The big bang was not the beginning of everything

Akrasia

It was merely the beginning of this phase of our universe.

The reason it is often claimed that the big bang was a singularity, the 'beginning' is because it is the start of this causal chain, and in that respect, it can be seen as the start of time for us. Nothing that happened before the big bang had any particular effect on anything that happens after the big bang other than whatever it took to create that superdense mass from which all the matter and energy in the universe was released in that instant.

It does not mean that the matter spontaniously created itself. There is a possibility that the superdense mass before the big bang was the result of a previous collapsed universe and so on in an infinite cycle.

This does not mean time is repeating itself, every instance of a big bang followed by a big crunch would result in different configurations of galaxies and stars and planets, and there would be different life forms and probably different invented gods on some of those different planets.

The one thing that remains constant is the laws of physics that govern the way matter and energy (same thing) behaves.

You can call these laws 'god' if you like, but its certainly not a Christian god. There is no afterlife, there is no soul, there is no judgement day. When the human race is destroyed, it'll either be at our own hand, caused by a microscopic bacteria or virus, or by some natural disaster on an epic scale. There is no universal law of morality, only the society that we choose to create for ourselves, shaped by our own sense of empathy, our evolved desire for company, and our sense of self preservation.

philologos

I'd personally hold that the laws of the universe would be of God's creation, as opposed to being God Himself.

Akrasia wrote:

This does not mean time is repeating itself, every instance of a big bang followed by a big crunch would result in different configurations of galaxies and stars and planets, and there would be different life forms and probably different invented gods on some of those different planets.

This is belief in itself though isn't it?

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

It was merely the beginning of this phase of our universe.

The reason it is often claimed that the big bang was a singularity, the 'beginning' is because it is the start of this causal chain, and in that respect, it can be seen as the start of time for us. Nothing that happened before the big bang had any particular effect on anything that happens after the big bang other than whatever it took to create that superdense mass from which all the matter and energy in the universe was released in that instant.

It does not mean that the matter spontaniously created itself. There is a possibility that the superdense mass before the big bang was the result of a previous collapsed universe and so on in an infinite cycle.

This does not mean time is repeating itself, every instance of a big bang followed by a big crunch would result in different configurations of galaxies and stars and planets, and there would be different life forms and probably different invented gods on some of those different planets.

The one thing that remains constant is the laws of physics that govern the way matter and energy (same thing) behaves.

You can call these laws 'god' if you like, but its certainly not a Christian god. There is no afterlife, there is no soul, there is no judgement day. When the human race is destroyed, it'll either be at our own hand, caused by a microscopic bacteria or virus, or by some natural disaster on an epic scale. There is no universal law of morality, only the society that we choose to create for ourselves, shaped by our own sense of empathy, our evolved desire for company, and our sense of self preservation.

And you believe this? That universes existed before ours? Where is the physical evidence for such a theory?

Biro

Akrasia wrote: »

It was merely the beginning of this phase of our universe.

The reason it is often claimed that the big bang was a singularity, the 'beginning' is because it is the start of this causal chain, and in that respect, it can be seen as the start of time for us. Nothing that happened before the big bang had any particular effect on anything that happens after the big bang other than whatever it took to create that superdense mass from which all the matter and energy in the universe was released in that instant.

It does not mean that the matter spontaniously created itself. There is a possibility that the superdense mass before the big bang was the result of a previous collapsed universe and so on in an infinite cycle.

This does not mean time is repeating itself, every instance of a big bang followed by a big crunch would result in different configurations of galaxies and stars and planets, and there would be different life forms and probably different invented gods on some of those different planets.

The one thing that remains constant is the laws of physics that govern the way matter and energy (same thing) behaves.

You can call these laws 'god' if you like, but its certainly not a Christian god. There is no afterlife, there is no soul, there is no judgement day. When the human race is destroyed, it'll either be at our own hand, caused by a microscopic bacteria or virus, or by some natural disaster on an epic scale. There is no universal law of morality, only the society that we choose to create for ourselves, shaped by our own sense of empathy, our evolved desire for company, and our sense of self preservation.

