If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

[Philip]

Ken: you have to make a pretty big leap to determine the big bang was caused by an intelligent being.

Yeah, because just the right (and NECESSARY) things with astonishing designs simply appear and begin brilliantly assembling themselves in astounding ways, on a massive scale, and with incredible precision! Sure - Ken, you have amazing faith in what you believe non-intelligent things are capable of! Our best minds and engineers have never produced things even remotely so sophisticated - nor can they - be it the Big Bang, biological cells, DNA, etc! And they can scarcely understand just a fraction of such things, much less replicate them.

Ken -

[DBowling]

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.

As I noted above, in addition to creating space, time, matter, and energy the Big Bang also created the laws of nature that govern our universe. Your wikipedia article verifies that the laws of physics do not apply to the earliest phases of the Big Bang.
So you are appealing to a physical law that isn't even applicable to the earliest stages of the Big Bang.

I guess it comes down to who do you want to believe; scientific law, or the magazine (they both can’t be right).

Your disagreement isn't only with just National Geographic. National Geographic is merely communicating the consensus position of the larger scientific community. Your disagreement is with the consensus position of the Scientific community regarding the big Bang. National Geographic and NASA are merely two of the messengers.
And I'll take the concensus position of the scientific community at large over appealing to a physical law that isn't even applicable to the Big Bang Singularity.

The basic sequence of events of the Big Bang requires matter and energy to be created somewhere anyway.
If you start with nothing
Then a singularity shows up
Then the singularity produces the universe.

This means matter and energy are created either with the appearance of the Big Bang singularity.
Or matter and energy are created somehere during the expansion that is initiated by the Big Bang singularity.
If you have a universe with a finite starting point, then by definition all the matter and energy that make up that universe has a starting point as well.

[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.

As I noted above, in addition to creating space, time, matter, and energy the Big Bang also created the laws of nature that govern our universe. Your wikipedia article verifies that the laws of physics do not apply to the earliest phases of the Big Bang.
So you are appealing to a physical law that isn't even applicable to the earliest stages of the Big Bang.

The 1st law of Thermodynamics is a scientific law. The idea that energy and matter were created violates this scientific law.
https://theory.labster.com/first-law-thermodynamics/

I guess it comes down to who do you want to believe; scientific law, or the magazine (they both can’t be right).

Your disagreement isn't only with just National Geographic. National Geographic is merely communicating the consensus position of the larger scientific community.

No, the larger scientific community agrees with laws of science over National Geographic magazine.

[DBowling]

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.

As I noted above, in addition to creating space, time, matter, and energy the Big Bang also created the laws of nature that govern our universe. Your wikipedia article verifies that the laws of physics do not apply to the earliest phases of the Big Bang.
So you are appealing to a physical law that isn't even applicable to the earliest stages of the Big Bang.

The 1st law of Thermodynamics is a scientific law. The idea that energy and matter were created violates this scientific law.
https://theory.labster.com/first-law-thermodynamics/

According to Wikipedia, science is unable to describe the behavior of the universe during either the Planck Epoch or the singularity that initiated the Big Bang.
Which means the first law of thermodynamics cannot be relied on to accurately describe the behavior of the earliest stages of the formation of our universe.

It also means that whatever caused the matter and energy of the universe to come into existence by definition is independent from and operates outside of the physical laws of the universe.

[Kenny]

According to Wikipedia, science is unable to describe the behavior of the universe during either the Planck Epoch or the singularity that initiated the Big Bang.
Which means the first law of thermodynamics cannot be relied on to accurately describe the behavior of the earliest stages of the formation of our universe.

Science gives us the best information they have at the moment; that’s it! They can’t give us information they do not have. The information you’re looking for here is information science does not have. But that doesn’t justify filling in the gaps left by science with religion or speculation, it’s best to just admit that we don’t know.

It also means that whatever caused the matter and energy of the universe to come into existence by definition is independent from and operates outside of the physical laws of the universe.

Matter and energy came into existence? Again; just more religion or speculation, this has nothing to do with science. I also noticed you seem to be referring to "laws of the Universe" as something that the Universe is required to act within; rather than just observed actions of the Universe, and calling those actions laws. If whatever it is you claim act outside the Universe were shown to actually exist, it's actions would be included in the laws of the universe as well.

[DBowling]

According to Wikipedia, science is unable to describe the behavior of the universe during either the Planck Epoch or the singularity that initiated the Big Bang.
Which means the first law of thermodynamics cannot be relied on to accurately describe the behavior of the earliest stages of the formation of our universe.

