The big bang.

Originally posted by Agerg
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 [b]goddidit...I now know everything about how it all works.

Y ...[text shortened]... I don't.


I've probably paraphrased the above from someone else, but I forget who[/b]

Looking and wondering and seeking is fine, but putting forward falsity as truth is not fine.

Science presents too many things with certainty, when they have no idea.

And then again atheists also present false statements that they have pulled from thin air.

Substitute religion also presents falsity.

Its the fabrication, falsity, dishonesty and speculation that I have argument with.....anything else is ok.

The Vedic teachings are in reality, the only authorized teachings regarding spiritual knowledge, so when I present anything I reference those teachings which means I do not speculate.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Looking and wondering and seeking is fine, but putting forward falsity as truth is not fine.

Science presents too many things with certainty, when they have no idea.

And then again atheists also present false statements that they have pulled from thin air.

Substitute religion also presents falsity.

Its the fabrication, falsity, dishonesty and ...[text shortened]... nowledge, so when I present anything I reference those teachings which means I do not speculate.

“...Science presents too many things with certainty, when they have no idea. ...”

you are the one that has no idea.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
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 c timately God's - His eternal power and divine nature.[/b]

“...Do you think that there may be limitations to human language ? Maybe ? ….”

it is not a matter of limited language; please explain, how can something be created at NO time and at NO space?
I mean, how can it make LOGICAL sense to say something can be created at NO time and at NO space?
Think hard about this; this is not just a question on semantics but LOGIC. It is like asking “how can it make LOGICAL sense to say you can have a three-sided square?” would you agree that the reason why you cannot have a three-sided square is not just because of our “limited language”?
If so, then surely you can understand that the reason why it makes no LOGICAL sense to say something can be created at NO time and at NO space is also not just because of our “limited language”?

“...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 and all atheists also acknowledge that “ humans do not know everything” 😛 so I don't know what you are talking about here.

we do not “know” that there is a teacup orbiting Mars in the narrow sense we cannot disprove it; So it is credible that there is a teacup orbiting Mars?
Point: I am wondering if you are using the erroneous logic here of equating “cannot disprove that there is X” with “it is credible that there is X”.

“...If you envy God His position ...”

how can I “envy” something that I don't believe exists?
And what on earth has any of any of this got to do with my quotes in my post?

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

no, the problem I am pointing out is NOT one of limited language but of a concept that makes no sense (a bit like the concept of a “three-sided square” etc)
to say that something can be created at NO time and at NO space doesn't make sense and it makes no sense REGARDLESS of whether or not our language can accommodate it.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Do you think that there may be limitations to human language ? Maybe ? ….”

it is not a matter of limited language; please explain, how can something be created at NO time and at NO space?
I mean, how can it make LOGICAL sense to say something can be created at NO time and at NO space?
Think hard about this; this is not just a question on sem ...[text shortened]... ake sense and it makes no sense REGARDLESS of whether or not our language can accommodate it.

=================================
it is not a matter of limited language; please explain, how can something be created at NO time and at NO space?
=============================

Sure. This is supernatural.

If you believe that the universe popped into existence from NOTHING (and I mean nothing as in NO time, NO space, NO energy) then you also believe in something supernatural.

If you believe that then you have a supernatural start to the universe with no cause. And I have a supernatural start to the universe WITH a cause. Which of us is making more of a leap of faith ? I think you are.

===============================
I mean, how can it make LOGICAL sense to say something can be created at NO time and at NO space?
===============================

It makes not good sense to say the Time had no beginning. If TIME had no beginning then infinity could not be traversed to reach the present moment. The present moment proves that finite time was traversed to arrive at today.

So I say human language is limited. We may "borrow" the word "before" Time. It is not logical. But we must use some expression to describe how a non material Cause, not in Time, but all powerful "created" time and space and energy and matter.

Logically and semantically it is a difficult proposition. It is not AS DIFFICULT, imo, to say that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of absolutely nothing, and I mean not empty space with Higgs particles. I mean NOTHING PERIOD - no time, no energy, no space, no existence.

I think if you exclude God you have a much more illogical concept.

==============================
Think hard about this; this is not just a question on semantics but LOGIC. It is like asking “how can it make LOGICAL sense to say you can have a three-sided square?”
==============================

It is logical if we allow for the SUPERNATURAL. If you have a universe that was never begun, you also have a supernatural universe. So if you reject the supernatural then you should not believe in the universe.

