If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

[Kenny]

Atheists live their life as if a God does not exist without any proof or evidence they are correct.

Depending on the God; so do you.

Then they deny it is their world view despite living in this world as if a god does'nt exist.

Default positions are not world views.

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.I've heard former atheists who left atheism point out it was too empty and boring and you can see it is.

The truth is rarely as exciting as fiction. I will pick a boring truth over an exciting fiction any day.

[abelcainsbrother]

Atheists live their life as if a God does not exist without any proof or evidence they are correct.

Depending on the God; so do you.

Then they deny it is their world view despite living in this world as if a god does'nt exist.

Default positions are not world views.

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.I've heard former atheists who left atheism point out it was too empty and boring and you can see it is.

The truth is rarely as exciting as fiction. I will pick a boring truth over an exciting fiction any day.

Wrong atheism is the only group in the world that has no proof or evidence it is correct.Christians and all other groups do.Living your life as if a god does not exist is not a default position. It is action which is faith,but blind faith due to not only having no proof or evidence but not even desiring to make sure you're correct. Despite you rejecting,denying and exlaining away evidence Christianity is true we put our evidence up against all other religions,world views,etc people from all walks of life and we win.Just because you ignore our evidence or don't think it is convincing does not prove atheism is true and that you're correct living as if a god does not exist.

[Kenny]

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

Humm….. Doesn’t look very violent to me.

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.

Nowhere is Astronomy included in there is it.

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.

NASA specializes in Aeronautics/flight not Astronomy.

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

A blanket accusation of misunderstanding doesn’t address what I said; you need to point out what it is that I misunderstood.

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

So you recognize energy was not created only after it began to expand?

[Kenny]

Wrong atheism is the only group in the world that has no proof or evidence it is correct.Christians and all other groups do.

But they all can't be right! What does that say about the proof you and all other theists have that your God of choice is correct?

[abelcainsbrother]

Wrong atheism is the only group in the world that has no proof or evidence it is correct.Christians and all other groups do.

But they all can't be right! What does that say about the proof you and all other theists have that your God of choice is correct?

True! Based on the Law of non-contradiction only one religion or world view can be correct because they all contradict. We Christians put our evidence up against all others and we win.This does not mean everybody is converted but just that we win.As a matter of fact one way I realized atheists have no evidence is dealing with people in other religions who have evidence too.When I deal with them they give me evidence they are correct,etc but not so when dealing with atheists. But we can atleast have a discussion and compare evidence to see who has the most and most convincing while atheists can't even sit at the table because they have no evidence for us to discuss,just pure denial of God and any and all evidence and arguments for God,an afterlife,the spirit world,magic,etc.

[Kenny]

Wrong atheism is the only group in the world that has no proof or evidence it is correct.Christians and all other groups do.

But they all can't be right! What does that say about the proof you and all other theists have that your God of choice is correct?

True! Based on the Law of non-contradiction only one religion or world view can be correct because they all contradict.

Which means all religions do not have facts; as you suggested before. And what is this proof that you have?

[DBowling]

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

Humm….. Doesn’t look very violent to me.

Do you know of any explosive expansion in the history of the universe that expended more force or more energy in a smaller amount of time than the Big Bang?
If so, I'd love to hear what you think it is.

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

So you recognize energy was not created only after it began to expand?

I acknowledge and agree with the consensus scientific position that space, time, matter, and energy were created by the Big Bang.
I also have no problem with the premise that that energy was part of the singulatity which marks the time = 0 state of the Big Bang.

[Kenny]

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

Humm….. Doesn’t look very violent to me.

Do you know of any explosive expansion in the history of the universe that expended more force or more energy in a smaller amount of time than the Big Bang?
If so, I'd love to hear what you think it is.

I find that to be a bit of a nonsense question because it's based on the idea that if I am unaware of anything else, therefore it must be true. Just because I am unaware of other situations in the Universe does not mean the big bang was violent. My views are based on Big Bang models, and I am unaware of any big bang models that claim the expansion was violent.

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

So you recognize energy was not created only after it began to expand?

I acknowledge and agree with the consensus scientific position that space, time, matter, and energy were created by the Big Bang.
I also have no problem with the premise that that energy was part of the singulatity which marks the time = 0 state of the Big Bang.

