|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Biblical God Incompatible With Big Bang. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
1. Big Bang conventional science claims that space and time originated with the Big Bang as I understand it.
2. There was no outside of the BB and no before the BB as I understand conventional science to claim. 3. The Biblical God claims to have no beginning nor end, being an eternal supreme being. 4. The Biblical God claims to exist in a location in the universe where a throne, angels and other beings exist in the universe. 5. Problem #1: No outside of means no space for God to exist in before the alleged BB. 6. Problem #2: No before the alleged BB for God to have preceeded the BB according to conventional science. How do our BB friends who profess the Biblical god as their god reconcile with problems 1 and 2? For promotion in the Faith And Belief Forum, please. Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct title BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Hi, Buz. I want to see if I understand you correctly.
Your logic is: According to the BB theory, there was no space or time before the Big Bang. God requires space and time to exist. Therefore, the existence of the Biblical God is incompatible with the theory of the Big Bang. Do you truly intend to assert that God needs space and time to exist, and that His construction of Heaven is limited by space in the same way the expansion of my house is bounded by my yard? Couldn't God make my house bigger than my yard if He wished? I would have thought you would see Him as unlimited by anything. Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals. -Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4628 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Problem #1: No outside of means no space for God to exist in before the alleged BB I believe this is incorrect in that BB only deals with this time and space. I have never read anything that suggests that time/space could not exist before BB, only the study of BB does not cover it. I read a theory that our corner of the universe may be speeding up towards a possible other universe - this is only speculation I think, but it does show that science does not limit time/space to this particular universe. My explanation is poor, I know. I hope others can better explain where I am wrong, or better word how I am right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
1. By definition universe means everything existing.
2. If space existed anywhere before the BB there would be an outside of the BB singularity event. 3. Whenever I've tried to play the "outside of" or the "before" card in science debate I got emphatically advised that there were neither by resident BBists. Gotta leave for now I'll get to Omni and any others later. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
If God is eternal (infinite) then space and time (which are finite) cannot contain this being. No problem arises with God pre-existing the universe. This is exactly what we would expect.
As it seems all your other objections to the Big Bang theory follow from the premise, there's no problem. omnivorous and Vacate, I see, have already called your attention to this. Interesting that all us skeptics should have to tell you how powerful your God is. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You just proved that God is not supernatural. ROTFLMAO
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
buz: By definition universe means everything existing. I believe that for science purposes the definition of 'universe' is necessarily restricted to 'the space-time universe.' The reason is practical: we can't see beyond that. The scientists here can check me on this. ____ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
buz: Whenever I've tried to play the "outside of" or the "before" card in science debate I got emphatically advised that there were neither by resident BBists. Sometimes I think the scientists and fundies deserve each other. What a pack of literalists. Literally, no, you can't have an 'outside' or a 'before' when space and time do not exist. When one uses these words one is using metaphors. One talks as if space and time existed where it doesn't. But as long as you know that's what you're doing, it's fine. Metaphors can't be avoided. It is only by the use of metaphoric language that we can discuss the situation at all. All human language and thought is conditioned by this universe of space and time. Next time see if it helps anything to use scare quotes. Instead of referring simply to something before and outside the Big Bang, try referring to something 'before' and 'outside' the Big Bang. The science types will see that you're savvy to the paradox and it might cool their jets a bit. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : messing around. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Instead of referring simply to something before and outside the Big Bang, try referring to something 'before' and 'outside' the Big Bang. The science types will see that you're savvy to the paradox and it might cool their jets a bit. Yes, you're quite right... we will. Rather than replying
quote:we'll try a different approach with quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
I highly recommend you read Flatland by Edwin Abbott to get a better perspective of of existence and reality. Frankly, Buz, you have a very limited view of a supreme being. 4. The Biblical God claims to exist in a location in the universe where a throne, angels and other beings exist in the universe. AKA G.A.S.B.Y. George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
1. Big Bang conventional science claims that space and time originated with the Big Bang as I understand it. In the traditional sense of General Relativity, yes, although there are many extended scenarios where this is not the case. However, I would hesitate to call them 'Big Bang' scenarios as such, even though they contain the same observed expansion and other Big Bang features (CMBR, etc).
2. There was no outside of the BB and no before the BB as I understand conventional science to claim. Yes, but with the same caveat as point 1.
3. The Biblical God claims to have no beginning nor end, being an eternal supreme being. Would certainly agree to that.
4. The Biblical God claims to exist in a location in the universe where a throne, angels and other beings exist in the universe. Huh? He does? Can I go visit then in my spacecraft? Should I be concerned if enough atheists (human or otherwise) decide to take a visit with an almighty arsenal of Planckian mega-bombs... I'm sure god will be fine, but those angels and that throne could take a beating! You'd have thought god would have learnt after that debacle with Ar-Pharazn...
5. Problem #1: No outside of means no space for God to exist in before the alleged BB. How many dimensions of space does God require to enable his existence? And of time? Is he 3+1 (3d space + time) by nature, or is he more the 25+1 of bosonic string theory (I've always seen fermions as the devil's invention)
6. Problem #2: No before the alleged BB for God to have preceeded the BB according to conventional science. If god is bound to our time and he is everywhere in our universe then do bits of him get destroyed in black hole singularities? Or does he withdraw his presence - just in time? Perhaps god has never seen inside an event horizon!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I'm not going to criticise your post but I'm going to ask you to think about some things - and you really should present your case.
quote: Do the verses you have in mind really say this ? Are they intended to be read literally ? Could they refer to the current situation ? Couldn't God create the Universe and then set up his throne within it ? Simce God is said to be a spirit, a non-physical being, would he need space to exist in ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
3. Whenever I've tried to play the "outside of" or the "before" card in science debate I got emphatically advised that there were neither by resident BBists.
Firstly, BBists makes no sense. There are no Big Bangists (I can't even imagine what that would involve), there are those that think GR and QFTs accuracy at describing the early universe has demonstrated itself and that that "Big Bang" solutions of GR best describe the evolution of the Cosmos. Secondly, the reason we are hesitant to use those words is two-fold. One of the reasons is already covered here, words like before and outside making little sense when talking about spacetime as a whole. However the second, possibly the stronger reason, is that the Big Bang is governed by Planckian Scale physics (Quantum Gravity) and we have no idea what concepts from previous physics holds at these scales.(Some are hesitant to use "Energy") Edited by Son Goku, : Spelling mistake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
cavediver: Yes, you're quite right... we will. Rather than replyingquote:I'm sorry, you're talking bollocks we'll try a different approach withquote:I'm sorry, you're talking 'bollocks' It was a quick fix, I admit. I'm concerned about that reference to a throne and angels in Item 4. Buz -- you do recognize, don't you, that the same situation applies when talking about metaphysical beings as when talking about 'physics' pre-dating the existence of anything physical? Metaphor is the only way to talk about these things. But one has to know one is using metaphor. If you talk naively about time 'before' time and space 'outside' space, you'll get called on it. And if you talk naively about a noncorporeal being sitting on a throne, you'll get called on that, too. Anyone who talks about metaphysical beings has to talk as if they sit on thrones, as if they fly, sing, change their minds, etc. But it doesn't do to be literal. These images are ways of picturing that which cannot be pictured. The ancients could only talk and think in terms of the universe they lived in, as we do. To think in naively concrete terms about something as simple as God sitting in a chair creates all kinds of problems. Would an eternal, omnipresent Supreme Being be subject to the law of gravity? Does a noncorporeal being have a butt? More seriously: you cut the legs out from under your own theology if you really make your deity that limited. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Edited by Archer Opterix, : more typo repair.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024