Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is God needed to explain the beginning?

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:05:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

All is dependent on what definition you provide for God. Knowing about the attributes of God would connect the reality with our rational thinking.

First of all, "To comprehend Almighty's Being, by mean of reason is absolutely impossible. Because anything which can be understood can be comprehended. An example without comparison is that if one thinks of a bird, then ones mind can comprehend the bird's physique and one will thus be able to imagine or picture a bird. Reason is it's tangible which the mind can understand through reasoning and knowledge. Thus human mind can't comprehend Almighty Being as it's beyond the understanding of creation."

However through the attributes of Almighty, we are able to know about Him and His command. (This is where guide is provided, in the form of revelation, the speech, when Human Mind is unable to go beyond the limitations)

7 Attributes of Almighty (Existence, Power, Hearing, Seeing, Speech, knowledge and Will). But he does not depends ears,eyes or tongue, since these are all physical form and Almighty is free from any physical form. He is all seeing and all hearing. He sees absolutely and hears absolutely. His speech is free from sound, our "speech" recitation, writing and reading is created but which is recited, written and read isn't created. His attributes are neither same nor separate from His Being.

So the rationale is whatever come into our mind as the Almighty's Being can't be your creator. Because that thing is itself created. This is the uniqueness that leads towards to believe in Oneness of God. Oneness says there is nothing as similar to God. Rejection of similarity would restrict every thing to not be similar even in attributes (as there is no similarity in Almighty's Self Being). One of the attribute is "Existence" because everything other than Almighty including universe is created (as we can comprehend and understand the Universe).

Thus if you are silly to believe in a False God having body or direction, that is when you have irrationally believed, this would provide the only rationale that there is no need for such false God to make the universe come into being. But if you rationally believe that God isn't created and nothing else is similar, then Universe is created.

*If someone finds any problem in explanation, that's my slack of ability.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 3:52:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

Put it this way; because of our Creator who planned every experience that man would have for eternity, the universe appears real.

There's no such thing as matter, space or time in the mind of God. Everything we experience is only an illusion that comes from processed energy that was spoken into existence by the created voice of our Creator. His voice is called the Word of God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 3:53:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 3:52:46 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

Put it this way; because of our Creator who planned every experience that man would have for eternity, the universe appears real.

There's no such thing as matter, space or time in the mind of God. Everything we experience is only an illusion that comes from processed energy that was spoken into existence by the created voice of our Creator. His voice is called the Word of God.

Nice bare-assertions. God any evidence for your claims?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 3:58:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 3:53:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 3:52:46 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

Put it this way; because of our Creator who planned every experience that man would have for eternity, the universe appears real.

There's no such thing as matter, space or time in the mind of God. Everything we experience is only an illusion that comes from processed energy that was spoken into existence by the created voice of our Creator. His voice is called the Word of God.

Nice bare-assertions. God any evidence for your claims?

Since God created all science and scientists, He's able to let us saints know who we are in Him. Everything started out as God's thoughts. From His planned thoughts, He spoke everything into existence as energy. Energy is information that needs to be processed before we can see a visible world and view each other in the flesh. Even scientist know we're created as energy but Christians deny science. They would rather keep thinking with 2,000 + year old thoughts.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 1:15:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 1:20:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I'm not sure how that ties in with my question exactly.

Then you must explain your query first.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sleevedagger
Posts: 129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 6:34:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing. Who am I to argue. :)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 2:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 6:34:15 AM, Sleevedagger wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.


Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing. Who am I to argue. :)

I believe that if there was an uncaused beginning of all physical reality; that still wouldn't mean that the universe came from nothing.
Sleevedagger
Posts: 129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 2:33:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 2:22:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 6:34:15 AM, Sleevedagger wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.


Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing. Who am I to argue. :)

I believe that if there was an uncaused beginning of all physical reality; that still wouldn't mean that the universe came from nothing.

That is of course true, however this lays in the realm of free thinking and personal inquiry. Unless of course your belief can be mathematically proven, which then would have a big implication on future development.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 2:57:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 2:33:59 PM, Sleevedagger wrote:
At 11/15/2013 2:22:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 6:34:15 AM, Sleevedagger wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.


Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing. Who am I to argue. :)

I believe that if there was an uncaused beginning of all physical reality; that still wouldn't mean that the universe came from nothing.

That is of course true, however this lays in the realm of free thinking and personal inquiry. Unless of course your belief can be mathematically proven, which then would have a big implication on future development.

I don't have a "belief" as to what the explanation of the universe is. There are way too many options, and none which can be proven currently. It would be irrational to claim to have the explanation of the universe as we simply don't have enough data.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:21:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 2:22:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe that if there was an uncaused beginning of all physical reality; that still wouldn't mean that the universe came from nothing.

Could you elaborate on this a little, please?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.

Why think there even was a "before" the universe to even ask such a question "what was before?".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:43:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:21:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/15/2013 2:22:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe that if there was an uncaused beginning of all physical reality; that still wouldn't mean that the universe came from nothing.

Could you elaborate on this a little, please?

Assume for the sake of argument that all physical reality had an uncaused beginning at The Big Bang. Most theists would seem to think this infers that the universe came from nothing. I see no justification for this claim. If the universe came from nothing, then:

"At first, absolutely nothing exists, and "then", the first state (or interval of time) of the universe exists and expands."

This seems to be what perplexes people the most. If there is absolutely nothing, then how can something just randomly appear out of nothingness? This "something from nothing" scenario is one that I don"t find required in the first place. Instead of:

Scenario 1: "At first, absolutely nothing exists, and "then", the first state (or interval of time) of the universe exists and expands."

One can just assume:

Scenario 2: "At first, the first state (or interval of time) of the universe exists and expands."

In Scenario 2 we don"t start off with nothing because if we start with nothing; we get nothing (assuming ex nihilo nihil fit) making Scenario 1 impossible. With Scenario 2 we simply start off with the first state of the universe itself. In this scenario the universe doesn"t "come from" something or "come from" nothing; it simply doesn"t "come from" at all. This holds regardless of the universe and the finitude of its past.

Therefore if all physical reality had a beginning and was uncaused, the Atheist isn"t committed to the notion that something came from nothing.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:41:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.

Why think there even was a "before" the universe to even ask such a question "what was before?".

Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded? Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God), or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 3:51:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:41:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.

Why think there even was a "before" the universe to even ask such a question "what was before?".

Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded?

Why would there be a random God just chilling that is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient for no reason?

Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God)

It doesn't violate the energy of conservation for two reasons:

(i) That assumes the law existed before the universe

(ii) The universe probably has a total sum of zero energy (all the negative energy balances out with the positive). Thus, if there ever was 0 energy, there would be the same amount now if you added it all up. Therefore, the net energy never changes; which is all the first law really refers to.

, or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").

There is no reason to assume a "before" the universe. Until you can prove that there was a "before" the universe, your question is trivial.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:00:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, now I'm with you. I think the problem hinges on the fact that many people do not realise how predicated the temporal/tenses are upon the system they're trying to describe. Time is part of everything, so there is no sense in talking about 'before' it; otherwise time would have to precede the rest of existence and there would not have 'been nothing'. It is essentially asking "consider this rule that is part of a particular system; would a state not of that system be in accordance with the rule or not?".

It seems to me that the theist is actually committing to the position they criticise; by allowing the idea that rules can be extended and meaningfully applied beyond the system to which they belong, they create whole problem that underlies the nonsense surrounding the 'necessary' and 'contingent' distinction. If rules can be extended so, then an explanation for god's necessity must be found. Of course, it is common for the argument to be rejected because, at heart, a foundational implication of theism is that rules can be extended beyond the system to which they belong.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:03:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:41:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.

Why think there even was a "before" the universe to even ask such a question "what was before?".

Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded?

Why would there be a random God just chilling that is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient for no reason?

Perhaps he got bored (if such a being can actual have such an emotion) and wanted to try something out (I honestly don't know, but would boredom be a thing that could happen to such a deity)?

Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God)

It doesn't violate the energy of conservation for two reasons:

(i) That assumes the law existed before the universe

Which is where String theory gives a bit of an answer, which would be yes... until you assert that it assumes that the law existed before the multi-verse.

