Coming from nothing

[Paradoxum]

Another thing to think about is that there is no actual scientific basis for "nothingness" being able to exist. In fact, even the "nothingness" that we consider to be space is comprised of something. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to expand.

In order to believe that a Big Bang could happen, you would need proof that there is such thing as nothingness, and the characteristics of nothingness is to produce something. In and of itself, that is a paradox. Nothingness, by definition, cannot have characteristics.

Nothingness isn't necessary for the Big Bang. Even if it were, you wouldn't need to prove that 'nothingness can create something' for the Big Bang to be POSSIBLE... you would only need to prove that to show that the Big Bang certainly came from nothing.

Personally I don't think the Big Bang came from nothing exactly, or from God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This proof of God is based upon the Big Bang theory which most scientists accept. The Big bang Theory states there was a beginning of the universe. If the universe was eternal then this argument would not exist but all the evidence shows otherwise. God is not judged by this criteria because nobody says he had a beginning.

If we try to ask what created God, the only answer we could come put with would be another higher being. Then we would have to ask then who created that, and again we would say another higher being. This leads to infinite regression and there is no final answer because we would always have to question then what created that.

Descartes said that on an individual basis we know that we exist because we think. If we try to deny this fact then we simply prove ourselves wrong because to deny something in the first place we must exist. When we accept this fact our logic tells us that something must have always existed so infinite regression is false logic once we accept this undeniable fact. So once this is established the question is what is the uncreated first cause. The Big bang theory says the universe came into existence at a point in time which they can apply an estimate to. Therefore the universe is not the first cause.

There is nothing wrong with an atheist accepting the Big Bang theory but they should follow where this logic leads and accept the existence of God. I feel abiogenesis is harder to accept but it isn't as important of a question as how did everything come into existence in the first place.

The problem is you're leaping to the conclusion without evidence that whatever sparked the big bang is a god.

If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, and it's looking more and more like it is, then it could have been a completely natural process in the multiverse.

However, since cause and effect is by definition temporal, there's no reason to think that cause and effect works the same way there that it would here. We have no idea how the physics would work, if time operates the same way (or exists at all), or anything else about this place. If time works in some kind of other form there, then questions of eternity are meaningless.

Basically, we can't apply the rules of our universe to something outside of it. We have no reason to assume it operates the same way, and I'd imagine there's a decent chance it doesn't. Either way, we have no reason to assume a god.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God is supernatural, not preternatural. In other words, God is above and independent of His creation, just like an author is above and independent of his own book.

By contrast, abiogenesis assumes a process that is limited to nature. To continue the analogy, it assumes that paper and ink themselves, without an author, produced a book.

What's wrong with that? A seed, some soil and water by themselves can produce a tree.

At the root of it, life is very complex chemistry. We haven't figured out how life on earth started, however we have made baby steps that hint it's quite possible that natural processes can create life from non life. For example, we've been able to naturally generate RNA (the precursor to DNA) and amino acids (the building blocks of life) from completely inanimate objects.

I just see no reason to assume a god is absolutely required... we have no evidence to back that position.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

When the Big Bang theory was first proposed, it was immediately attacked as being 'too close' to the Biblical account. That is, the Universe had a starting point.

Sir Fred Hoyle tried for years to disprove the Big Bang (a derisive term Sir Fred invented, by the way) and establish his (Sir Fred's) Steady State theory. He finally had to abandon it when the predictions derived from Steady State didn't pan out.

The current alternative is the Multi-Verse or 'Bulk' theory. The short version is the 'Bulk' exists and occasionally forms a universe which exists for a finite (long, but finite) period of time and then ceases due to heat death. But other universes are also formed in the process. Therefore, even though our universe has a finite 'life span', the 'Bulk' has always existed and therefore, no ultimate beginning. And the reason this universe has 'life', is that with all the gazillions of universes generated by the 'Bulk', this one has the right conditions for life as we know it. Probably most of them cannot support life for one reason or another.

The problem is the 'Bulk' is not detectable from our universe, is eternal and is seemingly impervious to entropy. Aside from the mathematics to prove it possible, it is non-testable. Since mathematics also prove radio waves can be broadcast with antenna of a negative length, I'll say I'm not fully convinced.

