Who is God?

[australopithecus]

I don't have enough palms or faces.

 

[Frenger]

God is the magician who appears to magically create the universe out of nothing to us finite humans is doing what comes easy for Him.

:lol:

Does anything more need to be said?

Nope....that just about does it I think.

God is Paul Daniels.

 

[televator]

This last series of posts fro Joseph... hard drugs?

 

[australopithecus]

Nope....that just about does it I think.

God is Paul Daniels.

I like it. Not a lot, but I like it.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I think Josephhasfun01 did a biggest disservice to himself than I ever could. But I guess one must reply.

I got 12 seconds into the video and found SAGAN asking what happened before the big bang. He has already failed. Time was non-existent so Carl, you can't say, "before the big bang"!

There are no wrong question, there are only wrong answers. And it is a perfectly sensible question. However I find your justification of why he has failed quite priceless.
Remember what this means in terms of what I have talked about causality?
As long as there are 2 different states there is time, if there is no time before the big bang this means that there are no states that precede it. The only way that you could have sneaked in God, and specifically God as the creator of the universe is if there was a time before the Universe. Because for God to be responsible for creating the Universe there must exist a state when the Universe didn't exist, a proceeding state in which the Universe does and a God mediating the process. Since you admit that no preceding state exists before the existence of the Universe that means (not only that there was no state in which the Universe didn't exist) that God couldn't be responsible for it, thus completely destroying God as a creator of the universe (without any possibility of rescue).

I don't need to address anything else, this discussion is essentially over. But I will, none the less, address the rest of your reply.

You can attribute properties like timeless to your God, but that is not without consequence, because without time there is no action, without time your God can't do anything, let alone Speak, let alone speak things into existence (or cause things).

Really? So the chair was not created by someone? The chair never had a beginning because the atoms that make up the chair have always existed in one form or another? LOL Nice semantics! The chair never had a beginning or a cause because the material in it has always existed! LOL!!
If there was ever held an Olympic event for 'word gymnastics' I am sure you'd at least get the silver. Congrats!
What you are failing to understand is that a chair has a creator. It didn't magically change its' form. You would understand that the chair had a cause that formed it. The chair would obviously need to have had a maker, or creator and therefore a CAUSE. Would you consider that cause to be the wind magically blowing the pieces that comprise the chair into place? The nails and wood used to build the chair also had a cause. A person! What? Yeah! A person MADE the chair! Not out of atoms! You did not know that? Oh yeah! A chair requires a mind to construct it. You also can bet that the universe needed a cause.

The context was well explained to you, in the meaning of beginning used the chair did no begin, the chair was assembled, previously arranged materials were assembled into a chair. When we say that ordinary things "begin" to exist, this is what it ever happened, i.e. previously existing material being assembled to become that thing. Which has a completely different from when you say that God causes things to begin existing, i.e. that there were no previous existing materials assembled, that thing just simply pops into existence out of nowhere like magic. It funny what happens when someone makes a framework were you can't conflate 2 words with completely different meanings together, your arguments just simply stop making sense.
Your attempt at straw-man is pathetic, because I explained the context correctly and Scott also did it, far better than I did, and clearly explained the straw-man you are using. Your argument was simply rebutted before it even began.

He states that the big bang was the beginning for material

No, this is what TBS said 6:07:

AH Ah! You might say. And you would say it just like that, go "AH Ah!" But scientist have proven that the Universe began to exist hence the second premise. [Talking about an argument that an apologist might pose] - ah well e know that the Big Bang was responsible for the Universe as we know it. So in that sense the Big Bang is what "created" the Universe we see. But as for what happened before "the Big Bang" we aren't capable of knowing that, or if that is even a coherent concept. The Jury is not in on whether it is accurate to say that "the Universe Begin to exist", and anyone who says otherwise is either miss-informed or lying to you.

Rational thinking requires putting together thoughts(the causes) with conclusions(the effects). The Law of Causality is the fundamental principle of science. Without it science is impossible! Scientists are tasked with the job of learning what causes what. Without the law of causality science would not be able to be done.
Semantics is your only argument against causation. Therefore your argument has no basis other than word games.

