Zone1 “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”

[Darkwind]

I look at it as I will never know the unknowable and am okay with that. Time is a purely human construct in which beginning and endings are measured. We are conditioned to look for patterns and call it "design". Even science is predicated on human observation. It would be impossible for us to strip the human out of our viewpoint. I say what I always say, if religion has value and adds to your life, go for it; if not, then don't. Totally up to each person.

Since time waits for no man, and man cannot influence the passage of time, then time is NOT a human construct. It passes regardless.

Now, you may have a point in that if time passes and there is no one to measure it, did it really happen?

That is the "If a tree falls in the forest, did it hit a liberal?" argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

A static universe pointed towards no need for a creator. The expansion of the universe disproved that. Darwin’s theory pointed towards no need for a creator. DNA and the complexity of the cell points toward design.

Darwin's theory was a theory. No more. No less. I doubt seriously that Darwin imagined his theory would become so politically or religiously polarizing. Wrestling with his own religious beliefs all his adult life, he no doubt looked for evidence that there was no designer that would have created a a world in which nature could be/can be exceedingly cruel.

The religious more often look at a benevolent Creator and Creation and push that extreme cruelty part out of their minds when there is no way to reconcile that in their minds.

Darwin made no effort to theorize a beginning to the universe. His 'science' was that of biology, i.e. how the different organisms/plant/animal life on Earth got from point A billions and millions of years ago to what they are now. In that Darwin's 'theory of evolution' is not without merit or usefulness.

For myself I put the whole 'when or if' the universe began in the 'not important to know' slot. I figure somebody in Heaven will have the answers to that.

I am comfortable with a Creator God and think it important that a concept of intelligent design be allowed in the conversation. And I am also comfortable that the Creation here on Planet Earth has evolved over the eons and that Darwin's theory is proper to teach to the people. I am not comfortable with the theory that the Creator God created evil nor with the assumption that Darwin's theory of natural selection anywhere nearly answers all the scientific questions of the universe or how Planet Earth has evolved over the eras.

 

[DonGlock26]

Since time waits for no man, and man cannot influence the passage of time, then time is NOT a human construct. It passes regardless.

Now, you may have a point in that if time passes and there is no one to measure it, did it really happen?

That is the "If a tree falls in the forest, did it hit a liberal?" argument.

IMHO- Time is just a way to describe motion. Without motion, there would be no time and no change. God, if he exists, is eternal outside of the universe.

 

[toobfreak]

There is a 'first mover' theory that is applied to Newton's law of motion.
In a perfect vacuum:

Sounds like the spherical chicken in a vacuum joke on The Big Bang Theory!

In the Beginning....
Nothing moved. There was nothing—the perfect void.

In the beginning, there wasn't even void as void implies space.

The universe is in constant motion, and utilizing the logic you clearly laid out, there had to be an outside force that acted upon the universe and put it in motion.
Science.

The universe indeed DEPENDS on motion. Try stopping an electron from spinning about its nucleus and see what happens. Try stopping the vibration of quarks combining to form hadrons and see what happens. Try stopping any planet from spinning, orbiting its star, or that star orbiting its galaxy and see what happens.

So your point is sound: Some force acted upon the "lumineferous ether" to produce a sudden expansion of spacetime forming our universe. An energy was imparted. It was a creative energy which imparted an orderly, organized universe full of life, intelligence, plans and a purpose.

Doesn't sound like dust to me.

 

[Darkwind]

Sounds like the spherical chicken in a vacuum joke on The Big Bang Theory!


In the beginning, there wasn't even void as void implies space.


The universe indeed DEPENDS on motion. Try stopping an electron from spinning about its nucleus and see what happens. Try stopping the vibration of quarks combining to form hadrons and see what happens. Try stopping any planet from spinning, orbiting its star, or that star orbiting its galaxy and see what happens.

So your point is sound: Some force acted upon the "lumineferous ether" to produce a sudden expansion of spacetime forming our universe. An energy was imparted. It was a creative energy which imparted an orderly, organized universe full of life, intelligence, plans and a purpose.

Doesn't sound like dust to me.

Well, the "Void" is a mental construct because humans and Democrats can't conceive what a 'nothing' is.

But yeah, I think our logic is sound.

 

[toobfreak]

Time is just a way to describe motion. Without motion, there would be no time and no change.

That is a very profound observation. There can be no motion without both time and change, and there can be no time and change without motion.

God, if he exists, is eternal outside of the universe.

God's locus must originate outside/beyond the universe since God must exist outside of time and space, but that does not mean that God cannot also function or exist or interact within time-space, just that he is not limited/controlled by it.

 

[BackAgain]

If the universe has no beginning, where did all the matter and energy come from?

 

[BreezeWood]

It also states that an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

that half of the theory does not stand to reason - acknowledging the object exists is its flaw per its behavior.

 

[The Irish Ram]

There is eternal time, spacial time, and linear time. Spacial time became Einstein's bane. When he realized with Hubble's telescope, that the universe was expanding, it meant it had to have a beginning. That was something Einstein didn't plan on. It meant he had to include time as a dimension.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's also possible that the universe has always existed and had no beginning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the universe has no beginning, where did all the matter and energy come from?

You can just say, "energy".

