhi".

You interact with reality through conceptual interpretation....whereas reality manifests in me directly.. When you talk of God...you imagine some stupid thing....when I talk of God, I am not talking about a belief...but about direct experience.. If you refuse to seek, you will never find....your choice...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well the scientists call it inflation? or something like that, right. no real bang, right?
God said, "let there be light". And there was.

Genesis 1 is about the creation of this star system....not about the universe..

 

[Sonofason]

Genesis 1 is about the creation of this star system....not about the universe..

I'm not convinced. Why do you believe this?

"in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

Why do you think the heavens only pertain to our solar system?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well as long as your say Big Bang claims nothingness then your understanding of Big Bang is terminally flawed, in which case I wouldn't believe it either, but you can't help putting stuff I a theory that doesn't exist. You keep referring to string theory which get Big Bang doesn't deal with. String theory deals with time at zero and prior not the Big Bang theory. It's like the argument that evolution can't explain life, it isn't supposed to. Big Bang is not cosmology, Big Bang is what happened after we know stuff exists. Please tell me your following.

But there was no big bang.....you can't claim there was a big bang when there is no evidence of why or how it could have happened. You can shuffle out all the CMBR, Hubble red shift, etc., arguments in the world....it is all just pablum unless science can provide substantial evidence of why and how of the theoretical big bang....

 

[gnostic]

You interact with reality through conceptual interpretation....whereas reality manifests in me directly.. When you talk of God...you imagine some stupid thing....when I talk of God, I am not talking about a belief...but about direct experience.. If you refuse to seek, you will never find....your choice...

Oh, so you know about my life.

You think I didn't seek?

Wow, you must be all-knowing.

What a dumb ***.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not convinced. Why do you believe this?

"in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".

Why do you think the heavens only pertain to our solar system?

JPS Tanakh 1917 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

The two great lights refer to the sun and the moon...the stars referred to are obviously those of the milky way..... The Genesis story is given to mankind as a rough idea to help them understand how they came into existence...iow, relevant stuff concerning creation of form from existing stuff......when our sun reached critical mass, its light shone and allowed the earth to be the cradle for the living kingdoms of nature...including man..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh, so you know about my life.

You think I didn't seek?

Wow, you must be all-knowing.

What a dumb ***.

Enough to know where you are coming from....when the going gets tough....only the tough get going...

 

[Sonofason]

Genesis 1 is about the creation of this star system....not about the universe..

But there was no big bang.....you can't claim there was a big bang when there os no evidence of why or how it could have happened. You can shuffle out all the CMBR, Hubble red shift, etc., arguments in the world....it is all just pablum unless science can provide substantial evidence of why and how of the theoretical big bang....

The why can't be stated as the why is in order to remove God from the equation. The how, they will never explain without God.

JPS Tanakh 1917 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

The two great lights refer to the sun and the moon...the stars referred to are obviously those of the milky way..... The Genesis story is given to mankind as a rough idea to help them understand how they came into existence...iow, relevant stuff concerning creation of form from existing stuff......when our sun reached critical mass, its light shone and allowed the earth to be the cradle for the living kingdoms of nature...including man..

Sure Genesis speaks to the creation of this solar system, buy why dismiss Genesis 1:1?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The why can't be stated as the why is in order to remove God from the equation. The how, they will never explain without God.

Sure Genesis speaks to the creation of this solar system, buy why dismiss Genesis 1:1?

I do not dismiss it....the earth was unformed and the heaven can mean just the surrounding skies/space....it is letting us know that this creation story is earth centric....

 

[idav]

But there was no big bang.....you can't claim there was a big bang when there os no evidence of why or how it could have happened. You can shuffle out all the CMBR, Hubble red shift, etc., arguments in the world....it is all just pablum unless science can provide substantial evidence of why and how of the theoretical big bang....

Just claiming it cannot be isn't a great argument. Plenty have provided evidence but your choosing to stick with your fallacy of demanding impossible evidence no matter how much evidence your given. I'm not going to keep giving evidence to someone who refuses to consider it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just claiming it cannot be isn't a great argument. Plenty have provided evidence but your choosing to stick with your fallacy of demanding impossible evidence no matter how much evidence your given. I'm not going to keep giving evidence to someone who refuses to consider it.

I consider it unscientific to make a claim about the beginning of the universe and then say it is impossible to provide any information as to how it began, nor do we know why it began.... The real reason science does not know how or why is that there was never a beginning to the universe....it is an impossibility.....a beginning to all cosmic forms..yes....but a beginning to the underlying essence of the forms...no...

Step outside the mental box inside your mind and see the big bang theory from outside....it is flawed...

 

[Willamena]

Faith and superstition are one and the same, because they both have the same characteristics: delusion, fear and ignorance.

If that were true, the words would be interchangable. But even for atheists they're not.

 

[Sonofason]

I do not dismiss it....the earth was unformed and the heaven can mean just the surrounding skies/space....it is letting us know that this creation story is earth centric....