According to the Standard Theory (Big Bang), the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago, give or take an eon. There are solid reasons for this dating, based on observations of the expansion of the Universe, the current average temperature of the Universe and something else which slips my tired mind right now.

The Cosmology boffins have calculated the expansion back to one planck time AFTER the singularity 'banged'. Prior to that, gravity is infinite, density is infinite and time doesn't move. For that reason, that first .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second is simply not calculable. Or discernible. Can't figure it out.

Drives them nuts. But they admit they're stuck.

Does any of this either prove or disprove the existence of God? Not that I can tell. I deal with God on a personal level every day, so I'm not worried about it. No, that is not germane to others either. Every one has to meet God personally. The hard part is one can only meet God on His terms. That's the big sticking point for many folks.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Cosmology boffins have calculated the expansion back to one planck time AFTER the singularity 'banged'. Prior to that, gravity is infinite, density is infinite and time doesn't move. For that reason, that first .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second is simply not calculable.

You're confusing "not currently understood" with "impossible to understand". The former is easy to see, the latter has to be proven. Have at it.

 

[Paradoxum]

The problem is the 'Bulk' is not detectable from our universe, is eternal and is seemingly impervious to entropy. Aside from the mathematics to prove it possible, it is non-testable. Since mathematics also prove radio waves can be broadcast with antenna of a negative length, I'll say I'm not fully convinced.

Nor am I fully convinced there's a mutliverse, but I'd think it's normally just brought up as a possibility. It isn't claimed to be a proven theory.

The atheist point would be that God isn't the only possible explanation for apparent fine-tuning.

Does any of this either prove or disprove the existence of God? Not that I can tell. I deal with God on a personal level every day, so I'm not worried about it. No, that is not germane to others either. Every one has to meet God personally. The hard part is one can only meet God on His terms. That's the big sticking point for many folks.

I don't know what you mean by meeting God on his terms. Also, if I don't believe in God, then it doesn't make sense to go out of my way to conform to those terms. I did believe before... and God didn't save my faith when I most needed him.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

You're confusing "not currently understood" with "impossible to understand". The former is easy to see, the latter has to be proven. Have at it.

... for sharing.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Nor am I fully convinced there's a mutliverse, but I'd think it's normally just brought up as a possibility. It isn't claimed to be a proven theory.

Right. No 'theory' is ever proven, just 'not falsified' in tests resulting from predictions made by the theory. The 'Standard Theory' isn't proven, either; nor Relativity nor the Universal Perversity of Matter. It is just they work so far. The Multiverse theory only 'works' in the sense of 'the math'. To be honest, I don't speak that sort of math, but I have reservations.

The atheist point would be that God isn't the only possible explanation for apparent fine-tuning.

Oh, yes. I am quite aware of that. My point would be it seems the theory was tailored to provide an 'alternative' to God in the fine-tuning. Suspicious old sort that I am.

I don't know what you mean by meeting God on his terms. Also, if I don't believe in God, then it doesn't make sense to go out of my way to conform to those terms. I did believe before... and God didn't save my faith when I most needed him.

I often hear (read) an atheist who says he wants to know God. The statement following is something on the order of "If He would just reveal Himself to me..." Inherent in this is the demand of God to present Himself for introduction and inspection of a sort. God is to make the appointment, show up on schedule, explain Himself and possibly bring beer and pizza.

For instance, such a person may want an explanation of 'pre-destination'. If the interviewer doesn't like pre-destination, then God is on the hook to justify Himself, or alter His position. The issues are many and varied, from 'happiness' - aka 'why don't I have a Mercedes?' to children starving in Africa to homosexual activity to - you get the idea.

Than, if the person thinks God has done an adequate job explaining, AND if the person thinks the 'deal' God presents is attractive, then the person will sign on, but only provisionally; to see how things shake out.

I get the feeling that many who style themselves as 'seekers' think God is selling something, and comparison shopping is in order.

God is not selling anything. He is giving away eternal life - meaning an eternal existence in harmony with Him and in a perfect setting. Not only that, He is the only 'supplier', so to speak.

