Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Davian]

Time was created with the universe. Nothing existed time, space, energy and matter came into existence when the universe did. If God created the universe as we claim then He would obviously be outside of the creation, outside of time.

It is not obvious.

If - and I see you used "if" - something outside was needed as a "cause" for the current instantiation of the cosmos, then on what grounds do you claim that this "something" now participate in space-time while remaining "outside" (whatever that means)? You believe it to be so because you believe it to be so?

If the universe is the set of all things, where is "outside"?

 

[EternalDragon]

It is not obvious.

If - and I see you used "if" - something outside was needed as a "cause" for the current instantiation of the cosmos, then on what grounds do you claim that this "something" now participate in space-time while remaining "outside" (whatever that means)? You believe it to be so because you believe it to be so?

If the universe is the set of all things, where is "outside"?

The big bang model would also require some outside cause. A singularity.

 

[Davian]

The big bang model would also require some outside cause. A singularity.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe (wiki). That a cause was needed, or if the concept of cause-and-effect as we understand it applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos, may be beyond our ability to determine. It does not falsify the theory.

Besides, would you accept the standard model of cosmology if the only thing that a god could have been said to have done was to give it a push start?

 

[EternalDragon]

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe (wiki). That a cause was needed, or if the concept of cause-and-effect as we understand it applies prior to the instantiation of the cosmos, may be beyond our ability to determine. It does not falsify the theory.

Besides, would you accept the standard model of cosmology if the only thing that a god could have been said to have done was to give it a push start?

If we didn't have numerous books by different people in different time periods about creation and God and numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus as well as different scientific evidence than we do have, then yes.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If we didn't have numerous books by different people in different time periods about creation and God

Books 'about creation and God' count as evidence. Good to know. In that case, I have mountains of evidence on my bookshelf that wizards, dragons and superheroes are all real.

numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus

You don't have eyewitness accounts. You have anonymous accounts written decades after the purported events.

Even if you had eyewitness testimony, what you'd have is just about the weakest of all forms of evidence. I can easily accept it for banal claims, but I don't accept it as evidence for extraordinary claims.

Neither do you. You don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehenna. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. You don't believe mystics in the slums of Calcutta can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'. Only when it comes to your religion does eyewitness testimony (which you don't have in the first place) become an acceptable standard.

as well as different scientific evidence

I dare you to present one single piece of scientific evidence, sourced to primary literature.

 

[Loudmouth]

The big bang model would also require some outside cause. A singularity.

Why would that outside cause need to be a deity?

Lightning needs an outside cause. Does that mean that Zeus makes lightning?

 

[HitchSlap]

If we didn't have numerous books by different people in different time periods about creation and God and numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus as well as different scientific evidence than we do have, then yes.

That's just it, there aren't any eyewitness accounts. But, as a Christian, you knew this already.

 

[Davian]

If we didn't have numerous books by different people in different time periods about creation and God and numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus as well as different scientific evidence than we do have, then yes.

I will leave you to address Eight Foot Manchild's post here. Or ignore it.

Perhaps you can use a comparison with some other fictional TV show to make your point. May I suggest Gilligan's island?

 

[EternalDragon]

Books 'about creation and God' count as evidence. Good to know. In that case, I have mountains of evidence on my bookshelf that wizards, dragons and superheroes are all real.

Yet those are not eyewitness accounts. Do you treat all the history books in a library as fairy tales? Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your logic process? Either you accept historical eyewitness accounts or you don't. Which is it?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yet those are not eyewitness accounts.

Didn't say they were. That was in reaction to your proposing books 'about creation and God' as evidence. I'm glad to see you are now abandoning that line of non-reasoning. Let's both never use it again.

Either you accept historical eyewitness accounts or you don't.

This is irrelevant to the portion you quoted, but the point still bears reiteration - I can easily accept eyewitness testimony for banal claims, but I don't accept it as evidence for extraordinary claims.

Neither do you. If you did, you'd be holding dozens of internally contradictory beliefs simultaneously. You are in the absurd and hopeless position of attempting to defend a standard of evidence that you A) don't accept, and B) can't meet. You can stop now.

