Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You claim to speak for all credible people and academia......I say it is an incredible egoistical claim for which you have no proof...
-
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!
The Big Bang as evidence for God
- Thread starter LegionOnomaMoi
- Start date
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
What mythology have I claimed in asking you to explain how the universe came into existence...please quote my precise words?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
outhouse
Atheistically
We claimed a singularity expanded
outhouse
Atheistically
You don't understand
I ONLY claimed my conclusion is one and the same. Because it is. You do not get the luxury of twisting peoples words out of context it is not honest
outhouse
Atheistically
You invoke a god concept, with nothing at all to substantiate your claims
There were No electric lights at the time of the writing of Genesis 22:17-18. That means on a cloudless night Abraham could view a googleplex of stars.
Abraham would also be familiar and understand the vast googleplex of grains of sand as found on the seashore which can't be numbered or counted.
Please note Psalms 90:2 because God was definitely ' before ' the beginning.
God was Not in the beginning, but ' before ' the beginning or start of creation - Revelation 4:11
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Yes...that is a given....but how did the singularity come into existence?
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Anywho... at the very least.... the singularity which existed before the big bang does not seem to me to be the very beginning of all things -because it was not simple enough.
It was a singularity which would inevitably become the universe specifically. It was already that which we now see -but somehow compressed or packaged.
The very beginning of all things (it seems to me) would have the potential to become the universe -and whatever else might exist (who is to say this universe is not like a flower on a vine of many flowers? Maybe other universes are different in some ways?) -but would be the most simple state possible.
If the singularity which preceded the big bang was the most simple state possible -it was a rather complex most simple state.
It may have been the most simple state of the universe -but was it the most simple state of everything?
It seems to me that much necessarily happened between the most simple state of everything and the most simple state of the universe.
That which happened between those states would be the most simple state of everything becoming complex enough to bring about the
most simple state of the universe.
In complexity, the most simple state of everything would be similar to binary code -and the most simple state of the universe would be similar to ... well... a program to create a universe.
It was a singularity which would inevitably become the universe specifically. It was already that which we now see -but somehow compressed or packaged.
The very beginning of all things (it seems to me) would have the potential to become the universe -and whatever else might exist (who is to say this universe is not like a flower on a vine of many flowers? Maybe other universes are different in some ways?) -but would be the most simple state possible.
If the singularity which preceded the big bang was the most simple state possible -it was a rather complex most simple state.
It may have been the most simple state of the universe -but was it the most simple state of everything?
It seems to me that much necessarily happened between the most simple state of everything and the most simple state of the universe.
That which happened between those states would be the most simple state of everything becoming complex enough to bring about the
most simple state of the universe.
In complexity, the most simple state of everything would be similar to binary code -and the most simple state of the universe would be similar to ... well... a program to create a universe.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No twisting involved....you said in your post #136 in response to my saying you were speaking for yourself..."No I speak for all credible people and academia." .......Now I ask you to prove it or withdraw it?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You make this claim that I invoked a god concept in the context of our present exchange on the big bang.....it is not so and if you disagree....quote me or withdraw the claim?
First, ' singularity ' as in God, there was No coming into existence but He always existed - Psalms 90:2
Second, ' singularity ' as to what was the ' singularity ' that God used to created the material realm of existence was His great Power and Strength - Isaiah 40:26
In other words, God supplied His needed high-density dynamic energy to create the material world - Psalms 104:30; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 27:5; Jeremiah 32:17
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I see you're with Thief on this....do you think the reality represented by the concept God is omnipresent and eternal?
According to Psalms 90:2 God is eternal. And eternity is in our hearts because for each day we can count we can add or subtract endlessly.
However, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate God is omnipresent.
Please notice 1 Kings 8:43; 1 Kings 8:49 because God has a specific location or dwelling place.
Jesus placed God as Our Father who art in: Heaven
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Time and space are inseparable.... Psalms 139:7-10 ... Proverbs 15:3 ...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I prefer the words....Spirit first
and so the singularity is a creation by God
God sends forth His spirit and notice why according to Psalms 104:30
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
First here is what I said in my post #116 ...."Existence is eternal...or are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?"
Rather difficult to take you seriously when you are unable to keep up with your own posts...
You make a comment in your post # 132 in support of outhouse that my post # 116 relies on the unsubstantiated rhetoric....
Now I asked you a reasonable question in my post #134 to point out what you thought was rhetoric in my post #116 so I could address it.....and now you refuse to answer the request on the basis you think I am unable to keep up with my own posts. So how does that work logically....why do you think I can not keep up with my own posts? And now also please answer the question as to what aspect of my post #116 you consider is unsubstantiated rhetoric and the the rational reason you arrived at that conclusion?
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I had already explained to outhouse in my post... Saturday at 9:36 AM #117.. and my post... Saturday at 12:56 PM #119
.... that the physical universe in the way I am using the concept is the divine manifestation...
I am saying there was no beginning of existence...big bang theory says there is a beginning 13.7 billion years ago... My question to you and outhouse in my post.. Saturday at 9:32 AM #11.. ..still stands as it is...and is not premised on any unsubstantiated theological issues because that is irrelevant to my question which is based on rational logic...."Existence is eternal...or are you saying that all the matter and energy in existence came from nothing.....that there was nothing preexisting your singularity 13.7 billion years ago?"
Now either you or outhouse answer the question of my post #116 without further obfuscation or slink away....