Also, just because an idea is "ridiculous" doesn't automatically mean it's false -- or off the table for consideration. Take the idea of multiverses for example. Some actually think this has scientific merit, and hope (wishfully, in my view) that the data will eventually support it.
The nature of the universe, it's rational transparency, it's amazing properties -- still manages provokes our greatest questions, whether you like it or not. Not saying this proves anything about God -- just saying the question of ultimate meaning, and ultimate reality will always be important questions that aren't going away anytime soon -- and which science itself will never answer. In the end, you're really left with a choice: What is it that provides the "best fit"?
No, the question is not "what was before" -- but WHY. And to this question, everyone has a some meta-explaination, or some ultimate narrative under which everything fits. An inference to a powerful, creative God is entirely rational and meaningful -- one that seems to make sense to a lot of people (both brilliant and not-so-brilliant). Even Richard Dawkins has admitted the respectability of the case for at least a "deist god" (although he doesn't personally accept it). watch?v=DxD-HPMpTto
How do you know that there is a god? And if there is it is particularly the judeo-christian god? Why not the other countless gods? Even if you can narrow down. How do you "know" which version of the judeo-christian god is correct? As a matter of fact there are thousands of denominations that claim to have the correct version? How can you test to see which one is right? What is the evidence that one in particular is right and all others are wrong? This is an impossible game. watch?v=Gcw1YEtTQCw
@dancarollo I get the sense that you are trying to use the argument "what was
before the big bang". This argument is pointless. If you can imagine that your
god always existed, then you can also imagine that matter always existed.
A magical guy in another dimension with super epic powers with a whole bunch of knowledge that always existed is a ridiculous idea. I hope you can one day see that.
@tostrong4you Matter haven't existed forever, the ingredients for matter came into being at the Big Bang, which marks a boundary to space and time. "Before" nothing physical exists. What is meant by God always existing is that he is not part of time, and this was the view of many Church fathers, and is also reflected more metaphorically in Scripture.
@tostrong4you Relate that to Big Bang Cosmology, if our Universe indeed follow a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker model (the standard Hot Big Bang model), then whatever caused the Universe is not apart of the physical world, since that is the very effect. And it's not apart of time, because time also came into being at t = 0.
@tostrong4you What is meant then with God being 'eternal' is that He never came into being, and will 'always' exist. An entity that is timeless cannot be said to begin to exist, or cease to exist.
@tostrong4you. We've known through observation and testing that matter cannot have the properties of being "self-existing" and eternal. That essentially leaves two choices: 1) matter exists as a brute fact that me must simply accept (doesn't need explaining) or 2) It just "popped" into existence spontaneously. And not only that, but exists in a very peculiar way that happens to be fine-tuned for the evolution of intelligent life itself (See Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers")
@tostrong4you. As the well-known Franciscan monk (William of Ockham) reminded us in the principle of lex parsimoniae (economy of explaination) --- that simplier explainations are to be preferred to complex ones. To propose a universe that creates itself -- or to propose an infinite number of universes in order to explain why ONE of them happens to have the elegantly fine-tuned properties ours does --- seems the height of irrationality.
@dancarollo And by the way. If your religion is based on the Bible, and the Muslim religion is based on the Koran. How do you know which one is 100% correct? I mean if you are going to treat every sentence, every word of the book as 100% correct, then how do you know its correct and the others are not?
Also, just because an idea is "ridiculous" doesn't automatically mean it's false -- or off the table for consideration. Take the idea of multiverses for example. Some actually think this has scientific merit, and hope (wishfully, in my view) that the data will eventually support it.
dancarollo 3 weeks ago in playlist John Polkinghorne
The nature of the universe, it's rational transparency, it's amazing properties -- still manages provokes our greatest questions, whether you like it or not. Not saying this proves anything about God -- just saying the question of ultimate meaning, and ultimate reality will always be important questions that aren't going away anytime soon -- and which science itself will never answer. In the end, you're really left with a choice: What is it that provides the "best fit"?