(ii) The universe probably has a total sum of zero energy (all the negative energy balances out with the positive). Thus, if there ever was 0 energy, there would be the same amount now if you added it all up. Therefore, the net energy never changes; which is all the first law really refers to.

Which assumes the idea that the pre-Big Bang universe was a stable entity, which is plausible, but then one must ask: "What destabilized it?"

, or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").

There is no reason to assume a "before" the universe. Until you can prove that there was a "before" the universe, your question is trivial.

Why assume that there wasn't a before the universe? Just because we have never seen anything past that point doesn't mean that you can't mathematically validate a possible before.

In astronomy, the above stated quandary has applied itself in an interesting way, as there is a 13.5 million light year sphere that we can see, as light hasn't had time to reach out eyes from beyond, so we don't know if a beyond exists, but if there is, then there could be an larger (if not infinite) universe as (if a larger universe were true) we can only observe everything that is 6.75 billion light years in a given direction, but an astronomer out at the edge of the sphere that we can observe on Earth could see a further 6.75 billion light years (if not more or less based of the acceleration of the universe and inflation theory), and so on and so on to possibly infinity. While proof doesn't exist, it isn't ruled out, and is considered a very serious concept in astronomy.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:09:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded?

There would not be; space would have been part of the explosion, not a point from which it originated.

Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God),

It does not, as conservation of energy is a part of the universe which's creation it would have to precede in order to be violated.

or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").

You are asking the wrong kind of questions; stability, instability, destabilisation all rely on the universe existing to have any meaning. It is their context and their medium. Think of the words; "coming into existence" - something entering into the world of the existent. If you have no world of the existence, there is nothing for anything become a part of. Before is a misleading term here, it is better to think 'outside of'; not having a coordinate in space-time. Imagine I have a piece of paper and I draw a circle on it. Now imagine the area of paper outside of the circle. I do the same with another piece of paper, with a different sized circle. Imagine the area outside of that one. Repeat it for many sizes of circle. Now imagine the area outside the circle on a piece of paper on which there is no circle. That is similar to 'before' the universe; it lacks the any defining concept against which it can be contrasted.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:39:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:09:00 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded?

There would not be; space would have been part of the explosion, not a point from which it originated.

By space, I simply meant that it had to have existed in a point somewhere.

Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God),

It does not, as conservation of energy is a part of the universe which's creation it would have to precede in order to be violated.

or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").

You are asking the wrong kind of questions; stability, instability, destabilisation all rely on the universe existing to have any meaning. It is their context and their medium. Think of the words; "coming into existence" - something entering into the world of the existent. If you have no world of the existence, there is nothing for anything become a part of. Before is a misleading term here, it is better to think 'outside of'; not having a coordinate in space-time. Imagine I have a piece of paper and I draw a circle on it. Now imagine the area of paper outside of the circle. I do the same with another piece of paper, with a different sized circle. Imagine the area outside of that one. Repeat it for many sizes of circle. Now imagine the area outside the circle on a piece of paper on which there is no circle. That is similar to 'before' the universe; it lacks the any defining concept against which it can be contrasted.

Okay, now I am confused.

Is the area outside of the circle (that is to say, the universe) what is supposed to be that which might need a God to explain?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:41:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:03:06 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:41:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.

Why think there even was a "before" the universe to even ask such a question "what was before?".

Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded?

Why would there be a random God just chilling that is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient for no reason?

Perhaps he got bored (if such a being can actual have such an emotion) and wanted to try something out (I honestly don't know, but would boredom be a thing that could happen to such a deity)?

Perhaps. Perhaps what I have outlined is correct. There are tons of possibilities, God is just lost in a string of options. I see now reason to view God as the most plausible. To the contrary.


Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God)

It doesn't violate the energy of conservation for two reasons:

(i) That assumes the law existed before the universe

Which is where String theory gives a bit of an answer, which would be yes... until you assert that it assumes that the law existed before the multi-verse.

I do believe it is plausible that states of affairs describable by the laws of physics existed 'prior' to our expanding space-time region (a non-strict definition of universe).


(ii) The universe probably has a total sum of zero energy (all the negative energy balances out with the positive). Thus, if there ever was 0 energy, there would be the same amount now if you added it all up. Therefore, the net energy never changes; which is all the first law really refers to.

