< 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
 
   
 

The things that happened before the appearance of God in the universe

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21484
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
21 December 2018 12:38
 

Fill in the blank space with one of the provided words:  “Before the rooster crows _________ (once, twice), you will deny me three times.” (Jesus to Peter).

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
21 December 2018 13:50
 
EN - 21 December 2018 12:38 PM

Fill in the blank space with one of the provided words:  “Before the rooster crows _________ (once, twice), you will deny me three times.” (Jesus to Peter).

Who are you asking to fill in the blank space?  Not sure the relevance of this anyways?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
21 December 2018 16:58
 
TwoSeven1 - 21 December 2018 08:03 AM

Theoretical physics doesn’t explain everything, though.  Theoretical physics seeks to predict and explain phenomena.  It’s not always right either.

Physics may not explain everything, but theology explains nothing. It just makes assertions. At least scientific pronouncements can be double-checked, verified, and revised if necessary. Theology offers none of that.

How could something possibly come from nothing, and how could someone explain something coming from nothing?  Isn’t science the study of what is?  If scientists are claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing, then they aren’t using the scientific method.

Not knowing how something can come from nothing does not justify asserting a God.

Scientists aren’t claiming that “they know the Universe came from nothing.” The Big Bang model begins with an incredibly dense singularity, which rapidly inflates. Beyond that, nobody knows. Although as I stated before, virtual particles do offer a precedence for something coming from nothing.

 

The main compelling reason for believing the Bible:

1.  The canon of Scripture is composed of 66 different books and letters which were written by 40 different authors over a long period of time.

2.  The time period that the books were written over makes it impossible that the different authors personally knew each other.

3.  Many of the books of the Old Testament prophesy about events that took place in the new Testament, which, apart from God’s involvement, is an impossibility.

The number of books or authors or the time span is irrelevant to the truth of the claims. And no, there has not been any fulfilled “prophesy” in the Bible. At least not anything other than the self-fulfilling kind. But even if there was, it still wouldn’t justify asserting a God. And besides, I’m sure believers of other religions can make similar claims about the validity of their holy books.

To your question on conflicts within the Bible:

This is my personal experience, so it may not be what your asking for.  I have only heard folks who disagree with the Bible point out sections that may appear to conflict because they are taken out of context.  Each section of the Bible has a specific setting and context.

Why should I value your personal experience any more than the personal experience of someone else with a different religion and a different God?

Again, if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions and/or errors, would it change your mind?

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
22 December 2018 05:51
 

From Sean Carroll’s podcast - “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLfvvMjuk6U

Enjoy.

Ron

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
22 December 2018 09:04
 
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21484
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
22 December 2018 09:38
 
TwoSeven1 - 21 December 2018 01:50 PM
EN - 21 December 2018 12:38 PM

Fill in the blank space with one of the provided words:  “Before the rooster crows _________ (once, twice), you will deny me three times.” (Jesus to Peter).

Who are you asking to fill in the blank space?  Not sure the relevance of this anyways?

I was asking you.  You don’t have to do it if you don’t want to.

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
22 December 2018 09:42
 
MrRon - 19 December 2018 06:07 AM

When I referred to the possibility of God creating us in his own a-temporal reference frame I wasn’t referring to Heaven, or a place of eternal “happiness”. I was just referring to a different dimension not constrained by time as we know it - God’s dimension. He could have easily done that, while still subjecting us to judgment, rewards, punishment, etc. To posit that there are TWO temporal reference frames and (ostensibly) two different sets of physical laws at work is just one more thing for believers to explain.

That would still be only one temporal reference frame, ours.  According to Paul, that’s the way it went down; “For in him we live and move and have our being.”  Acts 17:28 (NIV)

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3804
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
22 December 2018 10:16
 

Before the big bang — Sir Roger Penrose

Enjoy

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
22 December 2018 12:24
 
MrRon - 21 December 2018 04:58 PM
TwoSeven1 - 21 December 2018 08:03 AM

Theoretical physics doesn’t explain everything, though.  Theoretical physics seeks to predict and explain phenomena.  It’s not always right either.

Physics may not explain everything, but theology explains nothing. It just makes assertions. At least scientific pronouncements can be double-checked, verified, and revised if necessary. Theology offers none of that.

How could something possibly come from nothing, and how could someone explain something coming from nothing?  Isn’t science the study of what is?  If scientists are claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing, then they aren’t using the scientific method.

Not knowing how something can come from nothing does not justify asserting a God.

Scientists aren’t claiming that “they know the Universe came from nothing.” The Big Bang model begins with an incredibly dense singularity, which rapidly inflates. Beyond that, nobody knows. Although as I stated before, virtual particles do offer a precedence for something coming from nothing.

 

The main compelling reason for believing the Bible:

1.  The canon of Scripture is composed of 66 different books and letters which were written by 40 different authors over a long period of time.

2.  The time period that the books were written over makes it impossible that the different authors personally knew each other.

3.  Many of the books of the Old Testament prophesy about events that took place in the new Testament, which, apart from God’s involvement, is an impossibility.