That's it definitively so is it? Fair enough, that's all good to know. Might as well close the "Religion and Spirituality" forum so, serves no further use.
At least there'll be no more athiests coming over to laugh at the Christians anymore, so I guess that's a plus. I wonder what they'll all do now though? They've been demoted from athiests to "the same as everyone else" now, that akrasia has laid down the cold hard proof!

Akrasia

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd personally hold that the laws of the universe would be of God's creation, as opposed to being God Himself.

If there are laws of the universe, there is no need for God. Thats all 'god' does. It would be very very egocentric to believe that the christian god created the entire universe just for a few thousand years of human civilisation.

This is belief in itself though isn't it?

Its a belief supported by evidence. While by no means certain, there are physics models that are consistent with all known scientific data that suggest a cyclical universe. We're only a few decades into the space age. In the coming years we're going to see remarkable advances in the data we have available.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24844

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And you believe this? That universes existed before ours? Where is the physical evidence for such a theory?

The big bang itself, the volumes of scientific data.
Certainly a lot more evidence than for young earth creationism

BrianCalgary

Akrasia wrote: »

If there are laws of the universe, there is no need for God. Thats all 'god' does. It would be very very egocentric to believe that the christian god created the entire universe just for a few thousand years of human civilisation.

Its a belief supported by evidence. While by no means certain, there are physics models that are consistent with all known scientific data that suggest a cyclical universe. We're only a few decades into the space age. In the coming years we're going to see remarkable advances in the data we have available.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24844

There is far more evidence behind the life and person of Jesus Christ and His rising from the dead on teh third day than there is evidence for universes going on for eternity collapsing and booming.

The universes theory is all based on assumption and conjecture.

Zulu

Akrasia wrote: »

...There is no afterlife, there is no soul, there is no judgement day. ...

I don't understand why you'd bother coming over here to convert people to your religion?
Are you so blinded by your faith that you can't see the parallels??

Soul Winner

Akrasia wrote: »

It was merely the beginning of this phase of our universe.

The reason it is often claimed that the big bang was a singularity, the 'beginning' is because it is the start of this causal chain, and in that respect, it can be seen as the start of time for us. Nothing that happened before the big bang had any particular effect on anything that happens after the big bang other than whatever it took to create that superdense mass from which all the matter and energy in the universe was released in that instant.

It does not mean that the matter spontaniously created itself. There is a possibility that the superdense mass before the big bang was the result of a previous collapsed universe and so on in an infinite cycle.

This does not mean time is repeating itself, every instance of a big bang followed by a big crunch would result in different configurations of galaxies and stars and planets, and there would be different life forms and probably different invented gods on some of those different planets.

The one thing that remains constant is the laws of physics that govern the way matter and energy (same thing) behaves.

You can call these laws 'god' if you like, but its certainly not a Christian god. There is no afterlife, there is no soul, there is no judgement day. When the human race is destroyed, it'll either be at our own hand, caused by a microscopic bacteria or virus, or by some natural disaster on an epic scale. There is no universal law of morality, only the society that we choose to create for ourselves, shaped by our own sense of empathy, our evolved desire for company, and our sense of self preservation.

Is this up for discussion or are you just telling us the way its going to be? You should write your own Bible. "In the beginign was Akrasia, and Akrasia said there is no God, and there was no God" What you fail to realise is that your assumptions about possible universes are based on nothing mre that speculation and conjecture. The evidence from the COBE satellite measurements ACTUALLY give undeniable proof that the universe had a beginning and that these results comply with, nay strengthen Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Your supposed multiuniverse is just that, supposed, theoretical, anything to get away from the idea that the "Actual" universe we live in had a beginner.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There is far more evidence behind the life and person of Jesus Christ and His rising from the dead on teh third day than there is evidence for universes going on for eternity collapsing and booming.

The universes theory is all based on assumption and conjecture.

No it's based on testable and falsifiable conditions. For example the red - shift in stars.

Jesus rising from the dead is neither testable nor falsifiable. It relies on the words of a few people written 30 years after it happened when the literacy rates were fairly low. It could be correct, but chinese whispers, confabulation or blatant lieing are also explanations.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There is far more evidence behind the life and person of Jesus Christ and His rising from the dead on teh third day than there is evidence for universes going on for eternity collapsing and booming.

