Atheist question

[Kenny]

The big bang theory speaks of space and time as something that has an actual existence. This is a part of the theory I don't understand; it makes no sense to me, I have no idea what that means. I've always thought of space as meaning nothing at all, and time as a system to measure action. But obviously nobody is going to claim "nothing at all" came into existence, or a system began to exist before people existed, so it must mean something else. However I can see your point that if these things did come into existence, it makes sense to believe something outside of it must have caused it to come into existence.

Space does NOT mean nothing at all and time is not JUST a system to measure action.
We need to be careful in using ONE definition of a word to make that word mean that always.

So what is time if not a system used for measurement of actions? What is the difference between space and nothing at all?

[DBowling]

So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang Theory
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
4. the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"
5. whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space

So to put this all together, would you agree that the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A cause for the fabric of time space coming into existence that functions outside of time and space and is is not constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them.

or to put it more simply
A causal agent that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.

Not sure what you mean by Casual Agent.

Basically I mean something that causes something else to occur.
So far I am limiting my argument to whatever caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

But if we assume there are parameters to space and time, and that they came into existence, at face value it would make sense that something outside of time and space could be responsible for it coming into existence. But in order for that to happen, that something else would have to be active, and whatever actions anything make, time can be applied to that action. After all, how could something exist before time?
As far as something existing before space? Where would this something exist?

The short answer is I don't know...
I personally view existing out of our space time continuum as being everywhere and everywhen simultaneously.
But that's just my attempt at a model of sorts.
Can I wrap my brain around what that means?
No
Like I said earlier, I exist within our space time continuum, so I have no frame of reference to truly comprehend what that means.

But the key to our dialogue here is that the Big Bang Theory does tell us that
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

And that has some significant implications for the nature of the cause of our space-time continuum, the cause of the physical laws of our universe, and yes, the cause of the matter and energy in our universe... but we haven't made it there yet.

[Kenny]

So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang Theory
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
4. the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"
5. whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space

So to put this all together, would you agree that the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A cause for the fabric of time space coming into existence that functions outside of time and space and is is not constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them.

or to put it more simply
A causal agent that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.

Not sure what you mean by Casual Agent.

Basically I mean something that causes something else to occur.
So far I am limiting my argument to whatever caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence

But if we assume there are parameters to space and time, and that they came into existence, at face value it would make sense that something outside of time and space could be responsible for it coming into existence. But in order for that to happen, that something else would have to be active, and whatever actions anything make, time can be applied to that action. After all, how could something exist before time?
As far as something existing before space? Where would this something exist?

The short answer is I don't know...
I personally view existing out of our space time continuum as being everywhere and everywhen simultaneously.
But that's just my attempt at a model of sorts.
Can I wrap my brain around what that means?
No
Like I said earlier, I exist within our space time continuum, so I have no frame of reference to truly comprehend what that means.

Whoever made this a part of the Big Bang theory exist within our space time continuum also. So living within our space time continuum in no way limits our understanding of any of this.

But the key to our dialogue here is that the Big Bang Theory does tell us that
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

And that has some significant implications for the nature of the cause of our space-time continuum, the cause of the physical laws of our universe, and yes, the cause of the matter and energy in our universe... but we haven't made it there yet.

The only way I can agree with something is for me to have a complete understanding of it. As I said earlier I do not understand this part of the Big Bang theory, so I can’t agree with it.

[Storyteller]

Loving this thread!

Time..
Eternity is the past, present and future all together. Eternity contains time, it's part of time yet it isn't time itself.
Whatever caused space and time to come into being has to be eternal, so it's outside of time as well as being a part of it.

[DBowling]

So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang Theory
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
4. the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"
5. whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space

So to put this all together, would you agree that the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A cause for the fabric of time space coming into existence that functions outside of time and space and is is not constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them.

or to put it more simply
A causal agent that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.

But the key to our dialogue here is that the Big Bang Theory does tell us that
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

And that has some significant implications for the nature of the cause of our space-time continuum, the cause of the physical laws of our universe, and yes, the cause of the matter and energy in our universe.

The only way I can agree with something is for me to have a complete understanding of it. As I said earlier I do not understand this part of the Big Bang theory, so I can’t agree with it.

So your disagreement is with Georges Lemaître, the father of the Big Bang Theory.
And that's ok.
If you choose to reject all or part of the Big Bang theory, then there is no expectation that you would agree with the implications of the Big Bang Theory.

However, our discussion has involved the principles that can be derived about the cause of our space-time continuum, the cause of the physical laws of our universe, and the cause of the matter and energy in our universe from the Big Bang theory.