Oh well, I think Genesis 1 is suggesting more than what you're suggesting. But you could be right.

 

[Sonofason]

I consider it unscientific to make a claim about the beginning of the universe and then say it is impossible to provide any information as to how it began, nor do we know why it began.... The real reason science does not know how or why is that there was never a beginning to the universe....it is an impossibility.....a beginning to all cosmic forms..yes....but a beginning to the underlying essence of the forms...no...

Step outside the mental box inside your mind and see the big bang theory from outside....it is flawed...

What exactly is the flaw?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What exactly is the flaw?

If it makes the claim that there was a beginning to the essence of all that exists....but can not say how it began, not even why it began...then it is flawed....it can't be falsified.

It has no evidence that this universal essence can ever be created by science...nor how it could ever be uncreated. Now my point is that if the very essence of existence can not be created nor uncreated......then the universal essence of all that exists now has always existed. Which btw is consistent with pantheism....Brahman is both transcendent to and immanent in, all the exists....eternally....no beginnings or endings except for the forms of the divine manifestations......which are in constant never ending change..

 

[idav]

If it makes the claim that there was a beginning to the essence of all that exists....

I only hear theists making this claim...Creation theists to be specific.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I only hear theists making this claim...Creation theists to be specific.

Not all...you and I don't....

ps...Oh..I see you are telepathic also....you edited your post while I was typing my response...

 

[idav]

ps...Oh..I see you are telepathic also....you edited your post while I was typing my response...

Yeah gotta choose words wisely round you folks, my word.

 

[gnostic]

So you're trying to suggest that the Himalayas were a part of the ocean floor? Wrong. That is not the case at all. But I'd like to see you prove that. Show your proof that the Himalayas was a part of the ocean floor.

I am not a geologist, Sonofason.

I have no reason to lie to you. I don't know you, I really don't care, because I know that you don't believe in anything I have to say, so I would recommend you read any books on geology of India, the Himalayas or Mount Everest, will tell you the history of geology in that region, including that of the tectonic plates.

My suggestion is to read any geological surveys, or scientific expedition to Everest, and avoid creationist's websites.

It has been years I've touched books on geology, and those books I do have, related to what I was studying in civil engineering, which don't require knowledge on tectonic plates. So I really can't recommend the books that I do have on geology.

But from what I understand and remember about the Australian tectonic (which include New Zealand and New Guinea, is moving at a rate of 5 cm (or more) a year.

From memory, Indian and Australia used to be one plate, until it split. It was joined in what is now south-eastern shore of India, and Western Australia coastline. I don't remember when it split, so I would have to look it up. About 70 million years ago, the Indian plate began moving northward, towards the Eurasian tectonic plate, and collided around 40 million years ago or less. I think it was moving at the rate of 14-16 cm per year, before actually contacting with the Eurasian plate, but the rate have dropped.

If you study geology at all, you would and should know, that two possible things could happen when two land masses (beside earthquakes):

1. Where it collide and join, it could drop eventually into mantle layer.
2. Or it could the land lift or fold upward, as it is the case with the Himalayas.

When the plates met (about 40 million years ago), the 2nd point, above, occurred, which caused the once seabed rose as it fold upward, and the Indian plate continue to push northward into what is now Hindu Kush and Tibet plateau, although it slow down somewhat to about less than 4 cm per year (could be less), and yet the plate continue to push the Himalayas northward, about 6 cm, and upward from about 5 mm per year.

Beside this, Genesis 7 indicated that the Ark landed on Mount Ararat, which is considerable lower than Everest by 3711 metres (or 12175 feet). If the rate of rise is consistent of 6 mm, then about 4300 years ago (rough estimate of the supposed biblical Flood), then Everest would have 28810 cm (288.1 m) lower than it is today. In another word, today Everest is 8848 me (29,029 ft; this is the current elevation accepted by both Nepal and China), but in 2300 BCE it would be 8560 m (or 28,084 ft) high.

And as to the marine life found on the limestone. That's because what was underwater of the ocean, was lift and folded upward. Those signs (fossils) of marine life is about 400 million years old, predated any human activity in this reason. It couldn't be caused by Noah's flood, because the Homo sapiens have only been around 200,000 years ago.

Another evidence(s) for Himalayas continually being push upward is the number of earthquakes, occurring Nepal, Tibet and northern India.

Do you think these seismic activities occurred for no reason?

It really doesn't take a genius to learn this.

 

[ArtieE]

So where do you say the singularity came from?

Don't know.

what existed before big bang time?

Don't know or don't even know if there was a "before".

Of course it doesn't....the theory implies there was no time before the big bang.....no time means there was nothing in existence...

No it doesn't. For all we know our universe might be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe. Maybe there was even a Big Bang without a singularity. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419827/why-our-universe-must-have-been-born-inside-a-black-hole/

I think you are purposely ignoring the implications of what I am pointing out.....that if it were true that all the mass and energy in existence came from nothing in the big bang...

The Big Bang theory says nothing about that.