Sounds like you are making headway. So now you are willing to accept that energy existed prior to the expansion, but more energy was also created during the expansion; is that correct? And if the singularity was only part energy, what else did it consist of?

[DBowling]

Do you know of any explosive expansion in the history of the universe that expended more force or more energy in a smaller amount of time than the Big Bang?
If so, I'd love to hear what you think it is.

I find that to be a bit of a nonsense question because it's based on the idea that if I am unaware of anything else, therefore it must be true.

No... you find it a bit of nonsense because is lays bare the utter illogic of your argument that a sudden expansion of force and energy is somehow not an "explosion".

But again this is another situation where you are attempting to use semantic gymnastics to deny the obvious,

How about a quote from Space.com
(This will give you yet another scientific organization to try to attack)
"Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat.
Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light. This was a period of cosmic inflation that lasted mere fractions of a second — about 10^-32 of a second"

Oops there is that nasty word again.

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

So you recognize energy was not created only after it began to expand?

I acknowledge and agree with the consensus scientific position that space, time, matter, and energy were created by the Big Bang.
I also have no problem with the premise that that energy was part of the singulatity which marks the time = 0 state of the Big Bang.

Sounds like you are making headway. So now you are willing to accept that energy existed prior to the expansion, but more energy was also created during the expansion; is that correct?

To the best of my knowledge the big Bang consensus position proposes that all energy came into existence with the instantaneous singularity state.
Then as you have pointed out, matter appeared later from the energy created by the Big Bang

As I have pointed out a number of times, unlike you, I have no philosophical need to reject significant aspects of the Big Bang theory.
So I have no problem accepting the consensus principle that all the energy of the universe (including the energy that eventually generated all matter in the universe) came into existence with the singularity that initiated the Big Bang.

[Philip]

Explosion (Mirriam Webster dictionary): : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth.



Large scale - check! Rapid - check! Spectacular - check! Expansion - Check! Bursting out or forth - check!

The definition checks all the boxes!

[Kenny]

Explosion (Mirriam Webster dictionary): : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth.



Large scale - check! Rapid - check! Spectacular - check! Expansion! Bursting out or forth - check!

The definition checks all the boxes!

IMO this does a pretty good job of articulating the difference between an explosion vs expansion
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... explosion/

[Kenny]

No... you find it a bit of nonsense because is lays bare the utter illogic of your argument that a sudden expansion of force and energy is somehow not an "explosion".

There is a difference between an expansion vs explosion. In an explosion nothing is left behind. If the Big Bang were an explosion there would be a big hole in the center of the Universe where nothing is and they would know exactly where the explosion took place. Do they know where this explosion took place?

But again this is another situation where you are attempting to use semantic gymnastics to deny the obvious,

How about a quote from Space.com
(This will give you yet another scientific organization to try to attack)
"Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat.
Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light. This was a period of cosmic inflation that lasted mere fractions of a second — about 10^-32 of a second"

Oops there is that nasty word again.

Even Wikippedia said there we're some scientists who claim it was an explosion. But at the end of the day does it really matter? If for example it was an explosion, does that prove your point that an intelligent powerful being was behind all of this? No. Does it disprove my claim that scientists just don’t know of anything prior to the singularity? No. I was just trying to keep it correct. Some sources say it was an explosion, some say it was an expansion. But it seems the ones that call it expansion make it clear it was not an explosion; but those calling it an explosion seem to say it more of as an afterthought; they never say it was an explosion, not an expansion; that’s why I see the expansion claim to be more credible. However it really doesn’t matter does it.

To the best of my knowledge the big Bang consensus position proposes that all energy came into existence with the instantaneous singularity state.
Then as you have pointed out, matter appeared later from the energy created by the Big Bang

You have misunderstood me; that is not my position. I believe the singularity was energy and matter; I never claimed more was created when it began to expand

As I have pointed out a number of times, unlike you, I have no philosophical need to reject significant aspects of the Big Bang theory.

Whaaattt??? What significant aspect of the big bang theory are you under the impression I’ve rejected?

So I have no problem accepting the consensus principle that all the energy of the universe (including the energy that eventually generated all matter in the universe) came into existence with the singularity that initiated the Big Bang.