Which assumes the idea that the pre-Big Bang universe was a stable entity, which is plausible, but then one must ask: "What destabilized it?"

If there was such a "pre-Big Bang" state of affairs containing 0 energy, perhaps the "destabilization" happened spontaneously. Perhaps the "pre-Big Big" state of affairs has in inherit nature entailing the "split" happens probabalistically, and randomly.


, or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").

There is no reason to assume a "before" the universe. Until you can prove that there was a "before" the universe, your question is trivial.

Why assume that there wasn't a before the universe?

I don't. I am just saying it is not necessary to assume there was a "before" the universe.

Just because we have never seen anything past that point doesn't mean that you can't mathematically validate a possible before.

I never said that. I am just saying that its possible that "the buck stops" at the first state of the universe with there being no "before". Positing extra additive assumptions violates Occam's Razor.


In astronomy, the above stated quandary has applied itself in an interesting way, as there is a 13.5 million light year sphere that we can see, as light hasn't had time to reach out eyes from beyond, so we don't know if a beyond exists, but if there is, then there could be an larger (if not infinite) universe as (if a larger universe were true) we can only observe everything that is 6.75 billion light years in a given direction, but an astronomer out at the edge of the sphere that we can observe on Earth could see a further 6.75 billion light years (if not more or less based of the acceleration of the universe and inflation theory), and so on and so on to possibly infinity. While proof doesn't exist, it isn't ruled out, and is considered a very serious concept in astronomy.

I never said it is ruled out. I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with viewing the first state of the universe as the "uncaused cause". With there being no "before" "prior" to it in any sense that to talk about. Perhaps that is incorrect, and there is a before in which there was a contracting universe (like in Loop Quantum Cosmology). Perhaps Alexander Vilenkin's model is correct and there is an "atemporally prior" to the universe from which space, time, and energy tunnelled into existence.

We don't know.... I just don't think God is necessary, or even the most plausible explanation.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:43:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with viewing the first state of the universe as the "uncaused cause". With there being no "before" or "prior" to it in any sense to talk about.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:41:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 4:03:06 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:41:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.

Why think there even was a "before" the universe to even ask such a question "what was before?".

Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded?

Why would there be a random God just chilling that is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient for no reason?

Perhaps he got bored (if such a being can actual have such an emotion) and wanted to try something out (I honestly don't know, but would boredom be a thing that could happen to such a deity)?

Perhaps. Perhaps what I have outlined is correct. There are tons of possibilities, God is just lost in a string of options. I see now reason to view God as the most plausible. To the contrary.

Yeah, God isn't really the best option, seeing as something living outside of physics, while not technically breaking physics, doesn't really fit it with rationality unless all other more objective/scientific answers are debunked.


Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God)

It doesn't violate the energy of conservation for two reasons:

(i) That assumes the law existed before the universe

Which is where String theory gives a bit of an answer, which would be yes... until you assert that it assumes that the law existed before the multi-verse.

I do believe it is plausible that states of affairs describable by the laws of physics existed 'prior' to our expanding space-time region (a non-strict definition of universe).

It certainly could be possible, but how to prove it is far beyond my knowledge of such things.


(ii) The universe probably has a total sum of zero energy (all the negative energy balances out with the positive). Thus, if there ever was 0 energy, there would be the same amount now if you added it all up. Therefore, the net energy never changes; which is all the first law really refers to.

Which assumes the idea that the pre-Big Bang universe was a stable entity, which is plausible, but then one must ask: "What destabilized it?"

If there was such a "pre-Big Bang" state of affairs containing 0 energy, perhaps the "destabilization" happened spontaneously. Perhaps the "pre-Big Big" state of affairs has in inherit nature entailing the "split" happens probabalistically, and randomly.

I wasn't thinking of it so much as having no energy, but rather containing the same amount of energy that exists in our universe, but it is stably contained within itself. Kind of like a bomb, whereby there is a lot of chemical energy that is stable, until it is armed and hits the target, to which it then violently explodes.

That being said, a spontaneous destabilization could be possible if you could somehow prove that (in your case) 0 energy can be destabilized.


, or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").

