God exists

[Unicorny]

You're not listening, are you?

I'm not claiming that there's something before the Big Bang. I'm claiming you don't know there wasn't.

Prove to me that there wasn't.

And science doesn't tell me that the Universe began with the Big Bang. It tells me we don't know what came before it. When scientists say that "time began with the Big Bang" (which some of them carelessly do) they aren't saying any more than they don't know what came before.

Yet again, appealing from ignorance and committing more logical fallacies. If you want to claim that something did exist before the universe, then go ahead and prove it.

Until then, your claims are nothing but baseless speculation.

Science tells you that the source of the universe was the Big Bang, i.e. its beginning and it's 13.8 billion years old, therefore, not "uncreated" - which would imply an infinite life span.

You're yet to make any sense in any of your posts, I'm afraid.

 

[Browd]

That seems like a pointless line of argument -- in the sense that failure to "prove" there was nothing before the big bang does not help advance an argument about whether a particular "thing" or "prior existence" (or God or whatever) might have existed pre-bang or still exists. If the tools and theories at our disposal do not allow us to "peer past" the big bang, then we have nothing to discuss about what might or might not have "existed" before that point in time.

Now, a person believing in an inerrant Genesis might say, "But, I do have proof of what existed before the big bang -- God existed and he lit the fuse that ignited the big bang -- it says so right there in Genesis (fiat lux) and that is the inspired Word of God. QED."

Leaving aside Genesis' alternative creation stories, shuffled together at some point (perhaps during the Babylonian exile), is this proof of anything? Not really -- some people claiming they were told something they didn't personally witness (or were inspired to write down something they didn't personally witness). And we can't drag God into a courtroom and cross-examine him/her/it, and we can't cross-examine those who wrote down Genesis, so that particular writing about God and his/her/its existence and actions cannot be conclusive evidence of anything (other than that one or more forms of Genesis were written down by someone at some point). Not only is absence of evidence not evidence of absence (as someone noted earlier), it isn't evidence of anything affirmative either.

I could say that I have it on good authority that our universe (big bang and all) was pooped out by a giant space turtle in a preexisting universe. You might mock my assertion and my lame appeal to ambiguous authority (who said it?, Space aliens told me, where's the proof? left it in my other pants, where did the prior universe come from? an earlier space turtle, and before you ask, it was turtles all the way back), but you can't "disprove" my assertion -- you can only choose not to believe it (or to assert that I'm lying and that I don't even believe it). To which I can only reply, OK -- your choice. I don't have to prove it and you can't prove I'm wrong.

 

[Borachio]

I give in.

There's no point arguing any further. I don't give someone who believes 9/11 was a false flag enterprise much credence for anything.

 

[Unicorny]

I give in.

There's no point arguing any further. I don't give someone who believes 9/11 was a false flag enterprise much credence for anything.

Another logical fallacy: short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, their beliefs, etc, rather than to the content of their arguments.

 

[Borachio]

I did try arguing with your "arguments" but you couldn't see sense for some reason and mostly ignored everything I said. So I give in.

Have it your own way. You played well. Congratulations.

 

[Unicorny]

I did try arguing with your "arguments" but you couldn't see sense for some reason and mostly ignored everything I said. So I give in.

1) You claimed that the universe was "uncreated"
2) I told you that the universe began with the Big Bang and is 13.8 billions years old, according to scientific evidence. Therefore, the universe is not "uncreated" since it was created 13.8 billion years
3) You proceed to make several puns on the expression "Big Bang", & fallback to the: we don't know what happened before the Big Bang
4) How does not knowing what happened before the Big Bang negate the fact the the universe had a beginning from the Big Bang? Beats me.

It makes no sense, then again, I'm not surprised.

 

[Borachio]

1. I didn't. I claimed that it may be uncreated.
2. I think you may have told me wrong when you "told me* the universe began with the Big Bang". Therefore it may be that the Universe is uncreated.
3. I didn't make a single pun. I merely mutated some of the vowels and consonants. I suspect you don't know what a pun is.
4. Imagine a Universe which predates the one we know about. Imagine a Big Crunch in that Universe. Followed by a Big Bang into this one. That's just one possibility to consider. God as creator is another. You've yet to convince me that I should choose God. Perhaps if you have some evidence of God's existence, beyond the mere assertion that he/she/it created the universe, you might provide it.

You seem to be trying to prove that the existence of God is a necessary and sufficient explanation for the origins of the Universe. People have been trying to do this for millenia. It still makes no sense.

*Thank you for "telling" me, btw. It's really very kind of you.

 

[bhavv]

There is one primary flaw to unicorn's arguments.

The big bang is not a fact, it is a hypothesis based on what little observation of the universe is possible.