By the way,

I dare you to present one single piece of scientific evidence, sourced to primary literature.

Second time asking. After three, I will accept your non-answer as an admission that you made your assertion in ignorance, and will endeavor to avoid doing so in the future.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would that outside cause need to be a deity?

Lightning needs an outside cause. Does that mean that Zeus makes lightning?

Is something from nothing more consistent with Christianity or naturalism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is something from nothing more consistent with Christianity or naturalism?

Naturalism, we can observe something from nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is something from nothing more consistent with Christianity or naturalism?

Christianity says that God created the universe, and God is something. That is something from something. I would say that something from nothing is the opposite of Christianity.

Then in naturalism we have Quantum theory where something does literally appear out of nothing. In Quantum theory you have particles and their anti-particles appear out of nothing and then annhialate. However, if this occurs close enough to the edge of a black hole then one of those particles can go into the black hole while the other escapes. The escaping particle is known as Hawking Radiation:

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in naturalism you really do have something from nothing while Christianity says the something came from something. I would say naturalism is the clear winner on this one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet those are not eyewitness accounts. Do you treat all the history books in a library as fairy tales? Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your logic process? Either you accept historical eyewitness accounts or you don't. Which is it?

It depends upon how reliable the source is. For example if a source has hundreds of self contradictions that would not be too good of a source. If that source looks like they got their ideas from other sources and then changed them a tad that source does not look to good either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christianity says that God created the universe, and God is something. That is something from something. I would say that something from nothing is the opposite of Christianity.

Then in naturalism we have Quantum theory where something does literally appear out of nothing. In Quantum theory you have particles and their anti-particles appear out of nothing and then annhialate. However, if this occurs close enough to the edge of a black hole then one of those particles can go into the black hole while the other escapes. The escaping particle is known as Hawking Radiation:

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in naturalism you really do have something from nothing while Christianity says the something came from something. I would say naturalism is the clear winner on this one.

Even better I like the Casamir effect as an example of something from nothing:

Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course with a Black hole the result is permanent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Naturalism, we can observe something from nothing.

What do you see prior to the Big Bang and the singularity in naturalistic terms?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Christianity says that God created the universe, and God is something. That is something from something. I would say that something from nothing is the opposite of Christianity.

While I agree that God is something, there was nothing prior to God creating something out of nothing. While naturalism must provide how nothing created nothing from nothing. That is impossible.

Then in naturalism we have Quantum theory where something does literally appear out of nothing. In Quantum theory you have particles and their anti-particles appear out of nothing and then annhialate. However, if this occurs close enough to the edge of a black hole then one of those particles can go into the black hole while the other escapes. The escaping particle is known as Hawking Radiation:

Hawking radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this case, we have something it is appearing from out of nothing. The universe exists and is something so these particles that "appear out of nothing" really are appearing out of something...the universe.

So in naturalism you really do have something from nothing while Christianity says the something came from something. I would say naturalism is the clear winner on this one.

I think I've shown the argument proves to be on the side of Christianity...the clear winner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you see prior to the Big Bang and the singularity in naturalistic terms?

-
Right now we have no way to observe back to even the Big Bang. We can observe the cosmic background radiation that is a result of the Big Bang's initial expansion. Light wise we can theoretically observe back to within about 300,000 years of the Big Bang. That was when the universe cooled enough to become transparent.


History of the Universe


We have no way of observing back further right now so there is no way to answer your question. Some physicists believe that there may have been something before the Big Bang. But there is no way to know for sure.... yet.

 

[Oncedeceived]

-
Right now we have no way to observe back to even the Big Bang. We can observe the cosmic background radiation that is a result of the Big Bang's initial expansion. Light wise we can theoretically observe back to within about 300,000 years of the Big Bang. That was when the universe cooled enough to become transparent.


History of the Universe


We have no way of observing back further right now so there is no way to answer your question. Some physicists believe that there may have been something before the Big Bang. But there is no way to know for sure.... yet.

Exactly.

 

[selfinflikted]

Exactly.

Exactly = we don't know = goddidit?