Your Garage Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Snacks Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis DollyParton Shop Now
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

No One has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before The Big Bang? How did the Big Bang Come From Nothing and From Nowhere to "Create" This Universe? What happened Before Space and Time and Matter?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 13, 2013 8:46:05 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Oh, now I'm beginning to see. Very good, Irish!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 6:45:58 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
Kenyon is an angry person who gives every indication that he isn't here for discussion (at least, it appears so) but is here to feed his paranoia. He accomplishes this by salting his responses with gratuitous insults, thus garnering annoyed rebuttal and no-voting. That helps him maintain his conviction that "nobody likes me and everybody hates me and I might as well go eat worms."

At least, that's my take on Kenyon. Perhaps he'll calm down soon and actually just discuss.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 6:46:37 AM PST
Irish Lace says:
The light dawns, eh?! Good for you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 8:33:55 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
Ben West says: I get a little tired of listening to all knowing people who do not know that God knows more than any scientist
>Okay, G-d knows more than science. What does that have to do with the Big Bang Theory or any other scientific research?

"God created the universe, and God tasked man to explore its glory and purpose." - Farouk El-Baz

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 8:46:43 AM PST
KENYON: Degrees of south are what are north of the North Pole.

RANDALL: It is hard for me to see what sort of serious paper could be written on the topic of "North is South". But, since you are so adept at wordplay, I guess anything is possible.

KENYON: Why would anyone write a paper about the blindingly obvious?

By the way, I didn't say that I was adept at wordplay. I said that your earlier post was wordplay substituted for reason. You haven't responded to my point in any meaningful way.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 8:49:28 AM PST
Projection. I probably won't be responding to anymore of your posts, unless you start saying things that are actually thoughtful, which is something that I have never seen you do, before.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 10:19:51 AM PST
I suppose it's to be expected that you don't even know who you said what to.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 10:24:09 AM PST
Dodger, dodger.

Posted on Jan 14, 2013 10:35:36 AM PST
The following is a copy of my post, in which I was responding to a poster who attempted to use rhetorical wordplay to refute the validity of asking questions about a possibly non-temporal universe. Since it is one of the few posts that is actually on topic, and doesn't simply ridicule the OP, I remain hopeful that an actual discussion might break out, at any moment. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of what you say here, is rhetorical wordplay. Degrees of south are what are north of the North Pole. See. I can do it, too. Wordplay has a calming effect on restless minds, but it isn't really 'reason'. Interestingly, such wordplay is a substitute for knowledge, in pretty much the same manner that some religious beliefs are salves for troubled minds.

It doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the nature of existence in the absence of time and dimensionality. And while Russells argument that causality is not proof of a caused universe is acceptable, it is far, far, from being an argument that the universe is uncaused. It is not even an argument that it would be reasonable to believe that the universe is uncaused.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:14:56 AM PST
Ben West says:
Ben West says: I get a little tired of listening to all knowing people who do not know that God knows more than any scientist

Caplan:>>>Okay, G-d knows more than science. What does that have to do with the Big Bang Theory or any other scientific research?

IF God knows more about Science than any person who will ever live, then Genesis is the most advanced book in existence...and it is. Genesis correctly shows that the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day (Gen 2:4)and that every living creature was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. (Gen1:21)

Genesis 6:4 tells us what today's science has yet to discover and that is that we evolved our Human intelligence from Adam's descendants, showing that time and nature does change animal intelligence into Human intelligence.

Genesis 10:10 shows that there were NO human cities built before Noah arrived and History agrees that we SUDDENLY began building these cities just South of the mountains of Ararat, in Mesopotamia 10k years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:15:12 AM PST
So, being that the HH no boundary proposal calls into question the idea of a "before" in the first place, doesn't it seem like a topic to discuss? I mean, what's the point of answering the OP, if there is no "before"?

In fact, the OP itself seems to me to be quite logically nebulous when it asks, "What happened before ... time...?" What does "before" even mean, except in the context of time? It isn't even a sensible question, unless one accepts considerable equivocation on the definition of 'time'.

Posted on Jan 14, 2013 11:21:25 AM PST
No one has satisfactorily answered the question: What came before God? How did God come from nothing and from nowhere to "create" this universe? What happened before God?

Perhaps we're all a test tube experiment of some cosmic kid.

My God can beat up your God.

Phhht.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:26:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2013 11:29:29 AM PST
Ataraxia says:
"No One has satisfactorily answered the question:"

There are lots and lots of things we have not satisfactorily answered: What is dark matter? Is superstring theory really true? What causes lupus?

Doesn't mean we always just answer with a " 'Cuz God did it..." and think it's some sort of adequate answer. If we don't know something, it's OK to just say we don't know yet. Really. No one is going to roast you in all eternity for everything you don't or can't know yet (well, maybe except some deities...).