God does not explain every decision He makes or has made. Nor does God 'dicker' on conditions or universal laws. Not laws of physics, not laws of morality, not laws of entry to Heaven.

To put it another way, if one is going to travel with God, God is going to drive, no further discussion.

When one comes to terms with God, it is to accept God completely - which includes eternal life - and swear absolute and complete fealty to God.

I mentioned once the concept of a 'contract', an oral contract. I still hold to that concept. To be 'saved' (in the jargon) two parties agree on a 'deal'. God promises eternity with Him, and God promises to rebuild the person, starting now, into what the person should be according to God's will. The person promises absolute obedience to and complete dependence on God.

And you're right, if one does not believe God exists and wants one to avoid Hell for eternity, there's no point in doing any of this.

Para, when you became a Christian, do you remember anything of a permanent agreement along these lines?

 

[Paradoxum]

Right. No 'theory' is ever proven, just 'not falsified' in tests resulting from predictions made by the theory. The 'Standard Theory' isn't proven, either; nor Relativity nor the Universal Perversity of Matter. It is just they work so far. The Multiverse theory only 'works' in the sense of 'the math'. To be honest, I don't speak that sort of math, but I have reservations.

The multiverse doesn't have evidence for it, unlike other theories. That's my point. It's just possible.

Oh, yes. I am quite aware of that. My point would be it seems the theory was tailored to provide an 'alternative' to God in the fine-tuning. Suspicious old sort that I am.

I don't think coming up with alternative ideas is particular dastardly. God is one idea, the multiverse is another.

I often hear (read) an atheist who says he wants to know God. The statement following is something on the order of "If He would just reveal Himself to me..." Inherent in this is the demand of God to present Himself for introduction and inspection of a sort. God is to make the appointment, show up on schedule, explain Himself and possibly bring beer and pizza.

He's the invisible one. He can see me... I'm not the one hiding. I can't show myself, it has to be him, since it's I who can't see him, not the other way round.

If God is real, why can't he bring bring alcohol and pizza? He's suppose to be a Father and friend isn't he. Apparently some Christians don't mind the idea of God hanging out with Adam and Eve.

For instance, such a person may want an explanation of 'pre-destination'. If the interviewer doesn't like pre-destination, then God is on the hook to justify Himself, or alter His position. The issues are many and varied, from 'happiness' - aka 'why don't I have a Mercedes?' to children starving in Africa to homosexual activity to - you get the idea.

Than, if the person thinks God has done an adequate job explaining, AND if the person thinks the 'deal' God presents is attractive, then the person will sign on, but only provisionally; to see how things shake out.

I don't see what the problem is with only wanting to follow a good God.

I get the feeling that many who style themselves as 'seekers' think God is selling something, and comparison shopping is in order.

God is not selling anything. He is giving away eternal life - meaning an eternal existence in harmony with Him and in a perfect setting. Not only that, He is the only 'supplier', so to speak.

You say he's giving, not selling, but you talk about a contract later on. Anyway, I'm not against God giving me such a great thing (though I'm concerned about how long it is). I'm also not against a Nigerian prince sending me a million pounds, but if I get a random email offering me that, I might be skeptical.

God does not explain every decision He makes or has made. Nor does God 'dicker' on conditions or universal laws. Not laws of physics, not laws of morality, not laws of entry to Heaven.

I don't know what 'dicker' means. If you're saying that God doesn't follow morality, then that means morality doesn't exist. For it to exist it has to apply to everyone.

To put it another way, if one is going to travel with God, God is going to drive, no further discussion.

When one comes to terms with God, it is to accept God completely - which includes eternal life - and swear absolute and complete fealty to God.

I mentioned once the concept of a 'contract', an oral contract. I still hold to that concept. To be 'saved' (in the jargon) two parties agree on a 'deal'. God promises eternity with Him, and God promises to rebuild the person, starting now, into what the person should be according to God's will. The person promises absolute obedience to and complete dependence on God.

I'd still want to know what I'm getting into.

And you're right, if one does not believe God exists and wants one to avoid Hell for eternity, there's no point in doing any of this.

Para, when you became a Christian, do you remember anything of a permanent agreement along these lines?

I don't know if I prayed that specifically (maybe I did), but I pretty much was intent on trying to do what God wanted.

