If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

[DBowling]

An explosion is a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward.
So it is accurate to describe the Big Bang as either an expansion or an explosion.

There is a big difference between expansion vs explosion. If it is going to claim to speak for scientific observations and theory, the least they could do is understand these differences.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... explosion/

Your own article rebuts your assertion here.
The first paragraph of your link acknowledges that scientific community often refers to the Big Bang as an explosion.
"'The Big Bang was an expansion of space, not like an explosion at all, despite what countless books, videos, articles and statements (even by scientists) often depict. Let’s look at the differences between an explosion of something into space versus an expansion of space."

So even your own source acknowledges that the scientific community often describes the Big Bang as an "explosion".

That said I do agree with Wikipedia and your article here that
The Big Bang was not an explosion of something into space

An accurate description of the Big Bang would be...
The Big Bang was an explosion or expansion OF space.
And neither of the National Geographic videos describe the Big Bang as an explosion INTO space.

You are wrong on the facts here
Matter and energy were created during the Big Bang explosion/expansion. The Planck Epoch makes up the earliest phase of the expansion and does not encompass the full duration of the Big Bang.

The Planck Epoch lasted from time = 0 to 10^(-43) seconds (your assertion that the Planck Epoch occurred tens of thousands of years after the beginning of the explosion/expansion is inaccurate. 10^(-43) seconds is the smallest fraction of a second not tens of thousands of years)

According to the National Geographic video, energy existed during the Planck Epoch, but matter did not exist during the Planck Epoch (which I have no disagreement with).

No. AT 1min 05sec into the video it says the explosion happened and during that time matter and energy were created.

That is a true statement

at 1min 19sec it speaks of 2 major era’s that happened after the explosion was the radiation era where all the epoch’s began to include the Planck Epoch where it claims matter did not exist during this time.

Again you either misunderstand or misrepresent the sequents of events the video is describing.
The video clearly states that energy existed during the Planck Epoch.

All the matter and energy of the universe were created during the Big Bang explosion, but at different times during the explosion.
The video explicitly states that energy was present during the earliest phase of the explosion (the Planck Epoch) and that matter was not present during the Planck Epoch.

As noted above you are factually incorrect regarding the timing of the Planck Epoch

You are also factually incorrect about when the universe grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit.
According to the video that occurred during the Inflationary Epoch (not the Planck Epoch)

“after the Planck Epoch and during the inflammatory Epoch which was hundreds of thousands of years later”,

those were my exact words

Uh... do you understand how exponential notation works?
The Inflationary Epoch occurred a fraction of a second later, not "hundreds of thousands of years later"

Which is also factually correct.
This occurred during the Electroweak Epoch which took place from 10^(-36) seconds to 10^(-12) seconds.

So when did it go from a few cm wide (claims of the first video) to the size of an atom (claims of the second video) vs we can’t determine the size of anything because we can only guess concerning the size of the observable Universe which is not the entire Universe (claims of Wikkipedia)? You can’t claim they are all right, because each contradicts each other, so you gotta pick one.

I already stated that I disagreed with the size of initial singularity given in the first National Geographic video.

But as I noted earlier
The key here is that the precise size of the singularity (which science doesn't know for sure anyway) has no bearing on whether matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang.

I do agree with the key relevant point about the singularity from the video
"Big Bang began as a hot and infinitely dense point"

[Kenny]

Your own article rebuts your assertion here.
The first paragraph of your link acknowledges that scientific community often refers to the Big Bang as an explosion.
"'The Big Bang was an expansion of space, not like an explosion at all, despite what countless books, videos, articles and statements (even by scientists) often depict. Let’s look at the differences between an explosion of something into space versus an expansion of space."

So even your own source acknowledges that the scientific community often describes the Big Bang as an "explosion".

That said I do agree with Wikipedia and your article here that
The Big Bang was not an explosion of something into space

I never said there weren’t some scientists incorrectly calling it an explosion, I said according to the theory it was not an explosion. Never confuse follow the science with follow the scientists.

Again you either misunderstand or misrepresent the sequents of events the video is describing.
The video clearly states that energy existed during the Planck Epoch.

All the matter and energy of the universe were created during the Big Bang explosion, but at different times during the explosion.
The video explicitly states that energy was present during the earliest phase of the explosion (the Planck Epoch) and that matter was not present during the Planck Epoch.

The video is very clear; the Radiation era (which included the Planck Epoch) and the Matter era happened after the explosion; not during it. That’s why it says “what happened next” when it begins to speak of those era’s.

