God the middleman

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, I said most of the evidence points in the direction of those being true and they are the majority view, but I never said I knew for certain. I just agree with the majority view and most of the evidence.
Huh? You have provided zero evidence for these unfounded claims:

You claimed that there can be no spacetime other than that which is part of the Big Bang. You do not know that.

You claimed that there can be no physical matter or actions other than that which is part of the Big Bang. You do not know that.​

Your evidence for this: Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

How can you say zero is equivalent to the most evidence?

And no, this absolutely is not the majority view.

Neither me nor them claimed to know this for certain, they only believe that presently that is where the evidence points.
Huh? Saying you don't know it for certain does not alleviate the problem that you are making wild guesses with no evidence. You simply have no evidence for what happened before Planck time.


No, even Hawking himself admitted it in his book. Hawking, Brief History, pages, 138–39, 164–65. And he admitted in the book that the universe is in fact constrained by real time.
Perhaps he said this about the universe created by the Big Bang. But for that which is before Planck Time, he has no possible way of knowing that. Our knowledge of physics breaks down at that point.

And no, "no possible way of knowing that" is not the same as "Ed1wolf is probably right."


Straw man see above.
Flapdoodle.

Once again the breakdown of physics at Planck time has bugged physicists for years. Nobody has resolved it. If you think they have resolved it, but are only pretending they haven't resolved it because the resolution leads to God, then please tell us how it was resolved.

For instance:

Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only an all-encompassing theory of quantum gravity which unifies these two fundamental pillars of physics could provide an insight into how the universe began...For almost a century, the two major theories of physics have coexisted but have been irreconcilable:Physicists Take a New Approach to Unify Quantum Theory and Theory of Relativity (scitechdaily.com)

And no, "irreconcilable" does not mean "it probably happened the way Ed1wolf says it happened". Irreconcilable means it cannot be understood with our current understanding of physics.

The space-time theorems, in the framework of classical general relativity prove that if the universe contains mass and if the equations of general relativity reliably describe the universe's dynamics then its space and time dimensions must have had a beginning that coincides with the universe's origin.
...if one ignores quantum mechanics. You forgot that part.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Why does God exist, though?
Why does anything exist?

If he is God, he is the reason for anything to exist. Existence, indeed fact itself, reality, comes from him.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
But there is also a serious philosophical problem with an eternal God. If God is eternal then we would never reach the present, but yet here we are
Uhh no, we dont live in God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,591
71
Bondi
✟248,693.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ok so you admit it had a beginning. Good because the science has pretty much proven that.
Eternal doesn't mean it had a beginning. Do you think that God had a beginning?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Ok so you admit it had a beginning. Good because the science has pretty much proven that.
Define "it".

If it refers to the universe that came from the big bang, yes, science has shown that to be finite in duration (but not necessarily in physical size).

But if it refers to the entire state of reality, including anything before Planck Time, then no, science emphatically states that we don't know.

Once again you state that "we don't know" equals ed1wolf knows. That is flapdoodle.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Why does God exist, though?

Why does anything exist?

If he is God, he is the reason for anything to exist. Existence, indeed fact itself, reality, comes from him.
I asked "Why does God exist". If God exists, then He is part of 'existence itself' and is not the cause of 'existence itself' because that would mean He causes Himself to exist. If God is real, then He is part of 'reality itself' and is not the cause of 'reality itself' because that would mean he causes Himself to be real.

So why does God exist? Obviously any Christian is going to say that all the stuff exists because God creates it. God is part of "anything", so why does God exist?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,622
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,935.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I asked "Why does God exist". If God exists, then He is part of 'existence itself' and is not the cause of 'existence itself' because that would mean He causes Himself to exist. If God is real, then He is part of 'reality itself' and is not the cause of 'reality itself' because that would mean he causes Himself to be real.

So why does God exist? Obviously any Christian is going to say that all the stuff exists because God creates it. God is part of "anything", so why does God exist?
Wrong. God's existence is our description of him, our way of looking at it, not his. We say he exists, because we can say no other, as accurately. He is not subject to the principle we refer to as 'existence'. That principle proceeds from him --not to him from outside himself. He is First Cause. Omnipotent; not governed by any principle or fact from outside himself.