And the energy we observe may have spontaneously popped into existence. Like virtual particles do.

 

[BackAgain]

You can just say, "energy".

And the energy we observe may have spontaneously popped into existence. Like virtual particles do.

I understand that watered-down layman’s version of quantum probability. But like others then have asked, what “caused” this spontaneous popping?

 

[sparky]

It appears we've a limited understanding of time and space here

~S~

 

[BULLDOG]

"Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues



A book by two French authors that challenges a longstanding academic consensus is being published in Britain next week


In a striking challenge to the academic consensus, two French authors, Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies, argue that the latest scientific theories lead to only one logical conclusion: an all-powerful deity created the universe and all life within it.


The materialist narrative for the beginnings of the universe and life on earth is so full of holes, he and Bonnassies argue, that every modern scientific advance increases the strength of the case that a “creator” is the only rational explanation."

Does God exist? Modern science shows he must, bestseller argues

A book by two French authors that challenges a longstanding academic consensus is being published in Britain next week

www.thetimes.com

This is an interesting article about a new book. The authors are not the only people seeing evidnce in a creator in the Big Bang and DNA and the complexity of cellular bio-machines.
Back in the 19th century, materialists had Darwin's theory of evolution and a static universe model to support their beliefs.
But today, we have an expanding universe coming from a singularity and DNA storing complex data which points to a creator.

I once read a book that claimed the earth was flat and rested on the back of a turtle. How is your book, and the two guys that wrote it any more credible than the turtle theory?

 

[BackAgain]

It appears we've a limited understanding of time and space here

~S~

Compared to who?

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, as a scientist who started out in life an atheist until I had God proven to and shown to me, and since I understand the linked article doesn't really offer their proof (have to buy the book), let me say this in a way easy to follow:

1. Nothing in the universe is eternal. Even light suffers entropy.
2. Anything that has an ending had a beginning.
3. If everything in the universe has an ending, then the universe had to have a beginning.
4. Nothing exists without a cause. Something caused everything in the universe that exists, to be there.
5. The universe is full of mind, consciousness and intelligence, as proven by mankind.
6. There is no known process whereby consciousness comes from unconsciousness, and intelligence comes from mindlessness, therefore, all finite qualities in the universe (including mind, consciousness and intelligence) had to have been caused/created/begun by some unlimited fount for these qualities.
7. The cause of anything is deemed to have created it. Since the universe was created, it too had to have some cause. Since the universe is intelligent, then the supreme cause of the universe must have been supremely intelligent too.
8. Take away the mind, the consciousness, the wisdom, and the cause of the universe could be some inert action--- a hiccup in the branes between two different dimensions--- but when you add in the MIND, you now have a mindful creator with a purpose--- ie: God.

• The cause of the universe is God.
• God must be a supreme personality with an unlimited mind since he has given a very finite piece of his personality and consciousness to us.

6. A zygote is not conscious, and certainly doesn't display any inherent intelligence. Justify your remark.

 

[zaangalewa]

IMHO- Time is just a way to describe motion. Without motion, there would be no time and no change. God, if he exists, is eternal outside of the universe.

Es existiert kein Standpunkt "außerhalb" des Universums weil es schlicht und ergreifend gar kein Außerhalb gibt. Und es gibt auch keine Zeit - oder irgendetwas anderes worüber man sonst reden könnte - bevor das Universum war.
=
There is no point of view ‘outside’ the universe because there is simply no outside. And there is also no time – or anything else to talk about before the universe existed.

Space and time are universe. You are universe. Everywhere is universe.

But whatever you like to think about God let me tell you: I think and believe he is everywhere directly in front of your eyes. He has to be there otherwise you could not be at all. Aber Du siehst ihn da vermutlich genausowenig wie ich ihn da sehe. Versuch doch einfach mal so zu schauen als hättest du gar keine Augen. Da hat man das Gefühl es klappt manchmal ein klein wenig. = But you probably see it there just as little as I do. Just try looking as if you had no eyes at all. Sometimes it feels like it works a little bit.

Das Auge mit dem mich Gott sieht ist das Auge mit dem ich ihn sehe; mein Auge und sein Auge sind eins.
Meister Eckhardt
The eye with which God sees me is the eye with which I see him; my eye and his eye are one.

 

[zaangalewa]

I once read a book that claimed the earth was flat and rested on the back of a turtle. How is your book, and the two guys that wrote it any more credible than the turtle theory?

I don't know any longer the name of the philosopher and what about he really spoke but suddenly a woman called in his lecture: "It's stupid what you say. The earth rests on the back of a turtle!" Everyone laughed about her stupidity but not so the philosopher. He asked her: "And what is the turtle resting on?". She answered "On another turtle!". He seemed to be satifsfied with this answer and continued with his lecture.

 

[zaangalewa]

... A zygote is not conscious, and certainly doesn't display any inherent intelligence. ...

You was once a zygote. Every human being once was a human zygote. Are you conscious now? Do you have an inherent intelligence now? How came? And is this really independent from the situation "to be a zygote" what you was once? If someone had killed the zygote you was once then you would not be now. So how do you justify your opinion with what kind of categorical imperative?

 

[zaangalewa]

It's also possible that the universe has always existed and had no beginning.

No. The universe is expanding.