Creator of God, Big Bang

Hi Rahvin, Could you site your references for this statement.Everytime I have ever asked the question where the singularity came from I always get best answer "We do not know".So I would appreciate the appropiate information.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."

Well, they are different concepts. One deals with something, the universe, posited to be subject to time or rather time is integral to it, and another posited to not be subject to time and having created it.To insist that we assess God as if subject to time is absurd and illogical. You can call that special pleading, but it's no more special pleading than not considering gravity when discussing the theology of the Godhead or something. God or the idea presented of God isn't physical so why should we impute physical properties to Him? Genesis doesn't posit "creation ex nihilo" in the Big Bang either, not in the way you are thinking of it, at least. The Bible talks of creating everything from and through the Logos (the Word).

Please back this up. Start with defining matter in terms of quantum physics so we can agree on terms. For example, are you saying the physical properties of matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, and what does that mean? The physical part of particles (matter) is created via observation in the sense it collapses to a specific state from a state without any definite location within space and time.Please show how you know the singularity exists. Interesting btw, that God is a singularity, and you say we know a singularity exists but somehow the idea of God cannot be validated....hmmmm

Try every paper ever written concerning the Big Bang. The Singularity is simply the single point from which the Universe expanded at the Big Bang. We know it existed by extrapolating the expansion of the Universe backwards.The Singularity does not, however, imply that the Universe did not exist at some point, as you seem to believe. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed - the Singularity is simply the state of the Universe as it began expanding. Creationists are the ones who claim the Universe did not exist at some point.

---

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

Or another way to say it is the universe does not exist at some point or exists simply by virtue of it being created or perhaps more accurately, the universe exists and came into existence from the Logos. Considering the Logos is independent of time, it's not so far off to say that there is no point in time the universe did not exist. There is simply a Person and Thing by which the universe exists and was created. The Logos itself exists apart from space-time as well as giving rise to and existing within space-time. However, it's existence is not dependant on space-time.

Hi Rahvin, Make up your mind.The big bang theory supposedly proved the universe had a beginning.
Now you are saying it never had a beginning. If there was no space.
If there was no time.
If there was no energy.
If there was no matter.That sounds like an absence of anything to me.Therefore there was no singularity. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/...a/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.htmlPlease compare:Cosmologists believe.............Creationist believeCould you please explain the difference?BTW I am asking for the second time for your source for your statement: "We know that the Singularity existed," Message 30You telling me to read all the papers on the big bang is not sufficient. What if I read one and brought it up that proves singularity could not have happened, would you believe it if it was written by a very reputable scientist? Who would happen to be an atheist. All that proves is that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth as claimed in Genesis 1:1.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."

its validated for me everytime i open my eyes, smell a flower, breath the air, touch an object, taste any food, or hear any sound.see, too many of you who don't believe in God, assume that all creationists view God the same way.God is not supernatural to me, but natural as the air we all breathe. all that is came from the energy that was first that is God. the bible supports this claim. "i am not the God of the dead, but the God of the living."as far as spirit, faith is a spirit, hope is a spirit, complaint is a spirit. but God is all things at once. and is not subject only to the spirit world, but also the physical world. and all things that are a part of it.from my "creationist" perspective, i see the earth to God, as like a cell in our bodies. lets say its a skin cell. and the skin cell gets infected. and it spreads, and it starts to infect the whole arm that its on, and without medicine, either the arm is going to rot and need cut off, or it'll spread til you die. like gangrene.so i see the earth as the lesion that God gave medicine too, because he didn't want his arm to rot off, and like the body we have, the medicine will either work with the cells, or some bodies will reject the medicine, and then the cells that reject the medicine will have to be cut out, so it doesn't effect the rest of the body.so in my creationist view; Jesus is the medicine. and the earth a part of the body of God that he wants to save. but some reject the medicine, and inevitably, to keep the infection from spreading, they will be removed from the body.nothing is outside of God, because all came from God, and nothing is external to God, it is all a part of him, and to us being man, may appear supernatural, may appear external, but to God all things are natural. and all things internal.now, to debate with me, you knowing these views i hold, now know how to hold the debate, but if your debating with a creationist, who believes that god is separate from this body of reality, then with him you would have to debate separately, and what could anyone who believes this way debate? there is nothing to show if God is separate. but by my views, all science was established by God, so science will validate him. because God set the laws of true science.

---

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

Not really, I suppose. I gave up trying to discuss philosophical jibberish after I tried several times with Phat. You should talk to him. You two are just as fluent in jibberish as each other.

Sure to a degree. As Paul said: Imo, there is both an immanent aspect of God which indeed sustains the existence of every thing, and there is a transcendant aspect of God as well.

i agree.but he doesn't transcend separate from himself, but transcends where we can go. Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

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

We agree on that.

Page Not Found | Penguin Random House

Hi randman,Are you sure about what Tipler said: "Stephen Hawking proved mathematically that the Singularity is not in time or in space, but outside both."I thought Dr. Hawking proved singularity could not have been the source of the big bang.I will try and find where Tipler got his information. If you know please pass it along that way I won't waste time looking for it.Sleep time now, 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 gotta get some sleep too. I am not sure on Hawking but just quoting what I read. Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Correction: The Big Bang shows that the Universe as we know it had a beginning. That doesn't mean there was ever a point in time that the Universe did not exist, just not in the state we see it. Atoms may not have existed, but that doesn't mean that matter and energy did not exist in a different state.Look, this is getting way off-topic for this thread. If you'd like to discuss the Big Bang, start a new thread in the science forums. This isn't the place.The topic here is the insistence that the complexity of the Universe demands a Creator, while insisting that the obviously complex Creator does not require a Creator of his own. That's not what the Big Bang says, ICANT. Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, period. The Singularity is the point at which our physics break down, because everything existed as a single point. You can't calculate speed, for instance, because (speed = distance/time) would be (speed = 0/0) which doesn't make sense to our math.No scientists claims everything came from literally nothing. If you ask "what came before the Big Bang," the question doesn't make sense any more than "what is farther North than the North Pole?"Again, if you'd like to discuss the Big Bag further, please start a new topic. "I believe in fairies.""I believe the Earth orbits the Sun."One of these statements is based on evidence. The either is not. Scientific theories are based on evidence and the repeated testing of predictive models. Religious beliefs are based on old books and superstitions, and can never be pinned down to offer evidence. The best they can ever do is say "Yeah, but God did it!" which both explains nothing, and violates parsimony all at once. I'd like to see that paper if you have it.As for my source for the Singularity: here is one paper discussing the possible structure of the Singularity prior to the Bang.Really, the Singularity is simple extrapolation. We know from direct observation that the Universe is expanding over time. If we trace that expansion backwards, the Universe reaches a single point.There are models being worked on that do not include a Singularity, like String Theory. But as of yet, to my knowledge, these models are completely untestable with modern technology. I'll concede that it is possible there was no actual Singularity in the way we understand it today, but even still, nobody is suggesting that matter and energy were created ex nihilo. Asking what came "before" the Universe is still a nonsense question. Only if you violate parsimony by adding an extraneous entity, and then somehow rationalize 6-day Creation with a billions-of-years-old Universe.In other words, it doesn't even in the slightest prove anything of the sort.Let's get back on topic now.You claim the Universe requires a Creator. What definition of "Creator" do you use that allows it to not require its own Creator by the same logic? If you cannot, then either there must have been infinite Creators creating each other, or no Creator is required at all. If no Creator is required by the evidence, then the existence of a Creator violates parsimony.

---

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