The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes I do.

No god exist scientifically speaking because nothing has EVER existed to observe.

Reality is no gods exist scientifically, and I can comment on such with factual certainty.

But the universe is the manifestation of God....so how can you say it does not exist?

This is post big bang...not the nothing that all this reality emerged from...and don't forget to respond to my post #116? ...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

Haha....but it is the substantiated definition....and you can pick up a piece of bread and reflect as you do so that it is the substance of God....eat this for this is My body.....

pssst....#116

 

[Thief]

Don't be afraid mythology does not really exist. Nothing ever has been attributed in nature or anywhere else for that matter outside mythology.

don't be afraid the words of mythology have a background in reality

 

[`mud]

Just like trumpets in heaven !
~
'mud

 

[McBell]

You don't get to determine the reality represented by the concept of God....who do you think you are...God? You are just frustrated because the reality represented by the manifested pantheistic God is the same reality that you believe is real....all that matter and energy that astronomy and physical science studies...so come out of your closet and embrace it...

ps...don't forget to answer my question of post #116

oh the irony...

 

[McBell]

don't be afraid the words of mythology have a background in reality

Feel free to support this claim at any time.

Though I know you won't.
Not because you do not want to.
Because you cannot.

Cue the faith needs no proof dogma.

 

[outhouse]

don't be afraid the words of mythology have a background in reality

Of course they do, it was written by humans for humans who lived mythology and used this text to make decisions for them, because they did not have the knowledge to know any better.

When it rained god did it, when a child was born and lived god did it, when an earthquake happened god did it.

All things we know as what we call nature. A mythology free nature that no god has any part of.

 

[outhouse]

Though I know you won't.

When one ONLY proselytizes and one does not debate because he cannot debate his personal unsubstantiated thoughts, its sure he will not reply.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

Post #116 is a question, and not a rhetorical one...so it can't be considered unsubstantiated rhetoric... please give it a go?

 

[McBell]

Post #116 is a question, and not a rhetorical one...so it can't be considered unsubstantiated rhetoric... please give it a go?

He was pointing out the fact that the premise for your question is unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Thus making the the question which relies on the unsubstantiated rhetoric, rhetorical.

Nice try though.

 

[outhouse]

Existence is eternal...

We don't know that.

or are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing....

Science has proved that mathematically this could actually take place.

I personally say a super massive black hole expanded for unknown reasons, and that matter existed in an unknown state.

.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?

I think singularities exist in and out of our universe. But its a guess they exist outside. All though I do have evidence one expanded into our universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

He was pointing out the fact that the premise for your question is unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Thus making the the question which relies on the unsubstantiated rhetoric, rhetorical.

Nice try though.

So please be explicit....what is the premise to my question that you consider rhetoric?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We don't know that.


Science has proved that mathematically this could actually take place.

I personally say a super massive black hole expanded for unknown reasons, and that matter existed in an unknown state.

I think singularities exist in and out of our universe. But its a guess they exist outside. All though I do have evidence one expanded into our universe.

You may not know it...you only speak for yourself...

Science has not proved it mathematically...in fact it admits it does not know how it began or why..

So where did the energy of super massive black hole come from?

Where did these singularities come from....how did they begin....why did they begin?

If they are out of this universe...it follows that there must be an a more encompassing 'universe' (multiverse) in which ours is a part?

 

[outhouse]

You may not know it...you only speak for yourself...

No I speak for all credible people and academia.

 

[outhouse]

So where did the energy of super massive black hole come from?

Where did these singularities come from....how did they begin....why did they begin?

If they are out of this universe...it follows that there must be an a more encompassing 'universe' (multiverse) in which ours is a part?

We don't know.


What we do know is not to make primitive ancient mens mistakes and repeat the constant error of placing god in these gaps of knowledge, the mythology does not address in any way to begin with

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No I speak for all credible people and academia.

Well I suspect most credible people in academia do not agree that you speak for them....you are an egregious egoist to even imagine you do...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We don't know.


What we do know is not to make primitive ancient mens mistakes and repeat the constant error of placing god in these gaps of knowledge, the mythology does not address in any way to begin with

You don't know....and that's not all....you don't even know the extent of what it is you don't know...so with that background and a belief in atheism to boot...your materialistic mind is like a closed box, the outside of which you pretend does not exist...a lot like big bang theory...a box outside of which is out of bounds to consider any existence existing...

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

Universal time began with the big bang -the initiation of the universe. If something preceded the big bang, there would be an external reference for time.
It seems to me that the big bang contained too much information to be the very beginning of all things -and that overall time began before the big bang -with the most simple initial interaction of the one thing that could become everything.

Does physics suggest that the universe is eternal -or composed of that which is eternal, but changing?
The universe is certainly not in one state eternally -so "the universe" essentially has a different definition with every change of state.

If the big bang was the very beginning of everything, then it has always been -but changed.
Perhaps it is only a portion of all that is and has always been in different states.

If something else preceded it and was the first event or interaction, then it would have always been, but changed -or time would not be applicable as it would be the reference for overall time.

I do not see that it is true that a process needs time to happen, so much as time needs processes. If that which became everything did not interact, there would be no reference for time -time is an effect of interaction, and a measure of relative interaction.

To say that something is eternal does not necessarily mean it did not have a beginning -as it -being the very reference for time -"always" existed. There would be no "before that."


Or -perhaps somehow -looking backward in time is just like looking forward in time, but in the opposite direction. Perhaps it just seems illogical because we began to be aware at a specific point in what we call "time". I'unno.

 

[outhouse]

Well I suspect most credible people in academia do not agree that you speak for them....

Non sequitur when the conclusion is factually the same, and opposite of what you falsely posit.

 

[outhouse]

You don't know....and that's not all....you don't even know the extent of what it is you don't know...so with that background and a belief in atheism to boot...your materialistic mind is like a closed box, the outside of which you pretend does not exist...a lot like big bang theory...a box outside of which is out of bounds to consider any existence existing...

What we do know is not to make primitive ancient mens mistakes and repeat the constant error of placing god in these gaps of knowledge, the mythology does not address in any way to begin with