The Big Bang as evidence for God

[outhouse]

I find that God being "timeless", or being "outside of time" to be absurdity. It is just purely speculative.

Its desperate.

As the biblical mythology was exposed for what it is, theist had to stop the zipper effect of unraveling all the bibles credibility.

 

[outhouse]

It's the easiest thing in the world, and the hardest

Or imaginative and natural since most are brainwashed from birth on.

 

[atanu]

... 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.

What about coincidental occurrence (existing or occurring at the same time)? Presence of light causes shadow but there may not be any real before and after.

 

[atanu]

Isn't there a bible verse that says something like from everlasting to everlasting? They cannot avoid making him timeless or they would then have to figure out who or what preceeded him.

The one I want them to explain is how something can exist outside of time, as they often claim. Time is a component of existence. If there is no time where he is supposed to be, he cannot have existed eternally. That is a measure of time. They can't say that it is a reference to our time because our time had a beginning.

We are limited by our thoughts and experiences. Does not one exist timelessly in deep sleep? It is said that meditators can attain tranquility of mind that they can abide in a state called 'waking sleep'. This will sound absurd to most who have had no experience.

 

[outhouse]

We are limited by our thoughts and experiences

Most people are limited by their education

 

[outhouse]

Does not one exist timelessly in deep sleep?

No one factually does not

 

[outhouse]

It is said that meditators can attain tranquility of mind that they can abide in a state called 'waking sleep'. This will sound absurd to most who have had no experience.

Its not absurd.

It is only a personal experience within ones conscious mind. We know this thought or consciousness does not leave the body.

 

[Yerda]

Lots of religions posit the idea of some sort of primordial chaos, which somehow or another ended up lead to the big bang. As far as I know, many scientific hypotheses put forth the idea that there was something before the universe, and universes, ours and others, kind of bubble up out of this substance.

That's true. It kind of melts the assumptions behind first cause type arguments though, doesn't it?

 

[Yerda]

I think the challenge is...

That was a great post. You two should have a podcast.

 

[Windwalker]

Or imaginative and natural since most are brainwashed from birth on.

And you're not? Everyone is programmed by culture. But again, something you can't grasp here. I'm not talking about concepts. I'm talking about raw experience. That has nothing to do with cultural programming. It's like saying pouring cold water on me and me describing it as cold is all in my head. That I was brainwashed to imagine it was actually cold to my body. Ridiculous. But keep trying to convince yourself. One day you may actually believe it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think the reason of the confusion is clear. And natural.

I believe it is very difficult, if not impossible, to imagine something as simple as the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere as not being embedded in a 3-dimensional space. I myself cannot. Every spherical surface in my brain has an inside and an outside: the euclidean three dimensional space my intuition insists to create. I suspect this difficulty is reducible to the evolution of our brains.

However, surfaces do not need to be embedded inside other surfaces or higher dimensional contexts in order to make sense. Manifolds have intrinsic properties that do not require embeddings.

So, your best bet is try to imagine, as much as possible, the Universe as a 2-dimensional sphere (instead of 4-dimensional), with one dimension of time, running from north to south, and one dimension of space covering the west-east dimension (neglecting for the moment covariance and metric fields, emergent arrows of time, etc. in the interest of simplicity). This is a very rudimentary model of a Universe that "bangs" at the north pole, and "crunches" at the south pole with a maximal space extension at the equator. No inside, nor outside this sphere (not to be confused with an "inside" and "outside" without nothing in them).

In this model, it makes no sense to speak of what happened before the Universe, because there is nothing more northern than the north pole. Remember, there is no inside or outside the sphere. So, all existence is on this sphere. And "before" makes sense only for points that have a north. Ergo for all points different from the north pole.

Incidentally, if we take the sphere as a whole, then we also see that it did not begin, it does not expand, it does not contract, it does not crunch. It is a 2-dimensional sphere with constant curvature that just is.

Ciao

- viole

You may not be able to imagine something as simple as the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere as not being embedded in a 3-dimensional space....but most everyone else can....it is what you see when you look at an earth globe....the sphere has one surface but it sits in 3D space... If you believe the north pole 2 dimensional limitation of perspective that prevents the possibility of there being a higher dimension argument is a logical reason to accept that there was a beginning to time and space for which there can be no reason....then your mind believes in a miraculous beginning.... You believe there is no reason to reason why there is no reason for the beginning of time...

 

[viole]

You may not be able to imagine something as simple as the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere as not being embedded in a 3-dimensional space....but most everyone else can....it is what you see when you look at an earth globe....the sphere has one surface but it sits in 3D space...