 

[KCfromNC]

... for sharing.

Sorry, didn't mean to let facts get in the way of the preaching. Carry on.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

... 'dicker' is down home language for 'negotiate' or 'barter'.

 

[woodpecker]

Read books written by atheist, that became enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and then born again.

Atheist are very one dimensional in their thinking. They only except what MAN can prove.

How shallow...I was once in this selfish mind of thinking...man knows it all.

If you truly are a thinker, a mind that is a rational concrete observer, you must ask yourself, why you are not open to all reason?

You are missing soooo much, the world is not just one dimension of reason, but of many...

When you except this...WOW....JESUS will show you such wonders!

 

[Dave Ellis]

Read books written by atheist, that became enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and then born again.

Atheist are very one dimensional in their thinking. They only except what MAN can prove.

Yes, we are one dimensional in that we believe that can be proven to be true, and withhold belief in that which is not evidently true.

That's called being rational and logical. If that makes me "one dimensional", great.

How shallow...I was once in this selfish mind of thinking...man knows it all.

How does that equate to "man knows it all"? That's a strawman fallacy.

We don't think man knows it all, in fact I think we'd all agree there's plenty we don't know. We would say the only things we can justify believing are the things that we can prove though.

If you truly are a thinker, a mind that is a rational concrete observer, you must ask yourself, why you are not open to all reason?

We are open to all reason.... However what you are proposing is not reasonable.

You are missing soooo much, the world is not just one dimension of reason, but of many...

When you except this...WOW....JESUS will show you such wonders!

Ok, what would be an example of "alternate reason" that you are referring to, and how can you show it works?

 

[Paradoxum]

Read books written by atheist, that became enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and then born again.

Atheist are very one dimensional in their thinking. They only except what MAN can prove.

That's the only way to come to any knowledge. Even if you accept the Bible, it's still because you think the Bible is trustworthy for some reason. Thinking that the Bible is trustworthy is a claim to human knowledge.

How shallow...I was once in this selfish mind of thinking...man knows it all.

Well you were a very clever atheist then, because clearly humans don't know it all.

There's nothing selfish about using your brain to come to conclusions. That's just character assassination on people who disagree with you.

If you truly are a thinker, a mind that is a rational concrete observer, you must ask yourself, why you are not open to all reason?

I am. I used to believe, but I lost faith against my will. If there were justifying reason to believe in God, I'd believe.

 

[dysert]

Life is not words on a page. When books start having children, you might have a point, but not until then.

Just give them several hundred million years. Books will start having children just like rocks started having children.

 

[woodpecker]

Pardoxum and Dave, I shared I once thought in your one dimensional reasoning, only believing what science showed me.

There is a world and Being that is not of your thought or mind, but above it...something you will not understand until you open your mind to the supernatural of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

No one can come to the realization of Christ until you let down your walls of human knowledge, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you a demension of love and goodness that will bring you to your knees in worship.

Debate may lead you to this God of the universe, but God will not force His love upon you, you must want it.

I hope you will join my family of Christ.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Pardoxum and Dave, I shared I once thought in your one dimensional reasoning, only believing what science showed me.

There is a world and Being that is not of your thought or mind, but above it...something you will not understand until you open your mind to the supernatural of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

No one can come to the realization of Christ until you let down your walls of human knowledge, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you a demension of love and goodness that will bring you to your knees in worship.

Debate may lead you to this God of the universe, but God will not force His love upon you, you must want it.

I hope you will join my family of Christ.

Again, how do you know this is real and not a self perpetuated delusion?

I mean if you once thought rationally as you claim, you must have had a rational reason for going down the path that you chose. What was that reason?

 

[Paradoxum]

Pardoxum and Dave, I shared I once thought in your one dimensional reasoning, only believing what science showed me.

But now you believe in unicorns and fairies because you don't use your brain to figure out what there is evidence for?

I don't only believe in what science shows. I also use reason, and that isn't one dimensional.

There is a world and Being that is not of your thought or mind, but above it...something you will not understand until you open your mind to the supernatural of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

No one can come to the realization of Christ until you let down your walls of human knowledge, and ask the Holy Spirit to show you a demension of love and goodness that will bring you to your knees in worship.