I believe in a SUPERNATURAL God Who trancends space, time, energy who CAUSED the universe to come into existence with an act of WILL.


I think your make a greater leap of faith then I do. And if you were consistent you should not believe in the universe if you reject the supernatural.

What about a eternal universe that always was ? Such a universe defies the scientific law of cause and effect. A universe that defies the law of cause and effect is a supernatural universe.

If you reject the supernatural then why do you believe in the universe ? Isn't that one of the reasons you reject the existence of God ?

================================
would you agree that the reason why you cannot have a three-sided square is not just because of our “limited language”?
If so, then surely you can understand that the reason why it makes no LOGICAL sense to say something can be created at NO time and at NO space is also not just because of our “limited language”?
======================================

Since speaking "before" the Big Bang creation of time, space, energy, and matter is semantically illogical, I have to concede that there is a limitation in our human ability to express what I see as the truth.

Science largly agrees that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe including time, matter, space, and energy. So the theist has to borrow limited human expressions to express a supernatural cause of the universe.

You want to corner me but you have the same problem. You have no idea where the energy came from. And saying it popped into existence uncaused is an appeal to the supernatural.

In fact it puts anything the Bible says about walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead to shame. Your uncaused space, time, energy, and matter is the ultimate supernatural miracle.

It is less of a leap of faith to believe a transcendent Will and Mind - God, that caused the universe to come into existence from nothing.

He is the God "who calls the things not being as being" (Romans 4:17)

God must have done so without regard for the separation of church and state. Oh well!

At this point I would ask you WHICH do you hold to ?

Do you hold to a universe that came into being from nothing, uncaused ?
Or do you believe that the universe always was and is eternal ?

If you have a third option, let me know. For length's sake I will stop here.

The construct of the universe that we observe is not eternal.

But the energy that manifested that universe is eternal, and always was and always will be.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Looking and wondering and seeking is fine, but putting forward falsity as truth is not fine.

Its the fabrication, falsity, dishonesty and speculation that I have argument with.....anything else is ok.

One wonders how you can continue to post here like you do, if you truly believe this.

You continually claim truth is falsity and falsity is truth ALL the time.

And did you actually say that "everything has always been"?

Really? So you are a believer in the "steady-state" theory? Really?

You really do have your "falsity" and "truth" mixed up then, don't you?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The construct of the universe that we observe is not eternal.

But the energy that manifested that universe is eternal, and always was and always will be.

This is closer to the truth.

E = mc², after all.

Originally posted by Suzianne
One wonders how you can continue to post here like you do, if you truly believe this.

You continually claim truth is falsity and falsity is truth ALL the time.

And did you actually say that "everything has always been"?

Really? So you are a believer in the "steady-state" theory? Really?

You really do have your "falsity" and "truth" mixed up then, don't you?

You are talking foolishness and you are defending the religion of the animal killers.

Have you no honesty,

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================================
it is not a matter of limited language; please explain, how can something be created at NO time and at NO space?
=============================

Sure. This is supernatural.

If you believe that the universe popped into existence from NOTHING (and I mean nothing as in NO time, NO space, NO ener ...[text shortened]... ?

If you have a third option, let me know. For length's sake I will stop here.[/b]

“...If you believe that the universe popped into existence from NOTHING (and I mean nothing as in NO time, NO space, NO energy) then...”

but I don't believe this!. No thing can come “into existence from NOTHING “ because there is not such thing as “NOTHING “.

oh, and I don't believe that there is a supernatural.

“...It makes not good sense to say the Time had no beginning. ...”

I didn't say this. I didn't say that time had no beginning. But there is nothing that makes no logical sense with saying that time had no beginning. Whether time really does have no beginning is a totally different matter.

“...If TIME had no beginning then infinity could not be traversed to reach the present moment. ...”

“traversed” through infinity from which point in time?
If time had no beginning then it would not make any sense to talk about any particular point in time that is 'infinitely' in the past from the present because no finite period of time from the present to that point would get you any closer to it.

“...The present moment proves that finite time was traversed to arrive at today. ...”

yes, which just confirms my above argument. If time had no beginning, it would still only make sense to talk about “finite periods” of time from an arbitrary chosen point of time to the present and never “infinite periods” of time from an arbitrary chosen point of time to the present and that fact does not logically contradict the notion of time having no beginning.

“...So I say human language is limited. We may "borrow" the word "before" Time. It is not logical. But we must use some expression to describe how a non material Cause, not in Time, but all powerful "created" time and space and energy and matter. ...”

that makes no sense.