You are letting terminology push your mind around.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Define "it".

If it refers to the universe that came from the big bang, yes, science has shown that to be finite in duration (but not necessarily in physical size).

But if it refers to the entire state of reality, including anything before Planck Time, then no, science emphatically states that we don't know.

Once again you state that "we don't know" equals ed1wolf knows. That is flapdoodle.
It refers to space, time, and matter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
If "it" refers to space, time, and matter, then you have no evidence that "it" is finite in duration.
Nevertheless most cosmologists agree that space, time, and matter began to exist around 13.8 bya, thereby confirming that they are effects.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Nevertheless most cosmologists agree that space, time, and matter began to exist around 13.8 bya, thereby confirming that they are effects.
You are confusing the Big Bang with all existence.

Most leading cosmologists think that there is/was something in existence other than that which came from the Big Bang.

And what the hey, even you agree that something existed other than that which came from the Big Bang.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I am just saying inventing and inserting something into his theory as speculative as imaginary time is a little suspicious.
And I am just saying inventing and inserting something into your theory as speculative as an imaginary God is a little suspicious.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You are confusing the Big Bang with all existence.

Most leading cosmologists think that there is/was something in existence other than that which came from the Big Bang.
Not according to Natural History Magazine as I explained earlier. And if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing.

dm: And what the hey, even you agree that something existed other than that which came from the Big Bang.
True, logic points to His existence.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
And I am just saying inventing and inserting something into your theory as speculative as an imaginary God is a little suspicious.
Actually there is a great deal of scientific, philosophical, and historical evidence for the existence of the Christian God, so His existence is hardly an invention or speculative.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Wrong. God's existence is our description of him, our way of looking at it, not his. We say he exists, because we can say no other, as accurately. He is not subject to the principle we refer to as 'existence'. That principle proceeds from him --not to him from outside himself. He is First Cause. Omnipotent; not governed by any principle or fact from outside himself.

You are letting terminology push your mind around.
So you're just redefining words then.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Actually there is a great deal of scientific, philosophical, and historical evidence for the existence of the Christian God, so His existence is hardly an invention or speculative.
Wait. You guys have evidence?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Not according to Natural History Magazine as I explained earlier.
Uh, excuse me, but so far you have given us zero evidence from Natural History to support your cause.

Zero.

What you said is that a Dr. Goldsmith wrote a response to a letter to the editor that somehow supports your cause. Your refuse to quote what Dr. Goldsmith said. You refuse to give us a citation so we can look it up ourselves. All we know is somebody on the Internet that goes by Ed1Wolf spouts all this stuff that is the opposite of science and claims that he has supporting documentation that he refuses to share. That's not very convincing.

In the meantime, I suggest you read something from mainstream science on the Big Bang. You could correct all your misunderstandings if you actually read what a real scientist wrote about it, instead of what some creationist book tells you that they say.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Uh, excuse me, but so far you have given us zero evidence from Natural History to support your cause.

Zero.

What you said is that a Dr. Goldsmith wrote a response to a letter to the editor that somehow supports your cause. Your refuse to quote what Dr. Goldsmith said. You refuse to give us a citation so we can look it up ourselves. All we know is somebody on the Internet that goes by Ed1Wolf spouts all this stuff that is the opposite of science and claims that he has supporting documentation that he refuses to share. That's not very convincing.
I gave you the citation but because the magazine no longer exists, you may have to pay to see the archives. Here is his exact quote "The question of what existed before the Big Bang remains largely unresolved, though the most widely accepted answer among cosmologists is that nothing existed, not even space and time." BTW, another serious problem with the universe being the result of a quantum event. According to many physicists a quantum event can not occur without an observer. There were no human observers 13.8 bya, but according to the Bible there was an observer there at that time. Guess who?

dm: In the meantime, I suggest you read something from mainstream science on the Big Bang. You could correct all your misunderstandings if you actually read what a real scientist wrote about it, instead of what some creationist book tells you that they say.
I have read books and articles by Paul Davies and Hawking and Penrose.
 
Upvote 0