I take it it's been a while since you've set foot in a library with a section on Cosmic Physics?

Gegerty

Soul Winner wrote: »

Is this up for discussion or are you just telling us the way its going to be?

How does it feel mmm? mmm?

Gegerty

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There is far more evidence behind the life and person of Jesus Christ and His rising from the dead on teh third day than there is evidence for universes going on for eternity collapsing and booming.

Where's the evidence?

Zombrex

A few points

1 - This thread belongs in the atheist forum, not the Christian forum. It is a reason not to believe in supernatural gods, why bother posting it in this forum, not a forum renowned for willingness to consider challenging ideas. Unsurprisingly the idea of earlier universes was simply rejected outright by most of the Christians who replied.

2 - There are models cosmology that include earlier universes that go some way to explaining current observations about our own universe. that in no way shows these models are very accurate, but it at least makes earlier universes plausible and some what workable. It is like coming to a car crash and working out that a truck hitting the car would cause a skid mark like the one on the ground. that doesn't mean a truck definitely hit the car, but it means that is it plausible that it did.

3 - Scientific models are not based on conjecture and assumption. There is not more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but looking at the evidence is also missing the point. Science is about models not evidence. The models must match the evidence, it isn't about drawing conclusions from looking at the evidence. No one has a model of how Jesus came back to life, a model of what happened, and Jesus coming back to life conflicts with every mode we do have about human organisms and how they operate. Religious people don't care because they introduce an all powerful supernatural element so models go out the window, but then so does science so it is a bit silly comparing the two.

Anyway, off to the atheism forum with you, where I would love to discuss this further (without random references to Jesus' resurrection)

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There is far more evidence behind the life and person of Jesus Christ and His rising from the dead on teh third day than there is evidence for universes going on for eternity collapsing and booming.

I don't know about there being more evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus (4 Gospel stories, 2 of which borrow heavily from the first, and some epistles). However I certainly don't think a 2000 year old book counts as better evidence than modern scientific interpretation of observal quantum phenomena such as the dual slit experiment. The Multiple Universe theory has not been proven and could easily be completely wrong, but the evidence in support of it is far, far stronger than the evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus.

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

A few points

1 - This thread belongs in the atheist forum, not the Christian forum.

Agreed, and even there it seems offered as a statement, rather than a topic for suggestion, hence my earler rather dismissive post.

Wicknight wrote: »

...this forum, not a forum renowned for willingness to consider challenging ideas. Unsurprisingly the idea of earlier universes was simply rejected outright by most of the Christians who replied.

Rather like the athiest forum's unwillingness to consider challenging ideas.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Rather like the athiest forum's unwillingness to consider challenging ideas.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but yes the atheist forum regularly discuss challenging ideas

Akrasia

Biro wrote: »

Agreed, and even there it seems offered as a statement, rather than a topic for suggestion, hence my earler rather dismissive post.

Christians in this forum often state categorically that the universe began at the big bang, and then use that assertion to justify god the entity that started everything off.
In this post, SoulWinner went into a very long and detailed discussion where he took it as fact that the big bang theory stated that time and the entire universe began at the big bang
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56083411&postcount=77

I started this topic in the christianity forum to cast doubt on that assertion and to refute any claims that current scientific evidence has any proof for a beginning of the universe.

I admit that i did use fairly categorical language in my opening post, but that was intentional to provoke debate on the nature of certainty.

Many scientists use the big bang as the de-facto start of the universe, not because they believe that there was nothing there before it, but because it was the start of the causal chain that lead to everything we know today. This is interpreted by some christians as though they are claiming there was nothing before the big bang.

That has to be challenged.

Biro

Akrasia wrote: »

Christians in this forum often state categorically that the universe began at the big bang, and then use that assertion to justify god the entity that started everything off.
In this post, SoulWinner went into a very long and detailed discussion where he took it as fact that the big bang theory stated that time and the entire universe began at the big bang
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56083411&postcount=77

I started this topic in the christianity forum to cast doubt on that assertion and to refute any claims that current scientific evidence has any proof for a beginning of the universe.