 

[warpus]

Unicorn dude, big bang theory only concerns itself with the time period of the big bang explosion to whenever. It should not be taken as a theory of existence but rather a theory of how the observable universe came to be the way it is, given a violent and explosive beginning.

The proper scientific answer to "What happened before the big bang?" right now is still "I don't know". As far as I know we have a bunch of competing hypotheses, but no theories that can be tested.

 

[Lohrenswald]

There's also the notion that there is no before the big bang.

 

[Unicorny]

The Big Bang is prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe with plenty of observation evidence. Go on and read a book about it.

If true (which more than likely it is), it debunks any nonsense like "the universe is uncreated", I do not even think the person who stated this flawed notion knows what it means.

Since the universe had a beginning, therefore, it had a source. That source is what we call God.

 

[Perfection]

Science tells you that the source of the universe was the Big Bang, i.e. its beginning and it's 13.8 billion years old, therefore, not "uncreated" - which would imply an infinite life span.

Or that it wasn't "creation" in the sense of some intelligent creator enacting some forethought design.

The Big Bang is prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe with plenty of observation evidence. Go on and read a book about it.

If true (which more than likely it is), it debunks any nonsense like "the universe is uncreated", I do not even think the person who stated this flawed notion knows what it means.

Since the universe had a beginning, therefore, it had a source. That source is what we call God.

1. if you're stating that something caused the big bang you neglect a possibility, that the big bang itself was the cause of all causes.

2. Calling it "God" is highly misleading because the properties and facts associated with "God" do not necessarily match this source (provided such a thing exists). Whatever created the universe probably isn't watching me stick various appendages in various orifices with stern judgment.

 

[onejayhawk]

There's also the notion that there is no before the big bang.

That only works in the local rather than meta-universe.

J

 

[Perfection]

How so? Doesn't that depend on what "meta-universe" you're talkin' aboot?

 

[Unicorny]

1. if you're stating that something caused the big bang you neglect a possibility, that the big bang itself was the cause of all causes.

Big Bang = God to you?

Cause of all causes is God if you're wondering, as God is uncaused, otherwise, there would be no cause and therefore anything due to the principle of infinite regression.

 

[Perfection]

Cause of all causes is God if you're wondering

Why God? Why not something else?

And what the heck is this so called "God" of yours anyways? Do you know anything more about "Him" then "He" being the cause of all causes?

 

[Unicorny]

Why God? Why not something else?

And what the heck is this so called "God" of yours anyways? Do you know anything more about "Him" then "He" being the cause of all causes?

That's God by definition. The cause of all causes.

Edit: God is the all knowing, seeing, eternal, uncreated, one, infinite, justice itself, and the truth, among many other things.

 

[bhavv]

That's God by definition. The cause of all causes.

Edit: God is the all knowing, seeing, eternal, uncreated, one, infinite, justice itself, and the truth, among many other things.

I reject that idea that if the universe was created by anything, and you call that anything god, then in must also have the attributes in your second paragraph automatically attached to it.

Also you contradict yourself. You cannot accept that whatever created the universe most likely doesnt have any of those properties. Your arguments are baseless and weak.

 

[timtofly]

Yes. You've alluded to this sort of experience before. I can only guess what you might mean; and that I've had a handful of similar experiences myself. But for me, I think, I've just put them down to some kind superstitious imaginings - assuming that our experiences were in any way similar. It's difficult. You're not very forthcoming about them. But I can understand your reluctance.

It is not reluctance in particular. It is just a lot of little things that when tied together show a broader picture. It is not that I have purposely said, "God do this" and I imagined that it worked out like I thought God would have responded. Neither is it easy to explain. It is related to the aspect that we cannot control our thoughts, but sometimes we just feel like we need to act on a thought even if we do not want to. It may not even be related to anything that I had thought about before, but after doing it and not even seeing the results, I am at peace knowing that I did something that was outside of myself and ability to do on my own.

I don't know what you mean. I can't imagine anything more restrictive than the Golden Rule. Nor anything harder to keep. Nor, indeed, anything simpler to conceive. I just don't understand the need for any other guidelines.

My response was the point that God does not seem to know what is good for humans and what is not. IMO, if God wanted us to be something, he would remove anything that does not coincide with what God wants. I still do not see any where that God demands any thing from us but trust. I also do not see other people telling us what God wants. God does not work that way. God deals with each person on an individual basis. That is what changed with the death of the Christ. Humans do not want to acknowledge that, because religion is such a useful control mechanism.

Why God? Why not something else?

Because God was the first to step forward and give us an account of what happened during the big bang.

 

[onejayhawk]

How so? Doesn't that depend on what "meta-universe" you're talkin' aboot?

Not really, provided the meta universe has time and contains the beginning of this one. Otherwise "before the big bang" makes no sense.

For most purposes a black hole is a universe and this is the meta universe for all the black holes inside it. This has no obvious relation to the purpose of this thread.

J