If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

[Kenny]

Sure it does...
At or after time = 0.
For example.. from your wikipedia article
"Inflation stopped at around the 10−33 to 10−32 seconds mark, with the universe's volume having increased by a factor of at least 1078. Reheating occurred until the universe obtained the temperatures required for the production of a quark–gluon plasma as well as all other elementary particles."

This tells me changes happening with something already there.

According to the Big Bang theory the singularity existed AT time = 0, and since both space and time came into existence with the Big Bang, then 'already existed' has no meaning before time = 0.

If it began to exist, or originated at 0, then it would be describing the origin of the singularity which would be a contradiction of what it stated under misconceptions.

Which is why whatever caused the Big Bang singularity by definition operates outside of both space and time.

Excuse my ignorance, but I’ve never understood how something could be outside of space. Unless we redefine space to mean something other than where nothing exist, how is this possible?

[DBowling]

Sure it does...
At or after time = 0.
For example.. from your wikipedia article
"Inflation stopped at around the 10−33 to 10−32 seconds mark, with the universe's volume having increased by a factor of at least 1078. Reheating occurred until the universe obtained the temperatures required for the production of a quark–gluon plasma as well as all other elementary particles."

This tells me changes happening with something already there.

This tells me that according to the Big Bang theory "all elementary particles" of our universe were "produced" at around the 10^(-33) to 10^(-32) seconds mark.

According to the Big Bang theory the singularity existed AT time = 0, and since both space and time came into existence with the Big Bang, then 'already existed' has no meaning before time = 0.

If it began to exist, or originated at 0, then it would be describing the origin of the singularity which would be a contradiction of what it stated under misconceptions.

That's not what your article states.

Under Misconceptions, it says
"the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused"
which is an accurate statement

However, the Big Bang theory does describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

Which is why whatever caused the Big Bang singularity by definition operates outside of both space and time.

Excuse my ignorance, but I’ve never understood how something could be outside of space. Unless we redefine space to mean something other than where nothing exist, how is this possible?

I wouldn't expect anyone (myself included) to understand what it means to exist outside of space and time, because we are all part of this universe and the context and frame of reference of our existence in this universe is a function of space and time.

One would have to exist outside of space and time to have the frame of reference necessary to comprehend what it means to exist outside of space and time.

[Philip]

DB: One would have to exist outside of space and time to have the frame of reference necessary to comprehend what it means to exist outside of space and time.

Perhaps to fully understand it, yes. But to realize that all contingent things must have a source, which is ultimately true for the very first thing or things as well. The Big Bang, singularity, etc. - those were contingent things. Let's not forget just the first three minutes of the universe - what happened requires vast intelligence and power, first to create, assemble and design just the right, astonishing building blocks, and then to immediately control them so brilliantly - the polar opposite of chaos occurred.

[Kenny]

Under Misconceptions, it says
"the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused"
which is an accurate statement

However, the Big Bang theory does describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

Here is what it says:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe.

Okay; here it is saying the idea that it explains the origin of the Universe is a misconception.

However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused,

Here; energy, time, and space is another word for Universe. It is saying it does not described how the Universe (energy, time, and space) was caused.

but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state

It is just saying it describes how it went from the singularity to what we currently know as the Universe
However, even if they did claim to know the Universe was caused, you still have to make a huge leap of speculation to assume whatever caused it is a sentient being capable of thought. Nowhere does any scientific theory claim anything outside of space and time or even capable of thought is responsible, or even necessary.

I wouldn't expect anyone (myself included) to understand what it means to exist outside of space and time, because we are all part of this universe and the context and frame of reference of our existence in this universe is a function of space and time.

One would have to exist outside of space and time to have the frame of reference necessary to comprehend what it means to exist outside of space and time.

The people who claim such a thing as outside of space are as human as you and I, you would expect anyone using the term would have the frame of reference necessary to comprehend what it means; don’t cha think?

[DBowling]

Under Misconceptions, it says
"the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused"
which is an accurate statement

However, the Big Bang theory does describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

Here is what it says:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe.

That is a factually accurate statement

However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused,

That is also a factually accurate statement

but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state

That is also a factually accurate statement

But none of those factually accurate statements do anything to rebut the fact that...
the Big Bang theory DOES describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

In fact there is a timeline section beginning at time = 0 in the Big Bang article you reference

However, even if they did claim to know the Universe was caused, you still have to make a huge leap of speculation to assume whatever caused it is a sentient being capable of thought. Nowhere does any scientific theory claim anything outside of space and time or even capable of thought is responsible, or even necessary.