I admit that i did use fairly categorical language in my opening post, but that was intentional to provoke debate on the nature of certainty.

Your debate is welcome, but it's the categorical language that I took exception to. It kind of gave a hint of a bad attitude. I understand now though!

Akrasia

Soul Winner wrote: »

The evidence from the COBE satellite measurements ACTUALLY give undeniable proof that the universe had a beginning and that these results comply with, nay strengthen Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Your supposed multiuniverse is just that, supposed, theoretical, anything to get away from the idea that the "Actual" universe we live in had a beginner.

And this is what I'm talking about.
There is no such 'undeniable proof' that the universe had a beginning.

Also, I'm not arguing about a multiverse, i'm talking about a cyclical universe. The multiverse is a different theory altogether (and not mutually exclusive)

The phase of the universe we live in now had a beginning, but that does not mean that the universe did not have phases before the big bang.

The maths and physics explaining the big bang are still incomplete, scientists are still filling in the gaps and testing them to see if they fit with the data we are still collecting. There is a debate about whether the universe will expand forever or if there will be a reversal of the expansion resulting in a big crunch.

iUseVi

I'm no physicist, but I thought a cyclic model was no longer popular due to the amount of dark matter and energy, etc. Hence the universe would continue to expand?

BrianCalgary

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I don't know about there being more evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus (4 Gospel stories, 2 of which borrow heavily from the first, and some epistles). However I certainly don't think a 2000 year old book counts as better evidence than modern scientific interpretation of observal quantum phenomena such as the dual slit experiment. The Multiple Universe theory has not been proven and could easily be completely wrong, but the evidence in support of it is far, far stronger than the evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus.

We have been through this DM. That is excellent evidence for an event happening, especially since there is no writing refuting it.

Now lets look at the article cited and some of it's statemnts.:

It requires that time existed before the Big Bang, assumes that the universe is older than the 14 billion years we think it is,

An assumption that is not testable and verifiable as you guys have been telling us of all the evidence behind a 14 billion year universe. Now assume that it is older. Quite an dassumption with no proof.

Steinhard and Turok's new theory assumes we live in a cyclic universe, where each cycle from Big Bang to big crunch takes about a trillion years.

Another assumption. No proof.

It postulates the existence of a long sequence of vacuum states, in which Λ changes in a small series of steps, or cycles, of steadily decreasing cosmological constant. The constant is assumed to start out large and positive and hops down the steps to ever lower values.

Postulation, assumption.

rockbeer

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We have been through this DM. That is excellent evidence for an event happening, especially since there is no writing refuting it.

Sorry Brian, but it really isn't. At best it's excellent evidence that the people who wrote the accounts believed the event had happened, which is quite a different thing.

Occam's razor requires us to reject an explanation when more simple ones are available, and there are any number of simpler explanations that would have to be discounted before hearsay, or even eyewitness accounts should we be so lucky, could be regarded as strong evidence of supernatural resurrection.

For example, what if the witnesses were deliberately deceived? Apparent death and resurrection would be a trivial illusion for an accomplished conjuror to create.

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We have been through this DM. That is excellent evidence for an event happening, especially since there is no writing refuting it.

What kind of writings would you expect refuting it? Why would anyone bother writing a refutation of yet another small cult in a period when they were ten a penny. Especially when you consider that Christianity didn't begin to take off for decades after Jesus' death and mostly in cities hundreds of miles from where any eye witnesses who might have still been alive who could refute it lived.

Anyways just because we don't have any writings today doesn't mean they weren't written. For example we know that around 170 AD (about 80 years after the last Gospel was written) a Greek philosopher called Celsus wrote a long refutation of Christian claims. His own writings have been lost but luckily we do have excerpts from them thanks to Origen's "Contra Celsum" written 80 years later. If Origen didn't write this we would never have known about Celsus and his ridiculing of Christians, who is to say that there were not other similar writings lost? We just got lucky with Celsus.