There is no reason to assume a "before" the universe. Until you can prove that there was a "before" the universe, your question is trivial.

Why assume that there wasn't a before the universe?

I don't. I am just saying it is not necessary to assume there was a "before" the universe.

Just because we have never seen anything past that point doesn't mean that you can't mathematically validate a possible before.

I never said that. I am just saying that its possible that "the buck stops" at the first state of the universe with there being no "before". Positing extra additive assumptions violates Occam's Razor.

True, it does violate Occam's Razor, but that still would require some sort of explanation as to why the universe began, which leads to the assumptions of how it was created (God, physics, etc).



In astronomy, the above stated quandary has applied itself in an interesting way, as there is a 13.5 million light year sphere that we can see, as light hasn't had time to reach out eyes from beyond, so we don't know if a beyond exists, but if there is, then there could be an larger (if not infinite) universe as (if a larger universe were true) we can only observe everything that is 6.75 billion light years in a given direction, but an astronomer out at the edge of the sphere that we can observe on Earth could see a further 6.75 billion light years (if not more or less based of the acceleration of the universe and inflation theory), and so on and so on to possibly infinity. While proof doesn't exist, it isn't ruled out, and is considered a very serious concept in astronomy.

I never said it is ruled out. I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with viewing the first state of the universe as the "uncaused cause". With there being no "before" "prior" to it in any sense that to talk about. Perhaps that is incorrect, and there is a before in which there was a contracting universe (like in Loop Quantum Cosmology). Perhaps Alexander Vilenkin's model is correct and there is an "atemporally prior" to the universe from which space, time, and energy tunnelled into existence.

We don't know.... I just don't think God is necessary, or even the most plausible explanation.

It certainly isn't the most plausible explanation, as God is something that can't be disproved, and can only be proved if he asserts his existence upon humanity, which hasn't happened (assuming the Christian God exists) since Biblical times (cult leaders excluded).
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2013 5:16:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:52:35 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 4:41:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 4:03:06 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:51:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:47:43 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:41:30 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/15/2013 3:20:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/13/2013 10:10:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Lets say that that the universe came into being and began to exist; is God needed for this? Explain.

For now, probably.

While it's all nice to say that the Big Bang was the moment of creation, it's to easy to ask what happened before the Big Bang, or more importantly, why did the Big Bang happen? This has led to the idea of multi-verse theories, most notably the one explained in Strong Theory that (IIRC) states that the Big Bang was caused when either two universes collided, or two universes split apart. The only problem with this way of looking at it, is now you have to ask: "When did all of THESE universes start to exist", which hasn't been answered as far as I know.

All that being said, it's either a divine being, or at some point many many billions if not trillions (if not higher orders of magnitude) of years ago, the law of conservation of mass just didn't exist at all.

Why think there even was a "before" the universe to even ask such a question "what was before?".

Well, why would there be a random point in space that all of a sudden exploded?

Why would there be a random God just chilling that is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient for no reason?

Perhaps he got bored (if such a being can actual have such an emotion) and wanted to try something out (I honestly don't know, but would boredom be a thing that could happen to such a deity)?

Perhaps. Perhaps what I have outlined is correct. There are tons of possibilities, God is just lost in a string of options. I see now reason to view God as the most plausible. To the contrary.

Yeah, God isn't really the best option, seeing as something living outside of physics, while not technically breaking physics, doesn't really fit it with rationality unless all other more objective/scientific answers are debunked.


Did it just come into existence (which breaks conservation of energy in a sense, or just say God)

It doesn't violate the energy of conservation for two reasons:

(i) That assumes the law existed before the universe

Which is where String theory gives a bit of an answer, which would be yes... until you assert that it assumes that the law existed before the multi-verse.

I do believe it is plausible that states of affairs describable by the laws of physics existed 'prior' to our expanding space-time region (a non-strict definition of universe).

It certainly could be possible, but how to prove it is far beyond my knowledge of such things.


(ii) The universe probably has a total sum of zero energy (all the negative energy balances out with the positive). Thus, if there ever was 0 energy, there would be the same amount now if you added it all up. Therefore, the net energy never changes; which is all the first law really refers to.

Which assumes the idea that the pre-Big Bang universe was a stable entity, which is plausible, but then one must ask: "What destabilized it?"

