The flaming sword

[GodSchism]

Most of you atheists believe in a big bang. How did the big bang occur? Nothing created something? Nothing cannot create something. So what started the big bang? The universe created itself. What? The universe created itself out of nothing? Hypocrites.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Most of you atheists believe in a big bang. How did the big bang occur? Nothing created something? Nothing cannot create something. So what started the big bang? The universe created itself. What? The universe created itself out of nothing? Hypocrites.

How did God appear out of nothing? What created God?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Opethian]

The nice thing about science is that it doesn't claim anything as truth until it has sufficient evidence. We can say with great certainty that the big bang occurred. What exactly caused the big bang is still under research, although there are a few hypothesises. Religion just says goddidit and explains basically nothing, since god itself needs explanation too. Science will keep progressing and we will gain more and more insight in the world. Religion will stay the same and bring nothing useful to the world.

 

[GodSchism]

How did God appear out of nothing? What created God?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nothing created God. God always existed. If God is to be God then he must be infinite in nature. If God is infinite then the possession must be infinite. That's why in scripture it says there was not a time that Jesus did not exist. Jesus always existed.

 

[GodSchism]

The nice thing about science is that it doesn't claim anything as truth until it has sufficient evidence. We can say with great certainty that the big bang occurred. What exactly caused the big bang is still under research, although there are a few hypothesises. Religion just says goddidit and explains basically nothing, since god itself needs explanation too. Science will keep progressing and we will gain more and more insight in the world. Religion will stay the same and bring nothing useful to the world.

Without Christianity, the known moral code would not be what it is right now. Jesus says God is love. If God is to be love then it must be perfect love.
Isn't one of the hypothesises that the universe was created from a singularity. What created the singularity. Nothing cannot create something.
All gnostics know that this universe was created by a demiurge. Go with your science if you want because you will never gain any understanding.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nothing created God. God always existed.

My belief is that the universe has always existed. For so long as time (i.e. change) has existed, the universe has always been there. It never popped in out of nothing. My reasons for thinking this are mainly philosophical.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GodSchism]

My belief is that the universe has always existed. For so long as time (i.e. change) has existed, the universe has always been there. It never popped in out of nothing. My reasons for thinking this are mainly philosophical.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Scientists have recently discovered that the universe is still expanding. Can you take this into account? Look it up if you don't believe me.
If you listen to me then you will gain some understanding to how the universe is still expanding. It is gnostic knowledge. When a physical reality hits a vaccuum, that vaccuum becomes a physical reality.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Scientists have recently discovered that the universe is still expanding. Can you take this into account?

What would need to be taken into account? What would the problem with this be?

Look it up if you don't believe me.

I follow the latest in cosmology. Yes, I know about this.

If you listen to me then you will gain some understanding to how the universe is still expanding. It is gnostic knowledge. When a physical reality hits a vaccuum, that vaccuum becomes a physical reality.

This is not a view supported by modern science. I don't see why I should take gnosticism seriously as a guide to physics or cosmology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord_Marx]

Most of you atheists believe in a big bang. How did the big bang occur? Nothing created something? Nothing cannot create something. So what started the big bang? The universe created itself. What? The universe created itself out of nothing? Hypocrites.

I don't know what caused the Big Bang. Humans can't hope to fully understand everything in the universe, only a fool would claim that we could ever know everything.

 

[JGL53]

Most of you atheists believe in a big bang. How did the big bang occur? Nothing created something? Nothing cannot create something. So what started the big bang? The universe created itself. What? The universe created itself out of nothing? Hypocrites.

What scientist has said the Big Bang "created itself out of nothing"? There is no "nothing". There is only something. The universe evolved from something.

There is no reason to automatically assume that the Big Bang HAD to have been the only one. There could be an infinite number of them. I think that more likely than an eternal person speaking stuff into existence out of nothing. Your god is the one that supposedly works with nothing, not science.

And BTW, if you depend on scientific theory to provide argument for your invisible god, then you could be building your house on sand. Science progresses and changing with time. What if science demonstates at some future date that the expansion theory and the Big Bang theory were wrong and that the evidence shows that the universe is self-existing and eternal. What - do you become an atheist then?

No you won't - you will not give up your belief in god based on scientific evidence. Thus, I think you should leave off offering up science as proof of your god. You must either eat your cake or have it - you can't do both. Homey don't play dat.

 

[GodSchism]

What would need to be taken into account? What would the problem with this be?



I follow the latest in cosmology. Yes, I know about this.



