Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I'm sorry, the reason it is important to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning is that theism (Christianity) predicts that this universe had a beginning.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm sorry, the reason it is important to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning is that theism (Christianity) predicts that this universe had a beginning.I haven't claimed that it didn't. I've stated many times what my point is: that the universe having a beginning is not the same thing as it coming from nothing. They are two very different things.
Now, since I answered your counter question, would you mind answering my original question?
Why is it important for you to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning?
Scientists are the ones claiming this you know.No, it doesn't.
Most scientists feel this way, yes.
It is NOT the same thing as the universe came from nothing.
I'm sorry, the reason it is important to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning is that theism (Christianity) predicts that this universe had a beginning.
I don't remember being huffy?I see. So why get all huffy when I suggested that this is what you were after, earlier?
I don't remember being huffy?
Are you trying to tell me what I'm arguing as if you know and I don't. Rather arrogant don't you think? I've not claimed nor implied that God started "it all with our universe". This link provided the support for MY CLAIM that there was nothing and then there was our universe with space, matter, energy and time. His evidence said that going back there is nothing...nothing at all and then there is something...our universe. What comes prior if there is a prior to this nothing and then something be it trillions and trillions of universes or absolutely nothing whatsoever is not part of my claim.
MY links provided those. You are referring to the universe coming from nothing right?Show me a couple scientists who claim something came from nothing.
Oh, well I guess you are right. I suppose you would feel the same if someone was claiming that they know better what you are arguing than you do.here:
MY links provided those. You are referring to the universe coming from nothing right?
I pointed out where they said it was from nothing.One of them claims the universe came as a result of the expansion of other universes, not nothing.
The other claims the universe came from quantum interactions, not nothing. (interestingly, he (Davies) does give a little credence to the idea of multiple universes, too. )
I pointed out where they said it was from nothing.
It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. Paul Davies
But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
It doesn't matter. The evidence is that there was nothing...nothing at all prior to the Big Bang and then there was our universe.Does Vilenkin state that the universe is a result of the expansion of other another universe, or not?
Does Davies state that the universe came from quantum fluctuation, or not?
It doesn't matter. The evidence is that there was nothing...nothing at all prior to the Big Bang and then there was our universe.
They both do. Again:Of course it matters. I asked you to provide a couple examples of scientists who argue that something came from nothing, since that is what you claimed scientists do.
Neither of those scientists claim that something comes from nothing.
They both do. Again:
Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.
I'm not evading, it simply doesn't matter.Does Vilenkin state that the universe is a result of the expansion of other another universe, or not?
Does Davies state that the universe came from quantum fluctuation, or not?
If it doesn't matter, why evade the answers?
Nope.There was nothing on top of a table, then there was a cup. There were absolutely no cups on the table previously. Nothing occupied that space until the cup was there. Is that something from nothing?
Nope.
Did Paul Davies say that nothing was nothing... no pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges?
Ok, so now you are fine with the natural laws existing before our universe? Great!God is not part of the natural world He created, the laws of physic are what governs the natural world that He created because the laws of physics are laws that the law giver gave. The laws of physics make more sense in theism than they do by a purely naturalistic worldview. The laws would be part of the law giver, the fine tuner and the creator of the natural world and as such would be prior to the natural world existing as they existed in the mind of God prior to His creation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?