The big bang.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I always find the arguments regarding the 'first cause' from creationists a little bizarre.

The Universe had a beginning, so therefore God created the Universe.

Okay. Where or how was God created?

God has existed forever!!!

If they can believe that something can exist forever (in this case God{whatever that may mean}), w ...[text shortened]... Universe may have existed forever, in some state or another?

Why God, but not the Universe?

I think you should be a little more sympathethic to God here.

Perhaps it is unfair of you to rob God of something which is legitimately His - eternality.

Why deprive Him of this attribute if it conceivably could legitimately be His ?

Now, some math experts have said that an actual infinity does not exist anywhere other then theoritically in the mind.

If the past consisted of an infinite number of moments, infinity could never be traversed and we arrive at this present moment. That is how some Christian apologists handle the complaint and state that mathematics suggests that an actual eternal universe that always was could not exist.

But a non-physical, unembodied Person of God seems to them to be a different story.

If so, then why should I quip "You can't be that way ! You cannot always have been. It is not fair. If God could always have been then its only fair that my physical universe always have been just as easily."

Originally posted by mikelom
I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

-m. 🙂

Big bang isn't proven, and it cannot be disproven. Feel free to believe it, or to just
accept it as something possible, or reject it out of hand.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I always find the arguments regarding the 'first cause' from creationists a little bizarre.

The Universe had a beginning, so therefore God created the Universe.

Okay. Where or how was God created?

God has existed forever!!!

If they can believe that something can exist forever (in this case God{whatever that may mean}), w ...[text shortened]... Universe may have existed forever, in some state or another?

Why God, but not the Universe?

Apples and oranges, saying the universe had a beginning does not mean that God
did.
Kelly

Big Bang and the Love of God may seem to most to have nothing to do with each other. However, I think that TIME is something God has created for our existence.

"Here." says God in essence. "Here is something I have prepared so that YOU can exist. I don't need it. But I prepared it for you so you can exist. It is time."

And along with time He prepared something else so that we may exist - space.

I see time and space and the universe a realm that God has created for His living care for man's existence. He doesn't need it. We need it.

He can enter into it and enteract with it at will. But He is in a realm transcendent to time and space. He has prepared it in love as part of our environment, that we may exist.

That is the way I presently see it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Apples and oranges, saying the universe had a beginning does not mean that God
did.
Kelly

Why is it absolutely necessary the universe must have a cause, and absolutely necessary your god didn't? How do you substantiate this beyond your own decree? I think that's what PK was getting at.

Originally posted by Agerg
Why is it absolutely necessary the universe must have a cause, and absolutely necessary your god didn't? How do you substantiate this beyond your own decree? I think that's what PK was getting at.

“...Why is it absolutely necessary the universe must have a cause, and absolutely necessary your god didn't? ...”

I think you are getting at the hart of the matter here; the questions that could be asked here is:

is there any logical contradiction in the universe NOT having a cause? -and, if so, what is it?
is there any logical contradiction in a 'god' HAVING a cause? -and, if so, what is it?

Originally posted by jaywill
Big Bang and the Love of God may seem to most to have nothing to do with each other. However, I think that TIME is something God has created for our existence.

"Here." says God in essence. "Here is something I have prepared so that YOU can exist. I don't need it. But I prepared it for you so you can exist. It is [b]time."

And along with time He p ...[text shortened]... e as part of our environment, that we may exist.

That is the way I presently see it.[/b]

“..."Here." says God in essence. "Here is something I have prepared so that YOU can exist. I don't need it. But I prepared it for you so you can exist. It is time."

And along with time He prepared something else so that we may exist - space. ….”

