Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[metis]

The only creation that ever happens is material, ie., galaxies, stars, planets, people, flowers, rocks, these are the only things that have beginnings and endings, but these beginnings and endings have been happening eternally. But the universe itself had no beginning, it is everything in existence, only the created things have beginnings and endings, and the universe is not a creation.

All you are doing is posting assumptions minus any objective evidence whatsoever. It would be like me saying "Our universe was created by little green men from a different universe".

 

[metis]

Yes, but for some reason I understood that you conflated God creating the temporary existing material things that made up the eternal universe with the eternal universe itself. Why else would you believe the universe had a beginning?

There's a Hindu expression that I love, and it goes "We are That", with the "That" being divine. Thus, we can say it also this way: "All is That".

However, there's no way I can provide evidence that this is true, thus I lean in that direction based on what I experienced that's hard to describe because it's largely personal. Do I know I'm right? No.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The material universe is a 100% expression of God. The only creation that ever happens is material, ie., galaxies, stars, planets, people, flowers, rocks, these are the only things that have beginnings and endings, but these beginnings and endings have been happening eternally. But the universe itself had no beginning, it is everything in existence, only the created things have beginnings and endings, and the universe is not a creation.

I agree that God is also the Creator. God is Not material. Long before material creation there first was spirit (angelic) creation.
Then, later God expanded His creation business to include the visible material realm of existence. ( Universe )
In Scripture, angelic creation is mortal, thus angelic life has a beginning but could also have an ending.
Disobedient angels were put out of heaven. Disobedient angels will be destroyed including sinner Satan - Hebrews 2:14 B

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh how could you be so cruel. But seriously, are you still at school?

Honesty is cruel? I have been out of school for quite some time. I wondered the same about you. Many of your arguments sound as if you are still in high school at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The material universe is a 100% expression of God. The only creation that ever happens is material, ie., galaxies, stars, planets, people, flowers, rocks, these are the only things that have beginnings and endings, but these beginnings and endings have been happening eternally. But the universe itself had no beginning, it is everything in existence, only the created things have beginnings and endings, and the universe is not a creation.

It is fine to believe that, but what is your evidence for it? If all that you have is an irrational argument then it is not different from claiming that "the material universe is 100% the work of pixies". Sounds pretty dumb when I switch out your emotional laden god with an equally unevidenced belief, doesn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that God is also the Creator. God is Not material. Long before material creation there first was spirit (angelic) creation.
Then, later God expanded His creation business to include the visible material realm of existence. ( Universe )
In Scripture, angelic creation is mortal, thus angelic life has a beginning but could also have an ending.
Disobedient angels were put out of heaven. Disobedient angels will be destroyed including sinner Satan - Hebrews 2:14 B

And I will ask the same question of you. What evidence do you have for that belief? What is the difference between you claiming that and someone else claiming that pixies did it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is fine to believe that, but what is your evidence for it? If all that you have is an irrational argument then it is not different from claiming that "the material universe is 100% the work of pixies". Sounds pretty dumb when I switch out your emotional laden god with an equally unevidenced belief, doesn't it?

The problem as I see if as per fallacies is the fallacy of reification. But that one can be really general. If I make a definition of X is Y, then it is a fact. The problem is that the verb "be" can have 2 meanings. The definition of is for some definitions is nothing more than I mean the word X to mean Y.
There is also equivocation at play some times. I see a cat that is multicolored. I see that 2 plus 2 is 4.

And to be honest, that is not limited to religious claims.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All you are doing is posting assumptions minus any objective evidence whatsoever. It would be like me saying "Our universe was created by little green men from a different universe".

The evidence for universal existence is existence, it is real do you not agree, otoh, there is no direct evidence of the existence coming from non-existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There's a Hindu expression that I love, and it goes "We are That", with the "That" being divine. Thus, we can say it also this way: "All is That".

However, there's no way I can provide evidence that this is true, thus I lean in that direction based on what I experienced that's hard to describe because it's largely personal. Do I know I'm right? No.

All will be revealed to those who seek to know what and who they really are in the context of universal existence, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Honesty is cruel? I have been out of school for quite some time. I wondered the same about you. Many of your arguments sound as if you are still in high school at best.

As an atheist, it is a given that you will not like hearing about God's universal expression. It is not theory, seek and you will experience actual reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is fine to believe that, but what is your evidence for it? If all that you have is an irrational argument then it is not different from claiming that "the material universe is 100% the work of pixies". Sounds pretty dumb when I switch out your emotional laden god with an equally unevidenced belief, doesn't it?

