God as our creator.

[Avonia]

I would not call it a mere assumption. Nothing ever comes from nothing. So, the existence of something directly indicates a source or creator.

Well said.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It does not matter from the standpoint of causality.

Only because you conclude that it was not the cause. I'm trying to understand why you reach that conclusion.

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Only because you conclude that it was not the cause.

No.

I'm trying to understand why you reach that conclusion.

God neither lives nor dies on the big bang. The big bang may change your concept of God.

Learning about the big bang affects the nature of God no more than learning about Copernican heliocentrism. However, the heliocentric model for many appeared to be contrary to the Bible.

God Is. Either way.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

No. God neither lives nor dies on the big bang.

We are grappling with the concept of "creator." If the big bang is a source of creation, we may either conclude that there are other sources or that there are no other sources. Either way, we must address whether the big bang is a source of creation.

God Is. Either way.

A number of people would disagree with this assumption. How do we know?

BFA

 

[Avonia]

If the big bang is a source of creation

There is a difference between a mechanism and the Source. The mechanism exists below the line of creation. Source is above the line of creation. Source Is.

A number of people would disagree with this assumption. How do we know?

You are still confusing deciding and knowing. For an analogy, we know gravity. We don't have to decide whether it is or it isn't. Even if we deny the label "gravity," we are still in relationship with it - but within a different storyline than those who decide gravity is one of the four fundamental forces. Named or not, gravity still is.

The confusion in Christianity is the isolation of God to the other. Be this white-bearded man returning on a cloud, or landlord of heaven.

There is no way not to know God, because every way you know, is a knowing about God. The domain you currently occupy did not pull off an escape from the whole.

 

[AzA]

The big bang theory seems to be built upon the assumption that "what did it" is a better question than "who did it."

No, the BB theory doesn't address cause; it only addresses process. It theoretically rewinds from our current expansion back to a singularity, and then presses play again after the singularity burst outwards. There's no hint in the theory of what did it -- we still don't have the tools to describe that.

That is the gap that science cannot describe -- and scientists know this and do not mind.

 

[sentipente]

Without understanding the basis, it seems to be a mere assumption and it seems that any number of other assumptions could be equally considered.



Yet another assumption. What is the basis?



The conclusion is built on assumptions. What is the basis of those assumptions? How do we know that such statements are true?

BFA

I take it you have proven that something can be produced from nothing. Please go ahead and provide that evidence. It may not be possible to prove an assumption but one can certainly disprove one.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I take it you have proven that something can be produced from nothing.

Could I not say the same? I am sure we are both aware that there are many who believe that something can be produced from nothing. Have you proven that their conclusion is false?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

No, the BB theory doesn't address cause; it only addresses process.

According to BB theorists, the process is the cause.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

There is a difference between a mechanism and the Source. The mechanism exists below the line of creation. Source is above the line of creation. Source Is.

You are still confusing deciding and knowing. For an analogy, we know gravity. We don't have to decide whether it is or it isn't. Even if we deny the label "gravity," we are still in relationship with it - but within a different storyline than those who decide gravity is one of the four fundamental forces. Named or not, gravity still is.

The confusion in Christianity is the isolation of God to the other. Be this white-bearded man returning on a cloud, or landlord of heaven.

There is no way not to know God, because every way you know, is a knowing about God. The domain you currently occupy did not pull off an escape from the whole.

Your theory is built on the assumption that the source is a "who" while some others believe that the source is a "what." At the end of the day, does it all come down to what does person A believe versus what does person B believe or is there a way to just "know?" You seem to claim the latter but I don't follow the thought process.

BFA

 

[Avonia]

Your theory is built on the assumption that the source is a "who" while some others believe that the source is a "what."

You are thinking too discretely - that God is a "who" at the exclusion of a "what."

 

[AzA]

According to BB theorists, the process is the cause.

That's quite a common misconception.

 

[StormyOne]

You are thinking too discretely - that God is a "who" at the exclusion of a "what."

let me revise a saying of mine to reflect this..... two dimensional beliefs in a multi-dimensional reality....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

You are thinking too discretely - that God is a "who" at the exclusion of a "what."

According to Senti, you must first define who or what God is. Feel free to take that on. In the meantime, I continue to wonder whether we are merely swapping ideas and beliefs (as opposed to delving into something that is known).

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

That's quite a common misconception.

How so?

BFA

 

[AzA]

How so?

Because the BB theory doesn't say "In the beginning..." It says "After the beginning."

It picks up the story after a singularity has formed and existed, after the rules that govern that singularity have been put in motion, and after the singularity has begun to expand to unfold what we observe now.

It has no data from which to develop a theory about who or what had already happened to form the singularity, establish the rules, or trigger its expansion. The BB only describes the process of expansion that we continue to experience today. The process is not the cause; the cause itself requires a precipitant, and science has no data on what happened to the Big that precipitated the bang.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Because the BB theory doesn't say "In the beginning..." It says "After the beginning."

Those who espouse the theory view the BB as "the birth of the universe."

BFA

 

[AzA]

Those who espouse the theory view the BB as "the birth of the universe."

That characterization is partially accurate given that the universe was in the singularity, but sheds no light on which womb the singularity or its rules emerged from, why, or how. For this reason, as we stated two pages ago, it does not answer questions about creation causes and so does not compete with any creator theory, theist, nontheist, alien, or otherwise.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

That characterization is partially accurate given that the universe was in the singularity, but sheds no light on which womb the singularity or its rules emerged from, why, or how. For this reason, as we stated two pages ago, it does not answer questions about creation causes and so does not compete with any creator theory, theist, nontheist, alien, or otherwise.

Simple question--does every human accept what you call a creator theory? There seems to be an assumption that all humans know this to be true.

BFA

 

[AzA]

Simple question--does every human accept what you call a creator theory? There seems to be an assumption that all humans know this to be true.

I don't know what every human believes or doesn't believe.