As I have explained, you have absolutely no idea what the laws of causality are or what it even means. And I think it is quite funny that you think you can tell me how to do my job.

Let me stop you right there Scott! Before the big bang? Before? Before time? You can't say "before" the universe! There was no such thing as time until the big bang!

The implications of this sentence was already pointed out at the beginning. But in this case Scott is actually implicitly allowing for an alternative hypothesis called the "many worlds interpretation" where it states that Big Bang is the manifestation of the interference of previously existing hyper-dimensional Branes, and in that case our visible corner of the Universe can be just one among many other causally connected "Universes". But of course, you didn't knew that either.

Well I can imagine a self existent delicious pie that manifest itself in time and space precisely right now in my mouth. But of course saying that something is self existent does nothing to save your God. Self existence is an idea (not a very coherent one, but I will leave you at that), its an idea that you can attribute to the idea of things, but they are still just ideas of things that may not have a counterpart in the real world that parallels such description. A self exiting thing, could only exist in a self existing manner if it exists in the first place.

What kind of pie? I am a fan of cherry! So altering the main character and laughing at the altered narrative is what passes as an argument for atheists/agnostics today?

It's Rainbow flavored pie! I don't know where you have learned to argue, but I haven't failed to notice that you didn't even tried to address my point. And unless you have no arguments left, this means that your argument is dead.

You got that right! God did exist in the first place. Ever heard of eternal?
What you have yet not understood about God is that he is timeless.

An eternal God, could only exist in an eternal way, if it exists in the first place.
A timeless God, could only exist in a timeless way, if it exists in the first place.
I can do this all day with every single property you care to throw at it. Here I will make you a template:
<X> <entity>, could only exist in a <X> way, if it exists in the first place.
There is absolutely nothing about enumerating random properties that you care to attribute to a random idea that is ever going to imply that it exists.
To try and prove the existence of anything philosophically is impossible. Your argument has failed before it even began.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

BRB, just need to go and replace my monitor. I had to beat my head against it following that question.

Well I hope you knocked some sense into yourself!

could have been a quantum tunnelling event followed by inflation.

I guess not. Oh well. Maybe next time try the hard drive? Maybe that will do the trick!

The point is, we don't know. We know that the big bang happened, but what happened before that (if there was a before that) is unknown, maybe even un-knowable. But you do nothing AT ALL, to answer these questions with "it was my god, he told me so".

LOL! God did not "tell me so." I am getting a pretty good idea about your maturity level now though.
God made the universe in such a way that we are without excuse to say, 'there is no God'. There is no way around the FACT, that nothing existed and Bang! Everything exists! Your left with only two options. God did it. Or magic.

The point is, we don't know.

Well, it's not that you don't know anything. Even saying you don't know, you still know that you don't know something. An appeal to ignorance is a non answer. You know that the universe had a beginning. You know that the universe came from nothing and nowhere. Literally.

. We know that the big bang happened, but what happened before that (if there was a before that) is unknown, maybe even un-knowable.

There was no "before" the big bang. You saying "if"- - gives indication you struggle with this. No "ifs" allowed. There was no "before". Only "after". Yet a theist is not allowed to say it was God who created the universe. Although it settles the big question as to what caused the universe and the question pertaining to the existence of consciousness. This however makes many uncomfortable. Who wants to think about moral accountability? Who wants to face the fact that they are headed for a sinners hell? Those that don't suppress this truth and to justify it they appeal to ignorance and say, 'we just don't know', or, 'the answer may be unknowable'. That is called a "cop-out".

The multi verse theory could be accurate and there is some support for this stemming from the work of Richard Feynman (which I'm sure you're familiar with).

Absolutely! Here is one of my favorite quotes by Richard: It is often stated of all the theories proposed in this century, quantum theory is the silliest. But no the theory proposed by Feynman has no chance. It's not even considerable for the rational minded. If you want to dump all your faith into silly quantum theories be my guest. It's a free country. Maybe 'Spiderman' created the universe? Lets called the string of webs theory.

The multi verse theory could be accurate

Nope. Unless you want dismiss the big bang? It is not the big bang, bang, bang, theory.

