Something From Nothing?

Ahhh! A great discussion on the Big Bang vs the Creation theory!
Here is my 2 cents worth. If the Big Bang theory is true, answer these questions:
1) How did something come from nothing. This means, how did matter come from non matter as an original cause? For the Creation theory, the question boils down to this question: Which came first? Creation(matter) or a Creator?
2) How Did Life originate? Frankenstein...electricity?? By now, you guys know that I am a Christian absolutist. By definition, I would think that much of the collective belief systems originate from one of two sources:
A) God is the eternally existant first cause. From God originates the very definitions and realities of creation, love, power, and energy.
the antithesis of this belief is B.
B) Man is the source of all wisdom. Man defines truth. Man defines religion. Man defines knowledge by our evolutionary growth and understanding.
Obviously, I am a believer along the path of A, but I respect everyone in this forum and shall try and understand any comments..k?

Well.... Good point. Are you saying that if an origin exists, where did that origin originate from? This shows me that you ascribe to (B) where you yourself must define the origin rather than acknowledge an origin as having made you. It all boils down to these two potential origins. A Creator is my origin or I define the origin, thus my intellect satisfies the question. I do not mean to suggest that you are right OR wrong. I by definition believe in an Origin that made me, while you seek to define the very definition of the concept of Origin.

I will look this up tomorrow...I gotta get some sleep tonite! Thanks for chatting! You stay up late, Crashfrog!

Sacred Mathematics represents a wholly contained and internally consistent philosophy -- a philosophy which describes physical reality, its cosmogony and every aspect of its science. The Greek Philosopher, Plato, has said: Geometry is knowledge of the eternally existent. Numbers are the highest degree of knowledge. It is knowledge itself. This came off one of those mathimatical websites. Now...surmise this: If numbers are the highest degree of knowledge, can a mind imagine infinity? (Yes) Well...in line with the biblical "fable" of original sin, if man can be as gods, can man imagine omnipotance? (of course) Thus...it all gets back to what one believes is the point of knowledge and wisdom creation....our own minds, either individually or collectively? Or perhaps a Higher source apart from us??

This is true about science. You are correct, but my point is that what I originally stated still defines the issue:By definition, I would think that much of the collective belief systems originate from one of two sources:
A) God is the eternally existant first cause. From God originates the very definitions and realities of creation, love, power, and energy.
the antithesis of this belief is B.
B) Man is the source of all wisdom. Man defines truth. Man defines religion. Man defines knowledge by our evolutionary growth and understanding.
It is true that by definition, God may be unprovable whereas gravity may be very provable. God has been provable to my satisfaction based on the following:
1) Mystical experiences of a personal nature.
2) Evidence of changed lives from people whom I personally know.
3) An internal realization that cannot be proven but is simply known.
I must admit, however, that none of my proofs are inclusive as scientific evidence for everyone. Many will find alternative explanations for the experiences which I have witnessed. Thus, I can give the atheist side the argument that theism is "unprovable."

Ok,Rei....let us test the hypothesis of any possibility that a Diety could and would speak to humans through ancient writings translated unto the present. Now let me get personal...does this prospect annoy you? Perhaps the possibility of all logic in ones own mind being refuted is daunting. I know that I bristle when asked to consider the possibility of no Diety. And it is true that in our free thought nation, each of us has a right to our own beliefs. Some things are clear to me, however.
1) I can not "prove" the existence of a Diety. You cannot "prove" the non existence of one either. To get back on topic, what is the source of our conviction? Is it our own animated uniqueness, or is it an impartated "awareness"? Perhaps many of you feel comfortable with cold hard facts that you can quantify. All that I have to offer as my evidence is my inner quantification. To an absolute truth believer, an absolute exists. To an atheist, no absolute exists in the realm of belief. To be fair, most atheists have an open mind and would love to be shown a fact that would allow their worldview to expand. Perhaps this is not as true with so called "believers" who will hang on to their sacred cow despite being unable to explain the rationale. I suppose that my defense of my "personal rationale and conviction" is an inner conviction which I cannot share. I am only trying to share this conviction out of a spirit of wonder and respect. I seek not to bother anyone. (whew! I am a long winded writer...sorry, guys!