If there was such a "pre-Big Bang" state of affairs containing 0 energy, perhaps the "destabilization" happened spontaneously. Perhaps the "pre-Big Big" state of affairs has in inherit nature entailing the "split" happens probabalistically, and randomly.

I wasn't thinking of it so much as having no energy, but rather containing the same amount of energy that exists in our universe, but it is stably contained within itself. Kind of like a bomb, whereby there is a lot of chemical energy that is stable, until it is armed and hits the target, to which it then violently explodes.

That being said, a spontaneous destabilization could be possible if you could somehow prove that (in your case) 0 energy can be destabilized.

Well, I see no reason to think it couldn't. If we assume a zero energy state with an inherit nature entailing a spontaneous "split", then there doesn't seem to be a problem.



, or was it stable before hand (which begs the question of: "What destabilized it?"), or did something come before it (which in the case of Strong theory, just asks the same question of: "What came before that?").

There is no reason to assume a "before" the universe. Until you can prove that there was a "before" the universe, your question is trivial.

Why assume that there wasn't a before the universe?

I don't. I am just saying it is not necessary to assume there was a "before" the universe.

Just because we have never seen anything past that point doesn't mean that you can't mathematically validate a possible before.

I never said that. I am just saying that its possible that "the buck stops" at the first state of the universe with there being no "before". Positing extra additive assumptions violates Occam's Razor.

True, it does violate Occam's Razor, but that still would require some sort of explanation as to why the universe began, which leads to the assumptions of how it was created (God, physics, etc).

Perhaps the beginning was necessary (Like Theists believe God is necessary). Perhaps the first state of the universe was the "uncaused cause". If that's the case, then asking what caused the beginning would be futile.




In astronomy, the above stated quandary has applied itself in an interesting way, as there is a 13.5 million light year sphere that we can see, as light hasn't had time to reach out eyes from beyond, so we don't know if a beyond exists, but if there is, then there could be an larger (if not infinite) universe as (if a larger universe were true) we can only observe everything that is 6.75 billion light years in a given direction, but an astronomer out at the edge of the sphere that we can observe on Earth could see a further 6.75 billion light years (if not more or less based of the acceleration of the universe and inflation theory), and so on and so on to possibly infinity. While proof doesn't exist, it isn't ruled out, and is considered a very serious concept in astronomy.

I never said it is ruled out. I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with viewing the first state of the universe as the "uncaused cause". With there being no "before" "prior" to it in any sense that to talk about. Perhaps that is incorrect, and there is a before in which there was a contracting universe (like in Loop Quantum Cosmology). Perhaps Alexander Vilenkin's model is correct and there is an "atemporally prior" to the universe from which space, time, and energy tunnelled into existence.

We don't know.... I just don't think God is necessary, or even the most plausible explanation.

It certainly isn't the most plausible explanation, as God is something that can't be disproved, and can only be proved if he asserts his existence upon humanity, which hasn't happened (assuming the Christian God exists) since Biblical times (cult leaders excluded).
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:36:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:43:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with viewing the first state of the universe as the "uncaused cause". With there being no "before" or "prior" to it in any sense to talk about.

What is this "uncaused cause"?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:36:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/15/2013 4:43:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with viewing the first state of the universe as the "uncaused cause". With there being no "before" or "prior" to it in any sense to talk about.

What is this "uncaused cause"?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:40:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 10:36:46 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/15/2013 4:43:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*I am just saying that there is nothing wrong with viewing the first state of the universe as the "uncaused cause". With there being no "before" or "prior" to it in any sense to talk about.

What is this "uncaused cause"?

Perhaps the first state (or interval of time) of the universe's existence. I see no reason to posit an "uncaused cause" to explain the first state (or interval of time) of the universe, when we can just view the first state as the "uncaused cause".
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:48:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 10:40:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

What is this "uncaused cause"?

Perhaps the first state (or interval of time) of the universe's existence. I see no reason to posit an "uncaused cause" to explain the first state (or interval of time) of the universe, when we can just view the first state as the "uncaused cause".

Can't get your tone. May be you are a professor somewhere, thus using a tough explanation. Please elaborate a bit more.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~