Although it is unlikely the Universe could be in a constant state of expansion and contraction (although the shape of universe suggests this isn't the case).

It's unlikely? Or it could be? I am getting the sense your grasping at air right now. There are fatal flaws with your suggestion. The universe could not infinitely be expanding and contracting. There would not be enough matter for everything to pull back together because of the second law of thermodynamics.

I suspect that your failed arguments and the fact you have painted yourself into a corner will have you pretty irated. So lets' hear some name calling now shall we? I am a scientists and I have just made a guess, err, a "hypothesis." All I need is for you to make, or someone to make, my theory viable by doing as I predict you will do. Come on! Let me have it!

For the scientists who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

 

[australopithecus]

Joe, do you actually have an argument against a quantum origin of the cosmos that isn't one from ignorance? Because all you've done is essentially state "That's not true because I say so.".

It's demonstrable that you know nothing of physics, so put down the the proverbial scissors before you hurt yourself.

 

[Prolescum]

:roll:

Start a couple of threads, notice their own dearth of knowledge of the subject compared with the other participants and bluster for a bit when confounded, then enter the inevitable descend-into-surreal-attempts-to-laugh-off-the-scent-of-failure phase.

Weirdly familiar, this. Is it a rite of passage in one of these new-fangled Christian denominations?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Once again, Joseph, I'd like to see this answer from you since it really is the source of the whole discussion here (you've done all but dance around actually providing any sort of relevance to see if you're even on footing with even elementary philosophy to have this discussion):

What is the difference between abstract concepts and immaterial things that exist?
And, which one do you think your God fits into?

Both of these things can be found in any fundamental Philosophy textbook.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Joe, do you actually have an argument against a quantum origin of the cosmos that isn't one from ignorance? Because all you've done is essentially state "That's not true because I say so.".

It's demonstrable that you know nothing of physics, so put down the the proverbial scissors before you hurt yourself.

I don't know whether I have an argument against it or not. As far as I have seen, nobody has yet presented any evidence supporting one. Also I have yet to see anybody attempt to explain an argument for a quantum origin for the cosmos. How does happen exactly? I am curious if any one understands what they are talking about when referring to Quantum theory. There are many quantum theories. If you have an argument for quantum origin for our universe then present it. I cannot refute a non existent argument.

 

[australopithecus]

I don't know whether I have an argument against it or not. As far as I have seen, nobody has yet presented any evidence supporting one. Also I have yet to see anybody attempt to explain an argument for a quantum origin for the cosmos. How does happen exactly? I am curious if any one understands what they are talking about when referring to Quantum theory. There are many quantum theories. If you have an argument for quantum origin for our universe then present it. I cannot refute a non existent argument.

Reread the thread. You'll find it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

God made the universe in such a way that we are without excuse to say, 'there is no God'. There is no way around the FACT, that nothing existed and Bang! Everything exists! Your left with only two options. God did it. Or magic.

:facepalm:

First off, that is the same option. Second, no, we are not left with that. Nothing we have discovered in the universe points to a supernatural agent; everything has had a naturalistic cause. The origin of the universe (if it indeed has one) will be naturalistic, just like everything else in our universe.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Absolutely! Here is one of my favorite quotes by Richard: It is often stated of all the theories proposed in this century, quantum theory is the silliest. But no the theory proposed by Feynman has no chance. It's not even considerable for the rational minded. If you want to dump all your faith into silly quantum theories be my guest. It's a free country. Maybe 'Spiderman' created the universe? Lets called the string of webs theory.

I don't think you quite grasp the concept of a quote. A quote is when you paraphrase what someone else said.
And for your information Richard Feynman is responsible for the development of quantum electrodynamics. It just happens to be the single most accurate theory of all time, there has been so far no experiment to ever fail any prediction within the limits of precision.
Unfortunately to the extent of our knowledge quantum mechanics describes really how the universe works. And as Richard Feynman would say, "If you don't like it, that is to bad"


Another rebuttal from Feynman

 

[Frenger]

Well I hope you knocked some sense into yourself!

Contrary to popular belief, smashing your face into objects doesn't actually induce sense.

