Biblical Miracles

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

You question someone's intellect but think it is reasonable to continue to ask the same questions that have baffled all leading philosophers and the (not many) scientists who have publically pondered these same questions.

Then the answers to the questions I asked is: you don't know. Why can't you just say that?

And since you don't know the answers to any of them, your explanation does not actually explain anything at all. You are just replacing one unanswered question with many more to assume a deity, which is the opposite of Occam's razor.

nagirrac wrote: »

Do your own research, and lets hear what your own positions on these questions are.

I don't have any positions on the questions as I don't believe that god exists.
I am asking you as it highlights the fact you don't know what the answers are, and thus highlights the fact that god is a failure of explanation.

nagirrac wrote: »

my agnostic deist position is the most likely explanation is due to a design by a creative intelligence that is beyond our current comprehension and exists outside our observed universe. That is my position and I frankly have no interest in wasting a futher second of my time trying to convince you of it.

But it's an explanation that doesn't explain anything at all least of all the four questions you list and it is neither the most likely nor the most simple explanation. And then in runs into all of the same problems you use to reject non-theistic/non-magical explanations, only with the addition issue of not being supported by any kind of science.

The reason you aren't able to convince me of your position is because it's a silly self contradictory one.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you are interested in how I arrived at my position, stop whining and go to the "closertotruth" website and spend the many hundreds of hours I have spent listening to the finest minds in our observed universe discussing these and other great questions.

Yea... if hundreds of hours of that lead you to believe such silly things and taught you to defend them so poorly and dishonesty, it's probably not worth it.

nagirrac

Improbable wrote: »

Given this new information, do you agree that a combination of the information I have provided along with what Michael has provided is a more rational explanation than an intelligent supernatural entity that exists outside of our spacetime? If not, please elaborate as to why.

Firstly, it is not new information, I was aware of the zero-energy universe hypothesis from the writings of Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth. I don't claim to understand it well and have read several arguments pro and con.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Michael has provided" as I have not seen anything from Michael other than the statement that energy may have always existed.

My agnostic deist view is not solely based on the question of the likely begining of our observed universe. It is based on considering many other questions such as the source of the laws of the universe, the source of consciousness, whether consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, how life emerged, where the incredible amount of information came form that is every living cell, etc. After pondering all of these (and other) questions at length, and reading and listening to the leading minds in these fields my current conclusion is the ultimate answer to these questions is an intelligent entity outside our observed universe.

Like any agnostic I am open to changing my position when the evidence changes. I freely admit my view is based on a broad cross section of what I have come across on "closertotruth" which I have personally found to be a wonderful source of the state of current thinking from believers, agnostics and atheists.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

I don't have any positions on the questions as I don't believe that god exists.

For someone who does not believe that God exists you sure spend a lot of your time discussing the subject.

Clearly if you have an absolute belief that nothing can exist outside our observed universe then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise so asking for any is pointless. However, whether God exists or not the questions are just as valid and are pondered by many who identify as atheists. Ultimately they may all be answered within the framework of our observed universe, who knows. The fact that you take the dogmatic approach of "there cannot be a creator outside our observed universe" means unlike an agnostic or weak atheist you are not willing to consider any rationality for such a position.

I fully repect your position, just a little baffled if you have no interest or position on these questions why waste your time discussing them?

Improbable

nagirrac wrote: »

Firstly, it is not new information, I was aware of the zero-energy universe hypothesis from the writings of Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth. I don't claim to understand it well and have read several arguments pro and con.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Michael has provided" as I have not seen anything from Michael other than the statement that energy may have always existed.

Your response to Michael's statement was based on whether or not there was a model which could explain the existence of the universe on the basis that there was 0 energy before T = 0 and then there was energy after that. If you wish to disregard the explanation of how there can be nothing and then something through entirely natural processes, you genuinely would be moving the goalposts of your argument.

nagirrac wrote: »

My agnostic deist view is not solely based on the question of the likely begining of our observed universe. It is based on considering many other questions such as the source of the laws of the universe, the source of consciousness, whether consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, how life emerged, where the incredible amount of information came form that is every living cell, etc. After pondering all of these (and other) questions at length, and reading and listening to the leading minds in these fields my current conclusion is the ultimate answer to these questions is an intelligent entity outside our observed universe.

I contend that you cannot rationally come to the conclusion that there is a supernatural entity through the study of any of these subjects. The only rational conclusion that you can draw is that we don't know everything about these subjects. Given that, any belief of a supernatural entity based on that is by definition a god of the gaps argument, which is quite irrational. There are a lot of subjects I don't know about but biology and specifically biochemistry and evolutionary biology are something that I do know a great deal about since I have had 5+ years of university education on the subject so if you wish to pick a specific topic within evolutionary biology or biochemistry and outline a basic explanation in a new thread of why you believe that your argument shows there is a supernatural entity, I would be happy to discuss it with you in depth.

But to say "We don't know how X works, therefore god did it." is simply not good enough i'm afraid.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

For someone who does not believe that God exists you sure spend a lot of your time discussing the subject.

What an amazing insightful point...:rolleyes:

nagirrac wrote: »

Clearly if you have an absolute belief that nothing can exist outside our observed universe then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise so asking for any is pointless.

I don't have an absolute belief that nothing can exist outside our observed universe.
But I wasn't asking for evidence I was asking you to answer a few direct questions and you are engaging in very transparent sophistry to avoid the fact that you cannot answer them.
If you don't know, say you don't know.

nagirrac wrote: »

The fact that you take the dogmatic approach of "there cannot be a creator outside our observed universe" means unlike an agnostic or weak atheist you are not willing to consider any rationality for such a position.

Point to where I said anything of the sort.
This is not my position, I have never held this position, nor have I ever said anything that would indicate that I did.

I'm very willing to consider rationality on such a position, you are just not providing it.

nagirrac wrote: »

I fully repect your position, just a little baffled if you have no interest or position on these questions why waste your time discussing them?

Again, I asked the questions because they highlight how your explanation completely lacks any explanatory power. You can't provide answers to them because God does not explain anything.

I have no position on them as to have a position on them I need to believe that god exists.
I cannot explain how God created the universe as I do not believe he did. Nor can I speculate about how god might have created the universe if he existed as I have yet to hear a single suggestion of any plausible mechanism by which he could do so. All I hear from folks like yourself is: "magic!"

kylith

the_eman wrote: »

He does present the hydroplate theory as potential cause for the flood, did you see that or investigate it further?

According to Rational Wiki Hydroplate Theory was developed in 1980 by a guy called Walter Brown. I've never heard it mentioned as one of da Vinci's ideas. In fact:

UCMP Berkeley wrote:

In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations..........He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:

Leonardo da Vinci wrote:

Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

PlainP

the_eman wrote: »

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed. Who said God came from Nothing?

So your so-called God is male is he...are you sure of this????

robindch

kylith wrote: »

[...] never heard it mentioned as one of da Vinci's ideas. In fact: [...]

Interestingly, in a Da Vinci exhibition a few years back in the Chester Beatty Library at the back of Dublin Castle, they showed one or other of Da Vinci's texts which noted not only the positioning of fossils at the tops of mountains, but also a short conclusion rejecting creationism so far as I recall.

I took a photo of the text, but can't find it just now -- sigh!

kylith

robindch wrote: »

Interestingly, in a Da Vinci exhibition a few years back in the Chester Beatty Library at the back of Dublin Castle, they showed one or other of Da Vinci's texts which noted not only the positioning of fossils at the tops of mountains, but also a short conclusion rejecting creationism so far as I recall.

I took a photo of the text, but can't find it just now -- sigh!

Da Vinci was, as my grandmother would have put it, no daw.*



*Apologies if you've never heard the phrase "daw" roughly translates to "fool".

Sycopat

the_eman wrote: »

Well he does talk about the Inverse-square law, why dont you research that and get back to us with results. Why not compare it based over two periods, <10,000 years vs > 100,000 years for example.

I find the idea of you wanting me to go away for 100000 years amusing. Worried I have a point are we?

Just because he talks about things doesn't mean he has a clue about what it actually means or implies or what he's actually talking about.

At 8 minutes in he talks about how a key teaching of evolution is spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.

Spontaneous generation!

Spontaneous generation could not be further from evolution if it tried!