“...Logically and semantically it is a difficult proposition. It is not AS DIFFICULT, imo, to say that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of absolutely nothing, and I mean not empty space with Higgs particles. I mean NOTHING PERIOD - no time, no energy, no space, no existence. ...” (my emphasis)

neither I nor science says that the universe came “ out of absolutely nothing ” because there is no such thing as “nothing” and there never was, meaning, there never was a point in space nor time when “nothing” existed. Even the totally empty vacuum of space is “something”.

“...It is logical if we allow for the SUPERNATURAL. If you have a universe that was never begun, you also have a supernatural universe. So if you reject the supernatural then you should not believe in the universe. ...”

all the above is wrong; I do not believe that there is a supernatural and I DO believe the universe exists and there is nothing “logical” about the belief that there exists a 'supernatural'! I never said the universe never began and, even if I claim that the universe never began, rejecting the 'supernatural' would not logically contradict that notion.

“...If you reject the supernatural then why do you believe in the universe ? ...”

the existence of the universe does not logically imply the existence of a supernatural.

“...Do you hold to a universe that came into being from nothing, uncaused ? ...”

I don't know if time really did begin at the Big Bang but, if it did, the universe did not “came into being from nothing” as you suggested above nor did I ever say this nor imply this nor believe this.

jaywill

I seem to have to repeatedly explain your misunderstanding again and again that it is NOT my position and that of science that everything 'came from nothing' and yet you persist in stating our position as if this is what it is (which it isn't).

when I (or we) say that we are NOT saying that everything 'came from nothing' because there is not such thing as “nothing”, is the problem here is that you simply do not understand this? if so, how do you not understand this? or do you not believe me when I say that this is not my/our position?

I think few intelligent people that have given this a great deal of serious thought would both claim and believe that, literally, 'everything came from nothing'.

=====================================
“...If you believe that the universe popped into existence from NOTHING (and I mean nothing as in NO time, NO space, NO energy) then...”

but I don't believe this!. No thing can come “into existence from NOTHING “ because there is not such thing as “NOTHING “.
======================================

The majority consensus of scientific opinion on cosmology, at present, IS that there was no universe "until" the Big Bang. Please tell me then what there "was".

If the universe began, then NOTHING "preceeded" the universe. If you do not believe this then you must believe in the eternality of the universe.

If not an eternal universe and if [/b]not[/b] a universe that began, then what ?? What is your third proposal ?

================================
oh, and I don't believe that there is a supernatural.
===============================

So far, you are excellent at telling me what you do NOT believe. But I have to hear what you believe. And then I will ascertain if that is supernatural or not.
It could be that you mistake your belief for what you wish it was.

===============================
“...It makes not good sense to say the Time had no beginning. ...”

I didn't say this. I didn't say that time had no beginning. But there is nothing that makes no logical sense with saying that time had no beginning. Whether time really does have no beginning is a totally different matter.
=============================

We may define time as the measure of change in matter. If there was no matter there is no time.

Is the consensus of cosmological opinion that the existence of matter began ? If so I think we must say that time began.

==============================
“...If TIME had no beginning then infinity could not be traversed to reach the present moment. ...”

“traversed” through infinity from which point in time?
=================================

That is precisely the problem. Why do you fault me ?

==========================
If time had no beginning then it would not make any sense to talk about any particular point in time that is 'infinitely' in the past
==========================

That is the problem. So why do you fault me when you acknowledge the problem ?

==============================
from the present because no finite period of time from the present to that point would get you any closer to it.
==========================

Which is why Time must have started at some point.

===========================
“...The present moment proves that finite time was traversed to arrive at today. ...”

yes, which just confirms my above argument. If time had no beginning, it would still only make sense to talk about “finite periods” of time from an arbitrary chosen point of time to the present and never “infinite periods” of time from an arbitrary chosen point of time to the present and that fact does not logically contradict the notion of time having no beginning.
================================

However, the starting point had to be reached also. And if Time is infinitely extended in the past, the starting point of your period could not have been reached either.

While rearranging the problem somewhat by addressing periods, I don't think you have really solved the problem of the infinite past being traversed.

===============================
“...So I say human language is limited. We may "borrow" the word "before" Time. It is not logical. But we must use some expression to describe how a non material Cause, not in Time, but all powerful "created" time and space and energy and matter. ...”

that makes no sense.
==================================

It makes sense to me because I think we are doing just that when we use the expression "The Big Bang" to begin with.