This is not a view supported by modern science. I don't see why I should take gnosticism seriously as a guide to physics or cosmology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If the universe always existed then why would it need to expand. Without the expansion, the universe would be whole and complete. It would not find it necessary to expand it's boundaries. In other words, if the universe always existed then it would not be necessary to expand it's boundaries.
If the universe always existed then when did it start to expand its boundaries. Did it just say one day, I will create more of myself? No. Because that would give a living-will to matter and energy. The expansions dictates that the universe began at a point and expanded from there. It's expansion can only be explained in one way, when a physical reality 'hits' a vaccuum that vaccuum becomes a physical reality-an explosive force creating more matter and energy. The mere existence of energy suggests this explosive force. The universe will never stop expanding through the infinite vaccuum. It is a universe without end.
All gnostics know that this universe was created by a demiurge. A demiurge is an imperfect God. One that is not evil but not totally good. Not to say that he is evil. He is a creator and he only created the universe in the only way he knew how--that's all existence suggests. The Jehovah of the bible being none other than the demiurge himself. Note, Christ came from the logos, which is the identity of God's true form. When Christ died he became Jehovah. The demiurge is the Father-God of this universe. He created Heaven and earth. But he is also called the god of the blind. In scripture it says the god of this world has blinded those who don't believe. He's merely done this because he doesn't want to lose control of his creation. He wants to reign on top since he created this universe, so he has blinded man from knowing the truth.

 

[GodSchism]

I don't know what caused the Big Bang. Humans can't hope to fully understand everything in the universe, only a fool would claim that we could ever know everything.

I don't claim to know everything. Who wants to know the all? I do know that nothing cannot create something. You can say that the universe began as any 'seed' that you like but what created that 'seed'. Nothing cannot create something. Nothing could not have seeded itself.

 

[GodSchism]

What scientist has said the Big Bang "created itself out of nothing"? There is no "nothing". There is only something. The universe evolved from something.

There is no reason to automatically assume that the Big Bang HAD to have been the only one. There could be an infinite number of them. I think that more likely than an eternal person speaking stuff into existence out of nothing. Your god is the one that supposedly works with nothing, not science.

And BTW, if you depend on scientific theory to provide argument for your invisible god, then you could be building your house on sand. Science progresses and changing with time. What if science demonstates at some future date that the expansion theory and the Big Bang theory were wrong and that the evidence shows that the universe is self-existing and eternal. What - do you become an atheist then?

No you won't - you will not give up your belief in god based on scientific evidence. Thus, I think you should leave off offering up science as proof of your god. You must either eat your cake or have it - you can't do both. Homey don't play dat.

Like I said, you can suggest that the universe created itself from any 'seed' that you can imagine. But the mere evidence that the universe is still expanding suggests that existence is filling an infinite vaccuum. Like a painter painting something on a blank canvas. If an infinite vaccuum exists beyond the boundaries of the universe then that would suggest that the entire universe was a vaccuum--a vaccuum is nothing. Nothing cannot create something. Something had to have planted a 'seed' within nothing to fill it and make it something. The 'seed' could not have created itself because the mere evidence that the universe is still expanding suggests that before anything there was nothing. Nothing cannot create something.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If the universe always existed then why would it need to expand.

Need? A living being may have needs, but a universe does not.

But I'm not saying that time/change has always existed. There might very well have been a beginning to time, which would have been the start of change. However, for all of time, the universe has existed.

If the universe always existed then when did it start to expand its boundaries. Did it just say one day, I will create more of myself? No. Because that would give a living-will to matter and energy.

You are right. It didn't wait for millions of years and then suddenly start to do something. Once it started to do something, that was the beginning of time. There was no wait.

The expansions dictates that the universe began at a point and expanded from there. It's expansion can only be explained in one way, when a physical reality 'hits' a vaccuum that vaccuum becomes a physical reality-an explosive force creating more matter and energy.

There is no vacuum "outside" of the universe. There is no space outside of the universe. There is no "outside" of the universe. Expansion refers to the increase of distances between entities within the universe. The universe is not "hitting" on anything.

All gnostics know that this universe was created by a demiurge.

No, that is what they believe. They do not know.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GodSchism]

Need? A living being may have needs, but a universe does not.

But I'm not saying that time/change has always existed. There might very well have been a beginning to time, which would have been the start of change. However, for all of time, the universe has existed.



You are right. It didn't wait for millions of years and then suddenly start to do something. Once it started to do something, that was the beginning of time. There was no wait.



There is no vacuum "outside" of the universe. There is no space outside of the universe. There is no "outside" of the universe. Expansion refers to the increase of distances between entities within the universe. The universe is not "hitting" on anything.



