We Never Know
No Slack
Something existed before E = mc², something existed before any laws, something existed before time,
Etc
-
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!
Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)
- Thread starter Sean1843
- Start date
Something existed before E = mc², something existed before any laws, something existed before time,
Etc
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The phrase "before time" is literally nonsensical. Without time, "before" cannot mean anything.
We Never Know
No Slack
Same as there is no preBB because that puts it before. IMO either something always existed or it just magically appeared.
It all depends on which side of the fence you stand on.
If a creator needed something before it,
A singularity needed something before it
IOW, If a god can just exist, a singularity can just exist as well.
The universe didn't "come into existence." The big bang is the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of matter and time and space. Those things always existed. They are eternal. If they weren't, it would violate that law. But if your saying that the universe can't be eternal, what makes it okay for god to be?
Maybe you mean evidence for creation, since creationism has a lot of evidence. For instance, there are quite a few creationists here.
Ciao
- viole
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, for one scientist. But when you are claiming hundreds of thousands of genuine scientists have misinterpreted data you make yourself look silly. Especially when the opposition cannot muster any scientific evidence for their beliefs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Ever hear of Einstein? Hmmm....
The phrase 'before time' makes no sense. To talk about 'before' requires time.
Through our spiritual senses such as perception.
And now you only oppose those that you don't believe in?
I believe that all the major religions came from the same God so I accept all the major religions not just the Baha’i Faith. We read from the Holy Books of all these religions in our Houses of Worship all over the world each week. We don’t exalt one religion or Founder over the other.
We Never Know
No Slack
Already addressed a few posts above.
Dell
Asteroid insurance?
So... let's simplify the argument some to Creation of life on Earth.
Does that require an unrealistic being creating things via unrealistic physics?
Does not "creation" or "intelligent design" exist today?
Is complex intelligent life only an Earth thing 13.8 billion years from BB?
Could we be evolving a future succeeding AI of high intelligence capable of creating other intelligent life forms and possible interstellar travel?
Could it be possible an ET high intelligence built in cellular logic to raise complex life via evolutionary mechanics.... to intelligent life as we know it?
Begs the question when and where did intelligence begin and when and where does it end?
And No I'm not smoking pot and tripping...
Alternatively, mass-energy existed, and space, time, matter, forces (&c) exist because of mass-energy, its qualities and effects.
And laws exist as the human expression of the consistencies observed in the operation and interaction of these qualities and effects.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"to exist" is a temporal notion though.
"before time" doesn't make any sense. But I get that you have to use words to convey your idea and our language is temporal in nature. We don't have any appropriate language to talking about atemporal conditions, nore are our minds properly equipped to actually comprehend such conditions. I think pretty much the best we can do is build theoretical models with internally consistent math which make testable predictions that check out. I fully expect though that on face value, such models would sound completely absurd to us and seemingly will be defying all common sense.
So I'ld say that whatever it was that "triggered" the big bang, it's bound to be something ultra-weird and completely alien to us..
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So not the roman pantheon or the norse gods or scientology or mormonism or shamanism or ...
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I thought you were highly intelligent! If energy (mass/matter) CANNOT be created, it CANNOT be eternal (without a finite past). The universe wasn't always here, nor were its elements (matter, energy).
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Your 2nd argument is even weaker!
Can you not conceive of a time, say, before you were born? Now, try to think if there could have been a "something" or a "nothing" before Planck time. You can do it!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Cannot be "always was" due to conservation of matter/energy.
Cannot be "just is" due to " ".
You surprise me with your lack of logic here, seriously!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I accept the theory of evolution as you've defined it, I've seen in my lifetime new species of dogs arise, for example. Next, try asking the forum geniuses here whether dogs can give birth to cats, and they'll give you double-speak about well defined clades that are "good" and "unlikely" to change, meaning, they agree, dogs can become new species of dogs but NEVER cats or birds or fish... just like the Bible says. The Bible is compatible with modern science.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Yes, for individual scientists.
But if the development of life or other forms of order in the cosmos, contradicted thermodynamics, this would be a glaring, fundamental problem and there would be uproar about it - and Nobel prizes for those who resolved the conundrum. This is perfectly obvious.
But thank you at least for doing me the courtesy of replying to what I wrote, this time, instead of pretending to misunderstand it.
So you are unaware of the "glaring, fundamental problems" with say, abiogenesis as an unproven, un-duplicated, untested theory?