I guess not. Oh well. Maybe next time try the hard drive? Maybe that will do the trick!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you didn't have a clue as to what I actually said.

LOL! God did not "tell me so." I am getting a pretty good idea about your maturity level now though.

My low level of maturity has never been subtle.

God made the universe in such a way that we are without excuse to say, 'there is no God'. There is no way around the FACT, that nothing existed and Bang! Everything exists! Your left with only two options. God did it. Or magic.

As you said earlier that god was a magician, these options are the same thing. So what you mean is I'm left with one option.

errmmm...

pass.

Well, it's not that you don't know anything. Even saying you don't know, you still know that you don't know something.

It's nice to have my intellectual capacity ratified by such a well learned chap as yourself.

An appeal to ignorance is a non answer.

Your desire to have an answer for everything is noted, but stupid.

You know that the universe had a beginning.

No we don't know that. Cosmology can only take us as far back as billionths of a second AFTER the big bang. We can't make absolute claims about things we can't know.

You know that the universe came from nothing and nowhere. Literally.

Again, we don't know this. Some of Lawrence Krauss' work has suggested that what physicists call "nothing" is not possible. In other words, when matter and anti matter collide they completely annihilate each other producing photons. However, in a complete vacuum, this process goes in reverse because energy seems to reside in empty space.

What I have just said will mean absolutely nothing to you, so I am excited to hear your garbled and nonsensical response.

There was no "before" the big bang.

Your making claims about things you cannot possibly prove.

You saying "if"- - gives indication you struggle with this.

I don't struggle with this at all. It's fine not to know. It's actually rather exciting.

No "ifs" allowed.

Why not?

There was no "before". Only "after".

Unsubstantiated assertions again.

Yet a theist is not allowed to say it was God who created the universe.

You can say what you want. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. If you want the god hypothesis to be taken seriously, give me evidence for one.

Also, however, showing me that a god created the universe has nothing to do with showing me that your god exists, an all loving god that answers prayers. These are two separate things. After you have "proven" the existence of a universe creating god you have all your work still ahead of you my dear boy.

Although it settles the big question as to what caused the universe and the question pertaining to the existence of consciousness.

How are the Universe and consciousness explained by the same thing?

This however makes many uncomfortable.

I'm actually in a rather comfy chair at the moment, so don't worry about that.

Who wants to think about moral accountability? Who wants to face the fact that they are headed for a sinners hell?

Moral accountability to who? I feel moral accountable to me, my friends and family and those I interact with. I do good because that's the way I want to live my life. Fear of pissing off an evil overlord because you'll end up in "sinners hell" is not the same as morality.

Those that don't suppress this truth and to justify it they appeal to ignorance and say, 'we just don't know', or, 'the answer may be unknowable'. That is called a "cop-out".

It's actually called honesty. If someone asked you any question, no matter how simple about any area of science, even if the question was designed so a ten year old could answer it, it would be honest for you to say "I don't know". I would actually have some respect for you if you did.

Absolutely! Here is one of my favorite quotes by Richard: It is often stated of all the theories proposed in this century, quantum theory is the silliest. But no the theory proposed by Feynman has no chance. It's not even considerable for the rational minded. If you want to dump all your faith into silly quantum theories be my guest. It's a free country. Maybe 'Spiderman' created the universe? Lets called the string of webs theory.

Your risible comprehension of quotes and now quantum theory are again, noted. If you think quantum theory is "silly" and doesn't work, then I suggest you turn off your computer. That's right, science works! I guess you could pray for your computer to run, but you have as much chance of that working as you would trying to power it by a duck on a treadmill. At least ducks and treadmills exist.

Nope. Unless you want dismiss the big bang? It is not the big bang, bang, bang, theory.

:facepalm:

It's unlikely? Or it could be? I am getting the sense your grasping at air right now. There are fatal flaws with your suggestion. The universe could not infinitely be expanding and contracting.

My point, which again you have spectacularly missed, was that we don't know. Remember it was me in another thread that told you the big crunch wouldn't happen after you said it would (you then chose to leave that thread in an act of superior maturity). I'm saying that the origin of the Universe is complicated, unknown, perhaps unknowable. Do you really think the best minds in science, Edward Witten, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Neil DeGrasse Tyson etc are less able to speculate on the origin of the Universe that you m'lad?