You are correct that science does not make any claims regarding sentience outside of space and time. In fact science in incapable of addressing anything outside of space, time, and the laws of our physical universe.

Intelligence is an inference from the fine tuning of our physical universe, and the intricate complexity of the laws that govern our universe.
And non-random complexity with purpose is an indicator of the presence of intelligence.
So even though science does not make any claims about the intelligence of the cause of our universe.
Science does speak to the non-random intricate complexity that is displayed all over our universe and in the laws that govern our universe.

Which is an indcator of the presence of intelligence.

I wouldn't expect anyone (myself included) to understand what it means to exist outside of space and time, because we are all part of this universe and the context and frame of reference of our existence in this universe is a function of space and time.

One would have to exist outside of space and time to have the frame of reference necessary to comprehend what it means to exist outside of space and time.

The people who claim such a thing as outside of space are as human as you and I, you would expect anyone using the term would have the frame of reference necessary to comprehend what it means; don’t cha think?

Not necessarily...

Your article says the following...
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning"
I don't have a frame of reference to understand what it means for space and time to have no meaning in the Big Bang singularity.

But if the Big Bang theory points to a singularity at time - 0 where space and time have no meaning.
Then it logically follows that the cause of the Big Bang singularity would also share a context where space and time have no meaning.

[Kenny]

That is also a factually accurate statement

But none of those factually accurate statements do anything to rebut the fact that...
the Big Bang theory DOES describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

In fact there is a timeline section beginning at time = 0 in the Big Bang article you reference

Where does the article speak of time = 0? I couldn’t find that.

You are correct that science does not make any claims regarding sentience outside of space and time. In fact science in incapable of addressing anything outside of space, time, and the laws of our physical universe.

You seem to speak of time as something that encapsulates all of us, and speak of something outside of time. Time is just how we measure one moment to the next. If something exists, the concept of time can be applied to it; nothing real can exist outside of time, because time can be applied to it’s actions. IOW assuming God exists, and is eternal, time has to be eternal because time can be applied to God’s actions as well. Does this make sense? If not tell me where I’m going wrong.

As far as science being incapable of addressing anything outside of space, time, or the laws of our physical universe, (assuming such a thing exists) what’s preventing it?

Intelligence is an inference from the fine tuning of our physical universe, and the intricate complexity of the laws that govern our universe.
And non-random complexity with purpose is an indicator of the presence of intelligence.
So even though science does not make any claims about the intelligence of the cause of our universe.
Science does speak to the non-random intricate complexity that is displayed all over our universe and in the laws that govern our universe.

Which is an indcator of the presence of intelligence.

So you agree, those claims are not backed up by science, these claims you are making are based strictly on your own personal speculation; is that correct?

Not necessarily...
Your article says the following...
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning"
I don't have a frame of reference to understand what it means for space and time to have no meaning in the Big Bang singularity.

So in other words, the guy who wrote it has no idea what he is talking about when he says it either huh? Why would somebody do that? Why would somebody speak of something outside of time and space, if they have no idea what it means? Sounds foolish to me, or something that should be dismissed when they speak of it.

[DBowling]

That is also a factually accurate statement

But none of those factually accurate statements do anything to rebut the fact that...
the Big Bang theory DOES describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

In fact there is a timeline section beginning at time = 0 in the Big Bang article you reference

Where does the article speak of time = 0? I couldn’t find that.

under Inflation and baryogenesis
and then the remainder of the timeline section refers to offsets from 0 for a number of events.

You are correct that science does not make any claims regarding sentience outside of space and time. In fact science in incapable of addressing anything outside of space, time, and the laws of our physical universe.

You seem to speak of time as something that encapsulates all of us, and speak of something outside of time. Time is just how we measure one moment to the next. If something exists, the concept of time can be applied to it; nothing real can exist outside of time, because time can be applied to it’s actions.

I am referring to time in the same way as the article refers to time, the fourth dimension of our space/time continuum.

IOW assuming God exists, and is eternal, time has to be eternal because time can be applied to God’s actions as well. Does this make sense? If not tell me where I’m going wrong.

I disagree... If God is eternal and God exists outside of time, then there is no requirement for time to be eternal.
In fact if the Big Bang theory is correct then time is not eternal because time began with the Big Bang.

I have no difficulty with the "eternal" nature of God being a way of describing God's independence from time.