On the question of the Gospels as being "excellent evidence", I would say they are:

(1) excellent evidence to support the claim that a man called Yeshua bar Yosef lived during the first half of the 1st century and preached an apocalytic message as was common at the time

(2) very good evidence to support the claim that a section of the uneducated population of Judea viewed this man as being a miracle worker (there were plenty of supposed miracle workers at the time after all),

(3) very good evidence that this man was crucified by the vicious Roman Governor Pontius Pilate during the feast of the Passover, quite possibly as a result of his trouble making in the Temple.

(4) not great evidence to support the idea that his tomb was found empty as this contradicts what we understand Jewish law to have been regarding the burial rights of condemned criminals. His body would have been more likely placed in a criminals graveyard outside the city.

(5) terrible evidence when it comes to his resurrection or other miracles. They are not within a donkeys roar of being admissable as "historical" evidence.

I will give you an example on this last point, the Roman historian Seutonius wrote that after the cremation of Emperor Caesar Augustus in 14 AD a Senator of the Praetorian rank made an oath that he saw Caesar' spirit ascend into Heaven, thereby proving the divinity of the Emperor. If anything this is better evidence than the Gospels because we at least know about the person who wrote the piece, we don't know who really wrote the Gospels, not even their real names.

Now just imagine if proper historians today, when writing an academic piece about the life and death of Augustus, mentioned quite seriously that after his death he ascended into Heaven. It would be madness. Supernatural claims, even coming from pretty reputable sources, just do not count as proper evidence. Therefore it should be seen as just as ridiculous to take the similar Gospel miracles as being factual from a historical point of view.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

Sorry Brian, but it really isn't. At best it's excellent evidence that the people who wrote the accounts believed the event had happened, which is quite a different thing.

Occam's razor requires us to reject an explanation when more simple ones are available, and there are any number of simpler explanations that would have to be discounted before hearsay, or even eyewitness accounts should we be so lucky, could be regarded as strong evidence of supernatural resurrection.

For example, what if the witnesses were deliberately deceived? Apparent death and resurrection would be a trivial illusion for an accomplished conjuror to create.

Occam's razor doesn't require us to reject or accept anything. Occam's razor is not some universal truth and is frequently wrong. The simplest explanation is quite often the wrong explanation.

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, I was just thinking how odd a statement that was.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Occam's razor doesn't require us to reject or accept anything. Occam's razor is not some universal truth and is frequently wrong. The simplest explanation is quite often the wrong explanation.

Are you sure you understand what Occam's Razor is, PDN?

It has nothing to do with the simplest explanation being the correct one. It also can't be wrong as it is only used to select between hypotheses when there is no other evidence by which to do so, in other words when all else is equal. However it is a useful tool for evaluating hypotheses when used appropriately, and it can help demonstrate when people are basing their acceptance of a hypothesis on unnecessary assumptions, as in this case.

That aside, Depeche_Mode has fully explained why biblical accounts are inadmissible as historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection so there's no need for me to repeat those arguments.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Occam's razor doesn't require us to reject or accept anything. Occam's razor is not some universal truth and is frequently wrong. The simplest explanation is quite often the wrong explanation.

You are missing the point of Occam's razor.

Given the choice between a man didn't come back to life, and a man did come back to life because a supernatural deity with the power to control matter and manipulate life and death exists and willed it to take place in this one isolated case, you pick the man didn't come back to life because the other explanation introduces far to many unnecessary variables and assumptions.

Of course you may for other reasons (such as religious faith) pick the second one, but it is hard to argue that is the simpler of the two options, or the option that introduces the least amount of unnecessary assumptions. Men don't come back to life all the time. For this man to come back to life requires the introduction of a massively complex assumption. There is few reasons to introduce that as an element in this beyond need for religious faith.

robindch

Hume had a few things to say about this:

Hume wrote:

When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

Hume wrote:

... no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.

Or simplest of all:

Hume wrote:

A wise man [...] proportions his belief to the evidence.

More of Hume here.

kelly1

iUseVi wrote: »

I'm no physicist, but I thought a cyclic model was no longer popular due to the amount of dark matter and energy, etc. Hence the universe would continue to expand?