Uh... do you understand how exponential notation works?
The Inflationary Epoch occurred a fraction of a second later, not "hundreds of thousands of years later"

The tens of thousands of years was in reference to after the explosion; not between the Planck and inflation epoch.

I already stated that I disagreed with the size of initial singularity given in the first National Geographic video.

But as I noted earlier
The key here is that the precise size of the singularity (which science doesn't know for sure anyway) has no bearing on whether matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang.

I do agree with the key relevant point about the singularity from the video
"Big Bang began as a hot and infinitely dense point"

So you’re changing it now? At first you said you agree with the videos, now you are saying you agree with some of it and disagree with some of it. I guess I can go along with that; I guess I just disagree with a little more of it than you do.
Again; if not matter and/or energy, what was the singularity made of before expanding?

[DBowling]

Your own article rebuts your assertion here.
The first paragraph of your link acknowledges that scientific community often refers to the Big Bang as an explosion.
"'The Big Bang was an expansion of space, not like an explosion at all, despite what countless books, videos, articles and statements (even by scientists) often depict. Let’s look at the differences between an explosion of something into space versus an expansion of space."

So even your own source acknowledges that the scientific community often describes the Big Bang as an "explosion".

I never said there weren’t some scientists incorrectly calling it an explosion, I said according to the theory it was not an explosion.

Do you believe the Big Bang was...
a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward?

Again you either misunderstand or misrepresent the sequents of events the video is describing.
The video clearly states that energy existed during the Planck Epoch.

All the matter and energy of the universe were created during the Big Bang explosion, but at different times during the explosion.
The video explicitly states that energy was present during the earliest phase of the explosion (the Planck Epoch) and that matter was not present during the Planck Epoch.

The video is very clear; the Radiation era (which included the Planck Epoch) and the Matter era happened after the explosion; not during it. That’s why it says “what happened next” when it begins to speak of those era’s.

Well I guess that clarifies things a little...
You simply don't understand what the video is saying, even after the video explicitly clarifies what did (energy) and did not (matter) exist during the Planck Epoch.

Uh... do you understand how exponential notation works?
The Inflationary Epoch occurred a fraction of a second later, not "hundreds of thousands of years later"

The tens of thousands of years was in reference to after the explosion; not between the Planck and inflation epoch.

Again you do not understand what you are talking about...
Only a fraction of a second took place between the beginning of the Big Bang explosion at time = 0 and the end of the Inflation Epoch.
1/100000000000000000000000000000000 th of a second according to the Big Bang theory (not hundreds of thousands of years as you inaccurately assert).
Here is a nice timeline from wikipedia that should clear up some of your misconceptions
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical ... e_Big_Bang

I already stated that I disagreed with the size of initial singularity given in the first National Geographic video.

But as I noted earlier
The key here is that the precise size of the singularity (which science doesn't know for sure anyway) has no bearing on whether matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang.

I do agree with the key relevant point about the singularity from the video
"Big Bang began as a hot and infinitely dense point"

So you’re changing it now? At first you said you agree with the videos, now you are saying you agree with some of it and disagree with some of it.

I haven't changed anything...

Here's exactly what I said

Here is the primary difference between our two positions.
- I have no reason to reject the Wikipedia description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the National Geographic description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the NASA description of the Big Bang.
So I pretty much accept all three descriptions.

You on the other hand
- More or less embrace the Wikipedia description of the Big Bang
(except for the pesky statement that ""the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning")
- But you passionately dismiss the National Geographic position that space, time, energy and matter were created by the Big Bang because it directly contradicts your world view.
- And you also dismiss the NASA position that space, time, energy, and matter were created by the Big Bang because it directly contradicts your world view.

So which one of us embraces what science proposes about the Big Bang, and which of us dismisses significant portions of Big Bang theory due to ideological issues?

There's a big difference between questioning a single speculation regarding an unknowable dimension of the Big Bang singularity and dismissing a major premise of the consensus position of the Big Bang theory.

[Kenny]

Do you believe the Big Bang was...
a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward?

A violent expansion? I have no reason to believe it was violent; do you?

Well I guess that clarifies things a little...
You simply don't understand what the video is saying, even after the video explicitly clarifies what did (energy) and did not (matter) exist during the Planck Epoch.

Again; The video also says matter and energy were created during the explosion. The video also says the Planck Epoch happened after the explosion; not during it. So the video is contradicting itself.

