[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
^^^^
Bowing out now because you’re making it up as you go along.
You believe in God correct? God is “eternal” - no beginning, no end. Why then does the universe need a beginning and end? Time is man’s measurement - nothing more. In the grand scheme of the universe, time may have no meaning at all, and no place. Time is still poorly understood even among those that study it - I know that little tid bit doesn’t have much sex appeal, but it’s still an issue with TPs.
NOW you defer to experts, but prior you implied they were missing something. And now you “know verifiably” that universe is not eternal. How may I ask that you know this?
You spent pages railing against PTs and Hawkings in particular. And now we get one of the shortest replies from you yet when you are asked to articulate your ideas in concrete form rather than criticism of others. I’ll ask you again. Tell me the nature of God as you understand it and believe it. When did God appear. When did the universe appear?
And without time, which I repeat - is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT - there is no “first cause”. There just “is”.[/quote]
We know this universe had a beginning which was in most common circles estimated at about 13.75 Billion years ago. What preceded it I don’t know, but if it did not have a beginning there was no big bang…
Correct time is a measurement. Not a construct of it’s own. I never railed against, theoretical physicists. I am rather fond of them actually. I merely said that I believe that most of them are atheists and that factor may help color their theories. They spend an awful lot of time trying to disprove causality. ← This has been, historically what athiests do to “prove” atheism. Ultimately, I can’t know a man’s heart.
You picked Hawking, I wasn’t railing against the man, why would I do that? He speaks as if an atheist, but if he says he’s not, then I can’t say he is…But if he says God is not the creator, than obviously we don’t see God the same way. A God, who is not the creator it not God, IMO.
Logic begets a uncaused-cause…“First” is a bad term because it implies time. But to not have one creates a circular reasoning. Being here, cause we’re here is a non-answer.
There is no evidence anywhere in universe of just being…Everything that exists, came from something else.
[/quote]
A complete circle with you really.
You said most PT are atheist. Again, please post a reference. I’ve read many a book about PT and studied it as much as my time will allow - and I have not picked up on this atheism trend you claim. What I think you are actually perceiving is the atheist bastardizing PT for their own aims - BIG DIFFERENCE. Kind of like the spiritualist that will glom onto anything quantum mechanical as “proof” that their beliefs are based in science.
We do NOT know the universe had a beginning. The big bang is “generally accepted” under our present understanding of the universe, but not yet proven. A big bang still presents many problems that are thus far unreconciled. Hawking expressed a thought of a timeless universe, not one without God.
You argue fiercely against “something from nothing”, null theory etc, but at the same time, you do not know what preceeded the theoretical big bang. Surely “something” had to preceed it correct? When then is it so hard to wrap your mind around that universe, and God, ALWAYS being here, without beginning or end? Again, time may only have meaning to you, because of your perspective, because your physical existence has a beginning and an end. We therefore have a very difficult time wrapping our minds around the infinite and eternal.
Everything that exists does not necessarily come from something else if it was always here with no beginning and no end. To suppose a beginning begets something was prior to that. The big bang theorizes that the entirety of all matter in the known universe was condensed into an impossibly small space before a great “bang”. Well then, within what did that impossibly dense mass exist? Within itself? The very idea of a first cause is a paradox! Hawking seems to be supposing that if it the universe was always here, perhaps it is God that just created the rules by which it behaves, and allowed life to spring forth. And I ask, what is so atheistic about that? Why is that so hard for you to imagine?
Right now, the universe has an age based upon our limited understanding of the universe. I am hopeful, and certain, that one day we will make discoveries that turn some of this dogma right on its head. And no such progress or discovery would eliminate the need for God.
[/quote]
Did you miss the part where I said it was an opinion? Most of the TP’s I am familiar with are. If they all turn out to be God-fearing Christians than I am happily wrong. I am not going to prove it because I cannot.
I am not arguing against null theory. I clarify what it means outside of physics. True, absolute nothingness does not exist, literally. Null theory does not mean existence from complete absence. It’s physical matter, energy, etc. present in a vacuum. That is very important difference.
Logically a regress cannot exist infinitely because it begs the question. While, God, matter or what not, can exist infinitely. A causal chain cannot, it becomes circular and illogical. And in fact there is not a single thing large or small that just is, it got there somehow. Find me one thing not caused.