Was it "Big" ? "Big" as compared to what ? What "Bang" has fragments speed up as they get further and further away ?

I think the phrase "Big Bang" is the best language discription to put words on what they are trying to convey.

=================================
“...Logically and semantically it is a difficult proposition. It is not AS DIFFICULT, imo, to say that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of absolutely nothing, and I mean not empty space with Higgs particles. I mean NOTHING PERIOD - no time, no energy, no space, no existence. ...” (my emphasis)

neither I nor science says that the universe came “ out of absolutely nothing ” because there is no such thing as “nothing” and there never was, meaning, there never was a point in space nor time when “nothing” existed. Even the totally empty vacuum of space is “something”.
==============================

But the consensus is the SPACE came into being with TIME at the (for lack of a better phrase) "Big BANG"

So we must be really talking about nothing.

Stephen Hawking used the phrase "imaginary time" to talk about the origins of the Big Bang. You have to use something. Do you fault him for feeling forced to use the phrase "imaginary time" ?

At present the majority consensus is that the universe, including time, had a beginning. That is at least cosmology's consensus view today.

======================
“...It is logical if we allow for the SUPERNATURAL. If you have a universe that was never begun, you also have a supernatural universe. So if you reject the supernatural then you should not believe in the universe. ...”

all the above is wrong; I do not believe that there is a supernatural and I DO believe the universe exists and there is nothing “logical” about the belief that there exists a 'supernatural'! I never said the universe never began and, even if I claim that the universe never began, rejecting the 'supernatural' would not logically contradict that notion.
====================================

Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and a astrophysicist who held the Edwin Hubble's chair at Mount Wilson Oboservatory, a self confessed Agnostic said:

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

That this was said in a interview for a Christian journal should not lead to a genetic fallacy that it is to be dismissed for that reason. The man is confessed Agnostic.

Cosmologist Allan Sandage said "We cannot understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."

These scientists are not afraid to refer to the word "supernatural".

==================================
“...If you reject the supernatural then why do you believe in the universe ? ...”

the existence of the universe does not logically imply the existence of a supernatural.

“...Do you hold to a universe that came into being from nothing, uncaused ? ...”

I don't know if time really did begin at the Big Bang but, if it did, the universe did not “came into being from nothing” as you suggested above nor did I ever say this nor imply this nor believe this.
===================================

Andrew, you have told me that you did not say this and you did not say that. But you have not told me much about what you do believe. Now taking no position is the easiest to defend.

How am I to regard you as a participant in trying to figure out the problem, rather than one just shooting down concepts with objections ?

There is having a posture only. And there is proposing some solutions. I see you getting yourself in a secure posture of what you didn't say and what you don't believe.

So I think I will just sit and wait and see a bit more about what you do believe.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You are talking foolishness and you are defending the religion of the animal killers.

Have you no honesty,

I have plenty of honesty.

Do you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
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 ...[text shortened]... are saying dates are just something that does not mean
anything towards how old it is?
Kelly

Quite true, Kelly. As I understand it, now there's a theory that the "Big Bang" may have been nothing more than "A Big Bang." There may have been myriad "bangs" over the eons, and still physicists try to estimate THE age of THIS universe. Which I happen to find fascinating--I always watch those Discovery Channel episodes on Supermassive Black Holes, Quazars, Blazars, and such. And I have high regard for the science that has been learned through telescopes, mathematics, etc. But as you say, God, being completely different, is, was, and will always be. One cannot carbon date the Almighty. 😀 In this way, Fabian cannot be wrong: religion and science are just two different animals.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Quite true, Kelly. As I understand it, now there's a theory that the "Big Bang" may have been nothing more than "A Big Bang." There may have been myriad "bangs" over the eons, and still physicists try to estimate THE age of THIS universe. Which I happen to find fascinating--I always watch those Discovery Channel episodes on Supermassive Black Holes, Qua ...[text shortened]... n this way, Fabian cannot be wrong: religion and science are just two different animals.

I like that - "One cannot carbon date the Almighty".

Originally posted by Suzianne
I have plenty of honesty.

[b]Do you?[/b]

God is eternal.

And your saying that in eternity, this universe is the very first universe God ever created....this is false.

This universe has been going through cycles of being manifest and then un-manifest for eternity, and there is no such thing as the first time, because eternity is eternity.

The Bible is fabricated, so it does not know many things, which means anyone who subscribes to it, does not know many things either.

Why are you so persistent to hold on to error.