Who Made God?

Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.Shoulda done this five years ago. Please forgive my initial tampering with my own thread.Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

where did it go?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. For example regarding assumptions, the Big Bang theory predicts present effects as evidence of a past event, the same as any historical theory. e.g. the theory that the an old tower collapsed would predict that you would see debris from the tower on the ground.
There isn't really any assumptions.Are you asking for the observational evidence for the Big Bang?

By assumptions, some people might mean the following:The laws of science were the same back in the day.
The earth did not open up and swallow up all of the tower pieces leaving no evidence.
There was no huge flood that covered the earth 6000 years ago.
No magical force was involved.

Hi Son, There was no one around to observe anything so that is out of the question.You say the BBT makes predictions. These are devised from the assumption made by men.The BBT has 20 problems that would disqualify any other theory.
Man, Alan Guth tried to to fix these problems with his inflation hypothesis.Sir Roger Penrose says inflation is a fantasy.The biggest assumption of all is that the universe began to expand at T=10^-43 s.No one knows what or if anything existed at T=10^-43 s.
Since no one knows what was there or if anything was there how can anyone know what took place?So you and others want me to believe that something began to expand at T=10^-43 s. But I can't question how that something got there in order to begin to expand. How did that something begin to exist anyway? It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.I would call anything that could create the universe and everything in it God.We have 3 choices.
1. The universe has always existed.
2 The universe began to exist where there was non existence.
3. The universe was created by an all powerful eternal God.#1 is impossible as the universe would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.God Bless,

To be fair, Son Goku may argue that there are more than these 3 choices. I would be interested to hear his informed opinion, based on what he knows.

I'm more interested in whether the BBT is the prevailing theory among Cosmologists or whether any competing theories have arisen.Despite being a believer in God, I fully understand why God does not count among the theories presented by science. And as you know, I respect that you take time to talk with us here. Science is honest enough to admit what it does not know and explain what it does know.

Again, utter nonsense.Why would some cause need to have existed eternally or created by some external thing with a lot of power.

Given the way the Winchester gospels are going (tv show supernatural), it seems we finally get to find out who made god and his sister, the nothing creature thingy that sent castiell back from nothing.and we know the Winchester gospels are the word of god because god himself wrote them, and we know that from the Winchester gospels so its bassicaly just like the bible.

Because of what we see now.If I see a dead tree in a forest, I know that tree grew from a much smaller beginning many years ago.
I didn't have to see that tree start growing in person.
I know this from observing similar things I can see today and understanding how plant growth in general works.If scientists see the remnants of the BBT, they know that the BB occurred many years ago.
They don't have to see the BB start expanding in person.
They know this from observing similar things they can see today and understanding how cosmology in general works. Why can't you question it?I question it. I don't know.But just because I don't know... and because science doesn't know (yet) doesn't mean you can't question it.
Questioning it is exactly what scientists studying it are doing, even.They're just not going to offer up any old idea as an answer without proper evidence to back it up, is all.Because of that restriction, I don't think a solid answer for your question is available from science at this time. I don't see why that would be true at all.It seems like you're making a claim without backing it up. Well, that seems like an arbitrary decision.
I would not do such a thing.People used to call the sun a God because they thought it was big and powerful.
The sun is not a God.You seem to want to call 'anything that could create the universe and everything in it' God because you think such a thing would need to be big and powerful.I don't see why it would have to be big or powerful.
But, even if it was, I don't see why we should call it God anyway. Especially if it's a natural process and has nothing to do with any supernatural entity or will. 1 - Why would the universe be dead if it always existed?
Don't you believe in a God that always existed? Does that mean your God is dead?
If not, why is this limitation placed on the universe but not God?2 - Why can't existence begin to exist?
It seems to me you simply cannot fathom existence beginning to exist. I have a hard time doing it myself.
But many things occur without my ability to fathom them. I'm not that smart.
Maybe existence beginning to exist is something that happens that I (and you) simply cannot fathom.
Unless you have an actual reason? - I'm pretty sure we've had entire threads devoted to you trying to explain a reason, and you've never been able to do so.3 - But you haven't eliminated the other options. You just seem to claim that they are eliminated.
I agree that if I take your word for it... then 3 is the only number left after removing 1 and 2. But there are problems... there doesn't seem to be any actual reason to remove 1 or 2 other than your say-so. Your say-so isn't very convincing. Also, what about additional options:4 - The universe always existed in the past, but will not always exist in the future.5 - The universe began to exist from something else that already existed.6 - The universe was created by a weak, eternal God.7 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), eternal God.8 - The universe was created by a weak, non-eternal God.9 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), non-eternal God.10 - The universe was created by entirely natural processes and no God of any sort was involved in any way.11 - Something else that Stile or ICANT cannot fathom.

Observational evidence refers to measurable side effects in the present, not eye witness accounts. To the first sentence, yes I am saying that. I'm not entirely sure what the second sentence means. If you mean we assume what the past might have been like, derive present consequences of that and then see if they are true, then yes. Such as? It doesn't assume that. I don't want you to believe that as it is not what the Big Bang theory states. These sound like questions one would ask of a theory that purports to explain the origins of reality, which the Big Bang theory is not. The Big Bang theory is a theory about the state of the observable universe 13.7 billion years ago.The Big Bang theory is not about how the universe began or how things originated or how reality started. It is simply a historical claim about the observable universe.
Stop and think about what this means. If I had a theory that a volcano erupted on an island 3,000 years ago and I worked out as a consequence that the soil should contain, say 12.6% calcium. A valid criticism of the theory would be:
(a) Measurement of the soil contains 13.4% calcium
(b) Sea deposits may have left the calcium.Invalid methods of criticism would be to say:
We have 3 choices.
1. The volcano has always existed.
2 The volcano began to exist where there was non existence.
3. The volcano was created by an all powerful eternal God.

​

#1 is impossible as the volcano would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.Similarly with the Big Bang theory. It is not a theory about the ultimate origins of the world, hence criticisms about an origins theory are irrelevant.

From my understanding, the BBT is the prevailing theory for explain a whole host of observations as it relates to the last 13.7 billion year history of our universe. However, the BBT isn't a theory that tries to explain the origin of our universe, only how it has changed over those 13.7 billion years. Science is also a methodological approach to gaining knowledge and not an ontological one. It isn't as concerned with conclusion as it is with how you reach those conclusions.

In other words, content is more pertinent than source. Right?

I wouldn't phrase it that way at all. Content doesn't matter at all. Source is everything. Where and how you got your answer is way more important than the answer itself. It's similar to a teacher not giving credit for a math test answer because the student didn't show their work.

In physics at least, people would view the answer as more important, just that the where and how must be sound. The answer is people's main motivation.