The number of books or authors or the time span is irrelevant to the truth of the claims. And no, there has not been any fulfilled “prophesy” in the Bible. At least not anything other than the self-fulfilling kind. But even if there was, it still wouldn’t justify asserting a God. And besides, I’m sure believers of other religions can make similar claims about the validity of their holy books.

To your question on conflicts within the Bible:

This is my personal experience, so it may not be what your asking for.  I have only heard folks who disagree with the Bible point out sections that may appear to conflict because they are taken out of context.  Each section of the Bible has a specific setting and context.

Why should I value your personal experience any more than the personal experience of someone else with a different religion and a different God?

Again, if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions and/or errors, would it change your mind?

Ron

To your first point:

The Bible provides a clear explanation for quite a few things.  Whether you accept the Bible or not determines how you categorize it.  Plenty of proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible exists.  It can be found online quite easily.  Saying that a historically accurate document is irrelevant is like saying we shouldn’t care about history books.

2nd point:

You are the one using the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing.  My original point was that something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always existed.  The incredibly dense singularity would patently classify as “something.”  It cannot be nothing.  Virtual particles also classify as “something.”  They cannot be nothing.

3rd:

It is relevant.  How can so many Old Testament documents accurately prophesy about New Testament events that happened?  The precision is actually astounding if you care to investigate.

4th:

I put my personal disclaimer on that response because I knew it probably wasn’t what you were asking for.  I could have asked you the same hypothetical question, but it doesn’t seem worth while for our discussion, so I haven’t.  Why would I concede anything without a reasonable argument taking place first?  I don’t expect you to concede by that method either.  The hypothetical question has no value here.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
22 December 2018 12:33
 
TwoSeven1 - 22 December 2018 12:24 PM

To your first point:

The Bible provides a clear explanation for quite a few things.  Whether you accept the Bible or not determines how you categorize it.  Plenty of proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible exists.  It can be found online quite easily.  Saying that a historically accurate document is irrelevant is like saying we shouldn’t care about history books.

2nd point:

You are the one using the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing.  My original point was that something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always existed.  The incredibly dense singularity would patently classify as “something.”  It cannot be nothing.  Virtual particles also classify as “something.”  They cannot be nothing.

3rd:

It is relevant.  How can so many Old Testament documents accurately prophesy about New Testament events that happened?  The precision is actually astounding if you care to investigate.

4th:

I put my personal disclaimer on that response because I knew it probably wasn’t what you were asking for.  I could have asked you the same hypothetical question, but it doesn’t seem worth while for our discussion, so I haven’t.  Why would I concede anything without a reasonable argument taking place first?  I don’t expect you to concede by that method either.  The hypothetical question has no value here.

Your 1st and 3rd points disqualify you as a completely ignorant common variety theist nut.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
22 December 2018 15:51
 
bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:04 AM
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

I get what you’re saying about photons. You’re alluding to the thought experiment that if one could actually be a photon (and traveling at, well, light speed), time would have no meaning. But they don’t really exist independent of time. In fact, photons most certainly exist in our temporal universe. They are observable and detectable. They have a well defined speed. We know that a photon emitted by the Sun takes just over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. So it necessarily travels in time to get here. Also, photons have no mass. So I’m not sure it’s even accurate to categorize them as a “thing”. Anyway, the believers here aren’t thinking of photons when they talk about something existing outside of time and space that created the universe. They’re thinking of a God being. So they have the burden of showing how this God being is real and can exist independent of space and time.

Eternal means “lasting forever”. Which entails time.

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
22 December 2018 15:57
 
bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:42 AM
MrRon - 19 December 2018 06:07 AM

When I referred to the possibility of God creating us in his own a-temporal reference frame I wasn’t referring to Heaven, or a place of eternal “happiness”. I was just referring to a different dimension not constrained by time as we know it - God’s dimension. He could have easily done that, while still subjecting us to judgment, rewards, punishment, etc. To posit that there are TWO temporal reference frames and (ostensibly) two different sets of physical laws at work is just one more thing for believers to explain.

That would still be only one temporal reference frame, ours.  According to Paul, that’s the way it went down; “For in him we live and move and have our being.”  Acts 17:28 (NIV)

Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Are you of the opinion that God does NOT exist outside of space and time? And why should we care what some guy named Paul said ages ago?

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
22 December 2018 16:02
 
bbearren - 22 December 2018 10:16 AM

Before the big bang — Sir Roger Penrose

Enjoy

Thanks. In fact, I just got done watching the Joe Rogan Podcast where he had Roger Penrose as his guest! He touched on this subject, as well as many other subjects. Not sure when I’ll get a chance to watch this all the way through though.

Ron

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
22 December 2018 16:28
 
TwoSeven1 - 22 December 2018 12:24 PM
MrRon - 21 December 2018 04:58 PM
TwoSeven1 - 21 December 2018 08:03 AM

Theoretical physics doesn’t explain everything, though.  Theoretical physics seeks to predict and explain phenomena.  It’s not always right either.

