Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

That is absolutely not a 'fact'. Big Bang cosmology proposes that the initial expansion of the universe began from a singularity. A singularity is not 'nothing', and anything prior to the initiation of Planck time is where our current physics break down, so we do not know anything at all about anything before that.

The singularity actually is out of nothing according to Paul Davies:

What came before the big bang?
For some reason I can't copy the test in the article.

Even those cosmologists who do hypothesize a universe from nothing, such as Laurence Krauss, do not mean 'nothing' in the literal, philosophical sense, as in a creation ex nihilo event.

According to Davies he is wrong.

Correct, it was not an 'expansion' as we commonly understand it, but we still use the word. We have to rely on imperfect analogous language to describe the Big Bang, because there is no other event to which we can compare it.

I suggest you read a textbook on the subject, rather than consult a layperson such as myself.

I have extensively.

I didn't say otherwise. What I said was, we do not know whether or not the universe necessarily represents the totality of existence.

For this universe we do, and we don't have any evidene to show that there is any others.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The singularity actually is out of nothing according to Paul Davies:

What came before the big bang?
For some reason I can't copy the test in the article.

According to Davies he is wrong.

You haven't tasked yourself with demonstrating that there is disagreement in the scientific community on this subject. That's one of the easiest things in the world to prove.

You have tasked yourself with demonstrating that it is a 'fact' that prior to Planck time and the expansion of the universe at the onset of the Big Bang, there was a state of 'absolute nothing'.

Good luck. I look forward to your Nobel Prize speech.

I have extensively.

Then you should know better.

For this universe we do

No we don't. We currently have no methodology at our disposal to address that question. Only guesses.

I realize that fact is inconvenient to your apologetics, but that's your problem.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This is what I am talking about:

This is amazing huh? How does this get you to a creator? Are you saying that you think this is so complex or purposeful that you cannot see how it could have come about naturally, therefore it must have been designed by a creator? That sounds like an argument from incredulity not an argument that points to a creator.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Expansion of what into what? What evolved? I think perhaps you are not aware of the fact that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang. There was no space to expand into, space didn't exist "prior" to the Big Bang, and yes, the totality of existence of the universe began at the Big Bang.

While I don't think the consensus of scientists agree with you here, I don't see that it matters. I am OK with the universe having a beginning, i think it likely did, but that does not get you any closer to a god creating it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

While I don't think the consensus of scientists agree with you here, I don't see that it matters. I am OK with the universe having a beginning, i think it likely did, but that does not get you any closer to a god creating it.

I also think it's likely that the observable universe had a beginning. What isn't known, and what cannot be known by any means available to us, is if this universe represents the totality of existence itself. As Sean Carrol rightly points out in the video shared earlier, we simply do not know about anything prior to the expansion, as that is the limit our physics are capable of addressing.

I wish he was more careful with his words when talking about General Relativity, though. He shouldn't have called it 'false'. That's not strictly accurate. It's not false, it just breaks down at the quantum level. Similar to how Newtons laws work just fine for our every day, human-scale experiences, but you need General Relativity to explain the much larger scales. The three scales work fine on their own, but don't play well with each other. We're still looking for the theory that will encompass all at once, and may never find it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Might I suggest you watch this 9:38 minute video. It posits many ideas. And further admits that, (we don't really know yet).

****************

And a side question, which springs to mind....

If at one point, 'true nothingness' existed, what did God once dwell within?

This issue is that what we do KNOW is that the universe as we know it began. There was no space, no energy, no matter, no time. Nothing of the universe that we know existed until it existed. According to the evidence we have it supports the universe having a beginning. No model or theory supports at this time it didn't and the BGV (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem) gives us reason to believe that such models can't be constructed.

That is a good question, we don't have that information. What we do have is information that God created the universe and it had a beginning. The evidence we HAVE shows that space, time, matter and energy didn't exist until the BB. This evidence supports the claims that Christianity makes about the universe having a beginning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

While I don't think the consensus of scientists agree with you here, I don't see that it matters. I am OK with the universe having a beginning, i think it likely did, but that does not get you any closer to a god creating it.

It is evidence that supports that claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I also think it's likely that the observable universe had a beginning. What isn't known, and what cannot be known by any means available to us, is if this universe represents the totality of existence itself. As Sean Carrol rightly points out in the video shared earlier, we simply do not know about anything prior to the expansion, as that is the limit our physics are capable of addressing.

Existence of what? We do know that the universe as we know it didn't exist until the BB. So what do you mean by totality of existence?

I wish he was more careful with his words when talking about General Relativity, though. He shouldn't have called it 'false'. That's not strictly accurate. It's not false, it just breaks down at the quantum level. Similar to how Newtons laws work just fine for our every day, human-scale experiences, but you need General Relativity to explain the much larger scales. The three scales work fine on their own, but don't play well with each other. We're still looking for the theory that will encompass all at once, and may never find it.