Let’s face it; the only thing you and I know about this theory is what we’ve heard from other sources. It’s not like we discovered this information on our own. My understanding is that the theory never claimed energy and matter are created, that the theory starts with it already existing within the singularity. However your understanding is different,, but I don’t really think it matters. Regardless of who is right or wrong, it still doesn’t change anything; it’s not like if your understanding is right what means your claims of God being involved are proven or that if my understanding is correct your cams of God are dispelled; it really doesn’t matter to either of us if matter and energy were already present at the big bang or not; neither of us really have a dog in this particular fight.

[DBowling]

No... you find it a bit of nonsense because is lays bare the utter illogic of your argument that a sudden expansion of force and energy is somehow not an "explosion".

There is a difference between an expansion vs explosion. In an explosion nothing is left behind.

I didn't see that in any of the definitions I saw...
Philip's post showed very clearly how an explosion IS a type of sudden expansion.

The legitimate point that your links try to make is to differentiate between an expansion into space vs an expansion of space.
And I agree that the Big Bang is an explosive expansion OF space.

How about a quote from Space.com
(This will give you yet another scientific organization to try to attack)
"Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat.
Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light. This was a period of cosmic inflation that lasted mere fractions of a second — about 10^-32 of a second"

Oops there is that nasty word again.

Even Wikippedia said there we're some scientists who claim it was an explosion. But at the end of the day does it really matter?

No it doesn't...

I agree 100% with your statment
" However it really doesn’t matter does it."

As I have pointed out a number of times, unlike you, I have no philosophical need to reject significant aspects of the Big Bang theory.

Whaaattt??? What significant aspect of the big bang theory are you under the impression I’ve rejected?

All matter, energy, space, and time were created from the Big Bang

So I have no problem accepting the consensus principle that all the energy of the universe (including the energy that eventually generated all matter in the universe) came into existence with the singularity that initiated the Big Bang.

Let’s face it; the only thing you and I know about this theory is what we’ve heard from other sources.

Again we agree 100%

The primary issue for me as a Christian is the validation of the theistic premise that the known universe had a known beginning.
And that beginning involved the beginning of all space, time, matter, and energy.

And since the cause of the beginning of all space, time, matter, and energy by definition transcends all space, time, matter, and energy; then we begin to see an overlap between some of the attributes of whatever caused the Big Bang and the attributes of the God of classic Theism.

[Philip]

DB: And since the cause of the beginning of all space, time, matter, and energy by definition transcends all space, time, matter, and energy; then we begin to see an overlap between some of the attributes of whatever caused the Big Bang and the attributes of the God of classic Theism.

At the very least, Ken must admit that A) SOMETHING must be eternal and B) only a source with many of the capabilities described of the God of the Bible could produce the Big Bang event / our universe today!

Also, the Source for the universe had to have the knowledge and ability to create its building blocks (non-intelligent things cannot create themselves nor do they have awareness of ANYTHING!), and to assemble and program those for insanely complex interactivities with incredibly thin margins - which shows great intelligence. The Source also had to have unfathomable power to fuel this vast expansion of extraordinary things. Science acknowledges what happened at the Big Bang event - some will even state that the universe itself has some kind of mysterious intelligence. And a very significant percentage of scientists acknowledge that there is a God behind it all. So, the question is, WHO or what is this mysterious, intelligent, supremely powerful Source behind the creation?

[Kenny]

I didn't see that in any of the definitions I saw...

I didn’t provide a definition, I was just pointing out the obvious

Philip's post showed very clearly how an explosion IS a type of sudden expansion.

Every explosion is an expansion; but not every expansion is an explosion.

Again we agree 100%

The primary issue for me as a Christian is the validation of the theistic premise that the known universe had a known beginning.
And that beginning involved the beginning of all space, time, matter, and energy.

And since the cause of the beginning of all space, time, matter, and energy by definition transcends all space, time, matter, and energy; then we begin to see an overlap between some of the attributes of whatever caused the Big Bang and the attributes of the God of classic Theism.

The problem with the Big Bang theory is that there is no consistently on the details. There are plenty of sources out there that will confirm your claim that it was an explosion, or that energy and matter had a cause, then there are other sources that say it was an expansion or does not claim a cause of energy and matter had a cause. But one thing that is consistent, is that nobody claims energy and matter was caused by something that transcends time, space, matter, and energy; this is something theists come up with because they can’t think of any other explanation so they insert their own which always includes their Deity of choice.