There would not be enough matter for everything to pull back together because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Stop talking about thermodynamics, because you don't know what it means.

I suspect that your failed arguments and the fact you have painted yourself into a corner will have you pretty irated. So lets' hear some name calling now shall we? I am a scientists and I have just made a guess, err, a "hypothesis." All I need is for you to make, or someone to make, my theory viable by doing as I predict you will do. Come on! Let me have it!

Which arguments have I made sorry? Oh, that would be none. All I have said is that the origin of the Universe is unknown, and no amount of verbal horse shit from you is going to change that.

For the scientists who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

I am familiar with this quote, I think Austra has already pulled you up on trying to pass off other people's writings as your own. Even if I wasn't familiar with this quote by Robert Jastrow, I would have known you stole it because it's at least coherent.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Once again, Joseph, I'd like to see this answer from you since it really is the source of the whole discussion here (you've done all but dance around actually providing any sort of relevance to see if you're even on footing with even elementary philosophy to have this discussion):

What is the difference between abstract concepts and immaterial things that exist?
And, which one do you think your God fits into?

Both of these things can be found in any fundamental Philosophy textbook.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

There are no wrong questions, there are only wrong answers

If questions are always deemed 'right', how could they ever be corrected when referring to the origin of the universe or in correlation with anything else? If one were to ask, "what existed before the big bang?" That would be the wrong question because we already know that nothing 'existed' in the tangible sense of the word 'exists'. In fact, inquiring to what 'existed before' the big bang is the wrong question to be asking. That's the equivalent of asking somebody wanting help finding their glasses-"did you check on the moon?" That question is useless just like it is useless to ask, 'what was before the big bang'. Well first off, there was no 'before' the big bang as I previously stated. So that is the wrong question because there was no "before" the big bang.
Apparently you have never played or watched 'Jeopardy' if you state there are no wrong questions.

"There are only correct questions, that have correct or incorrect answers." - Now that is coherently correct. If all scientists did was ask the wrong questions how many right answers would they get?
If you're doing science with this kind of philosophy that says "there are no wrong questions", then science is worthless. I cannot believe I have to explain this to people who like to gloat about knowing more than a theist when it comes to science. Science is about finding the 'right' and 'wrong' answers to the RIGHT questions. I hope to not here a refutation on this or I should really be shaking my head.

What existed before the big bang?

And it is a perfectly sensible question.

:facepalm:
No it's not! The answer: time did not exist- Big Bang-Universe! Time exists! But as I come across professional semanticists, such as the likings of yourself and the guy in the video, I realize that there are still people who try really hard to ask the wrong questions in an attempt to make up an answer they find suitable to met their own preferences.

To try and prove the existence of anything philosophically is impossible. Your argument has failed before it even began.

I find you stating this over and over so allow me to make it very clear that you are making a self defeating statement when you say that 'anything' cannot be proved to exists philosophically. The reason being is you are using a philosophical statement to philosophically prove that philosophically, anything cannot philosophically cannot be proved. You've defeated you're your own philosophical statement! Moving on.

Josephhasfun01 wrote:
Well I can imagine a self existent delicious pie that manifest itself in time and space precisely right now in my mouth. But of course saying that something is self existent does nothing to save your God. Self existence is an idea (not a very coherent one, but I will leave you at that), its an idea that you can attribute to the idea of things, but they are still just ideas of things that may not have a counterpart in the real world that parallels such description. A self exiting thing, could only exist in a self existing manner if it exists in the first place.

I did not write that dogmatic garbage, you did! Be more careful with your quotes please!

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
Well I can imagine a self existent delicious pie that manifest itself in time and space precisely right now in my mouth. But of course saying that something is self existent does nothing to save your God. Self existence is an idea (not a very coherent one, but I will leave you at that), its an idea that you can attribute to the idea of things, but they are still just ideas of things that may not have a counterpart in the real world that parallels such description. A self exiting thing, could only exist in a self existing manner if it exists in the first place.