Science gives us the best information they have at the moment; that’s it! They can’t give us information they do not have. The information you’re looking for here is information science does not have. But that doesn’t justify filling in the gaps left by science with religion or speculation, it’s best to just admit that we don’t know.

It is the scientific community (not religion), that tells us that
science is unable to describe the behavior of the universe during either the Planck Epoch or the singularity that initiated the Big Bang.

Science doesn't know how matter and energy came into existence, but the Big Bang Theory (not religion) tells us when matter and energy came into existence.
Who knows, maybe science will someday figure out how matter and energy were created.

Yet again your disagreement is with the scientific understanding of the Big Bang.

It also means that whatever caused the matter and energy of the universe to come into existence by definition is independent from and operates outside of the physical laws of the universe.

Matter and energy came into existence? Again; just more religion or speculation, this has nothing to do with science.

Sure it does...
It is the consensus of the scientific community that Matter and energy came into existence with the Big Bang.
If you don't like the consensus position of the scientific community, that's fine.
But... one more time... your real disagreement is with the consensus position of the scientific community.

I suspect that your disagreement with some aspects of the Bag Bang theory really have nothing to do with science (since you are disputing a scientific consensus).
I have a hunch that the real issue at hand is some of your philosophical presuppositions come into direct conflict with the scientific consensus regarding the Big Bang Theory. So you choose to dismiss the scientific consensus instead of reevaluating some of your philosophical presuppositions.

My philosophical presuppositions have no problem with the a creation event where matter and energy come into existence, so I have no difficulty embracing the Big Bang theory.

[Philip]

[Kenny]

Sure it does...
It is the consensus of the scientific community that Matter and energy came into existence with the Big Bang.
If you don't like the consensus position of the scientific community, that's fine.
But... one more time... your real disagreement is with the consensus position of the scientific community.

So are you saying according to the scientific community, the 1st law of Thermodynamics is wrong?

[DBowling]

Sure it does...
It is the consensus of the scientific community that Matter and energy came into existence with the Big Bang.
If you don't like the consensus position of the scientific community, that's fine.
But... one more time... your real disagreement is with the consensus position of the scientific community.

So are you saying according to the scientific community, the 1st law of Thermodynamics is wrong?

Absolutely not...
The 1st law of thermodynamics accurately describes the physical laws that govern our universe today.
However, the 1st law of thermodynamics along with the other laws of physics also came into existence with the Big Bang.
Thus the consensus position of the scientific community that space, time, matter, and energy were created by the Big Bang.

Go back and look at what occurs during the earliest epochs of the Big Bang.
The fundamental characteristics that eventually determine the behavior of our physical universe (ie the laws of science) are still being developed.
This is why the physical laws that currently govern the universe do not accurately describe the singularity or the earliest epochs of the Big Bang.

[Kenny]

Sure it does...
It is the consensus of the scientific community that Matter and energy came into existence with the Big Bang.
If you don't like the consensus position of the scientific community, that's fine.
But... one more time... your real disagreement is with the consensus position of the scientific community.

So are you saying according to the scientific community, the 1st law of Thermodynamics is wrong?

Absolutely not...
The 1st law of thermodynamics accurately describes the physical laws that govern our universe today.
However, the 1st law of thermodynamics along with the other laws of physics also came into existence with the Big Bang.
Thus the consensus position of the scientific community that space, time, matter, and energy were created by the Big Bang.

Go back and look at what occurs during the earliest epochs of the Big Bang.
The fundamental characteristics that eventually determine the behavior of our physical universe (ie the laws of science) are still being developed.
This is why the physical laws that currently govern the universe do not accurately describe the singularity or the earliest epochs of the Big Bang.

So you are saying prior to the big bang, the law of thermodynamics did not apply to the singularity during that time? Okay I get it. So if energy and material did not exist prior to the big bang, what was the singularity made up of before it expanded?

[DBowling]

Sure it does...
It is the consensus of the scientific community that Matter and energy came into existence with the Big Bang.
If you don't like the consensus position of the scientific community, that's fine.
But... one more time... your real disagreement is with the consensus position of the scientific community.

So are you saying according to the scientific community, the 1st law of Thermodynamics is wrong?

Absolutely not...
The 1st law of thermodynamics accurately describes the physical laws that govern our universe today.
However, the 1st law of thermodynamics along with the other laws of physics also came into existence with the Big Bang.
Thus the consensus position of the scientific community that space, time, matter, and energy were created by the Big Bang.

Go back and look at what occurs during the earliest epochs of the Big Bang.
The fundamental characteristics that eventually determine the behavior of our physical universe (ie the laws of science) are still being developed.
This is why the physical laws that currently govern the universe do not accurately describe the singularity or the earliest epochs of the Big Bang.