Again you do not understand what you are talking about...
Only a fraction of a second took place between the beginning of the Big Bang explosion at time = 0 and the end of the Inflation Epoch.
1/100000000000000000000000000000000 th of a second according to the Big Bang theory (not hundreds of thousands of years as you inaccurately assert).

So what was the video referring to when it spoke of what happened within the first tens of thousands of years? And if Energy and Matter did not exist before the big bang, what was the singularity made of?

[Kenny]

There's a big difference between questioning a single speculation regarding an unknowable dimension of the Big Bang singularity and dismissing a major premise of the consensus position of the Big Bang theory.

So are you admitting the NASA and National Geographic links you provided also provided their own unsubstantiated speculation in their list of events concerning the Big Bang? That rather than listing the events straight out of a scientific journal, they just listed the events from the top of their heads and likely got a few things wrong? I’m not asking you to dismiss the whole premise, just consider the possibility that if they could incorrectly speculate concerning the size of the Universe, they could possibly incorrectly speculate concerning material and energy not existing prior to the singularity expanding. After all;
If the Singularity was not energy and/or matter, what was the singularity made up of prior to expanding?
(Hint) https://astrophysicsthetheoryofeverythi ... atter.html

[Philip]

Ken: What are these building blocks that you speak of?

How about quarks electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, helium, hydrogen, and eventually - carbon, oxygen, iron. But early on, just the appearance of quarks and antiquarks to atoms - these are each astonishing things that came into existence, and then they began to perfectly interact, and the entire universe as well as ourselves derived from these essential building blocks. So, not useless, random stuff blasted out into chaos - exactly the opposite happened! That all these NECESSARY things (to create a universe and life) began to exist at all - where as before, none did, is astonishing enough. But that they interacted and coordinated so precisely and incredibly reveals planning, power, design - and obviously (to those who won't lie to themselves) - INTELLIGENCE! So, exactly WHAT singularity was is irrelevant, at least in regards to whether intelligence was required. No machine or computer that man has ever developed has remotely the sophistication of such things!

[Kenny]

Ken: What are these building blocks that you speak of?

How about quarks electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, helium, hydrogen, and eventually - carbon, oxygen, iron. But early on, just the appearance of quarks and antiquarks to atoms - these are each astonishing things that came into existence, and then they began to perfectly interact, and the entire universe as well as ourselves derived from these essential building blocks. So, not useless, random stuff blasted out into chaos - exactly the opposite happened! That all these NECESSARY things (to create a universe and life) began to exist at all - where as before, none did, is astonishing enough. But that they interacted and coordinated so precisely and incredibly reveals planning, power, design - and obviously (to those who won't lie to themselves) - INTELLIGENCE! So, exactly WHAT singularity was is irrelevant, at least in regards to whether intelligence was required. No machine or computer that man has ever developed has remotely the sophistication of such things!

Isn’t that a bit like a puddle claiming the hole he sits in was intelligently designed just for him? That each angle and crevasse of the hole fits perfectly with him; unaware he adapted to the hole instead of the other way around, that if the hole were different the puddle would still be there, it would be just a little different.

[Philip]

Seriously, Ken - THAT'S your response?

[Kenny]

Seriously, Ken - THAT'S your response?

Yes! That’s my response. The idea that if life is possible, it will find a way sounds a lot more realistic to me than..... Magic.

[Philip]

Ken, what your desperation to deny God drives you to believe is FAR beyond magic - as well as way beyond just the simple logic required to see what is overwhelmingly obvious. NOT because you deny God, but that you deny that there needs no intelligence required to instantly begin producing things of stunning designs and functionalities - dismissing such marvelous building blocks and stunning assemblages with silly quips like comparing them to holes with puddles. Of your sleight of hand arguments over what singularity might have included. But I guess when you have no serious response to offer, that's the kind of comments to be expected from you. But before that can reasonably be expected, you'll at least need to begin being honest with yourself first.

[Kenny]

Ken, what your desperation to deny God drives you to believe is FAR beyond magic - as well as way beyond just the simple logic required to see what is overwhelmingly obvious. NOT because you deny God, but that you deny that there needs no intelligence required to instantly begin producing things of stunning designs and functionalities - dismissing such marvelous building blocks and stunning assemblages with silly quips like comparing them to holes with puddles. Of your sleight of hand arguments over what singularity might have included. But I guess when you have no serious response to offer, that's the kind of comments to be expected from you. But before that can reasonably be expected, you'll at least need to begin being honest with yourself first.