Physics may not explain everything, but theology explains nothing. It just makes assertions. At least scientific pronouncements can be double-checked, verified, and revised if necessary. Theology offers none of that.

How could something possibly come from nothing, and how could someone explain something coming from nothing?  Isn’t science the study of what is?  If scientists are claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing, then they aren’t using the scientific method.

Not knowing how something can come from nothing does not justify asserting a God.

Scientists aren’t claiming that “they know the Universe came from nothing.” The Big Bang model begins with an incredibly dense singularity, which rapidly inflates. Beyond that, nobody knows. Although as I stated before, virtual particles do offer a precedence for something coming from nothing.

The main compelling reason for believing the Bible:

1.  The canon of Scripture is composed of 66 different books and letters which were written by 40 different authors over a long period of time.

2.  The time period that the books were written over makes it impossible that the different authors personally knew each other.

3.  Many of the books of the Old Testament prophesy about events that took place in the new Testament, which, apart from God’s involvement, is an impossibility.

The number of books or authors or the time span is irrelevant to the truth of the claims. And no, there has not been any fulfilled “prophesy” in the Bible. At least not anything other than the self-fulfilling kind. But even if there was, it still wouldn’t justify asserting a God. And besides, I’m sure believers of other religions can make similar claims about the validity of their holy books.

To your question on conflicts within the Bible:

This is my personal experience, so it may not be what your asking for.  I have only heard folks who disagree with the Bible point out sections that may appear to conflict because they are taken out of context.  Each section of the Bible has a specific setting and context.

Why should I value your personal experience any more than the personal experience of someone else with a different religion and a different God?

Again, if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions and/or errors, would it change your mind?

Ron

To your first point:

The Bible provides a clear explanation for quite a few things.  Whether you accept the Bible or not determines how you categorize it.  Plenty of proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible exists.  It can be found online quite easily.  Saying that a historically accurate document is irrelevant is like saying we shouldn’t care about history books.

Oh, I’m sure there’s some “historical” accuracy to the Bible. Certainly some places and peoples and things that it mentions existed. I’m sure proponents of the Quran and the Hindu Vedas and The Book of Mormon also claim historical accuracy for their books. And those can also be found online quite easily. But I’m willing to bet you don’t put much stock in the claims of those other holy books, do you?

2nd point:

You are the one using the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing.  My original point was that something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always existed.  The incredibly dense singularity would patently classify as “something.”  It cannot be nothing.  Virtual particles also classify as “something.”  They cannot be nothing.

Like I said, beyond the singularity nobody knows what it was like. And not knowing doesn’t justify asserting a God, which is what you are doing. In the case of virtual particles, the particles emerge from nothing. So they are only “something” AFTER they emerged from the empty vacuum of space.

3rd:

It is relevant.  How can so many Old Testament documents accurately prophesy about New Testament events that happened?  The precision is actually astounding if you care to investigate.

Again, self-fulfilling/vaguely-fulfilled prophecies don’t count. And what about the UN-fulfilled prophecies that should have been fulfilled? Besides, as I said before, even if we grant the prophecies, how does that prove a God being? 

4th:

I put my personal disclaimer on that response because I knew it probably wasn’t what you were asking for.  I could have asked you the same hypothetical question, but it doesn’t seem worth while for our discussion, so I haven’t.  Why would I concede anything without a reasonable argument taking place first?  I don’t expect you to concede by that method either.  The hypothetical question has no value here.

It seems you are basing your beliefs on a particular holy book. Therefore, a logical starting point would be… If it can be shown that your book contains contradictions and/or errors, would that change your mind?

Personally, I would change my mind if I was shown to be wrong about something.

Ron

[ Edited: 23 December 2018 05:25 by MrRon]
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21484
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
23 December 2018 04:10
 
MrRon - 22 December 2018 03:51 PM
bbearren - 22 December 2018 09:04 AM
MrRon - 17 December 2018 03:19 AM
Poldano - 16 December 2018 01:11 AM

I think God exists independently of time; that’s what eternal really means. Therefore the notion of God having a beginning or a starting time for appearance in our universe is inaccurate.

How can anything exist independent of time?? And doesn’t eternal mean “lasting forever”, which necessarily entails time?

Photons exist independent of time; physics.

Eternal means without beginning or end.

I get what you’re saying about photons. You’re alluding to the thought experiment that if one could actually be a photon (and traveling at, well, light speed), time would have no meaning. But they don’t really exist independent of time. In fact, photons most certainly exist in our temporal universe. They are observable and detectable. They have a well defined speed. We know that a photon emitted by the Sun takes just over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. So it necessarily travels in time to get here. Also, photons have no mass. So I’m not sure it’s even accurate to categorize them as a “thing”. Anyway, the believers here aren’t thinking of photons when they talk about something existing outside of time and space that created the universe. They’re thinking of a God being. So they have the burden of showing how this God being is real and can exist independent of space and time.

Eternal means “lasting forever”. Which entails time.

Ron

1. Believers here have no burden unless they try to convince someone else of their faith.

2. You’ve quoted one definition of eternal, but another is simply “timeless.”

 
 < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›