Was there a point in time and space where this 'God' create time and space? -as I see it, you can give three possible answers:

1, If the answer is that there was no such time nor in any space (because, as you claim above, 'God' has no need for time and space) then that means you are claiming that NO time and space was needed to create time and space. But if NO time and space was needed to create time and space then, therefore, time and space can start at the big bang without any previous time and space and therefore was never 'created' (because for something to be “created”, by definition of “created”, there has to first be a time and place where it did NOT exist and then there has to be a time and place when it DID exist) and therefore there doesn't have to be a 'God' to explain the 'creation' of that time and space (because it was never 'created' ! )

2, If the answer is that there WAS such a time and space when time and space was created, then God' must have created THAT earlier time and space using an even earlier time and space (because it would mean you need time and space to create time and space) and so on for infinitum (in which case 'God' does have a need to have time and space; specifically to create yet more time and space)

3, If the answer is that there was always time and space and it was never created (so no need for some kind of 'earlier' time and space) then you do not need a 'God' to create it! (because, again, it was never 'created' ! )

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“..."Here." says God in essence. "Here is something I have prepared so that YOU can exist. I don't need it. But I prepared it for you so you can exist. It is time."

And along with time He prepared something else so that we may exist - space. ….”

Was there a point in time and space where this 'God' create time and space? -as I see it, you can g eed a 'God' to create it! (because, again, it was never 'created' ! )

=============================
1, If the answer is that there was no such time nor in any space (because, as you claim above, 'God' has no need for time and space) then that means you are claiming that NO time and space was needed to create time and space. But if NO time and space was needed to create time and space then, therefore, time and space can start at the big bang without any previous time and space and therefore was never 'created' (because for something to be “created”, by definition of “created”, there has to first be a time and place where it did NOT exist and then there has to be a time and place when it DID exist) and therefore there doesn't have to be a 'God' to explain the 'creation' of that time and space (because it was never 'created' ! )
=====================================

Whew! I'm sure that was quite clever if I give it some more thought.

Do you think that there may be limitations to human language ? Maybe ?

==============================================
2, If the answer is that there WAS such a time and space when time and space was created, then God' must have created THAT earlier time and space using an even earlier time and space (because it would mean you need time and space to create time and space) and so on for infinitum (in which case 'God' does have a need to have time and space; specifically to create yet more time and space)
======================================

I think that I look at the universe, at its macro and its micro extent. I see no end to its size and structure on a large scale. I look at its structure on a micro scale. I am filled with wonder and awe.

Instead of getting a tandrum that we proud, proud humans do not know everything I am happy to give room for One for Whom a greater one cannot be imagined - God.

I am not against scienctific study. I would love to see what cosmology turns up in the next 200 years should I die. I'd love to see what the Hadron Super Collider adds to man's knowledge in the next 80 years. I'd love it. I envy those grandchildren who will look back on 2011 A.D. and "Wow. Those poor chaps didn't even know about ______ " in the same way we look back on Newton's day.

However, I don't think another 400 years of exponential growth of scientific understanding in any realm will call for the dismissal of God.

My response to these mysteries is awe and worship and praise to One for Whom no Greater can be imagined - God.

Is it OK with you guys if I love science but love God more ? Is that allowed ?

I think God (for lack of a better word) "prepared" or "created" whatever realm, dimension, sphere humanity needed, to exist for Himself.

It just could be that our human language is limited to be able to discribe HOW God did this.

"Big Bang" is a limited human language expression to put a handle on something we are trying to imagine.

My question to you is - Will it kill you if you don't know everything ? And I do mean literally EVERYTHING.

Do you really want the responsibility of knowing and understanding everything ?

If you envy God His position, how do you know that you would not be crushed under the burden of God's responsibilities ?

Would you like to decide today who should live, who should die, which child should go hungry, which should not, which woman should lose her baby, which woman should not, which childrens' mother should pass away tonight and which childrens' mother should not ?

Don't misunderstand me by assuming the opposite extreme. I hope science studies more discoveries. I can't wait until they get a telescope more powerful then the Hubble out there.

But do you really want the burden of knowing everything ? Could you hold up under that burden ?

I am happy to let God be God. In fact my response to His unlimited knowledge and power and love is worship and praise.

=====================
3, If the answer is that there was always time and space and it was never created (so no need for some kind of 'earlier' time and space) then you do not need a 'God' to create it! (because, again, it was never 'created' ! )
=============================

I think that we have the limitation of human language to express many of these things.

