Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

General Nazort Not at all.I am simply asking how such may be explained since we have been given two incompatible situations as regards your god.One,it is cojectured that he exists outside space-time and that leads to the question of how humans can know that something lives outside of spacetime since we cannot access such things or they would not be outside spacetime.Two,we are told that god can affect the universe while remaining outside of it.This is contradictory since a being outside of space-time must be incapable of accessing anything within space-time or the being no longer is outside of spacetime.
The other postulate is that he is both is outside of space-time and space-time is contained within him.So how do we know this? Would there be some way of explaining how something is two mutually exclusive situations at the same time?This goes to the realm of absurdity since without this condition in place{mutual exclusivity} then we may allow for any similar explanation and not refute it in the slightest.Why is it that your god is given free pass on critical thinking and evidence that you would not ,I hope, otherwise allow in your thinking? Again this is not evidenced in any way iI am aware of. Could you share how this statement may be shown to actually have a reality?

---

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

So God can create space-time (the universe) but he cannot access it once it is created?

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

General Nazort If your god is outside of space-time he cannot create space-time without some means of manipulating it.Obviously a material world must be materially shaped therefore one must ask the means by which such is accomplished.That brings me to the condition I posted at the end of my last post. If we allow for this then there is pretty much any explanation that can be used to explain the origin of the universe since there is no need for the stricture of logic and the adherence to laws of physics.Of course we can fall back and state that it is a matter of faith and thus be done with it but that,to me,is unsatifactory.I contend that the doctrine of faith that is historically inherent in most religion when questions of the existence of god surface honestly strikes me as an escape from having to consider the rather upsetting{to a believer} notion that perhaps all the effort placed in upholding belief is just a house of cards.This is my opinion and one I hold since it easily explains the endless variations upon the theme of a higher power {be it god allah zeus odin great spirit etc.}as a creation of human minds seeking solace from the harshness of lifes" realities.As Isaac Asimov put it, "Ever a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold."

---

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

True. No! Why must a material world be materially shaped? I contend that God has the innate ability to create and manipulate a material world even though he himself is immaterial.Earlier you seemed to affirm that God could have this innate ability when you said "not at all" when I asked if you thought God did not have this ability. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Do you say God has the innate ability to create and modify the material world even though he is not part of it, or do you say he does not?

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

General Nazort How would it otherwise be put together? What does it maen to be innate in this arguement? It is a dodge unless we can give some idea of how we come to this conclusion.To contend that god does so we should have some understanding of how this accomplished otherwise it is only a sham defense against the contradiction imposed by mutual exclusion. Your question was To this I said not at all.I am not saying this; the condition of mutual exclusivity makes this untenableLook,we agree to this What we disagree on is that god is given capabilities that we cannot logically allow without allowing for any other explanation however far-fetched to be as equally valid.You accept this on faith while I say faith is not a reliable means of obtaining knowledge of god.

---

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

If this direction continues the thread will have to be eunthenized.

AdminNosyMy apologies for the drift.Euthenized,what a nice way to put it.{shivers uncontrollably}

Sorry for the topic drift, but I was attempting to make a sorta on-topic point, which is this - why can't God have an ability that "just is" to create and change the physical universe even though he is not aprt of it, since you all are claiming the same ability for QM to have causes with no effects - an ability that "just is"

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

I happen to agree with you. God can be conjectured to do anything at all. That is why is really isn't a productive use of time to discuss what God can and can not do.Conjecturing God as the cause of the big bang, for example, gets us no where. It is just the latest gap to stuff a god into.One difference though is that we see stuff just being created out of nothing all the time. That is a measurable prediction of QM.We have yet to be able to find anything measureable or make a prediction based on the god did it hypothosis.Therefore though neither of them can be said to really explain the origin of the universe the science approach has a track record that suggests it is a better path to take.