The first step to learning anything new is admitting you don't know in the first place.
---------------------------------
To know why it's important to say "I don't know" when you don't really know, and not just ascribe it to some "God did it", here is the Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman:

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question - to doubt - to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time - life and death - stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. "
------------------
"God did it" is a very poor substitute for "I don't know". Next time you don't know, try being honest and just saying the latter.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:31:49 AM PST
<<It is not even an argument that it would be reasonable to believe that the universe is uncaused.>>

Sure it is! It makes the whole question of First Cause into an axiom that you either choose to include, or not. Given that no proof or evidence (or counter-proof) is available for a given proposition, why isn't it equally reasonable to believe either it, or its negation? Or, better yet, to believe neither, and await some kind of evidence to decide the matter?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:39:45 AM PST
Actually, Genesis says that G-d caused the earth to bring forth every living creature (of the land), on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:26 makes it pretty clear that He created man with intelligence and dominion over the earth, and that this is what is meant by 'in His Image'.

And nothing is described as having happened 10k years ago.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:43:33 AM PST
"Sure it is! It makes the whole question of First Cause into an axiom that you either choose to include, or not."

Uh, just because you 'can' use something to create an obviously questionable dichotomy, doesn't mean that you should. (I'll give you a clue-- You shouldn't)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:43:44 AM PST
I note that the bible doesn't state who created God, or where he/she/it came from. Some credentials would be nice. But not expected.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:44:49 AM PST
Ben West says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:46:37 AM PST
"So, being that the HH no boundary proposal calls into question the idea of a "before" in the first place...."

Now figure out what is wrong with this statement. This is your mission, should you choose to accept it (why not? It's not a difficult one). This message won't self destruct in 30 seconds.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:49:39 AM PST
Ataraxia says:
"I can hardly wait to meet Him in the perfect, physical, third heaven. "

Huh. I thought it was seventh. Oh well.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:53:38 AM PST
Alan says:
Ataraxia,

There is an intermediate position between "I don't know" and "God did it" and that is; "God did it and I want to find out how." In practice this third option does not discourage scientific endeavour, in fact it positively promotes it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 11:56:54 AM PST
"He tells us that He wanted a physical world filled with people who will live forever."

Funny, where is that? Can we get him to come down here and reiterate that, because I have a big problem with taking the word of a bunch of primitive scribes thousands of years dead who just claim that what they wrote is "the word of God".

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 12:02:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2013 12:20:15 PM PST
Ataraxia says:
""God did it and I want to find out how."

But how do you know even that? How do you know Allah didn't do it? Or Brahma?

"In practice this third option does not discourage scientific endeavour, in fact it positively promotes it. "

Maybe. There are many scientists who are believers. But what purpose does it serve? How is it in any way useful? And what does it accomplish to keep insisting on it?

I will tell you a couple of examples of why that kind of thinking is not only NOT useful, but how it can do great harm:

1) Currently, creationists are fighting very hard, often very successfully, to keep actual science out of the classrooms because it violates their holy books. So they are actively propagating ignorance and backwardness in their communities because of this kind of thinking.

2) Muslim societies, of course, would say "Allah did it and I want to find out how", and propagate their latest opinions on issues ranging from women having to wear a burqa to foreign policy and other social policy issues. After all, the universe seems to have order, so whatever seems to make sense to them to create order in their own societies must be the will of God, right?

If you look at the thinking, it's not too different from the way many of the religious in our own country think and act. It's no wonder then, that the most backward, stagnant, and closed societies/communities in the world are also the most religious. Because, if you already know Ultimate Truth, why be open to any new ideas at all? You may have the "comfort of faith" in thinking you know Ultimate Truth, but it comes at the steep price of never knowing your own ignorance or being open to new ideas. It's the spurious comfort of an ostrich with its head in the sand.

So that's why it seems to me that we will lose nothing by stopping all this talk. In fact, we may do much better.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 12:13:59 PM PST
Alan says:
Ataraxia,

"But how do you know even that? How do you know Allah didn't do it? Or Brahma?" etc.

This of course is the problem. You express it very well. There is, I think, no rational response to what you say.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 14, 2013 12:27:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 14, 2013 12:36:05 PM PST
I figured it out. Nothing.

(Well, I suppose it would be nicer in a better font.)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1650 Jul 19, 2016
Pretty sure I'm a democrat now 497 2 minutes ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 7423 6 minutes ago
How can you be an atheist yet be against mandatory paternity testing? 19 15 minutes ago
Jesus probably didn't exist. Brian Bethune in response to Bart Ehrhman 4426 25 minutes ago
Consciousness 808 30 minutes ago
Today in Muslim History 9037 36 minutes ago
Creationism is Sad 1486 44 minutes ago
What is your favorite proof that God exists? 342 1 hour ago
Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce: Christ is here, now 41 1 hour ago
The mental disability that propels atheists to become internet trolls 298 2 hours ago
What would Christ say about Trump: evangelical hero, crackpot, or psychopath? 2134 3 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  121
Total posts:  3730
Initial post:  Jan 9, 2013
Latest post:  Apr 12, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions