Is Allah...

[Myles]

I thought current theories had a beginning, where even time began.

To the best of my knowledge the beginning referred to relates to what preceded the big bang, a place where science cannot go. The sort of thing one hears is that our universe is part of a bigger universe, that it came about as the result of an event in another universe and so on. In some such sense one could argue that that our universe always existed. It can also be said to have come into existence for reasons not known to us. A cosmoligist might be able to offer you clearer answers.

None of the above makes any sense because it is beyond our comprehension But so, too, is the idea of an uncaused cause i.e.. god. That answer means that god always existed which is contrary to the proposition that everything has a cause.

Worse still, theists are not prepared to leave it at that. They would have us believe that god has all sorts of ( human) attributes, that he/she has plans for us and demands certain things of us. This leap is made without a shred of evidence; it simply satisfies a need to believe in something greater than ourslves.

 

[Myles]

Yeah. Evolution.

Evolution could be no more than one event in its existence. However, in light of our present lnowledge we must settle for the big bang. See my remarks above on this.

 

[S.A.M.]

Evolution could be no more than one event in its existence. However, in light of our present lnowledge we must settle for the big bang. See my remarks above on this.

Whatever makes sense to you. As I have already said, you are giving evidence of cause and effect in a universe you deem causeless.

 

[Myles]

Whatever makes sense to you. As I have already said, you are giving evidence of cause and effect in a universe you deem causeless.

I am telling you that there is a limit to what can usefully be said on the matter.

The onus is on you to explain how there can be an uncaused cause, if you claim everything has a cause. Then it's only a hop, step and a leap to the god of the Koran and all the baggage that brings with it.

I'm off to bed now.

 

[S.A.M.]

I did. You assume that the universe is all there is. I see a ball rolling into the street, I know there is a child behind it.

 

[John99]

I know there is a child behind it.

AH, but there is a good chance you would be wrong.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm the ball could just be rolling along held up by an army of ants?

 

[John99]

Could have been the wind.

 

[Michael]

The child could have rolled the ball and then left, actually, considering you never see the child again, it's probably a good assumption they are no longer around. (given there even was a child to begin with)

 

[S.A.M.]

Yup. There are random balls rolling all over the streets. Do you brake when you see one roll out in front of your car?

 

[Michael]

OK, maybe at first you brake, then you get out of your car, then you see there is no child. Then what? Do you continue to assume there is an invisible child present or do you accept there may have been a child, may not have been a child, may have been children, or maybe it was just the wind ... BUT however it is that the ball got there - the child or children are no longer here now.

So? What do you think SAM

 

[Myles]

I did. You assume that the universe is all there is. I see a ball rolling into the street, I know there is a child behind it.

You make an ASSUMPTION. In any event you are basing your statement on your experience of the world. I see a ball rolling, ergo there is a child involved. There are other ways in which the ball could have got there but we'll let that pass.

Now try, I know there is a universe; I know everything has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause. I call that cause god. God was not caused because he always existed, therefore he must be outside the universe.

So what is the cause of god's existence ? If you say he has none you are contradicting the view that everything has a cause. The alternative is an infinite regress of causes, so why bother.? Why not accept that the universe always existed and stop at that pont ?

 

[Simon Anders]

To the best of my knowledge the beginning referred to relates to what preceded the big bang, a place where science cannot go. The sort of thing one hears is that our universe is part of a bigger universe, that it came about as the result of an event in another universe and so on. In some such sense one could argue that that our universe always existed. It can also be said to have come into existence for reasons not known to us. A cosmoligist might be able to offer you clearer answers.

None of the above makes any sense because it is beyond our comprehension But so, too, is the idea of an uncaused cause i.e.. god. That answer means that god always existed which is contrary to the proposition that everything has a cause.

Worse still, theists are not prepared to leave it at that. They would have us believe that god has all sorts of ( human) attributes, that he/she has plans for us and demands certain things of us. This leap is made without a shred of evidence; it simply satisfies a need to believe in something greater than ourslves.

I am familiar, in layperson ways, with some of the theories you mention. But it did seem like for a while scientists were talking about the Big Bang as THE beginning, not simply as the limit point of knowledge (so far at least). I thought I read several accounts by scientists that said time itself began as a part of this Big Bang.

I am not saying that this was correct or even current consensus opinion. But it did seem like a sizable number of scientists were saying this for a while. In other words a beginning was considered a distinct possibility and the previous steady state theories were incorrect. Now I realize that the steady state theories were considered incorrect not because they posited 'no beginning', nevertheless it did seem like creation 'ex nihilo' was definitly on the table as an explanation for things. As opposed to somethign always having been and that there have simply been changes in form.

 

[Enmos]

I am familiar, in layperson ways, with some of the theories you mention. But it did seem like for a while scientists were talking about the Big Bang as THE beginning, not simply as the limit point of knowledge (so far at least). I thought I read several accounts by scientists that said time itself began as a part of this Big Bang.

I am not saying that this was correct or even current consensus opinion. But it did seem like a sizable number of scientists were saying this for a while. In other words a beginning was considered a distinct possibility and the previous steady state theories were incorrect. Now I realize that the steady state theories were considered incorrect not because they posited 'no beginning', nevertheless it did seem like creation 'ex nihilo' was definitly on the table as an explanation for things. As opposed to somethign always having been and that there have simply been changes in form.

But if the big bang was also the beginning of time that proves the universe really has always been.. :shrug:

 

[(Q)]

Yes. I think Allah means God in islam.

This is a good question Q.

I would like to see a serious answer.

Thank you both for your answers.

 

[(Q)]

Yup. There are random balls rolling all over the streets. Do you brake when you see one roll out in front of your car?

Unfortunately, the one Muslim here who continues her onslaught of trolling, has yet to demonstrate anything other than intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Myles]

I am familiar, in layperson ways, with some of the theories you mention. But it did seem like for a while scientists were talking about the Big Bang as THE beginning, not simply as the limit point of knowledge (so far at least). I thought I read several accounts by scientists that said time itself began as a part of this Big Bang.

I am not saying that this was correct or even current consensus opinion. But it did seem like a sizable number of scientists were saying this for a while. In other words a beginning was considered a distinct possibility and the previous steady state theories were incorrect. Now I realize that the steady state theories were considered incorrect not because they posited 'no beginning', nevertheless it did seem like creation 'ex nihilo' was definitly on the table as an explanation for things. As opposed to somethign always having been and that there have simply been changes in form.

I see Enmos has given you what I would regard as a satisfactory answer.

As far as creation ex nihilo is concerned, I have read that in certain circumstance a particle can inexplicably pop into existence. This phenpmenon is associated with QM. But QM breaks down if we zoom out to the atomic level; hence no tables and chairs ex nihilo.

I think it fair to say that we have only speculation as opposed to explanation at present. There is, however, no warrant for introducing a creator, because it explains nothing.

 

[(Q)]

I thought I read several accounts by scientists that said time itself began as a part of this Big Bang.

Time, which is little more than a tool for measuring changes, would have "began" with the BB, as that is the point of origin for which, if our universe had also began, the point of measuring change began relevant to us.

 

[(Q)]

I find it odd that the same people who cling to evolution deny that change requires a beginning.

Merely a facade created by naive theists who cling to creationism and deny evolution.

 

[S.A.M.]

OK, maybe at first you brake, then you get out of your car, then you see there is no child. Then what? Do you continue to assume there is an invisible child present or do you accept there may have been a child, may not have been a child, may have been children, or maybe it was just the wind ... BUT however it is that the ball got there - the child or children are no longer here now.

So? What do you think SAM

You tell me, do you brake when you see another ball roll out on the street?