Evolution is descent with modification.

Spontaneous generation is formation without descent. It is the idea that dead flesh spontaneously turns into maggots. It is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.

Spontaneous generation is an ancient greek idea that is as completely and utterly biologically obsolete and ridiculous as the idea of four elements is in chemistry.

The only reason modern biologists will have even heard of it is because of the rather elegant experiments Louis Pasteur conducted in the 19th century showing contamination was necessary to cause spoilage.

The video is tripe.

It is composed entirely of equally fundamentally flawed arguments and ideas.

I would point out more of it's flaws, but they are so fundamental and occur at such frequency that frankly:

smokingman

It's not "the god of the gaps", it's the "Polyfilla Argument".
This is the one argument that makes the least sense and infuriates me the most about deists.

Back in college, I was quite into the whole meditation thing. I even convinced myself that I had "achieved oneness" at one stage. "It's not knowing that you and the world around you are one entity, it's the moment of realization of knowing -that's being at one" and so forth.

Then I grew up.

Consciousness is not something that permeates outside your own skull. Nor is it something you can call a soul. It is a combination of the language processing part of your brain interacting with your long and short term memories and the "magic" of imagination is the result of incorrectly firing neurons sending you a memory of being a small child in a big world instead of what you were asking for in the first place.

Using the Polyfilla Argument for a proof of a god concept is similar to the vanity driven attempt to call oneself "spiritual". Both are arrogant attempts to invent something that seems grander than reality that would make someone "feel" better about not being able to appreciate or grasp actual reality.

nagirrac

smokingman wrote: »

This is the one argument that makes the least sense and infuriates me the most about deists.
Consciousness is not something that permeates outside your own skull. Nor is it something you can call a soul.
Using the Polyfilla Argument for a proof of a god concept is similar to the vanity driven attempt to call oneself "spiritual". Both are arrogant attempts to invent something that seems grander than reality that would make someone "feel" better about not being able to appreciate or grasp actual reality.

Newsflash: We do not understand actual reality, if we did we would not be struggling for 100 years to reconcile quantum mechanics and the Theory of Relativity. If we understood actual reality we would not be constantly surprised by it as we make new discoveries in every field from theoretical Physics to Molecular Biology. What is arrogant is assuming that we grasp actual reality, the argument of settled science.

There appear to be a lot of people on this site who do not understand the difference between deists and theists. Deists do not accept a revealed God and have no interest in participating in organized religions. Deists are opposed to any influence of revealed religions in government or state education.

Personally when it comes to political and spiritual beliefs I am guided by the thoughts and more importantly the actions of Thomas Jefferson and I would argue that the American founding fathers gave humanity the finest political system yet achieved and one worth defending. In that sense I have a great admiration for deists and the humility of deist thinking which guided the founding fathers. When I reflect on the history of the past century I see the political systems that have been built mainly based on the philosophy of Karl Marx and they are quite a contrast to that of Jefferson. Point me to a political system or state where God was banned from the public discourse that had a good outcome.

On scientific matters I would identify with Einstein who was a deist and gave us the greatest contribution to our current understanding of reality. I am sure I will hear the "pandering to authoritarian figures" argument which is quite ironic given the excitement expressed on this forum when Richard Dawkins is about to regale us with his "wisdom".

On consciousness, I think that deserves a separate thread.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Energy existing in our universe before T=0 is not simpler otherwise the brightest astrophysicists would have modelled it. Do you have a proposal for how energy existed before T=0. No is the answer.

Since when has energy not existed before/without the universe? As I understood it, our universe (and space and time) "started" as an expansion from a hot dense energy state. Energy had to exist in order for space/time to emerge from it, therefore it exists before T=0.

Gbear

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when has energy not existed before/without the universe? As I understood it, our universe (and space and time) "started" as an expansion from a hot dense energy state. Energy had to exist in order for space/time to emerge from it, therefore it exists before T=0.

Isn't all the energy and matter in the Universe balanced by the relevant anti-matter?

I thought that was the reason why we could come from "nothing". We're effectively still nothing.

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when has energy not existed before/without the universe? As I understood it, our universe (and space and time) "started" as an expansion from a hot dense energy state. Energy had to exist in order for space/time to emerge from it, therefore it exists before T=0.

