Creator of God, Big Bang

Personally, I don't think the question even makes sense. Since, by definition, the universe is all that exists and all that has ever exist, what could "where did the universe come from" or "what caused the universe" even begin to make any sense at all?Me, I'm satisfied with simply accepting that the universe does exist.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

yes, im living proof. no one has found one relevant object to show the laws I've shown to be false. not one. but no one will believe it.i wasn't dogmatic. i was searching to be proven wrong. and no one could show that too me, but only added relevance. but because of the dogmatic views of those i have debated with, i proved to them nothing. and never will. but the laws prove themselves, but only if debated by the individual.this is the same with Gods relevance. its like jar saying he's a christian, yet not believing anything Christ said.unless rahvin, you are willing to debate the laws for the truth of them, your just going to hold on to your own dogmatism. and just like the rest of the planet of people, who if God was to stand in front of them and say "i am God" they will just reply: " i don't believe in God". or maybe "prove it" and any proof they will find fault with.don't take my word for anything. no one should do that. test it. if i say a table is sturdy, stand on it. but if your not willing to test it, you don't care about the truth, but only your position.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

And yet you are so confident that the your deity is the right one juas as the buddhist is so confident that their deities are the right ones. Prove to me that the immaterial pink unicorn actually isn't the deity we are talking about? When we are talking about supernatural beings, anything goes, phat. I don't know, and I'm willing to bet my house that you don't know either. And yet by some miracle I've concluded that helping orphaned children is more important than popping out babies of my own. Just how many christians do you know who are willing to suppress their urge to breed just so they could make a difference in this world?The point is what's what in regard to calling in life has nothing to do with this issue. You've chosen to use one supernatural fantasy as an explanation for all things you know not anything about. What's to prevent me from using another supernatural fantasy to explain all things I know not anything about?

Tesla, I had no idea that they are putting that many words in a fortune cookie nowadays. Haven't been to a chinese restaurant for a while.

anything to which your referring that i could discuss with you in topic?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Actually neither makes very much sense.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

its not a problem til you think about reality. there is enough distraction these days for many people to be so engrossed as to never even think about the start of anything at all.the question starts when someone tries to observe reality, and how its possible, and where the start was.the reasoning of many is this: somehow something was, because if it wasn't, nothing would now be.or some say, it is, always was, that's all. (content not to really ask the question at all, but just accept,: it is. that's all that matters. we don't know so who cares)but if it always was, how come man wasn't always was? so we know its evolved. so the question becomes: what was it before now?and then conclusions are found, drawn, and in some cases dogmatically held, right or wrong.the debate of this forum (appears to be) originally to educate "ignorant" people about evolution.but the debate went deeper, and has now become a quest for some to either prove the start was God, or...or i dunno.but when asking such a deep question, of things that are beyond any human comprehension in full, its hard to explain in any English that just anyone would understand.so..what makes sense to you blue, if you think about reality of the universe?Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Seems to me the idea of the Big Bang is quite consistent with the Bible. The idea the Big Bang occurred without any cause at all, however, is not. Nor is it consistent with the science, imo. You don't get something, at least physical somethings, from nothing.God, however, is not physical but spiritual, and probably more to the point, the idea of asking what came from something implies time exists as governing over the process whereas time is something God created, not something God is subject to.

ok, I suppose I didn't really know what to expect with this topic.I understand that the whole question of how the universe began cannot be given an answer and it 'just exists'. Apoligies if this is kind of an irrelevant thread.I am just fed up of creationists telling me 'you believe in evolution, ok. Where'd the world come from? where'd matter come from?, where did the stuff your made of come from?' and i'm like 'where did your God come from?'the response that this question is not applicable to God and has just always been there in another dimension is not a satisfying answer and cannot be trusted without some kind of evidence.and that the 'creation demands a creator' makes no sense anymore since they are basically saying that God didn't need to be created. Just like I think we didn't. Thus, indirectly believe in evolution themselves.So God must have come about by some evolutionary process also.