You appear to have a Christian worldview. Everything you see and believe is through the lens that God is involved. So when you’re approached with questions concerning Astronomy like this one, you see God as being ultimately responsible with the ability to act outside the laws of nature, which makes for some very easy answers to complicated questions.
I on the other hand am not Christian thus I don’t have a world view; I see things in accordance to what makes sense to me. So when approached with claims of an intelligent being with the ability to work outside the laws of nature as being the answer to some of these complicated questions, from my view that is no different than magic.
It’s not a matter of denying God, it’s a matter of not taking your word for it. If God spoke to me that would be one thing; but I’ve never heard from God. All I ever hear from are people like you.

[DBowling]

Do you believe the Big Bang was...
a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward?

A violent expansion? I have no reason to believe it was violent; do you?

Absolutely...
Can you think of any "expansion" in the history of the universe that was more forceful and rapid than the Big Bang?

Well I guess that clarifies things a little...
You simply don't understand what the video is saying, even after the video explicitly clarifies what did (energy) and did not (matter) exist during the Planck Epoch.

Again; The video also says matter and energy were created during the explosion. The video also says the Planck Epoch happened after the explosion; not during it. So the video is contradicting itself.

I still don't even understand your purpose in attempting to manufacture a contradiction where none exists in a video from a respected scientific organization.
Despite your semantic gymnastics, the video clearly and explicitly states that energy was present in the Pnanck Epoch and matter wasn't.

Again you do not understand what you are talking about...
Only a fraction of a second took place between the beginning of the Big Bang explosion at time = 0 and the end of the Inflation Epoch.
1/100000000000000000000000000000000 th of a second according to the Big Bang theory (not hundreds of thousands of years as you inaccurately assert).

So what was the video referring to when it spoke of what happened within the first tens of thousands of years?

The Radiation Era

And if Energy and Matter did not exist before the big bang, what was the singularity made of?

Per Wikipedia...
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.

[Kenny]

Absolutely...
Can you think of any "expansion" in the history of the universe that was more forceful and rapid than the Big Bang?

How forceful and rapid was it, and how do you know this?

I still don't even understand your purpose in attempting to manufacture a contradiction where none exists in a video from a respected scientific organization.

National Geographic is not a scientific organization

Despite your semantic gymnastics, the video clearly and explicitly states that energy was present in the Pnanck Epoch and matter wasn't.

How about if you address my question instead of repeating what I’ve consistently acknowledged?

Per Wikipedia...
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.

So you acknowledge energy existed prior to the Big Bang? So you agree your video was wrong concerning it’s claim that all energy was created during the big bang?

[DBowling]

Absolutely...
Can you think of any "expansion" in the history of the universe that was more forceful and rapid than the Big Bang?

How forceful and rapid was it, and how do you know this?

See...
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical ... e_Big_Bang

I still don't even understand your purpose in attempting to manufacture a contradiction where none exists in a video from a respected scientific organization.

National Geographic is not a scientific organization

The stated mission of Ntional Geographic is...
Using the power of science, exploration, education, and storytelling to illuminate and protect the wonder of our world.

And NASA agrees with National Geographic that The Big Bang created all the matter, energy, space, and time of our universe.
And I assume you consider NASA to be a legitimate scientific organization.

Despite your semantic gymnastics, the video clearly and explicitly states that energy was present in the Pnanck Epoch and matter wasn't.

How about if you address my question instead of repeating what I’ve consistently acknowledged?

I did...
I said your assertion was based on a misunderstanding of what the video said.
Therefore, there is nothing to respond to.

Per Wikipedia...
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.

So you acknowledge energy existed prior to the Big Bang? So you agree your video was wrong concerning it’s claim that all energy was created during the big bang?

I claim that energy was created during the initial state of the Big Bang, also known as the Big Bang singularity.

[abelcainsbrother]

Atheists live their life as if a God does not exist without any proof or evidence they are correct.Then they deny it is their world view despite living in this world as if a god does'nt exist.They somehow illogically think that they can live their life as an atheist and as long as they keep it to themselves they need to proof or evidence they are correct living as an atheist.It is pure blind faith and what is sad most of all to me is them looking forward to and expecting death when they die.You know how we get excited about heaven,seeing Jesus,etc well they get excited about death.I've heard former atheists who left atheism point out it was too empty and boring and it is.