As far as science being incapable of addressing anything outside of space, time, or the laws of our physical universe, (assuming such a thing exists) what’s preventing it?

The definition and scope of Science...

Science is
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science by definition focuses on the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world. The behavior of things that transcend the physical and natural world (ie our universe and space/time continuum) are not within the traditional scope of Science.

Intelligence is an inference from the fine tuning of our physical universe, and the intricate complexity of the laws that govern our universe.
And non-random complexity with purpose is an indicator of the presence of intelligence.
So even though science does not make any claims about the intelligence of the cause of our universe.
Science does speak to the non-random intricate complexity that is displayed all over our universe and in the laws that govern our universe.

Which is an indcator of the presence of intelligence.

So you agree, those claims are not backed up by science, these claims you are making are based strictly on your own personal speculation; is that correct?

Nope, that is not correct...

Science does a good job of identifying the fine tuning of our universe and the complexity of the physical laws that govern our universe

Intelligence is the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
So when we apply the standard criteria for the detection of intelligence to what Science tells us about the fine tuning and complexity of our universe, we can see that the cause for the fine tuning of the universe and the laws that govern our universe meets established criteria for intelligence.

Not necessarily...
Your article says the following...
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning"
I don't have a frame of reference to understand what it means for space and time to have no meaning in the Big Bang singularity.

So in other words, the guy who wrote it has no idea what he is talking about when he says it either huh? Why would somebody do that? Why would somebody speak of something outside of time and space, if they have no idea what it means? Sounds foolish to me, or something that should be dismissed when they speak of it.

The problem with that approach is a whole lot of scientists and writers have the same problem as the writer of the wikipedia article. Because The Big Bang is consistently described as creating the energy, matter, space, and time of our universe.

If you want to dismiss the Big Bang theory because it is impossible for us to comprehend what it means for "space and time to have no meaning" that's fine.
But if you do that, it is you who are in conflict with the Big Bang theory.
On the other hand, classic Theism is very consistent with a causal agent for the Big Bang that operates outside of space and time.

[Kenny]

under Inflation and baryogenesis
and then the remainder of the timeline section refers to offsets from 0 for a number of events.

Under “Inflation and baryogenesis” 0 is the point when the singularity begins to expand, not when energy and matter was originated. To suggest energy and matter was created goes against scientific law (first law of thermodynamics) that says energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed; it only changes form.https://byjus.com/jee/first-law-of-ther ... %20concept.

I disagree... If God is eternal and God exists outside of time, then there is no requirement for time to be eternal.
In fact if the Big Bang theory is correct then time is not eternal because time began with the Big Bang.

If the Big bang theory is correct, God does not exist because everything in existence was compressed within the singularity; nothing outside of it according to the theory.

I have no difficulty with the "eternal" nature of God being a way of describing God's independence from time.

It sounds like you’re just creating an idea of a spiritual world with God in it, claiming it exists outside of time and space; making it exempt from scientific claims because science only address the material world. Anybody can do that; it would be the same as me creating an idea of (for example) Kenny’s world, claiming it exists outside of time and space; making it exempt from scientific claims because science only addresses the material world. Obviously you would dismiss Kenny’s world; as you should, but I just don’t see a difference between you presupposing the spiritual world and me presupposing kenny’s world; there is no evidence to support the existence of any of them.

The definition and scope of Science...

Science is
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science by definition focuses on the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world. The behavior of things that transcend the physical and natural world (ie our universe and space/time continuum) are not within the traditional scope of Science.

The Universe is not within the scope of science? Spacetime is not within the scope of science? First of all, space-time does not exist, it’s only a concept. It’s a mathematical model where the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height are combined with time. It’s often used in Physics, and physics is one of the natural sciences. So I can’t agree with you that space-time is somehow beyond the scope of science. Now as far as the Universe being beyond the scope of science……. No. I can’t agree with cha on that one either.

The problem with that approach is a whole lot of scientists and writers have the same problem as the writer of the wikipedia article. Because The Big Bang is consistently described as creating the energy, matter, space, and time of our universe.

No; the Big Bang is described as the expansion of material and energy.

If you want to dismiss the Big Bang theory because it is impossible for us to comprehend what it means for "space and time to have no meaning" that's fine.

That’s not impossible for us to understand! The idea that space and time having no meaning makes perfect sense if nothing exist, and there is no activity. That’s not what I asked; I asked about being outside of space and time.

[DBowling]

The definition and scope of Science...

Science is
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science by definition focuses on the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world. The behavior of things that transcend the physical and natural world (ie our universe and space/time continuum) are not within the traditional scope of Science.

The Universe is not within the scope of science? Spacetime is not within the scope of science?

My appologies for the pathetic grammar in my statement above.

What I was attempting (unsuccessfully) to say was
Science by definition focuses on the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. (ie our universe and space/time continuum)
The behavior of things that transcend the physical and natural world are not within the traditional scope of Science.

That should make more sense.

The problem with that approach is a whole lot of scientists and writers have the same problem as the writer of the wikipedia article. Because The Big Bang is consistently described as creating the energy, matter, space, and time of our universe.

No; the Big Bang is described as the expansion of material and energy.

You are simply wrong on this one...
And a lot of your misconceptions surround this particular issue.
So I think it would be beneficial to clarify this specific point.

Let me post links to two videos from National Geographic that confirm what science says about the Big Bang theory.
There are many many more examples out there but these two examples should (hopefully) be enough to clear things up.
And they are consistent with what your wikipedia article says about the Big Bang singularity.
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning"
Both videos are short

Origins of the Universe 101 | National Geographic (5:50)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPzOWlLrbE

Before Time and Space | National Geographic (3:28)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVsHjnY-o9s

[Kenny]

You are simply wrong on this one...
And a lot of your misconceptions surround this particular issue.
So I think it would be beneficial to clarify this specific point.

Let me post links to two videos from National Geographic that confirm what science says about the Big Bang theory.
There are many many more examples out there but these two examples should (hopefully) be enough to clear things up.
And they are consistent with what your wikipedia article says about the Big Bang singularity.
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning"
Both videos are short

Origins of the Universe 101 | National Geographic (5:50)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPzOWlLrbE

Before Time and Space | National Geographic (3:28)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVsHjnY-o9s

Both of these videos seem to be people speaking of their views, and I don't think their views are always backed up by scientific theory. Below are some of the concerns I had of both video’s.

51 seconds into the first video
it claims the actual size of the singularity being a few centimeters across; there is no theory that makes this claim of the size

1 min 02 seconds
It says the singularity exploded. despite the name, it was an expansion not an explosion
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... explosion/


1 min 09 sec
It says from the explosion matter and energy was created. The creation of matter and energy goes against the 1st law of thermodynamics that says matter and energy are never created nor destroyed, but only changes form.

1 minute 45 seconds
It describes the Planck Epoch happening 10’s of thousands of years after the explosion. it says matter didn’t exist yet only energy. Wait; didn’t it say before that during the explosion matter and energy was created during the explosion? Humm…..

2 min 15 seconds it speaks of the “inflationary epoch happened when the Universe grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit. Wait; didn’t they previously say the singularity was several centimeters wide before exploding? How did things get as small as an atom? Humm…..


The second video seems to contradict the first in that the size of the singularity was smaller than an atom, instead of a few centimeters wide as the first video claims.
It also claims in a billionth of a second it went from the size of an atom to billions of miles across. Humm; so much for the inflationary epoch from the first video where it grew to the size of a grapefruit tens of thousands of years after the explosion huh?

Those are some of the disagreements I had of both of those videos

[DBowling]

You are simply wrong on this one...
And a lot of your misconceptions surround this particular issue.
So I think it would be beneficial to clarify this specific point.

Let me post links to two videos from National Geographic that confirm what science says about the Big Bang theory.
There are many many more examples out there but these two examples should (hopefully) be enough to clear things up.
And they are consistent with what your wikipedia article says about the Big Bang singularity.
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning"
Both videos are short

Origins of the Universe 101 | National Geographic (5:50)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPzOWlLrbE

Before Time and Space | National Geographic (3:28)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVsHjnY-o9s

Both of these videos seem to be people speaking of their views, and I don't think their views are always backed up by scientific theory. Below are some of the concerns I had of both video’s.

There may be some differences regarding specific details of the first moments of the Big Bang, but as your Wikipedia article and the National Geographic videos demonstrate, the general concensus among Scientists is that matter, energy, space, and time were all created by the Big Bang.

1 min 09 sec
It says from the explosion matter and energy was created. The creation of matter and energy goes against the 1st law of thermodynamics that says matter and energy are never created nor destroyed, but only changes form.

This is where your views regarding the Big Bang theory most significantly diverge from the consensus position among scientists.