Isn't that a contradiction as "before" suggests space and time did not start at the big bang? at least how we understand time.

According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity time as we know it came into being at the instant of the big bang. What existed at T=0 was all of the energy in the universe (the singularity). There have been lots of proposals since Einstein on what could have come before T=0, a universe that gave rise to our universe, endless inflationary bubble universes, a cyclical universe and the brane approach of string theory.

We don't know currently is the honest answer, just like we don't know if there is a creator outside our observed universe.

Andrewf20

Nagarric, you mentioned you are an agnostic deist. But just to confirm, do you believe in a particular theistic God / or faith?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Isn't that a contradiction as "before" suggests space and time did not start at the big bang? at least how we understand time.

According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity time as we know it came into being at the instant of the big bang. What existed at T=0 was all of the energy in the universe (the singularity). There have been lots of proposals since Einstein on what could have come before T=0, a universe that gave rise to our universe, endless inflationary bubble universes, a cyclical universe and the brane approach of string theory.

We don't know currently is the honest answer, just like we don't know if there is a creator outside our observed universe.

So you question me saying "before" the big bang as being a contradiction, yet you continue on to use yourself as if it isn't? Is it or isn't? Are you using T=0 as the moment the universe begins, or the non space/time existence of the energy-only singularity (and T=1 is the start of the expansion)?

If T=0 is simply the singularity, then T=0 describes something that exists outside of time, therefore there is no before, there is simply T=0.
If T=0 is the beginning of the big bang, then "before" T=0 is simply the singularity, which is timeless and extant.

Either way there are several simple explanations that fit in with these 2 scenarios that don't require the complexity of a god (see Improbables post)

Mark Hamill

Gbear wrote: »

Isn't all the energy and matter in the Universe balanced by the relevant anti-matter?

I thought that was the reason why we could come from "nothing". We're effectively still nothing.

I'm not especially well read up on this, but I have heard that before. It still contradicts the theistic/deistic notion of the universe coming from nothing though. We didn't come from "nothing" - we and an equivalent amount of anti-matter came from "nothing", therefore all is balanced at the point of creation, so no "outside" influence is needed.

Besides, all the matter, and space/time, came from a singularity, therefore that singularity cannot really be discussed or measured in terms of space/time. There is no "before" the singularity. There is no reason that the singularity is not simply extant, and simply expanded, only to eventually retract, resulting in a overall change of 0 (assuming it has to have overall changes of 0, which is not necessarily true seeing as it exists outside of space/time, and therefore all physical constraints we understand, including cause and effect).

nagirrac

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Nagarric, you mentioned you are an agnostic deist. But just to confirm, do you believe in a particular theistic God / or faith?

No

nagirrac

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you question me saying "before" the big bang as being a contradiction, yet you continue on to use yourself as if it isn't? Is it or isn't? Are you using T=0 as the moment the universe begins, or the non space/time existence of the energy-only singularity (and T=1 is the start of the expansion)?

If T=0 is simply the singularity, then T=0 describes something that exists outside of time, therefore there is no before, there is simply T=0.
If T=0 is the beginning of the big bang, then "before" T=0 is simply the singularity, which is timeless and extant.

Either way there are several simple explanations that fit in with these 2 scenarios that don't require the complexity of a god (see Improbables post)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I agree there is no "before" the singularity in terms of our observed space/time universe. What I was referring to later in my post were the proposals on how our specific universe could have come into being.

There is nothing simple about the zero-energy universe theory, it is the same theory Improbables is referring to and you just admitted you are not well read up on it so how can it be simple? From my reading there is quite a bit of ongoing debate regarding the math in the zero-energy universe.

The deist position is not that the universe came from nothing, it is that the universe came from God. There is no logical argument or scientific theory that our universe came from nothing, the BB theory says that the universe came from the singularity which is clearly not nothing if it contained all the enrgy in our observed universe. Admittedly the BB theory is incomplete and does not explain what happened in the first billionth of a second but that is likely because quantum mechanics is not fully understood. As Richard Feynmann famously stated: "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

The question of why there is something rather than nothing cannot be answered by current physical theory.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

The deist position is not that the universe came from nothing, it is that the universe came from God.