I was going to make the same point. Hasn't it been proved that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely? And if so, this would mean that the probability of an ever-expanding universe is greater than 0. If this is true, it means that it couldn't have happened before if it's happening now because we know our universe had a beginning. Does this make sense anyone?

So the question which needs answering is "Will the universe continue to expand indefinitely or collapse again under its own gravity".

Bduffman

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We have been through this DM. That is excellent evidence for an event happening, especially since there is no writing refuting it.

Now lets look at the article cited and some of it's statemnts.:

It requires that time existed before the Big Bang, assumes that the universe is older than the 14 billion years we think it is,

An assumption that is not testable and verifiable as you guys have been telling us of all the evidence behind a 14 billion year universe. Now assume that it is older. Quite an dassumption with no proof.

Steinhard and Turok's new theory assumes we live in a cyclic universe, where each cycle from Big Bang to big crunch takes about a trillion years.

Another assumption. No proof.

It postulates the existence of a long sequence of vacuum states, in which Λ changes in a small series of steps, or cycles, of steadily decreasing cosmological constant. The constant is assumed to start out large and positive and hops down the steps to ever lower values.

Postulation, assumption.

Did I read that right? A christian criticising someone for not providing proof? For making assumptions?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Hasn't it been proved that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely?

That is what these previous universe models are attempting to explain.

The universe is not only expanding, but this expansion seems to be speeding up. The gravitational effects of "dark matter" (matter that cannot be observed beyond its gravitational effects) is used as a possible explanation for this, and the models of a previous universe have our universe expanding into the old universe where dark matter was simply matter, thus our universe is speeding up due to the gravitational effects of the previous universe's matter. Eventually our universe is going to fully collide with the previous universe and collapse.

Again this is quite a radical theory and needs a lot of work before one could possibly say it is accurate or not. It explains some things and raises other questions.

Personally I find it fascinating, the idea of a universe expanding into another universe, the idea that there is matter in this universe that was created in a previous one.

Where the Judeo-Christian idea of God and creation fit into this I've no idea. That is up to you guys to figure out.

Akrasia

kelly1 wrote: »

I was going to make the same point. Hasn't it been proved that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely?

No, it has been hypothesised, but not proven. We don't have enough data to decide which outcome will occur. There are a few crucial pieces of information missing.

So the question which needs answering is "Will the universe continue to expand indefinitely or collapse again under its own gravity".

Yep. One answer would lend support to a divine origin of the universe, the other would be devastating towards any arguments for the belief in god.

Biro

Akrasia wrote: »

Yep. One answer would lend support to a divine origin of the universe, the other would be devastating towards any arguments for the belief in god.

Are you saying that if theory one proves correct (assuming that they'll ever be proved beyond ALL doubt) and the universe has a beginning, then the idea of God will remain a realistic one where as if theory two proves correct (again, see above assumption) and the universe has no begining, then that throws out the idea of God as there is no beginning?
If that's what you were suggesting, then I see where you're coming from, but isn't all this assuming that time is constant and linear? Seeing as we're confined to a linear forward moving time, it makes it hard to imagine there being no time, therefore we can't make any calculations pertaining to the origin of the universe without time in the equation. In a way though, isn't it a big assumption in the whole scheme of things to say that time is only as we understand it?

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Are you saying that if theory one proves correct (assuming that they'll ever be proved beyond ALL doubt) and the universe has a beginning, then the idea of God will remain a realistic one where as if theory two proves correct (again, see above assumption) and the universe has no begining, then that throws out the idea of God as there is no beginning?
If that's what you were suggesting, then I see where you're coming from, but isn't all this assuming that time is constant and linear? Seeing as we're confined to a linear forward moving time, it makes it hard to imagine there being no time, therefore we can't make any calculations pertaining to the origin of the universe without time in the equation. In a way though, isn't it a big assumption in the whole scheme of things to say that time is only as we understand it?

It is possible to model the universe mathematically with all sorts of weird stuff going on, including in relation to time. Very difficult to imagine in our brains, but easy on paper when reality is just a set of numbers.