And I believe I've demonstrated how the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A causal agent (ie creator) that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature (ie is 'super'natural).

[Kenny]

So far I think the following five principles can be derived from the Big Bang Theory
1. at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence
2. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable prior to the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
3. "the laws of physics as we understand them" would not be applicable to the cause of the "fabric of time and space coming into existence"
4. the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy would not be applicable to whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence"
5. whatever caused the "fabric of time and space to come into existence" by definition functions outside of time and space

So to put this all together, would you agree that the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A cause for the fabric of time space coming into existence that functions outside of time and space and is is not constrained by the laws of physics as we understand them.

or to put it more simply
A causal agent that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature.

But the key to our dialogue here is that the Big Bang Theory does tell us that
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

And that has some significant implications for the nature of the cause of our space-time continuum, the cause of the physical laws of our universe, and yes, the cause of the matter and energy in our universe.

The only way I can agree with something is for me to have a complete understanding of it. As I said earlier I do not understand this part of the Big Bang theory, so I can’t agree with it.

So your disagreement is with Georges Lemaître, the father of the Big Bang Theory.
And that's ok.
If you choose to reject all or part of the Big Bang theory, then there is no expectation that you would agree with the implications of the Big Bang Theory.

However, our discussion has involved the principles that can be derived about the cause of our space-time continuum, the cause of the physical laws of our universe, and the cause of the matter and energy in our universe from the Big Bang theory.

And I believe I've demonstrated how the Big Bang Theory points to the existence of...
A causal agent (ie creator) that transcends space, time, and the laws of nature (ie is 'super'natural).

I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

[Philip]

Ken: I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

What came before singularity that created and drove it HAD to be intelligent and powerful beyond our understandings. And "it" HAD to be eternal - as it could not have created itself - a logical impossibility. So, Ken, you should at least by now realize that what preceded, created and harnessed singularity had the very same attributes Scripture reveals about God. And at the very least, you should realize that there HAD to be some eternal, extremely powerful and intelligence behind the creative and guiding force of the universe. So, your focus should be on what - or WHOM - was that presence that also eternally exists! And people who deny this "force" was unfathomably intelligent, purposeful, and powerful beyond our understandings are in denial of logic - because this is the obvious implication of what DBowling and so many others of us here have so long tried to make you understand.

[DBowling]

I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

I think the Big Bang Theory actually answers the question...
"who created the creator?"

If the Big Bang Theory is correct
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

Then (as we discussed earlier) the cause for the fabric of space and time coming into existence by definition functions outside of space and time.
And something that operates outside of time and caused time to come into existence would by definition be independent from time.
And therefore by its very nature could exist throughout all time simultaneously (ie be eternal by nature).

The Big Bang Theory actually provides answers to a number of questions.

[Kenny]

Ken: I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

What came before singularity that created and drove it HAD to be intelligent and powerful beyond our understandings. And "it" HAD to be eternal - as it could not have created itself - a logical impossibility.

I can see the assumption that whatever created the singularity had to be intelligent and eternally existing, because as far as we know, non-intelligent things aren’t capable of creating something so complicated. But then as far as we know, intelligent things aren’t capable of living eternally either; all living things remain in a constant state of change, either growing or deteriorating, and eventually dying.
But if we presuppose the existence of God, that answers everything because exceptions are made for God that aren’t made for all the other intelligent beings we know of. But for the one who does not presuppose the existence of God, he is just as likely to make an exception for something non-intelligent as he would for something intelligent.
I think you're making my point!

[Kenny]

I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

I think the Big Bang Theory actually answers the question...
"who created the creator?"

If the Big Bang Theory is correct
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

Then (as we discussed earlier) the cause for the fabric of space and time coming into existence by definition functions outside of space and time.
And something that operates outside of time and caused time to come into existence would by definition be independent from time.
And therefore by its very nature could exist throughout all time simultaneously (ie be eternal by nature).

The Big Bang Theory actually provides answers to a number of questions.

I don't recall the Big Bang theory explaining what caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

[DBowling]

I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

I think the Big Bang Theory actually answers the question...
"who created the creator?"

If the Big Bang Theory is correct
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

Then (as we discussed earlier) the cause for the fabric of space and time coming into existence by definition functions outside of space and time.
And something that operates outside of time and caused time to come into existence would by definition be independent from time.
And therefore by its very nature could exist throughout all time simultaneously (ie be eternal by nature).

The Big Bang Theory actually provides answers to a number of questions.

I don't recall the Big Bang theory explaining what caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

It doesn't say what caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

But whatever the cause, we can draw some conclusions regarding basic high level characteristics of anything that would be capable of bringing the fabric of space and time into existence.

