A creator and a singularity

[We Never Know]

I've seen believers say there was nothing until a god created it, then came everything
I've seen non-believers say there was nothing until a singularity expanded, then came everything.

My question is, and I've asked in a few threads, never getting a very good answer(religious people say he just existed, non-religious people say the concept of pre doesn't calculate), if there was nothing then came everything by what ever means, what did a god or a singularity exist in before making everything come to be as what we know as the universe and all in it?

My point...quite simple and true..
Go back far enough and everything anyone accepts or believes is based on blind acceptance and/or faith because its not known. That doesn't mean a god did it or a god didn't do it. Its simply unknown.
So then it evolves to we pick and chose what we want it to be based on nothing but personal choice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science can only explore the physicality of what exists. It cannot explore what doesn't exist in any way, nor what we imagine to not exist.
Logically, "non-existence" is a self-negating concept. There can be no such condition, or state.

I don't know. What if something takes turn to exist and non-exist. Such a thing will be incredulous for us. But it does not bar that thing to behave in the way it does. Nature does not need human approval to work. Virtual particles crop up, exist for their small life period and then go back into non-existence. If they exist for a longer time, they become normal sub-atomic particles (I am not a scientist, but this is my general view). So, I will always go by what science say.

 

[PureX]

I don't know. What if something takes turn to exist and non-exist. Such a thing will be incredulous for us. But it does not bar that thing to behave in the way it does. Nature does not need human approval to work.

The problem is the 'nature' extends far beyond the realm of our comprehension (black holes, for instance). So we can't know what is possible or not possible in terms of what can and cannot exist. So when we use the term "exist", we do so with the bias of our ignorance. "Existence" is only what exists, to us.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is what I too mean. At the moment non-existence is incomprehensible to us, but who knows? RigVeda said:
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[Brian2]

God may be a logical assumption for theists but it is a very illogical assumption as far as science and atheists are concerned.
An event horizon is a state before which science does not know exactly what happened though they have various theories. After the event horizon thing are more or less understood.
As I said, whether space-time existed before 'inflation' or not is not known to science, research continues.

Imo the research will always be speculation.

 

[Brian2]

Are existence and non-existence two separate things or they have a connection? There are theories which say creation Ex-nihilo is possible. Science clearly says that it does not know what happened prior to 'inflation'. That is known as 'event horizon'. We need more experiments to go beyond inflation. Perhaps in time to come we will know more. Is that wrong in any way? Does it mean that if we do not know something we must credit it to a God?

I know Stephen Hawking said that if the laws of physics existed then creation Ex-Nihilo could happen. But that still needs something, the laws of physics, and so is not Ex-Nihilo.
The question would be where do the laws of Physics come from.

 

[Brian2]

A multiverse from infinity to infinity. The multiverse has no beginning or end. It’s not static but dynamic with “sub-universes” coming into and going out of existence like bubbles being formed from another universe and pinched off. The singularities in our universe could be spawning other universes. Who knows? I think it’s a fun thought experiment.

My thought experiment ends when I realise that there could not have been an infinite number of cause effect events in the past, or we would not be at this one yet.

 

[Brian2]

- That is not the majority opinion about God.
Will science accept that God made the universe in six days? Will science accept that God made women from the ribs of man? Will science agree that there was a flood all over the world when even the highest mountain was covered with water for the depth of so many thousand feet? Surely, scientific views differ from this.
- 13% is fine. The end of days is not tomorrow, science will continue to work on what it does not know.
- Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation gives us hints about what existed before 'inflation'. Your guesses are OK. I too have my guesses that existence and non-existence are just phases of 'what exists', but science does not go by guesses of laymen. They have their own methodology. Are you a prophet to say that we would never find the answer?

Imo the Bible does not mean 6 literal days for creation.
Imo the Bible does not teach one enormous flood covering the whole earth.
From what science knows now, the universe had a beginning. That is all. Speculation as to the natural cause is from here, because science demands a natural cause and Hinduism seems to demand a universe that goes on into the past infinitely in some form. But your version of Hinduism might be different.

