In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.

We're glad you decided to join us. At the end of this message you will find some links to threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.Pull up a stump and set a spell. Keep your feet to the fire and the smoke never gets in your eyes.

---

firstly there was always something... why do people always assume that god has been there from the beggining and that it must have been created for it to exist? who says the universe hasnt been here continuously collapsing and reforming forever?

That idea is just as impossible to my logic. I believe in truth and order. If it was expanding and contracting forever, wouldn't we still expect a number of repititions? I would rather bank on a god than ignore the severe contridiction to my logic.

Infinite? Infinite creation implies a pantheistic concept of God. (And I am assuming, in my belief, that God lit the fuse on the Big Bang, so to speak)By the way, I DO realize that this is a Cosmology Forum, but I think that an infinite past is both a scientific and a philosophical/theological question.This message has been edited by Phat, 03-27-2006 02:08 AM

fair enough. nothing cant create something. i see that point. yet there really is no other alternative, except that a being created it, which is hard to decipher because if god created the universe, what was he doing for an infinite amount of time before he created the universe? i guess either way you look at it, there was always something there

may i quote your whole message , because i think it contain the part of the problem .."fair enough. nothing cant create something. i see that point. yet there really is no other alternative, except that a being created it, which is hard to decipher because if god created the universe, what was he doing for an infinite amount of time before he created the universe? i guess either way you look at it, there was always something there "the problem being we are using language designed to say ...good morning ..look its raining .. how much is the loaf of bread ...
and with it we are trying to describe events that do not conform to our everytday reality ie the BIG BANGyou ask "if god created the universe, what was he doing for an infinite amount of time " ... but time is a propertiy of our universe .. before the universe there was no TIME ... also there was no space .. not simple void or vacum but no SPACE .. our fundemental laws of physics coud not work because there was no Universe for them to work in .you go on to say "i guess either way you look at it, there was always something there " .. but there is no THEREconfused .. me to ! , but once you can get passed the fact that the explanations have to be translated into our language you can start to get a handle on NOTHING CREATING the universe ... without the intervention of a outside party ... ( hmm may be outside is the wrong word )

Your entire argument rests on a logical fallacy, namely The Fallacy of Composition. Just because things in the universe have causes doesn't mean the universe has a cause.

The cosmologists.Read the replies to Message 6where I asked the same question and it got answered.

But, not all cosmologists.There is the ekypytrotic model of the big bang. That has not been ruled out yet.

you ask "if god created the universe, what was he doing for an infinite amount of time " ... but time is a propertiy of our universe .. before the universe there was no TIME ... also there was no space .. not simple void or vacum but no SPACE .. our fundemental laws of physics coud not work because there was no Universe for them to work in .unless i misread your argument, you seem to imply that god can only exist within energy (or a derivative of energy, matter). There is no reason why god cannot exist within a void, and yes if nothing exists it is a void. Why is a void dark? because there is nothing for light to reflect off, and it has a lack of light hence the dark 'colour'. you seem to think that a void is an object, when it is simply a description in our language of 'nothingness'.you go on to say "i guess either way you look at it, there was always something there " .. but there is no THEREby this i meant that either an atom or god. There is always a THERE, something is not a derivative of nothing.even the word nothing implies this. 'Nothing' is a description of a lack of anything.This message has been edited by generaljoe, 03-29-2006 12:16 AM

If properties such as timelessness or an infinite past are inconceivable when applied to the universe, how does ascribing them to a creator make them any more conceivable? Any objections you have to a universe with an infinite past, or a universe appearing from nothing, can be applied just as well to a creator simply by substituting the word "creator" for the word "universe".Nature isn't required to follow our intuition about how it works. Even Einstein's intuition failed when it came to accepting quantum mechanics. In fact, given the past fifty years, it's a safe bet that within most of our lifetimes something very counerintuitive will be discovered about how the universe works.

Because the creator has magic powers and the universe does not. Unless you consider the creator a god with supernatural powers, then its different from the universe and could have properties that the universe could not. Yep, and they're fun to read about too.

Catholic Scientist But if the qualities of God are supernatural then how can communication occur with the natural since this implies a natural means of alerting our physical senses?You also mention magic. Could you explain to us just what the heck that means?

How does GOD being supernatural preclude GOD from also using natual means? Can not Supernatural be a superset that includes natural as a subset?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Calling something "magic" is hardly an explanation. Unless you then go on to explain magic, you're simply calling the concept unexplainable and giving it another name. Again, ascribing something to the supernatural is not an explanation. It's simply a way of calling something unexplainable.