[Kenny]

I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

I think the Big Bang Theory actually answers the question...
"who created the creator?"

If the Big Bang Theory is correct
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

Then (as we discussed earlier) the cause for the fabric of space and time coming into existence by definition functions outside of space and time.
And something that operates outside of time and caused time to come into existence would by definition be independent from time.
And therefore by its very nature could exist throughout all time simultaneously (ie be eternal by nature).

The Big Bang Theory actually provides answers to a number of questions.

I don't recall the Big Bang theory explaining what caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

It doesn't say what caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

But whatever the cause, we can draw some conclusions regarding basic high level characteristics of anything that would be capable of bringing the fabric of space and time into existence.

So the Big Bang doesn't provide answers, it just tempts us to speculate on answers.

[DBowling]

I think the Big Bang theory is the best information scientists have at the moment., but has always pointed to something prior to it. The theory starts with the singularity already existing, so the obvious questions has always where did the singularity come from? What caused it to expand? What caused time space to come into existence? If you presuppose God, the answer is obvious; but if you don’t presuppose God, the questions continue; asking who created the creator; the questions continue indefinitely.

I think the Big Bang Theory actually answers the question...
"who created the creator?"

If the Big Bang Theory is correct
"at some finite time in the past the fabric of time and space came into existence"

Then (as we discussed earlier) the cause for the fabric of space and time coming into existence by definition functions outside of space and time.
And something that operates outside of time and caused time to come into existence would by definition be independent from time.
And therefore by its very nature could exist throughout all time simultaneously (ie be eternal by nature).

The Big Bang Theory actually provides answers to a number of questions.

I don't recall the Big Bang theory explaining what caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

It doesn't say what caused the fabric of time and space to come into existence.

But whatever the cause, we can draw some conclusions regarding basic high level characteristics of anything that would be capable of bringing the fabric of space and time into existence.

So the Big Bang doesn't provide answers, it just tempts us to speculate on answers.

I would say it provides some significant answers...
When certain things happened answers certain questions.
What took place during the Big Bang answers certain other questions.

However, we do not have complete answers, so there is still ample room for inferences, speculation, and further research.

[Philip]

Ken: "I can see the assumption that whatever created the singularity had to be intelligent and eternally existing, because as far as we know, non-intelligent things aren’t capable of creating something so complicated."

But it appears "as far as we know," no matter how staggering the mathematical improbability (impossibility!) of such astounding things occurring WITHOUT an intelligence - even by our own standards of what an intelligence and our greatest minds are capable of - you still think it possible a NON-intelligence could produce such? See, this is such an irrational thing to consider possible, Ken, that I can only believe it is your refusal to believe God exists that drives it. This, despite the incredible things that occurred IMMEDIATELY as the Big Bang began - and obviously controlled and set in motion by some supremely powerful and intelligent "Entity" that set it all in motion.

Ken: "But then as far as we know, intelligent things aren’t capable of living eternally either; all living things remain in a constant state of change, either growing or deteriorating, and eventually dying."

Well, we don't know of any other such event as the Big Bang either - an extraordinary event that is the only one we know of. So, do you think NON-intelligent things can simply exist uncreated? Of course, that track takes you right back to the impossibility of non-thinking things producing astoundingly complex things of marvelous functions and interactivity, as did the Big Bang. But, as you say, Ken, "Non-intelligent things aren’t capable of creating something so complicated."

Ken" "But for the one who does not presuppose the existence of God, he is just as likely to make an exception for something non-intelligent as he would for something intelligent."

Which is irrational to believe. So, clearly, you are only entertaining the idea that non-intelligent things could produce the events and wonders of the Big Bang, mostly because the only other alternative for you is there had to be a Creator. But it is unreal that you consider that non-intelligent things is just as likely to have produced the stunning array of complex things and functionalities of Big Bang as did a Creative Intelligence. It simply boggles my mind that anyone would think either option to be just as likely.

[Kenny]

So, clearly, you are only entertaining the idea that non-intelligent things could produce the events and wonders of the Big Bang, mostly because the only other alternative for you is there had to be a Creator.

So clearly you believe an intelligent being could live eternally mostly because the only alternative is to not presuppose the existence of your Creator God.

But it is unreal that you consider that non-intelligent things is just as likely to have produced the stunning array of complex things and functionalities of Big Bang as did a Creative Intelligence. It simply boggles my mind that anyone would think either option to be just as likely.

It is unreal that you consider that intelligent things are just as likely to live eternally as non intelligent things. It boggles my mind how difficult it is for some people to admit to not having an answer.