I agree with your last sentence a hundred percent! Something that 'self-exists' does not depend on anything else to exist. Not time, space, matter, or any cause whatsoever is needed for God to be self-existing. Since God is eternal He has always existed.

Well I can imagine a self existent delicious pie that manifest itself in time and space precisely right now in my mouth.

I had no idea you were writing from space! Oh! Your using your imagination. Mr. Rogers would be so proud!

Self existence is an idea (not a very coherent one, but I will leave you at that), its an idea that you can attribute to the idea of things, but they are still just ideas of things that may not have a counterpart in the real world that parallels such description.

I am sorry that 'self-existent' is not a tangible idea for you. I find it odd that you can imagine yourself in space eating a cosmic pie but you can't have a tangible understanding of 'self-existent'? Are you eating a willfully ignorant pie? What's that taste like? Failure?

An eternal God, could only exist in an eternal way, if it exists in the first place.
A timeless God, could only exist in a timeless way, if it exists in the first place.

Please tell me what the difference is between 'eternal' and 'timeless'?

You can attribute properties like timeless to your God, but that is not without consequence, because without time there is no action, without time your God can't do anything, let alone Speak, let alone speak things into existence (or cause things).

So God is somehow frozen since He is timeless? I did not know that you were the authority on the existence of infinite things? Explain why God could not create time and the universe simultaneously? Basically your argument is that 'timeless' means you cannot move or perform an action. I was thinking rather that timeless simply meant 'no time', the non existence of time. I did not know it meant 'frozen'. It appears you are making up your own definitions and meanings as usual.


Josephhasfun01 wrote:Really? So the chair was not created by someone? The chair never had a beginning because the atoms that make up the chair have always existed in one form or another? LOL Nice semantics! The chair never had a beginning or a cause because the material in it has always existed! LOL!!
If there was ever held an Olympic event for 'word gymnastics' I am sure you'd at least get the silver. Congrats!
What you are failing to understand is that a chair has a creator. It didn't magically change its' form. You would understand that the chair had a cause that formed it. The chair would obviously need to have had a maker, or creator and therefore a CAUSE. Would you consider that cause to be the wind magically blowing the pieces that comprise the chair into place? The nails and wood used to build the chair also had a cause. A person! What? Yeah! A person MADE the chair! Not out of atoms! You did not know that? Oh yeah! A chair requires a mind to construct it. You also can bet that the universe needed a cause.

The context was well explained to you, in the meaning of beginning used the chair did no begin, the chair was assembled, previously arranged materials were assembled into a chair. When we say that ordinary things "begin" to exist, this is what it ever happened, i.e. previously existing material being assembled to become that thing. Which has a completely different from when you say that God causes things to begin existing, i.e. that there were no previous existing materials assembled, that thing just simply pops into existence out of nowhere like magic. It funny what happens when someone makes a framework were you can't conflate 2 words with completely different meanings together, your arguments just simply stop making sense.
Your attempt at straw-man is pathetic, because I explained the context correctly and Scott also did it, far better than I did, and clearly explained the straw-man you are using. Your argument was simply rebutted before it even began.

Wrong. Scott did state the universe was the cause and the beginning of matter. BTW atoms have not existed as long as the universe. Whoever asserts that atoms have been around as long as our universe is either a liar or misinformed. To add: energy did not exists prior to the Big Bang!
Another fatal flaw of the video is that it asserts the universe never had a beginning. This is ludicrous. If time had a beginning then how could the universe have not had a beginning? Scott contradicts his own view by stating that the universe has always existed yet time had a beginning according to the big bang. It should also be noted that the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed only applies within the universe. It's not a law that retrospectively predates the big bang. Funny how people take a law confined to the universe and then extrapolates it to apply to an infinite past. Heretics!
Here is some food for thought: Every seven years, according to medical science, our bodies have just short of completely replaced all constituent material it was consists of. Yet according to you and Scott, I have never began to exist.

You really need to start proofing you arguments. As if your statements were not incoherent enough! You are constantly leaving out words and also leaving letters off the beginning and ending of words! I feel like I am playing Soduku with the English language! Please reread your crap and make corrections before posting!