So you are saying prior to the big bang, the law of thermodynamics did not apply to the singularity during that time?

That's not precisely how I'd phrase it, but I can go with that.
If space, time, matter, and energy did not exist prior to the singularity, then there is nothing for the laws of science to apply to.

Okay I get it. So if energy and material did not exist prior to the big bang, what was the singularity made up of before it expanded?

I don't claim to know the exact nature of the singularity when it came into existence and started the Big Bang.
According to the Big Bang theory, the singularity marks the instantaneous transition from nothing to infinite density and temperature in an infinitesimally small space.

[Kenny]

I don't claim to know the exact nature of the singularity when it came into existence and started the Big Bang.
According to the Big Bang theory, the singularity marks the instantaneous transition from nothing to infinite density and temperature in an infinitesimally small space.

What are you talking about “came into existence”? There isn’t a single scientific model that claims the singularity came into existence; not even that National Geographic magazine you presented which was full of logical mistakes and flaws (like claiming the singularity being several cm wide then thousands of years later it grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit) made such a claim.
You will not find any scientific model claiming a time in history when nothing existed. Again the big Bang theory starts with the singularity already existing.
The singularity was matter and energy; everything is matter and energy, and the big bang theory does not claim a time when matter and energy did not exist.

[DBowling]

I don't claim to know the exact nature of the singularity when it came into existence and started the Big Bang.
According to the Big Bang theory, the singularity marks the instantaneous transition from nothing to infinite density and temperature in an infinitesimally small space.

What are you talking about “came into existence”? There isn’t a single scientific model that claims the singularity came into existence; not even that National Geographic magazine you presented

Sure they do... watch the two videos again... they are short.
The second video explicitly states that "nothing" existed before the Big Bang.
The singularity is the Time = 0 state of the Big Bang and the universe. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory about anything existing before matter, energy, space, and time were created by the Big Bang.

The singularity was matter and energy; everything is matter and energy, and the big bang theory does not claim a time when matter and energy did not exist.

Energy... maybe...
Matter... definitely not... According to the Big Bang theory, the elementary particles that make up matter didn't even exist yet in the singularity state

And we get back to your disagreement with the Big Bang theory again.
If matter and energy were created by the Big Bang, then matter and energy did not exist before the Big Bang.

[Kenny]

I don't claim to know the exact nature of the singularity when it came into existence and started the Big Bang.
According to the Big Bang theory, the singularity marks the instantaneous transition from nothing to infinite density and temperature in an infinitesimally small space.

What are you talking about “came into existence”? There isn’t a single scientific model that claims the singularity came into existence; not even that National Geographic magazine you presented

Sure they do... watch the two videos again... they are short.
The second video explicitly states that "nothing" existed before the Big Bang.
The singularity is the Time = 0 state of the Big Bang and the universe. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory about anything existing before matter, energy, space, and time were created by the Big Bang.

Perhaps I might have spoken too quickly concerning those flawed videos you presented; they may have made such a claim. However one video is from NASA; (NASA is about aeronautics not astronomy) and the other video is from National Geographic (I think I’ve already made clear concerning some of the flaws of it’s claim) so I think it is understandable for any reasonable person to remain skeptical of their claims concerning astronomy.

The singularity was matter and energy; everything is matter and energy, and the big bang theory does not claim a time when matter and energy did not exist.

Energy... maybe...
Matter... definitely not... According to the Big Bang theory, the elementary particles that make up matter didn't even exist yet in the singularity state

Energy converts to matter, matter converts to energy
http://alternativephysics.org/book/MatterEnergy.htm

And we get back to your disagreement with the Big Bang theory again.
If matter and energy were created by the Big Bang, then matter and energy did not exist before the Big Bang.

I don’t disagree with the Big Bang theory, I disagree with your description of the Big Bang theory. Again the Big Bang theory starts with the singularity already existing. This idea that first there was nothing, then all of a sudden, something just popped into existence is ridicules.... unless of course if you believe in magic!

[DBowling]

And we get back to your disagreement with the Big Bang theory again.
If matter and energy were created by the Big Bang, then matter and energy did not exist before the Big Bang.

I don’t disagree with the Big Bang theory, I disagree with your description of the Big Bang theory. Again the Big Bang theory starts with the singularity already existing. This idea that first there was nothing, then all of a sudden, something just popped into existence is ridicules....

Unless you agree that the Big Bang theory created all matter, energy, space, and time.

But I guess it might seem ridiculous to someone who dismisses the consensus of the scientific community regarding the Big Bang creating all matter, energy, space, and time.