Well, my point, really. We see all the time spheres embedded in three dimensional space while we cannot imagine spheres which are not.
And this is why the earth analogy might not be appropriate.
The problem with Hawking is that it uses analogies for the layman, trying to be helpful, while neglecting that the layman might take them literally and destroy the analogy. I think he makes too strong assumptions about the abstraction power of his audience, to put it mildly.

If you believe the north pole 2 dimensional limitation of perspective that prevents the possibility of there being a higher dimension argument is a logical reason to accept that there was a beginning to time and space for which there can be no reason....then your mind believes in a miraculous beginning.... You believe there is no reason to reason why there is no reason for the beginning of time...

I am an eternalist. I cannot make sense of the beginning or any kind of evolution of the Universe.
Your problem is that your higher dimension arguments, whatever they are, make your arguments in favor of an eternal Universe weaker. not stronger.

Don't you see it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

That's true. It kind of melts the assumptions behind first cause type arguments though, doesn't it?

Nah. For example we can argue that substance needs a mover.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, my point, really. We see all the time spheres embedded in three dimensional space while we cannot imagine spheres which are not.
And this is why the earth analogy might not be appropriate.
The problem with Hawking is that it uses analogies for the layman, trying to be helpful, while neglecting that the layman might take them literally and destroy the analogy. I think he makes too strong assumptions about the abstraction power of his audience, to put it mildly.

I am an eternalist. I cannot make sense of the beginning or any kind of evolution of the Universe.
Your problem is that your higher dimension arguments, whatever they are, make your arguments in favor of an eternal Universe weaker. not stronger.

Don't you see it?

Ciao

- viole

Of course the earth analogy about higher dimensions is not appropriate......what on earth do you think my point is?

There is no such thing as a sphere that is not embedded in three dimensional space....if you claim it is possible..you must explain these two things...how the sphere comes to exist...and what is non three dimensional?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I find that God being "timeless", or being "outside of time" to be absurdity. It is just purely speculative.
If God is immortal and exist forever, I don't think it mean there are "no time". Time would have to exist, regardless of how long God exist. Without time, then everything will be static, and God theoretically wouldn't be able to create or do anything.
For creation to happen, then God would need to change from no-universe to a universe, and for changes to happen, time is needed. There can be no changes without time.
But I don't think anyone can know, even if he did, because everything that people believe in, is based on what they think they know. Like I said it is just speculation.
Seriously, did theistic creationists get a blue-print of what God is capable? Or is it just their ego and jealousy talking, that they have make things up about their God?

According to Scripture God had No beginning - Psalms 90:2
Eternity is in our hearts: For each second we can count we can count both forwards and backwards forever and ever.

 

[gnostic]

if God happens to perform by list....you can be sure....
He is the best on each occasion.

Someone has to be first.
I also say....best

"God did it" and your even silly "spirit, first" are not a very logical statement.

It is based on your make-believe belief, with nothing tying your view to the real world.

And belief is essentially just expressing an opinion, that may be true or not true.

If you can't verify your opinion or belief as true, like with evidences, then it is a greater chance that your view is wrong.

But as you keep saying and have said before, you don't need evidences or proof for God, meaning that you are relying on blind faith alone.

 

[gnostic]

According to Scripture God had No beginning - Psalms 90:2
Eternity is in our hearts: For each second we can count we can count both forwards and backwards forever and ever.

Quote a verse, in which a person has no understanding of or concept to words like millions or billions, I don't think the verse is at all reliable.

 

[Yerda]

Nah. For example we can argue that substance needs a mover.

Only if, again, we ignore the results of science.

 

[Thief]

"God did it" and your even silly "spirit, first" are not a very logical statement.

It is based on your make-believe belief, with nothing tying your view to the real world.

And belief is essentially just expressing an opinion, that may be true or not true.

If you can't verify your opinion or belief as true, like with evidences, then it is a greater chance that your view is wrong.

But as you keep saying and have said before, you don't need evidences or proof for God, meaning that you are relying on blind faith alone.

so you don't like the logic.

but most people are willing to start.....in the beginning.

and there is only God....in the beginning

 

[Thief]

Finally, after several years, you said something that I can agree with!

Yup. No movement, no time. No time, no movement.

Also: No space, no movement.

And: No matter, no movement.

Which means, matter, space, time, and movement are all tied together and dependent of each other.

Further more, experience comes from being conscious about time, space, matter, and movement.

I would correct only your last line and omit the word....time