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

It is possible to model the universe mathematically with all sorts of weird stuff going on, including in relation to time. Very difficult to imagine in our brains, but easy on paper when reality is just a set of numbers.

True. But if time altered continuously way back, then it's impossible to factor it into the equation. The best we could ever to is hypothesise and put in example values.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

True. But if time altered continuously way back, then it's impossible to factor it into the equation. The best we could ever to is hypothesise and put in example values.

Well yeah, but that is sort of how it works anyway. Cosmological constant, which keeps popping up again and again to make the equations fit. It is possible to put in values into an equation to get the answer that matches observation and to then go back and look at what might be the source of this value.

calahans

There are a good few models for the universe but most have a lot of questions associated - brane cosmology, multiverses, cyclical etc. I dont see how they could exclude there being a God. If God was here at the begining of this universe, he could have been here at the begining of all.

We are human and have the concept of time built into our minds, it is one of the dimension of universe we live in. Maybe for God time does not exist?

rockbeer

calahans wrote: »

There are a good few models for the universe but most have a lot of questions associated - brane cosmology, multiverses, cyclical etc. I dont see how they could exclude there being a God. If God was here at the begining of this universe, he could have been here at the begining of all.

More precisely, most human conceptions of god as portrayed in religious texts would be excluded. In particular, the christian god of the bible, since he is supposed to have created the universe specifically for humans with us as its centre. Serious doubt would be thrown on this viewpoint if our universe could be shown to be just one of many, whether in parallel or sequentially.

Having said that, if universes are sequential, perhaps we're one of his early efforts and things will improve over the next few iterations

Biro

calahans wrote: »

There are a good few models for the universe but most have a lot of questions associated - brane cosmology, multiverses, cyclical etc. I dont see how they could exclude there being a God. If God was here at the begining of this universe, he could have been here at the begining of all.

We are human and have the concept of time built into our minds, it is one of the dimension of universe we live in. Maybe for God time does not exist?

I think it's fair to assume, that if God created everything (regardless of when or how) and is the most powerful force in the universe, then He exists outside time.

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

I think it's fair to assume, that if God created everything (regardless of when or how) and is the most powerful force in the universe, then He exists outside time.

Well it would be pretty hard to create time when you are in it ... though God can do anything :pac:

The definition of "God" though is getting a bit abstract. What do Christians think God actually is? An extra-dimensional life form? Did he evolve? Are there others? What is he made of?

calahans

rockbeer wrote: »

More precisely, most human conceptions of god as portrayed in religious texts would be excluded. In particular, the christian god of the bible, since he is supposed to have created the universe specifically for humans with us as its centre. Serious doubt would be thrown on this viewpoint if our universe could be shown to be just one of many, whether in parallel or sequentially.

I suppose that the time that Jesus was here it would have been difficult to preach in anything other than the languge and knowledge of the time. If Jesus had of talked about expanding universes to people 2000 years ago, he would have not have been understood.

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it would be pretty hard to create time when you are in it ... though God can do anything :pac:

The definition of "God" though is getting a bit abstract. What do Christians think God actually is? An extra-dimensional life form? Did he evolve? Are there others? What is he made of?

It's very hard for a flea to understand the neighbourhood he lives in, let alone the dog he's on!
I don't claim to know what God is, why would I? I don't believe he evolved, as that would suggest another beginning from another point in time. I don't believe there are others, just one. I don't know what he's made of, but I reckon it'll never be on the periodic table anyway!

rockbeer

calahans wrote: »

I suppose that the time that Jesus was here it would have been difficult to preach in anything other than the languge and knowledge of the time. If Jesus had of talked about expanding universes to people 2000 years ago, he would have not have been understood.

Probably due a reappearance then.

Biro

calahans wrote: »

I suppose that the time that Jesus was here it would have been difficult to preach in anything other than the languge and knowledge of the time. If Jesus had of talked about expanding universes to people 2000 years ago, he would have not have been understood.

True, but I don't think His objective here was to inform us where we came from, more how to live!

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

It's very hard for a flea to understand the neighbourhood he lives in, let alone the dog he's on!