No, that is what they believe. They do not know.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You cannot say the universe just suggested time for itself. From the beginning of the universe there was time. The proof is here. The movement of celestial bodies provides the experience of time. In truth there is no such thing as time because time is only relevant to the celestial bodies we care to calculate. There really is no such thing as a year, a month, a day, a minute, a second. We can only calculate 'time' by the movement of celestial bodies. If there was no movement then there would be no passage of time. You can't say that from the beginning of the universe there was no passage of time because if we can measure time by the movement of celestial bodies now, then before time--time could still be measured the same way. There is nothing that suggests that at one time nothing moved because if nothing moved then it would be physically impossible for it to start moving. There has always been movement in the universe; and since there has always been movement in the universe then time has always been.
If there is no outside of the universe then how could it expand. You know very well by physics, does something expand and contract. If the universe has nothing to expand into then the expansion would be contained. But since there is no container, and this is a paradox, you have something filling something else that has no containment.
Like I said in previous posts nothing cannot exist because nothing is something because you just defined it as something--without form. It is like a vaccuum--it has no definition, it is without form or containment; therefore when a physical reality 'touches' it, the vaccuum turns into a physical reality--a sort of expansion that never ends, because nothing, that which exists outside of the universe has no definition; therefore it (the vaccuum) becomes infinite. It is a paradox; but like I said, nothing cannot exist; therefore the universe is expanding it's boundaries without end.
In other words, how can a universe expand if it has nothing to expand into. And that is the key, it has nothing to expand into but a vaccuum of noth. The paradox is that nothing cannot exist but it does. That is the only way to explain the expansion. The universe is expanding into nothing or the noth. Therefore the universe becomes infinite because the expansion becomes infinite.
You can deny this truth but it is the Truth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You cannot say the universe just suggested time for itself.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it is in the nature of the universe to change. However, this change may have a starting point.

From the beginning of the universe there was time.

I would say that from the beginning of time there was time.

The movement of celestial bodies provides the experience of time.

Change in everything relative to each other does. It's not just about celestial bodies. I don't know why you are talking about celestial bodies.

We can only calculate 'time' by the movement of celestial bodies.

I'd like to introduce you to a recent invention called a "clock".

You can't say that from the beginning of the universe there was no passage of time because if we can measure time by the movement of celestial bodies now, then before time--time could still be measured the same way.

I'm not saying that. First, I don't believe in a "beginning of the universe" -- there is only the beginning of the universe's change.

Second, I don't know why you are talking about "no passage of time" from the beginning of the universe. I'm not saying that there was no passage of time after the Big Bang, if that is what you mean.

There is nothing that suggests that at one time nothing moved because if nothing moved then it would be physically impossible for it to start moving.

Of course there was no time when nothing moved, because time would not have existed at that point. Time started in motion/change, not in changelessness.

There has always been movement in the universe; and since there has always been movement in the universe then time has always been.

I totally agree. Time has always been, since in all times there has been time! However, nothing in what you just wrote means that time didn't have a beginning.

If there is no outside of the universe then how could it expand.

Expansion refers to the increase of distances between entities. It's not expansion in the mundane sense.

You know very well by physics, does something expand and contract. If the universe has nothing to expand into then the expansion would be contained.

You should read the physics. It's not what you might expect.

Like I said in previous posts nothing cannot exist

You are absolutely right. Nothing, by definition, is not something, and therefore does not exist. However, it may be the case that no unicorns exist. This doesn't mean that the "nonexistence of unicorns" exists, but that there simply are no unicorns that do exist.

In other words, how can a universe expand if it has nothing to expand into.

Once you change your paradigm to a relativistic one, you'll see.

You can deny this truth but it is the Truth.

I can deny this falsehood very easily.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JGL53]

Like I said, you can suggest that the universe created itself from any 'seed' that you can imagine. But the mere evidence that the universe is still expanding suggests that existence is filling an infinite vaccuum. Like a painter painting something on a blank canvas. If an infinite vaccuum exists beyond the boundaries of the universe then that would suggest that the entire universe was a vaccuum--a vaccuum is nothing. Nothing cannot create something. Something had to have planted a 'seed' within nothing to fill it and make it something. The 'seed' could not have created itself because the mere evidence that the universe is still expanding suggests that before anything there was nothing. Nothing cannot create something.

Well, you could be right. Stranger things than what you say here are true.

But I still disagree. You are assuming too much not in evidence. E.g. utter nothingness is an assumption lacking any evidence other than the machinations of your mind- which isn't evidence, BTW.

The universe expands, the universe contracts - just like my "area". The universe - not the observable universe but "The Universe" - is eternal and infinite. Can you actually prove otherwise?

No. Then problem solved. And throwing a deistic or creator god into the mix is like adding a rock to the cake batter - it helps not a bit and sorta creates a problem itself.