Josephhasfun01 wrote:He states that the big bang was the beginning for material

No, this is what TBS said 6:07:
TBS wrote:AH Ah! You might say. And you would say it just like that, go "AH Ah!" But scientist have proven that the Universe began to exist hence the second premise. [Talking about an argument that an apologist might pose] - ah well e know that the Big Bang was responsible for the Universe as we know it. So in that sense the Big Bang is what "created" the Universe we see. But as for what happened before "the Big Bang" we aren't capable of knowing that, or if that is even a coherent concept. The Jury is not in on whether it is accurate to say that "the Universe Begin to exist", and anyone who says otherwise is either miss-informed or lying to you.

How dare the scientists at NASA lie to us! Or maybe you could be the one to call them and let them know they are misinformed?! "Hello Mr. scientists! I am sorry but your conclusion does not meet the criteria of my semantics! There is no such thing as a cause or a beginning anymore because I have figured out a superficially clever way to say there is no such things as beginnings or causes via using my gift of posing semantic word arguments!"

The Jury is not in on whether it is accurate to say that "the Universe Begin to exist", and anyone who says otherwise is either miss-informed or lying to you.

If anyone tells me I never began to exists I shall laugh! These incoherent arguments I come across every now and again are entertaining much like going to a comedy club!

Josephhasfun01 wrote:Rational thinking requires putting together thoughts(the causes) with conclusions(the effects). The Law of Causality is the fundamental principle of science. Without it science is impossible! Scientists are tasked with the job of learning what causes what. Without the law of causality science would not be able to be done.
Semantics is your only argument against causation. Therefore your argument has no basis other than word games.

As I have explained, you have absolutely no idea what the laws of causality are or what it even means. And I think it is quite funny that you think you can tell me how to do my job.

In the words of the Donald, "you're fired!"

Josephhasfun01 wrote:Let me stop you right there Scott! Before the big bang? Before? Before time? You can't say "before" the universe! There was no such thing as time until the big bang!

The implications of this sentence was already pointed out at the beginning. But in this case Scott is actually implicitly allowing for an alternative hypothesis called the "many worlds interpretation" where it states that Big Bang is the manifestation of the interference of previously existing hyper-dimensional Branes, and in that case our visible corner of the Universe can be just one among many other causally connected "Universes". But of course, you didn't knew that either.

Scott never said a word about "many worlds interpretation". I suppose you're a mind reader now? What other things did Scott say that you implicitly understood that Scott did not say but rather, unintentionally implied?

the Universe can be just one among many other causally connected "Universes".

Sorry, but I must be behind on the scientific proof that would justify your argument that there are many universes. Care to interject? Show me proof of this intersection of multiple universes. Where and when and by whom was it observed?

As long as there are 2 different states there is time, if there is no time before the big bang this means that there are no states that precede it. The only way that you could have sneaked in God, and specifically God as the creator of the universe is if there was a time before the Universe.

Two different states? Of matter? Do you mean the non existent state of matter and then the existent state of matter? Buhaha! So are saying that time existed before the big bang? In two states? "Pre time" time and then "time" time? Are you redefining the big bang theory now too? The big bang states clearly that time was non existent until the big bang happened. There was no space, no time, and no existence of matter whatsoever prior to the Big Bang!. The big bang, which is a vague description for the cause of the universe, was the cause of time, matter and space. Speaking of a universe exploding out of nothingness, how does that work in such precision? If it had expanded at a slower rate it would have collapsed. Now tell me how many explosions have you seen construct something other than a mess? Your telling me that only naturalistic causes could have created an explosion that resulted in the beginning of a complex universe?

 

[australopithecus]

You keep asserting your ignorance and failure to grasp current cosmology as if that actually proves something.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context is apparently the best argument you have that does nothing to refute my arguments. The maturity level is that of 11 year olds up in here! Very sad!

 

[australopithecus]

Feel free to take your inability to comprehend modern physics elsewhere then.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

You keep asserting your ignorance and failure to grasp current cosmology as if that actually proves something.

Arguments in picture form! Gotta luv it! Points for creativity!