 

[Brian2]

My point...quite simple and true..
Go back far enough and everything anyone accepts or believes is based on blind acceptance and/or faith because its not known. That doesn't mean a god did it or a god didn't do it. Its simply unknown.
So then it evolves to we pick and chose what we want it to be based on nothing but personal choice.

That sounds right, to a point.
Imo we can eliminate an infinite number of cause and effect events in the past, because if that happened then we could not be at this cause effect event yet. This implies a first cause.
There is evidence imo for a first cause who has shown Himself in our history with miracles as evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Imo the research will always be speculation.

Sure, people can speculate, but science will check it before it accepts anything.

Imo the Bible does not mean 6 literal days for creation.
Imo the Bible does not teach one enormous flood covering the whole earth.
From what science knows now, the universe had a beginning. That is all. Speculation as to the natural cause is from here, because science demands a natural cause and Hinduism seems to demand a universe that goes on into the past infinitely in some form. But your version of Hinduism might be different.

What is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically? Science does not say that the universe had a beginning. My view is different from main-line Hinduism in many ways but I also believe that 'Brahman' ('what exists') is eternal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The question would be where do the laws of Physics come from.

For atheists, they are not from any God (of course, another question is where from your God is?), the rest is up to science.

 

[1213]

...what did a god or a singularity exist in before making everything come to be as what we know as the universe and all in it?

I don’t know.

But, Bible tells God is spirit.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

Spirit is not material thing. That is why I think God is not bound be physical laws or matter. But, it an interesting question, what spirit is and what does all this mean, for example because of this:

that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.'
Acts 17:27-28

Luckily I don’t think it is crucial to know all.

 

[rational experiences]

Father who is our human baby to adult memory. Guiding us Said.....
Eternal meant no creation
Eternal lost a thin plane of its mass as gods fall.

O spiral G split DD into OO.

First O eternal mass as god O unnaturally held exploded.

O first God gone opened space cool as burning went into O mass.

Satan the deep pit was formed owning no God.

Holy Satan for Satanists.

Space empty.

Therefore Satanists who believe in God in hell theists cosmic don't support God O as stone the end.

As cause O stone ejecting gas is not any string to our presence heavens.

Heavens inside hell first cannot evolve. Within earth where it's mass the creator holds form.

Science therefore said heavens is a one of holy body that life only owns no science allowed. As it is natural evolved by causes owns no holy history except self presence.

Actually.

Satanists are human first. Natural human. Thinkers claiming a status. Empty space is holy Satan.

As the theist said God went to hell.

Known consciously.

If they believe in no God as their claim I will take God as a product in any thesis attack it destroy it to make it become what was never God.

Empty space

So he does a nuclear theory that left a remainder as he said he never followed the holy Satan. He follows the destroyer of Satan as God.

As he wants heated mass to pass through Satan's holy form. Coldest empty space.

Pretence is all in his head I want to be the creator in space as a man.

So he egotisticslly places man self above all things. His answer to control is by murder and by removal to get what he wants. Always the same men tality and answer.

His conscious idealism by his brother realised and named him the human man destroyer mentality.

As he thinks how can I use science to control everyone. Always taking machine invention into a weapons theory. Uses resource to use resource plus all machines as a new threat.

His status to control by overpowering not by mutual human brotherhood consensus.

So he says back in time two million years. As a theist.

O empty space to count a cycle by 1.
111111111111111is age time count by cycle. So when he says two million years ago it is right where he is.

If his claim we are two million years old then it is just a statement.

So his brother might say three million years old I will minus one million in mass to gain energy and tough luck what happens to evolved form.

Why we said he is a destroyer.

Holy Satan would be three million years only of he said Satan owned creation.

His science brother said you will open a space hole into nothingness if you want all energy.

Thesis formula said by man as equals energy. Claiming it is energy. Mind says no formula is energy energy is natural. Why he argues against his owned intentions.

The equals answer energy. Is not equals answer just a formula.

He says I will invent create energy. No formula exists. No equal answer exists.

To theory is to include energy then remove by formula to equals status presence. First intent is gain.

If you take gain away then you say use it all. Leaves no remainder.