I can't say I don't agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is amazing huh? How does this get you to a creator? Are you saying that you think this is so complex or purposeful that you cannot see how it could have come about naturally, therefore it must have been designed by a creator? That sounds like an argument from incredulity not an argument that points to a creator.

This shows purpose with a goal, which is what I was saying constitutes what humans see as design.

 

[cvanwey]

This issue is that what we do KNOW is that the universe as we know it began. There was no space, no energy, no matter, no time. Nothing of the universe that we know existed until it existed. According to the evidence we have it supports the universe having a beginning. No model or theory supports at this time it didn't and the BGV (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem) gives us reason to believe that such models can't be constructed.

Um, gonna have to disagree here... In that no one knows..... You claim to 'know.' But, like @Eight Foot Manchild already addressed, I too will be awaiting your Nobel speech

Alan Guth himself admits the universe could be eternal.

And if this isn't enough, watch the 2 hour debate between Sean Carol and WLC, where Sean pulls video footage of Alan Guth stating 'the universe is likely eternal.'

Which begs the next question... If it is likely eternal, then I guess there exists no need for a creator?

That is a good question, we don't have that information. What we do have is information that God created the universe and it had a beginning. The evidence we HAVE shows that space, time, matter and energy didn't exist until the BB. This evidence supports the claims that Christianity makes about the universe having a beginning.

Thank you. Yes, we don't have that information. But it sure seems like a head-scratcher... At some point in the 'past', God dwelled in 'nothingness'????

But, as we don't have this information, we don't have the information for the 'beginning' either. So to assert, as you are, is placing the cart before the horse

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So what do you mean by totality of existence?

I mean the observable universe, plus whatever else there might be that we are, at least currently, incapable of studying. Things we've never imagined, and indeed might actually be incapable of imagining. I am not so naive as to claim that I know that the observable universe is all there is to reality. Certainly not enough to claim that I know it as a 'fact'.

I don't. Neither do you. Neither do any of the most brilliant minds who have made this their life's work.

Your cosmological apologetic requires two things - a creation ex nihilo event from 'absolute nothing', and that the observable universe necessarily represents the totality of existence. Neither of those things are in evidence, and if you think you can get there by invoking the Big Bang, you are wrong.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I also think it's likely that the observable universe had a beginning. What isn't known, and what cannot be known by any means available to us, is if this universe represents the totality of existence itself. As Sean Carrol rightly points out in the video shared earlier, we simply do not know about anything prior to the expansion, as that is the limit our physics are capable of addressing.

I know we don't know. My guess is there was a beginning.

I wish he was more careful with his words when talking about General Relativity, though. He shouldn't have called it 'false'. That's not strictly accurate. It's not false, it just breaks down at the quantum level. Similar to how Newtons laws work just fine for our every day, human-scale experiences, but you need General Relativity to explain the much larger scales. The three scales work fine on their own, but don't play well with each other. We're still looking for the theory that will encompass all at once, and may never find it.

Well we may find it. I find it fascinating how weird the universe actually is.

 

[Ed1wolf]

When seen through the eyes of nonduality, I'm not seeing how God can be separate from this physical world while at the same time as the life force running thru it.

He is not really the life force running thru it. It is better understood as He is the one that maintains the natural processes that keep all living things alive. The Christian God primarily operates according to His natural laws that He created.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Oncedeceived, @Eight Foot Manchild, @Clizby WampusCat, and @cvanwey

... you all have me so confused now about the cosmological nature of the universe, I don't know who to believe!!!

...it began when it ended and ended when it began, or it ended before it began, or maybe it even began after it ended. Jeez! Who knows?

I'm going to go take a baby aspirin and lay down for a while.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It is evidence that supports that claim.

How so?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This shows purpose with a goal, which is what I was saying constitutes what humans see as design.

It does no show a designer. That is assumed. Evolutionary scientists can describe how this happens naturally, why discount that evidence?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

@Oncedeceived, @Eight Foot Manchild, @Clizby WampusCat, and @cvanwey

... you all have me so confused now about the cosmological nature of the universe, I don't know who to believe!!!

...it began when it ended and ended when it began, or it ended before it began, or maybe it even began after it ended. Jeez! Who knows?

I'm going to go take a baby aspirin and lay down for a while.

The point is the scientific side is saying we don't know, the faith side is saying we do know without sufficient evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point is the scientific side is saying we don't know, the faith side is saying we do know without sufficient evidence.

Which "faith side" is saying this, Clizby?

 

[dlamberth]

He is not really the life force running thru it. It is better understood as He is the one that maintains the natural processes that keep all living things alive. The Christian God primarily operates according to His natural laws that He created.

Yes, God is the very life force running through ALL of this Creation. I see no way in which the Light of God can be separated from the Spark of Life.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Which "faith side" is saying this, Clizby?

Like I said, Faith in scientific consensus which has a proven track record is reasonable based on the track record. Faith in a book and god that has no demonstrable track record is unreasonable. They are not equal.