Indeed. Funny that this doesn't seem to stop believers making all sorts of claims as to what God is or isn't :pac:

Biro wrote: »

I don't claim to know what God is, why would I?

I was simply asking what you think he is. What do you imagine when you imagine God

Biro wrote: »

I don't know what he's made of, but I reckon it'll never be on the periodic table anyway!

Well probably not, but do you think he is made of something, ie God occupies space somewhere.

Biro

Wicknight wrote: »

I was simply asking what you think he is. What do you imagine when you imagine God

Honestly? I actually imagine the common image of Him to be honest, the one that's in most of the paintings. I'm in no way stating that I know what He looks like, so I see no point in trying to imagine a face to go with God seeing as I'll never see Him with my human eyes!! (for want of a better way to put it really).

Wicknight wrote: »

Well probably not, but do you think he is made of something, ie God occupies space somewhere.

I don't think so. Kind of like time, the Creator of space and matter possibly doesn't occupy the same! I could be off the wall though!
I wouldn't waste much time wondering though. If you guys are right and there is no God, then no one will ever see Him as He won't exist. If I'm right and there is a God, then I'll have to die to know what He's like, therefore it's a waste of human time imagining, as no living human will ever see to confirm or deny any efforts to replicate His image!

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

The definition of "God" though is getting a bit abstract. What do Christians think God actually is? An extra-dimensional life form? Did he evolve? Are there others? What is he made of?

God is infinite spirit. He didn't evolve because He is perfect, not was or will be. He exits outside of time. He is made of Spirit.

From http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

The Attributes of the Divine Being

1. God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
2. God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
3. God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
4. There is only One God. (De fide.)
5. The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
6. God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
7. God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
8. God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
9. God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
10. God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
11. God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
12. God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
13. God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
14. God is eternal. (De fide.)
15. God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
16. God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.)

The Attributes of the Divine Life

1. God's knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
2. God's knowledge is purely and simply actual.
3. God's knowledge is subsistent
4. God's knowledge is comprehensive
5. God's knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
6. The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
7. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
8. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
9. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
10. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
11. God's Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
12. God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
13. God is almighty. (De fide.)
14. God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
15. God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
16. God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)

Akrasia

calahans wrote: »

I suppose that the time that Jesus was here it would have been difficult to preach in anything other than the languge and knowledge of the time. If Jesus had of talked about expanding universes to people 2000 years ago, he would have not have been understood.

there were atomist philosophers around hundreds of years B.C. The people weren't as primative as you're making them out to be.

It would certainly have been better if Jesus had told the truth (if he knew it) as it would have avoided a lot of misinterpretation over thousands of years.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

God is infinite spirit. He didn't evolve because He is perfect, not was or will be. He exits outside of time. He is made of Spirit.

Ok, but what is "spirit"? Is spirit an alien intelligence, or a form of matter? what is spirit made of?

what I mean is what you have listed are characteristics, rather than descriptions. They are properties of God, rather than what God actually is. For example one could say I am honourable, but what I actually am is a human organism made of carbon and oxygen molecules.

What you imagine God how do you imagine him. Is he an alien intelligence, do you imagine him as a form of intelligent energy or an intelligent wave pattern?

BrianCalgary

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

What kind of writings would you expect refuting it? .

From the ruling Jewish authorities and the ruling Roman authorities who had control of Jesus' body and either: 1) lost it, 2) had it stolen from under their noses or 3) He is risen, and everyone at the time knew it.

As the Jewish and Roman authorities lost power and control over Christians due to the idea that Jesus had risen, all they had to do was 1) produce the body. But alas they couldn't, because it wasn't there due to the fact that He is risen.

So I would expect loads of proof from the authorities to prove without doubt that Jesus did not rise.

But DM you are applying a different standard to Biblical writings than you would on witings of other ancient historical figures which is hugely dishonest.

if you applied the standard that you demand from the life of Jesus you should be tossing the lives of all teh Egyptian Pharoahs, Greek rulers and philosophers, Chinese dynastic rulers, and thelist can go on and on.

But I imagine you will continue in your dishonesty.