But this just begs the question of where did god come from?
Which you can't answer without providing a way for the universe to exist only without the complication of god.

If god can come into being from nothing, there's then no reason why the universe can't.
If god has always existed, there's no reason why the universe couldn't have in some sense.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is no logical argument or scientific theory that our universe came from nothing, the BB theory says that the universe came from the singularity which is clearly not nothing if it contained all the enrgy in our observed universe.

Again, it depends on your definition of nothing. And you are keeping it nice and vague and non-scientist so you can have lots of goalpost moving room.

nagirrac wrote: »

The question of why there is something rather than nothing cannot be answered by current physical theory.

And just because it cannot be answered yet, doesn't mean it can't ever be answered using non-magical theories.
And just because it's not answered yet it doesn't mean you can just insert whatever fairy story most appeals to you, to quote Dara O Briain. Especially one that does not actually answer any questions at all.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Again, it depends on your definition of nothing.

My definition of nothing as it relates to what happened in the first billionth of a second of our universe is the "something that existed but we do not currently know what it is". That is the only logical position from my reasoning.

Not moving the goalposts, just stating the obvious to anyone with a logical mind.

As for fairies, you appear to be confusing me with a theist. I do not beieve in any "revealed" religions, regardless of which man did the revealing.

Just to save you some time my answer to all your future questions on God are "I don't know". I regard God as unknowable to the current human mind.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

My definition of nothing as it relates to what happened in the first billionth of a second of our universe is the "something that existed but we do not currently know what it is". That is the only logical position from my reasoning.

This paragraph makes no discernible sense.

There are theories (that are modelled and explain stuff unlike magic or god) that suggest that the singularity could arise from fluctuations in the quantum foam, which could be considered "nothing" depending on your definition.

nagirrac wrote: »

Just to save you some time my answer to all your future questions on God are "I don't know". I regard God as unknowable to the current human mind.

So how can something unknowable be ever considered an explanation?
By definition all the questions you say he answers become unanswered and unanswerable. And then all of you claims about the character and nature of god become contradictory and pointless.

Again, your position is shown to be completely incoherent.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

There are theories (that are modelled and explain stuff unlike magic or god) that suggest that the singularity could arise from fluctuations in the quantum foam, which could be considered "nothing" depending on your definition.

Sorry, but I disagree.

We have no way of knowing what happens before the Planck time as our current physics does not extend there. We are currently probing around the edges of what happened after Planck time with theories like the one you referenced. Anything related to before Planck time is speculation, no different to speculation about God. If we have no way of observing it or measuring it, how can it be considering as "nothing"?

Could you point me to the scientist who has stated that states their model could be considered as a definition of "nothing". Vilenkin is the only one I am aware of and I would not agree what he describes is "nothing".

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, but I disagree.

We have no way of knowing what happens before the Planck time as our current physics does not extend there. We are currently probing around the edges of what happened after Planck time with theories like the one you referenced. Anything related to before Planck time is speculation, no different to speculation about God. If we have no way of observing it or measuring it, how can it be considering as "nothing"?

And you've avoided the points I'm making to make another completely incoherent point.

The difference between the theory I suggested and yours is 1. it can been modelled scientifically and 2. it doesn't require nonsensical and unnecessary components like intelligence.


So again, how can something unknowable be considered an explanation?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And you've avoided the points I'm making to make another completely incoherent point.
The difference between the theory I suggested and yours is 1. it can been modelled scientifically and 2. it doesn't require nonsensical and unnecessary components like intelligence.

You appear to be completely lacking in logic.
Why can't you just say "I don't know" when asked about what existed between at T=0 and the Planck time? You know, the way I say "I don't know" when you ask me to describe God.

I am not at all ignoring your point, I am putting it into the context it deserves. The theory you reference does nothing to explain what happened before the Planck time which is what I am discussing. You are the one moving the goalposts here.

It amazes me how seemingly intelligent people are desperate in their search for a "non intelligent" explanation for our universe when we are surrounded by nothing but evidence for its intelligence. The fact that you and I are discussing what happened at T=0 should be evidence enough.

What next, another bunch of questions about God?

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

Why can't you just say "I don't know"......

