In the beginning there was a Big Bang ...

[Skaloop]

I heard a Professor give his answer to the student who asked "Where did the matter and energy for the Big Bang come from?"

The wise old professor answered speaking to several hundred in the lecture hall, "As we continue back to to the Big Bang we arrive at the beginning of time and space, beyond which it makes no sence to proceed. And if that answer does not satisfy you, young lady, then the School of Theology is across the hall".

Wait, this parable is meant to be an argument for God? Because it comes off as the opposite.

And even if it were true, it's meaningless; a professor's quip during a lecture does not overrule decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics.

 

[Ectezus]

Wait, this parable is meant to be an argument for God? Because it comes off as the opposite.

And even if it were true, it's meaningless; a professor's quip during a lecture does not overrule decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics.

He probably made the quote up but yeah I had the same thought:

I find it funny that you actually considered that quote from the professor to be an argument FOR god rather than against it.
Because it's quite clear he was mocking religion.

What the professor was saying is that it's impossible to know what really happened with out current scientific data. And if that answer doesn't satisfy you, you can go over to the realm of myths and fairytales to provide you an answer that is based on absolutely no evidence at all.

It just shows that some religious people really think they have more knowledge than PhD scientists.
More knowledge without having to study years and years on a particular subject, and all coming from a 2000 year old book.

It never ceases to amaze me.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

And even if it were true, it's meaningless; a professor's quip during a lecture does not overrule decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics.

Decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics says nothing about what happened prior to the Big Bang --- which is where this parable leaves off.

Let me try this, from a TE's perspective, where I believe it would make the most sense.


Reverse engineering time back to the moment of the Big Expansion, we now arrive at the question that is being asked: "Where did the matter and energy for the Big Bang come from"?

At this point, the answer is easy: "From God".

But since the topic of the lecture is [probably] science --- then the professor is simply saying, "The answer to this question is now outside of the realm of science, and into the realm of the Divine. Please ask the Theology professor across the hall."

Again, though, I'm answering this from what I think would be a TE perspective.

 

[AV1611VET]

It just shows that some religious people really think they have more knowledge than PhD scientists.
More knowledge without having to study years and years on a particular subject, and all coming from a 2000 year old book.

Fine --- what's the answer to the question then?

What does all your education say, Ectezus?

I asked essentially the same question in the form of a challenge (I can't remember the name of it right now), and to this day, am awaiting an answer.

(I'll see if I can find it.)

ETA: here it is --- 1

 

[Skaloop]

Decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics says nothing about what happened prior to the Big Bang --- which is where this parable leaves off.

Let me try this, from a TE's perspective, where I believe it would make the most sense.

Reverse engineering time back to the moment of the Big Expansion, we now arrive at the question that is being asked: "Where did the matter and energy for the Big Bang come from"?

At this point, the answer is easy: "From God".

Sure, that's an easy answer. But it's meaningless and unfounded and lacks any actual explanatory power. An easy answer isn't necessarily the correct answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, that's an easy answer. But it's meaningless and unfounded and lacks any actual explanatory power. An easy answer isn't necessarily the correct answer.

And again --- what do your ...

...decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics...

... tell you?

 

[Skaloop]

And again --- what do your ...... tell you?

More than the Bible tells us. Sure, it's not complete, and perhaps the Bible does have more detail about the issue, but again, that doesn't explain anything.

Science gives us certain facts (or, facts as best as we can know right now) while the Bible gives pure speculation. Even if god did create the universe, science tells us more about how he did it than your mythology ever could.

 

[AV1611VET]

More than the Bible tells us. Sure, it's not complete, and perhaps the Bible does have more detail about the issue, but again, that doesn't explain anything.

Science gives us certain facts (or, facts as best as we can know right now) while the Bible gives pure speculation. Even if god did create the universe, science tells us more about how he did it than your mythology ever could.

Skaloop, do you understand what I'm asking?

To be honest, I think you made a mistake when you basically said that "decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics says otherwise", as the OP is asking where mass and energy come from.

A subject that I don't believe astrophysics can even touch on, let alone have "decades" worth of discoveries in its arsenal.

And the closest I ever came to studying astrophysics was taking an introductory course in Space Technology.

ETA: And yes, the Bible clearly tells us where mass and energy first came from.

• Astrophysics: 0
• Genesis 1

 

[Skaloop]

Skaloop, do you understand what I'm asking?

To be honest, I think you made a mistake when you basically said that "decades of study and discoveries in astrophysics says otherwise", as the OP is asking where mass and energy come from.