Debate may lead you to this God of the universe, but God will not force His love upon you, you must want it.

I hope you will join my family of Christ.

I used to be a committed Christian who loved God. My lack of belief doesn't come from not wanting to believe. As I lost faith I begged God to reassure my faith. He didn't.

The reason I don't believe is because I don't see good enough reasons to believe. I don't reason any more one dimensional now than when I was a Christian.

 

[Nibru]

I'd like to join into the discussion, given I haven't really read everything in this thread. So here I go.

So I'd like say to say that the possibility of God or any other higher being is definitely possible, but on the Biblical side of God isn't as likely, and there may be much more to the story of God and what happened prior to the beginning than what we were told. Perhaps a conspiracy, or maybe just mistranslations over time, we won't know as of who we are now.

There are 4 options to consider to the creation of everything that I have come up over the years of thinking about this.

1: Creation from Nothing
- Literally popping out of nothing, including space and time
- This is the supernatural option, it's logically and scientifically impossible. If one believes this, they're literally on the same level of some religious fanatic that they brag how much they hate.

2: Creation from Infinity
- Infinite creations of itself. An good example would be God creating the universe, and a higher being creating that God, and so on and so forth.
- This is considered impossible since we would literally go on forever, we have not seen nor can comprehend this idea fully. However I do think this can be possible based on the correct conditions, much like how a computer can do this effortlessly.
- Gives the idea of a computerized universe.

3: Creation from Paradox
- This option is how people (or any other form that can do this) goes back in time and unleashes The Big Bang
- This is convenient if time is linear
- If the multi-world theory is true, then there would be much, much more states of parallel worlds than we would realize.
- This is plausible, yet very limiting at the same time.

4: Creation from Beyond
- This option is how there are more things than time, space, matter, and reality as we know it. This is something I heard Plato talked about how there are people born in a cave and sees a shadow without seeing the real object, and how they come to believe the shadow is a real object.
- This option is very much abused, with answers of "God is the answer!" to "Zeus is the answer!" just to please their beliefs, biased confirmation.
- We can't go further into the option since it's exactly stating that there are more things that we can't conveniently comprehend. Not limiting on the idea, but very limiting how we can tackle this option.

Given this, I'll say that option 4 is most plausible for me. As said, our senses are flawed, our feelings triumph in the most absurd times, we hallucinate, and we certainly, certainly, are very commonly narrow-minded. How can we know?

Of course, trying to find the answer of what Option 4 is is suicide, it's a rabbit hole.

I find the atheist answer, understandable. Of course, when they say "the universe came from nothing", I'll give them the same reaction to them when some Cthulhu believer introduces me to their religion. I don't have anything against Cthulhu believers and atheists, I actually like the variety of beliefs and how fun it is to explore every side of this angle. But it kills since there are just too many assumptions and no progression. Even so, there is no progression because there is no clear foot step to step on in the outside world, we don't know where to go except our own mind.


I've seen articles Double-Slit experiment and how the mind works, and so far it certainly isn't an easy answer. We still question "What's matter? Really?", "What's light?" (light both acts like a wave and particle), "What's consciousness?", "What's out there?". How can we find out what's beyond reality when we can't even figure out what's here!? We're certainly skipping lessons on our textbook.


Above all this, above all the misunderstandings, truths, and lies, I certainly know there is something, what it is out there. While we may hallucinate with our senses, our own conscious doesn't trick itself, and that's good. That's a start. And based on my own logic, that the idea of the universe coming out of nothing is as religious as the Bible. Based on faith and belief.

Based on my own experience, an average atheist will say "I will deny everything until it is proven", is pseudo-skepticism. I suppose we'll need to always carry microscopes when we discuss the existence of bacteria instead of having pictures and text about it!

 

[Ruthie24]

I'm content in knowing I don't have all the answers. I can do my best with what God's given me to find them, but I'll never know the whole truth. When you really think about it, human beings are literally a speck of dust compared to the great cosmic universe and the awesomeness of God. For me to say there is no God, is basically to deny all of existence, but that's just my observation. Not a big deal if you don't believe the way I do, I'm content with my faith in Christ.