Erm...

nagirrac wrote: »

the most likely explanation is due to a design by a creative intelligence that is beyond our current comprehension and exists outside our observed universe.

I'm just wondering, do you realise how ridiculously hypocritical your position is?

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm just wondering, do you realise how ridiculously hypocritical your position is?

Not in the slightest from a logical point of view.

I don't know how the universe came into being. Until we know what happened between T=0 and the Planck time we can only speculate. As our current physics is absolutely no help to us, saying "I don't know" is the only logical approach and the answer by the way you will get from any theoretical physicist.

My bias towards a creative entity is based on the intelligence permeating the universe. The natural laws that led to the universe as we know it. The observation that were it not for the precise laws governing the inflation and expansion of the universe we would not have the physical world we live in. The intelligence behind a molecule like DNA which the Theory of Evolution does nothing to explain and does not try to explain. The intelligence of the human mind which no amount of neuroscience will ever explain and is the equivalent of climbing a tree to try and reach the moon.

Nothing hypocritical whatsoever, you are comparing apples and oranges.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

You appear to be completely lacking in logic.
Why can't you just say "I don't know" when asked about what existed between at T=0 and the Planck time?

Lol, irony.
You're welcome to point out where I said I knew anything of the sort. You can do that while you look for support of the other false claims you've made about what I believe.

nagirrac wrote: »

You know, the way I say "I don't know" when you ask me to describe God.

You mean the thing that took you 3 pages to admit and makes your theory completely nonsensical.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not at all ignoring your point, I am putting it into the context it deserves.

No you are ignoring my point. I have asked you repeatedly to explain how something unknowable can be an explanation.
You are avoiding it because, yet again you can't answer it.

nagirrac wrote: »

The theory you reference does nothing to explain what happened before the Planck time which is what I am discussing. You are the one moving the goalposts here.

Again, more nonsense to avoid a point.

I simply expressed that theory as an example of a theory where the universe can come from "nothing". It had nothing to do with Planck time.

nagirrac wrote: »

It amazes me how seemingly intelligent people are desperate in their search for a "non intelligent" explanation for our universe when we are surrounded by nothing but evidence for its intelligence. The fact that you and I are discussing what happened at T=0 should be evidence enough.

Lol, what evidence?
So far all you've said is that science doesn't know answers to certain questions, god answers these questions. (aka the god of the gaps argument.)
But then you've said that you don't actually know how god answers those questions and claim that he can't.

Do you not see the problem in your theory and how silly and hypocritical you are being?

nagirrac wrote: »

What next, another bunch of questions about God?

No, just this one question you are avoiding:
How can something unknowable be considered an explanation?

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I agree there is no "before" the singularity in terms of our observed space/time universe. What I was referring to later in my post were the proposals on how our specific universe could have come into being.

Are you defining the singularity as part of the universe? I'm not, I describe the space/time that expanded from the singularity as the universe. So the question of "where did the universe come from" becomes "where did the singularity come from" and my response to Gbear covers that:
There is no reason that the singularity is not simply extant, and simply expanded, only to eventually retract, resulting in a overall change of 0 (assuming it has to have overall changes of 0, which is not necessarily true seeing as it exists outside of space/time, and therefore all physical constraints we understand, including cause and effect).

nagirrac wrote: »

There is nothing simple about the zero-energy universe theory, it is the same theory Improbables is referring to and you just admitted you are not well read up on it so how can it be simple? From my reading there is quite a bit of ongoing debate regarding the math in the zero-energy universe.

It is far simpler than any of the claims involving god creating the universe. For one, it doesn't require the existence of a god, who would only make the maths more difficult to explain

nagirrac wrote: »

The deist position is not that the universe came from nothing, it is that the universe came from God.
...
the BB theory says that the universe came from the singularity which is clearly not nothing if it contained all the enrgy in our observed universe.

So does this mean you dont agree with the initial existence of a singularity?

nagirrac wrote: »

The question of why there is something rather than nothing cannot be answered by current physical theory.

Well, my entire argument here is that there never was "nothing". There was a singularity, and if that singularity wasn't simply extant, then there must have been the potential for it to exist. The question shouldn't be "why is there something rather than nothing", its "why is there something rather than something else".