The problem with thinking asking where did matter and the universe come from is analogous to asking where God came from is that it contains an assumption and an incorrect one, namely that God is temporal and limited by time.The idea of God Christians are generally espousing is one of a God who is present at all points in time and all of space-time, and yet also exists in a timeless, eternal state. Try then to consider this concept and divorce your mind from thinking of God as something like a rock or human being or whatever subject to time.Oddly, one interesting way to help think about this aspect of God was presented in the scifi Star Trek series of Deep Space 9. They didn't talk about God per se but some oracles that existed within a wormhole that were not linear in their existence. If you saw the show when that occured, you'd know what I am talking about. But regardless, the show indicates it's possible to imagine existence that is not linear time-wise.With God, it's a bit more complicated in that He both lives outside of time and within it, as temporal in the sense as part of space-time and eternal and transcendant as outside of it. He bridges all the gaps.Once you realize that time is a creation as part of space-time, it's a little easier to realize the question what is before God is nonsensical because there is no "before" outside of God's creation.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Again, this is special pleading. The Universe could not possibly have always existed, but your god can? Even the Big Bang does not suggest that there was a point "before" the Universe existed - only that it existed as the Singularity at the beginning of the expansion we now see. Right. And it's interesting to think of what existence would be like if we didn't experience time in a linear fashion. But it's all just irrelevant navel-grazing. You're still engaged in special pleading. More special pleading. You insist that there could be no "before" god, but scoff at the concept that there was no "before" the Universe. We have actual evidence that shows time is just another property of the Universe like the other dimensions, and that asking what came "before" the Universe is like asking what is North of the North Pole. But you insist that this cannot be...and that there must be a deity that created the Universe, and that he has no beginning.It's the same argument, except one has the weight of evidence, and the other violates parsimony by adding an extraneous entity.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Why is that a difficult concept for you? I think it is because you are judging the concept of God like you would the concept of the material universe, but these are different things. Frankly, I think the idea of special pleading sounds a bit naive, but maybe you can break it down for me. Since the concept of God is very different from the concept of the material universe, shouldn't we judge the concept of God based on it's own merits instead of creating a straw man argument that judges God as if God is a material Being? And why is that you reckon? Could it because the concept of the universe contains time as integral to it and the concept of God does not?Did that occur to you? Exactly, time is integral to the universe. We also have evidence for the Big Bang, pretty much fitting what the Bible says to a tee.In terms of evidence for God, we know information and design stem from intelligence. Unless you are arguing the material world possesses it's own consciousness, mind and intelligence, I cannot see how you can rationally deny the existence of God.

It's not a difficult concept, randman. It's special pleading - it means you're setting a different requirement for one side than the other. Even given evidence, you wont accept that the Universe has always existed. But without any evidence, you claim the existence of a deity. You insist that Creation requires a Creator, but deny that the same logic requires that a Creator must require a still higher being to bring him in to existence. Did it not occur to you that, if the Universe contains all of time (since time is a property of the Universe), asking what came "before" is like asking what's higher than up, or what's North of the North Pole? You either don't know anything about the Big Bang, or haven't read genesis. The Big Bang does not propose "Creation ex nihilo." It doesn't have anything to do with 6 days, or anything else in Genesis. Again, you're demanding more from one side than the other - special pleading. You insist that the Universe is too complex to be anything but design, and so insist that there must be a God. But then you insist that God does not require a Creator himself, despite the fact that a God must be infinitely more complex than the universe itself.The fact that you cannot see your double-standard is astounding.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

Hi Rahvin, Now who is claiming special pleading.You are saying I must believe the singularity came from an absence of anything and you don't call that special pleading?God is just as believable.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I'm not saying that the Singularity came from anything at all. In fact, Im saying quite the opposite. We know that the Singularity existed, and that asking about "before" the Singularity is a nonsense question. We also know that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed - there is no special pleading, because we know that the Universe exists. There is no evidence of god, and thus he is an extraneous entity.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.