Part of doing that is to use the naturalistic method to go back to the conclusion that there had to be a beginning from nothing. Then the something that came from that nothing had to have been done by a creator.
But then there isn't nothing. There's a creator, which means that there is still something, not nothing.
But then the method used for everything else points to a beginning like the big bang was an event that was created from something just before it. This is used with quantum physics as well. So the big bang needed something for it to happen. That something also had to have something. If it didn't then you are saying that it was always there. If there is no God and things happen in a naturalistic existence and everything else points to coming from something why then have this one point different. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't fit in with the naturalistic method.
Perhaps it isn't different or special at all. In some models, the Big Bang is only one in a series of many such Big Bangs.
Its almost inciting a form of God in itself as if it had some supernatural existence or qualities that were beyond what we measure everything else with right back to the big bang. Even if we dont say its God it is something that has some sort of magical qualities about it. The problem with this theory just like multi universes that try to address the fine tuning that also points to acreator is that they can never be tested and proven with direct evidence. So you can say anything to avoid dealing with this and it can never be verified.
Which brings us back to that question I keep asking you...
There had to be nothing according to the naturalistic view point with which the science method uses for everything else it tries to explain right back and beyond the big bang. I have heard some of the hypothesis for explaining what happened before the big bang and trying to explain that nothing is really something.
No, there doesn't have to be pure nothingness.
But a something which is God is completely different. He is the one who created everything and the beginning.
How?
Why would God have to be physical.
Because you said that the physical stuff would be God in your earlier response to my comment, thus indicating that God would have to be physical.
That's incorrect. Something physical could exist, but in an atemporal state.
That would have to be God then.
Why cant he have the possibility of being both physical and transcendent. If He is all knowing and all powerful and all things at the same time and in Him are all the things that have created existence then He is able to be all these things anyway. If there is some sort of power that can make something out of true nothing then this power or this creator could certainly do all these things because He created them in the first place. To be able to create these things would mean that He is greater than these things.
Then what you are saying is that God, who is physical, created himself.
That something like I said transcends all that. If there is anything that we dont understand that could explain how things came into existence from nothing then there has to be some sort of power, creator or intelligence whatever you want to call it that can do this and was always there.
Argument from ignorance. The lack of an explanation for some phenomenon does not mean Goddidit is supported.
He is apart from His creation because He is the creator.
But you just said that God could be physical, which means that he isn't apart from his creation at all. At this point, you seem to be shooting various ideas and hoping that they hit the target in some consistent pattern.
I have explained this above.
Only by contradicting yourself. If God is physical and he creates the physical world, then (1) he is
not apart from his creation (contrary to your claim above), and (2) he is self-creating. If we follow this reasoning, God is therefore equivalent to the universe and the universe is self-creating. You've gotten yourself into a theological mess whereby you've indirectly committed yourself to something resembling pantheism.
I have already discussed quantum physics and the qualities of God which are what we see in the micro world which is very close to the point of something coming into existence from nothing.
To my knowledge, that's not correct at all. As I understand it, strictly speaking, even virtual particles don't come into existence from nothing.
The bible tells us that God is in all things and has made all things. He is all powerful and all knowing. The bible says that He all things are in Him and all things were made by Him and through Him. God is omnipresent and omniscient so there is nothing He doesn't cover. That is about as far as I can go. If I knew how God did it I would be God. It still doesn't stop me from proposing this hypothesis based on the indirect evidence. I could make up some far fetched story about how it all happened just like some do with hologram theories but what is the use. We both know that we cannot get the direct evidence for any of this because we are talking about something out of this world just like multi universes. So at this stage it can only be a proposal put forward. But the point is more and more people are thinking along these lines whether it be promoting realms that are beyond of reality to explain what we are now seeing in quantum physics and the finely tuned universe or coming up with far fetched hypothesis of one sort or another.
steve, you still haven't answered my question. Here it is again:
If the evidence that brings to bear eventually does support some naturalistic model of cosmogony, will you accept that model as probably true, or will you continue to insist that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is true? I keep asking this because it seems to me that, despite demanding evidence for current cosmological models, whatever evidence is brought to bear is ultimately immaterial to whether or not you accept or reject those models. You will reject them out of hand anyway because they do not support creatio ex nihilo. Your demand for evidence therefore seems disingenuous, as no amount of evidence will ever sway you to accept a model inconsistent with doctrine. Or am I wrong about that?
.