If you want to own energy itself he says holy Satan holds owns all energy.

Why he says he is holy Satan man yet he does not own hold nor invented energy.

Evil satanist says I don't want holy Satan.

I want to begin and yet end in the same place where a remainder is. Knowing he is not holy Satan.

As I don't want it all as holiness.

So he confessed I don't want a holy Satan.
I also never wanted a holy God.

So if you are preached to that life depends on God presence and someone says no you are not God it can own two meanings.

That a human in science says you cannot be gods powers. As a fact....
Or you have every intention of destroying us all.

Science for want energy is not holy God theism not holy Satan theism.

One is a positive human ideal.
The other is a self destructive human personality.

 

[Brian2]

Sure, people can speculate, but science will check it before it accepts anything.

Science cannot check to see if ideas about the anything before this universe are true. It is and will always be speculation in science.
That is not to say that many will believe/semi believe the speculations that are proposed. They are not real science however.

What is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically? Science does not say that the universe had a beginning. My view is different from main-line Hinduism in many ways but I also believe that 'Brahman' ('what exists') is eternal.

From what we know about the expanding universe science says this universe had a beginning. As I said, the rest is speculation.
I find it amazing that science is willing to entertain the idea of an infinite number of events going back for eternity into the past, before this universe. IMO that is impossible.

 

[Brian2]

For atheists, they are not from any God (of course, another question is where from your God is?), the rest is up to science.

There cannot be an infinite number of events in the past before this universe. There had to be a first event and God is the cause of that event.
God does not need to have been caused. The first cause cannot have been caused.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science cannot check to see if ideas about the anything before this universe are true. It is and will always be speculation in science.
That is not to say that many will believe/semi believe the speculations that are proposed. They are not real science however.

From what we know about the expanding universe science says this universe had a beginning. As I said, the rest is speculation.
I find it amazing that science is willing to entertain the idea of an infinite number of events going back for eternity into the past, before this universe. IMO that is impossible.

Science has already made a good start with CMBR. Speculations in science are based on some fact. They are not as imagined out of thin air as by religions. To choose to believe in truth or falsehood is people's choice.
No, and definitely not. Science does not say that the universe had a beginning. They do not know what was prior to 'inflation' (expanion).
Multiple universes hypothesis has mathematical possibilities to support it. But to be accepted by science it needs evidence.
Your opinion or mine may neither be fact nor science.

There cannot be an infinite number of events in the past before this universe. There had to be a first event and God is the cause of that event.
God does not need to have been caused. The first cause cannot have been caused.

You bet. The universe, for all we know, could also be eternal, not needing any beginning.

 

[We Never Know]

Sure, people can speculate, but science will check it before it accepts anything.
What is to be taken literally and what is to be taken metaphorically? Science does not say that the universe had a beginning. My view is different from main-line Hinduism in many ways but I also believe that 'Brahman' ('what exists') is eternal.

An interesting article about the universe. But the obvious is still,,we don't know.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/phys...-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nice article and thanks, research goes on.

 

[Clara Tea]

I believe the beginning happens after the end

That would explain "alpha and omega" in the bible.

We know that the metric of the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. The equation for time dilation shows that time is imaginary as things move faster than the speed of light.

However, I don't think that time dilates between comoving observers. The Twin Paradox seems to fail for such movement (excluding, of course, proper motion). The expansion of the universe stretches space, not time. Distant parts of the universe that are traveling away from each other faster than the speed of light, have not moved (necessarily) since the big bang.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I've seen believers say there was nothing until a god created it, then came everything
I've seen non-believers say there was nothing until a singularity expanded, then came everything.

My question is, and I've asked in a few threads, never getting a very good answer(religious people say he just existed, non-religious people say the concept of pre doesn't calculate), if there was nothing then came everything by what ever means, what did a god or a singularity exist in before making everything come to be as what we know as the universe and all in it?

It’s impossible to rule out a higher intelligent Being exists as we just found ourselves here but did not put it here. We are like a painting trying to either prove or deny the existence of the Painter when we are the very proof. But just as it is impossible for the painting to understand the painter it is likewise impossible for us human beings to comprehend our creator God.