Again most scientists do acknowledge that matter, energy, space, and time were created by the Big Bang, as both National Geographic (hardly a bastion of religious fervor) videos explicitly state.
To address your point, the physical laws of our universe, including the laws of physics, were also created by the Big Bang.

Quoting again from your Wikipedia article
"the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics) work.

But your point is a good one.
As the second National Geographic states "before the Big Bang" there was nothing.
So we once again find ourselves in a familiar place.
Since according to the concensus position, the Big Bang created matter, energy, space, time, and the laws of nature
Then whatever caused the Big Bang also functions outside of matter, energy, space, time, and the laws of nature.

Those are some of the disagreements I had of both of those videos

The issue here is that your disagreements with the Big Bang Theory aren't just limited to specific details regarding the earliest moments of the Big Bang.
Your disagreement with the concensus position of scientists extends to major concepts such as the creation of matter, energy, space, time, and the laws of nature.
Again, you have every right to disagree with the concensus position about the Big Bang Theory for whatever reason you wish.
But once again, classical Theism is more in tune with the Big Bang theory regarding the creation of matter, energy, space, and time than your position is.

[Philip]

Yes, the term "Big Bang" would seem to describe a massive explosion - and yet, as Kenny noted, it was, instead an expansion, and one of extraordinary precision and control (again, a purposeful expansion under intelligent control).

There is exhaustive research now validating the Big Bang creation model. Here, Hugh Ross of Reasons.org explains a powerful and recent one: https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... e-big-bang

And here Hugh notes some of the Bible passages that match up with the Big Bang evidences: https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/today ... tion-model. And here he provides more evidences supporting the Big Bang: https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/j ... -1_001.pdf

The interesting thing is, the two groups that most challenge the Big Bang as having birthed the universe are atheists and young-earth creationists!

[Kenny]

Again most scientists do acknowledge that matter, energy, space, and time were created by the Big Bang, as both National Geographic (hardly a bastion of religious fervor) videos explicitly state.
To address your point, the physical laws of our universe, including the laws of physics, were also created by the Big Bang.

Quoting again from your Wikipedia article
"the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics) work.

Yes it speaks of when the laws of physics as we know them began to work, but notice nowhere does it say matter and energy were created. Do you know of a big bang model that says during the expansion matter and energy were created?

[DBowling]

Again most scientists do acknowledge that matter, energy, space, and time were created by the Big Bang, as both National Geographic (hardly a bastion of religious fervor) videos explicitly state.
To address your point, the physical laws of our universe, including the laws of physics, were also created by the Big Bang.

Quoting again from your Wikipedia article
"the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics) work.

Yes it speaks of when the laws of physics as we know them began to work, but notice nowhere does it say matter and energy were created. Do you know of a big bang model that says during the expansion matter and energy were created?

Yes...
The consensus model described by National Geographic in this video explicitly states that matter, space, time, and energy were created by the Big Bang.
Origins of the Universe 101 | National Geographic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPzOWlLrbE

nasa.gov says the same thing
The Big Bang
created all the
matter and energy in the
Universe. Most of the
hydrogen and helium in the
Universe were created in
the moments after the Big
Bang. Heavier elements
came later.


This doesn't speak directly to the question we are discussing, but I found this Wikipedia Graphical timeline very helpful.
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical ... e_Big_Bang
I did find it interesting to note that according to this timeline, science is unable to describe the state of the universe in its singularity state or even during the Planck period.

Which is consistent with the following statements from the Wikipedia article
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation"
"This irregular behavior, known as the gravitational singularity, indicates that general relativity is not an adequate description of the laws of physics in this regime. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity—before the end of the so-called Planck epoch."
"the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning"

The Wikipedia article does not explicitly state that space, time, matter, and energy are created by the Big Bang.
But the Wikipedia article quotes above are consistent with the consensus position described by National Geographic and NASA.

[Kenny]

Yes...
The consensus model described by National Geographic in this video explicitly states that matter, space, time, and energy were created by the Big Bang.
Origins of the Universe 101 | National Geographic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPzOWlLrbE

I agree National Geographic does make the claim that matter and energy was created during the big bang (they call it an explosion) but as I stated before, the 1st law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed; it only changes forms. Now this is a scientific law. I guess it comes down to who do you want to believe; scientific law, or the magazine (they both can’t be right). I’m more inclined to go with the scientific law. However even if we assume the magazine is correct, and scientific law is wrong concerning matters of science, you have to make a pretty big leap to determine the big bang was caused by an intelligent being. Not even national Geographic makes that claim.