OK..one last post before bed. Sidelined,my homie! You say that
"I am sorry but for the creation theory do you have an explanation of how God created something from nothing that explains things?"
Alas! No. I can only point to that dang blasted book of "fables". I can offer quotes from the book that address the discussion, but apart from the book, I have no concrete proof to present to you. Note my post over in the forum, Where Did God Come From? For the sake of our discussions, I won't claim that Absolute(God) must exist. I will only say that He can exist. Also...as to your assertion that perhaps it is amiss to suggest that at one point in time, nothing was.
OK. lets ask another question..What force caused simple non living elements to become complex (hopefully) thinking systems such as ourselves? We are assuming, of course, that the early times of the universe had only simple non living systems. Or am I wrong in THAT assumption?[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

Here is a quick question to ponder: In the Bible, light is mentioned as the stars and such, but also mentioned as a sort of "spiritual light" such as in John 1:3-5=====>
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
I will speculate that this "Spiritual Light" is not in a fixed spot. It is everywhere, and yet nowhere. Everywhere if.... and nowhere if...
Comments?

Life may have originated in hydrosulfuric vents at the bottom of the ocean where tiny creatures could evolve to feed on the highly consentrated nutrients spewing out of the vents.
Both A&B, I believe, are assumptions on your part?
I suppose that you are right in that both A and B originated from MY intellect, thus, A is really B.
Hypothetically, what do we as individuals believe the source of stuff to be? Is it based on a belief...(A) or on a theory (B)

Hey, Mr. Thingschange! Good points! You say that, in conclusion, I agree. Thoughts: Have they always existed? Was a Model T Ford already created before Henry put 2 and 2 together and painted it black? People always say...well, its the same thing to assert that the universe always was as it is to say that God always was! I disagree. It takes an idea to make a reality. We have had to find and quantify our ideas in order to prove the reality around us. Which came first: Reality or the idea of reality?

Beercules! (Are you related to Hercules?) Anyway...you state that Good point! For the Biblical proponents, at least the thesis and idea of the good book has to be sound or believed to be sound in order to connect the God hypothesis to any sort of a scenario. People can shoot the inerrency full of holes, yet all they have really done is to sink the only boat capable of getting them off of their own island. Belief in an unprovable hypothesis is known as a Leap of Faith. Skeptics take note: Miracles DO happen, and while the most ardent logician will attempt to point out other possibilities which should not be dismissed, the possibility of a personal and loving God as a Spirit which communes with us and flows around us..(in us, if we allow) is a viable possibility. We will never have the blueprints or the verifiable proof. We will see the evidence expressed in numerous intangible ways. In my Belief, God is more than a figment of my imagination. He is not something or someone who I made up to represent an object of worship. How I can explain Him to others is perhaps the topic of another thread.

ThingsChange! I like your numerical analogy! Analogies are not necessarily proofs so much as they are attempts at communicating similar ideas. Here is another one.
1) In the Beginning, There is One Reality. 1 The universe was of the size, shape, and character of this realities definition.
2) This reality created His angels. (1+angels)=1
3) The Angels were given free thought/realization apart from the reality. They could thus have a choice of viewing reality as it was or how they perceived it. Once Lucifer chose his own reality, the problem became like this: (1+angels), (Lucifer)..or 2. All of the Angels were given the right to choose realities. The thing was, once a reality was chosen, it could not be denied. Angels by definition can not change their reality. Thus, the problem became like this:
(1+2/3 Angels), and (2+1/3 Angels).....Both subsets can still be expressed like this: 1 or 2. Please understand that this is not a dualistic concept. The very reality of God is as Creator. The other reality, by definition, was merely a choice, not a cloning.
when man entered the picture, we became seperated from God by choosing the other reality,expressed as the "knowledge of 1 or 2"
On a number line, how many possible points exist between 1 and 2? Is it possible to get to 2 without the value of the sum of those points?
Jesus, by "becoming the value of man yet submitting to the value of God bridged the gap for us.