When I step out underneath the stars and contemplate the expanse of time and space I am happy that I don't have to feel cramped and walled in. I am meant for eternal life. I feel comfortable with an Eternal Father for whom a greater cannot be imagined.

I think you are playing some clever symantic maneuvers to exploit the limitations of human language. And why ?

Be honest. You are doing so probably to imagine that no greater than your self exists.

I see no need to usurp God of attributes which are legitimately God's - His eternal power and divine nature.

Originally posted by mikelom
I think most of us are in agreement with the scientific idea of the original point of singularity, although very difficult for us humans to imagine and quantify mentally, and that science has pretty much proven it, with our developed intelligence and proofs of age of elements and movements of the gallactic entities.

However, we also know an apple falls fr ...[text shortened]... d, with it's own friends and society that we know nothing about, and never shall?

-m. 🙂

The big bang and the singularity is just more nonsense coming from atheistic science persons.

They cannot admit they have no clue to how the cosmos is manifesting, because they foolishly think they are the keepers of the truth, but they are in fact keepers of falsity.

Creation is explained in the Vedic teachings perfectly and without speculation, but the atheistic science persons reject this knowledge, accepting their fabrications instead.

They are throughly dishonest and its criminal how they mislead the entire world.

They foolishly state that everything is accuring without intelligent direction.

Everything in existence is eternal and ever existing, but as science already knows energy cannot be destroyed or created , but only transformed, and so it is that everything is ever existing and eternal, but sometimes manifest and sometimes not.

All the different manifestations are coming into being and then returned back to static state, all under the direction of the will of the Supreme Lord and his diverse energies and potencies.

The material creation comes into being unlimited times, and becomes un-manifested unlimited times, all under the direction of the intelligence of the Supreme Lord.

There is no point of singularity as presented by false science, because there was never a time when nothing existed.

Instead, everything has always been.

This is the Vedic truth.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The big bang and the singularity is just more nonsense coming from atheistic science persons.

They cannot admit they have no clue to how the cosmos is manifesting, because they foolishly think they are the keepers of the truth, but they are in fact keepers of falsity.

Creation is explained in the Vedic teachings perfectly and without speculation, bu ...[text shortened]... a time when nothing existed.

Instead, everything has always been.

This is the Vedic truth.

We have no reason to accept your "Vedic truth".

Originally posted by Agerg
We have no reason to accept your "Vedic truth".

Of course not, and not because you have truth.....but because you are a rascal.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Of course not, and not because you have truth.....but because you are a rascal.

Yeah, I'm a terrible, horrible person for not believing in fairy tales, twinkle dust, and intelligent snowflakes!! 😲

😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Yeah, I'm a terrible, horrible person for not believing in fairy tales, twinkle dust, and intelligent snowflakes!! 😲

😵

Can you not see that your nonsense teaching is the actual fairy tale, by presenting that their is no intelligent directive at the foundation of the cosmos.....

How can you present such absurdity.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Can you not see that your nonsense teaching is the actual fairy tale, by presenting that their is no intelligent directive at the foundation of the cosmos.....

How can you present such absurdity.

On this subject, broadly speaking there are two types of people vishvahetu

1) One who looks at the universe around him in amazement and asks himself if someday he'll be able to understand in any detail how some of it works.
2) One who looks at the universe around him in amazement and says goddidit...I now know everything about how it all works.

You fall into camp (2), I don't.


I've probably paraphrased the above from someone else, but I forget who

Originally posted by Agerg
Why is it absolutely necessary the universe must have a cause, and absolutely necessary your god didn't? How do you substantiate this beyond your own decree? I think that's what PK was getting at.

Well for one everyone dates the darn thing, so at some point, there wasn't one
and then there was. With respect to God as near as I can tell it has always been
said He is eternal. The universe has gone through so many theories on how old
it is I doubt anyone could tell us how many times we have changed people's views
on how old it is. Now if you want to claim the universe is eternal, okay, besides
the fact you have no other option without admitting you need a first cause why
would you believe it is? If your dating the universe as one date and than saying
it is eternal I take it you are saying dates are just something that does not mean
anything towards how old it is?
Kelly