There is no argument from me, reality is what it is, atheists are a part of reality, they can never realize God. I am not trying to change your ways, the only evidence for God that you ask for is for you to find, for it is not theoretical, but real. Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.

 

[Polymath257]

Theoretical BB you mean, a conception created in the mind of relatively lowly evolved human creatures based on contemporary limited scientific understanding. When the universe was about the size of a human being, about 10-35 seconds after the BB beginning, what came before it? What do you think was the cause of this event? Where did the energy come from?

I am not knocking science, I am calling it as it is.

And the answers to those questions is simple: we don't know. And until we have evidence, we won't know.

But that has no bearing on the evidence from the time of nucleosynthesis to now that shows the universe to be expanding, that it was much hotter and denser in the past, etc. THAT is what scientists mean when they talk about the Big Bang.

Pretty much anything prior to nucleosynthesis is mostly speculation at this point.

 

[Polymath257]

As an atheist, it is a given that you will not like hearing about God's universal expression. It is not theory, seek and you will experience actual reality.

It's not dislike so much as simply being tired of the nonsense. Until you actually provide some evidence of a deity in some form, it is reasonable to dismiss the idea.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no argument from me, reality is what it is, atheists are a part of reality, they can never realize God. I am not trying to change your ways, the only evidence for God that you ask for is for you to find, for it is not theoretical, but real. Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.

A theory that has been falsified. What we find is ourselves talking to ourselves. That is the reality I see in religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an atheist, it is a given that you will not like hearing about God's universal expression. It is not theory, seek and you will experience actual reality.

Show some evidence for it. This appears to be only a personal delusion of yours. Definitely not an organized one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no argument from me, reality is what it is, atheists are a part of reality, they can never realize God. I am not trying to change your ways, the only evidence for God that you ask for is for you to find, for it is not theoretical, but real. Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened.

If there was a God there is no reason that atheists could not "realize him". If you understood logic you just declared that there is no God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And the answers to those questions is simple: we don't know. And until we have evidence, we won't know.

But that has no bearing on the evidence from the time of nucleosynthesis to now that shows the universe to be expanding, that it was much hotter and denser in the past, etc. THAT is what scientists mean when they talk about the Big Bang.

Pretty much anything prior to nucleosynthesis is mostly speculation at this point.

I understand that there is red shift measurements that suggests an expanding universe, but imho, there may be another reason for red shift, and so I look to the future for a correct conclusion. I also understand that contemporary science has already reached the conclusion of doppler red shift and thus an expanding universe, that's fine also. But it is the scientific correct conclusion concerning nucleosynthesis in the future that will establish an end to the speculation of a BB. Let's see.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's not dislike so much as simply being tired of the nonsense. Until you actually provide some evidence of a deity in some form, it is reasonable to dismiss the idea.

Religions convey the message that the reality represented by the concept of 'kingdom of god', is within, so any evidence will need to be subjective, not objective. Moreover, the seeking within is not a thinking process, it is a cessation of thought that nonconceptual reality will be present.

Now it is fine for atheists to be atheists and believe that there is no 'expanded mind state' to be realized, but it is not logical for them to demand objective evidence when this state is a subjective experience.

What is, is what is, let atheists experience an atheistic life, and let religious folk do their thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that there is red shift measurements that suggests an expanding universe, but imho, there may be another reason for red shift, and so I look to the future for a correct conclusion. I also understand that contemporary science has already reached the conclusion of doppler red shift and thus an expanding universe, that's fine also. But it is the scientific correct conclusion concerning nucleosynthesis in the future that will establish an end to the speculation of a BB. Let's see.

Please use the correct language. There is a red shift that is extremely strong evidence that the stars are moving away. Your ideas have no believe or have been refuted. To believe that something will be refuted when you have no evidence is an irrational belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Religions convey the message that the reality represented by the concept of 'kingdom of god', is within, so any evidence will need to be subjective, not objective. Moreover, the seeking within is not a thinking process, it is a cessation of thought that nonconceptual reality will be present.

Now it is fine for atheists to be atheists and believe that there is no 'expanded mind state' to be realized, but it is not logical for them to demand objective evidence when this state is a subjective experience.

What is, is what is, let atheists experience an atheistic life, and let religious folk do their thing.

It is always logical to ask for evidence. What you are just admitting is that your beliefs are irrational so it is illogical to ask for evidence. You might be right if you make your claims properly.