Fine. Yes, we don't know where mass and energy came from. Neither do you.

ETA: And yes, the Bible clearly tells us where mass and energy first came from.

• Astrophysics: 0
• Genesis: 1

I say mass and energy came from a giant pirate. That's as good as your assertion. Genesis may make a case for what happened, but it gives no idea of how it happened. And the how is more important than the what.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis may make a case for what happened, but it gives no idea of how it happened.

If Genesis gives no idea of how it happened --- where did this Wikipedia entry come from?

The Latin phrase ex nihilo means "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". Due to the connotations of the phrase creatio ex nihilo, it often occurs in philosophical or creationistic arguments, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that God created the universe from nothing. This contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of eternally pre-existent matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).

 

[Ectezus]

Fine --- what's the answer to the question then?

I already answered the question in post #6.

It is indeed impossible to know with our current knowledge.
I myself do find it hard to imagine how something can always have existed without being created.
However, the logic that god must have done it because it's impossible otherwise is really strange because they argue that god himself always existed. If THAT is possible then it might just aswell have been the case for energy & matter.

So I ask you Evet,

1. Who created your god?
2. And if god always existed, then why couldn't matter have always existed as well?
Try to answer with logic (meaning no bible quotes).

If you argue that everything must have a creator, then so must you god, if you argue that not everything must have a creator (ie; your god), then you can apply that same logic to matter as well.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

So I ask you Evet,

1. Who created your god?
2. And if god always existed, then why couldn't matter have always existed as well?

Will-do:

1. God is self-existent.
2. What this proposes is called creatio ex materia, and if God ceased from creatio ex materia, then such miracles as sustaining the widow of Zarephath's food supply, or turning water into wine would make Him out to be incorrect --- and since God is True, and every man a liar --- well, there's your logic.

 

[Ectezus]

Will-do, Actezus:

1. God is self-existent.
2. What this proposes is called creatio ex materia, and if God ceased from creatio ex materia, then such miracles as sustaining the widow of Zarephath's food supply, or turning water into wine would make Him out to be incorrect --- and since God is True, and every man a liar --- well, there's your logic.

So basically your argument is that god can't be from 'pre-existing matter' because that would be in contradiction with a very old book?

The whole point is that you are using double standards. You say your god always existed, yet matter can't.

I know we'll not agree on this but do you at least see why this type of 'reasoning' makes no sense to non-believers?


- Ectezus

 

[Hespera]

i think he is saying that "god" isnt made out of anything, and i would agree with that.
Though I can see where that leads, and most likely AV isnt ready for that step, ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know we'll not agree on this but do you at least see why this type of 'reasoning' makes no sense to non-believers?

I sure do --- remember this?

Try to answer with logic (meaning no bible quotes).

You don't want Bible quotes --- then you want to stand around and scratch your head and wonder why we believe what we believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

So basically your argument is that god can't be from 'pre-existing matter' because that would be in contradiction with a very old book?

i think he is saying that "god" isnt made out of anything...

And once again, Ectezus, Hespera nails it.

 

[Ectezus]

I sure do --- remember this?You don't want Bible quotes --- then you want to stand around and scratch your head and wonder why we believe what we believe.

I don't want bible quotes because they only mean something for believers. Therefore trying to prove a point with it to a non-believer seems rather silly.

Anyway, ok so your god is made out of nothing, yet is everything. Gotcha.

Still my question remains:
Don't you think you use double standards for saying your god always existed, yet matter can't?

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you think you use double standards for saying your god always existed, yet matter can't?

Please show me where I said that --- preferably highlighting it in red --- thank you.

 

[Ectezus]

Please show me where I said that --- preferably highlighting it in red --- thank you.

So when you answered my question "And if god always existed, then why couldn't matter have always existed as well?" you just responded only about god and made no reference about matter even though that was what the question was about?

So Avet, do you agree that if god can always have existed without the need for a creator, then the same can apply to matter & energy as well?

Obviously not at the same time, that would contradict with a book! But if you make the "always existed" argument, then so can I regarding matter & energy.

- Ectezus

 

[juvenissun]

I heard a Professor give his answer to the student who asked "Where did the matter and energy for the Big Bang come from?"

The wise old professor answered speaking to several hundred in the lecture hall, "As we continue back to to the Big Bang we arrive at the beginning of time and space, beyond which it makes no sence to proceed. And if that answer does not satisfy you, young lady, then the School of Theology is across the hall".

Do you still read this thread you started? Don't be surprised, every thread in this forum looks like this one. A very interesting feature.

Theoretical physics does explore the possibility before the big bang. The ideas could be very interesting to theologians.