dancarollo 3 weeks ago in playlist John Polkinghorne
No, the question is not "what was before" -- but WHY. And to this question, everyone has a some meta-explaination, or some ultimate narrative under which everything fits. An inference to a powerful, creative God is entirely rational and meaningful -- one that seems to make sense to a lot of people (both brilliant and not-so-brilliant). Even Richard Dawkins has admitted the respectability of the case for at least a "deist god" (although he doesn't personally accept it). watch?v=DxD-HPMpTto
dancarollo 3 weeks ago in playlist John Polkinghorne
How do you know that there is a god? And if there is it is particularly the judeo-christian god? Why not the other countless gods? Even if you can narrow down. How do you "know" which version of the judeo-christian god is correct? As a matter of fact there are thousands of denominations that claim to have the correct version? How can you test to see which one is right? What is the evidence that one in particular is right and all others are wrong? This is an impossible game. watch?v=Gcw1YEtTQCw
allaboutmath 3 weeks ago
Utter nonsense.
tostrong4you 3 weeks ago
@tostrong4you: Exactly what is utter nonsense? What is your preferred narrative for why anything exists? Why science is possible at all?
dancarollo 3 weeks ago
@dancarollo I get the sense that you are trying to use the argument "what was
before the big bang". This argument is pointless. If you can imagine that your
god always existed, then you can also imagine that matter always existed.
A magical guy in another dimension with super epic powers with a whole bunch of knowledge that always existed is a ridiculous idea. I hope you can one day see that.
tostrong4you 3 weeks ago
@tostrong4you Matter haven't existed forever, the ingredients for matter came into being at the Big Bang, which marks a boundary to space and time. "Before" nothing physical exists. What is meant by God always existing is that he is not part of time, and this was the view of many Church fathers, and is also reflected more metaphorically in Scripture.
TheisticThinker 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@tostrong4you Relate that to Big Bang Cosmology, if our Universe indeed follow a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker model (the standard Hot Big Bang model), then whatever caused the Universe is not apart of the physical world, since that is the very effect. And it's not apart of time, because time also came into being at t = 0.
TheisticThinker 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@tostrong4you What is meant then with God being 'eternal' is that He never came into being, and will 'always' exist. An entity that is timeless cannot be said to begin to exist, or cease to exist.
TheisticThinker 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TheisticThinker well then why cant you imagine for matter to never come into being?
Something that always exists, that doesn't have an end or beginning.
I mean what is more believable to you? Something simple to always exist or something unimaginably genius and complicated to always exist?
tostrong4you 3 weeks ago
@tostrong4you. We've known through observation and testing that matter cannot have the properties of being "self-existing" and eternal. That essentially leaves two choices: 1) matter exists as a brute fact that me must simply accept (doesn't need explaining) or 2) It just "popped" into existence spontaneously. And not only that, but exists in a very peculiar way that happens to be fine-tuned for the evolution of intelligent life itself (See Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers")
dancarollo 3 weeks ago
@tostrong4you. As the well-known Franciscan monk (William of Ockham) reminded us in the principle of lex parsimoniae (economy of explaination) --- that simplier explainations are to be preferred to complex ones. To propose a universe that creates itself -- or to propose an infinite number of universes in order to explain why ONE of them happens to have the elegantly fine-tuned properties ours does --- seems the height of irrationality.
dancarollo 3 weeks ago
@dancarollo
Errrrrr nope
Whats more probable? You have a highly intelligent(being) alien in your back yard?
Or a whole bunch of rocks? plain old matter and energy is simpler than magic flying
all powerful, all-knowing creatures in other dimensions.
tostrong4you 3 weeks ago
@dancarollo And by the way. If your religion is based on the Bible, and the Muslim religion is based on the Koran. How do you know which one is 100% correct? I mean if you are going to treat every sentence, every word of the book as 100% correct, then how do you know its correct and the others are not?
tostrong4you 3 weeks ago