In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?

[pellius]

Huh? einstein's theories don't have a calculation for outside time and space, what you are saying is non-sensical, all that exists, exists within time and space.

That's right. Einstein doesn't. That's why nothing was said about "calculations outside of time and space". Don't know why you find this nonsensical.

Your argument has logical failings, being uncaused would mean outside of time, this would then mean he is eternal. If he is eternal, how can he act? time is missing? action is temporal, you are mixing premises up and making some really bold claims.

I don't know why being eternal negates action. Do you have any scientific backing for this claim?

[pellius]

I went shopping for a few things last night and this young guy walks up to me and asks if I had heard of God the Mother. I said are you referring to Mary? and he sais no the Bible says that God is both male and female since he created both. I didn't want to hear it and asked what church he belonged to but he said just a few minutes and he' show me. So, go through a few passages and I'd counter each point he made as an misinterpretation, After a bit he got mad and walks off and each isle I went down he would turn back around and go the other way. As I was leaving I saw him at the front entrance but the people he tried to stop blew him off. When I got home later I looked some of it up and saw this on you tube..

Sad as hell.. Religion can really ruin a person's life if they don't have a strong mind to think for themselves..

SERIOUSLY! I ran into the exact same type preaching the Father/Mother interpretation of the Bible! Was he Korean? What State do you live in?

We had a fascinating and provocative conversation and he made some compelling arguments. I asked him if I could have some of his pamphlets and brochures. I asked him for his number and gave him mine. He was open enough with me to answer my questions regarding how he went from Korea to Hawaii and being a Pastor of his church. Really interesting life.

It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and he really lifted my spirits and inspired me.

[OB1]

Ice actually floats, it doesn't sink to the bottom.

Exactly.
This is also because of gravity which you don't exactly have in higher dimensions.

Anyway as you correctly pointed out the analogy seems to be flawed.
Nevertheless I couldn't come up with a better one at this point.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this matter.

[Al Doggity]

No personal qualities in regard to purpose, motivation or intent is given, or was intended to be given in this context. Just a Creator. A First Cause. Qualities attributed to this Creator is a separate issue.

I would replace "you have to accept" with "therefore it follows" and eliminate "there was an event that precipitated the beginning and that that event is".

The Creator is not an event. Since there was a clear beginning there must have been a "beginner".

Alright. I asked you that question because I wanted to be sure of where you were coming from before I committed a response to this thread. I planned on just responding to the science aspects (I don't think that "if there was a big bang, there must have been a big banger" is a logical conclusion), but as I re-read your opening post, I'm wondering if your point is just to lay out an argument that has some semblance of logic? Something that could feasibly have happened as opposed to something you actually believe?

Because you posted this:

It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were  raised on.

 The rationalizations that you present in this thread obviously aren't shared by most Christians. They actually seem pretty antithetical to what most Christians profess to believe. And the simple fact is that most people who belong to organized religions don't apply any type of scientific standards to quantify their faith. So, once again, I'm a little confused. I'm not sure if you're looking for a debate on the merits of your "big banger" theory and whether or not there's a stronger, more likely argument or if  you're just saying that it is possible to make a rational argument regardless of whether or not it is convincing?

[Man of Steel]

You are no more of a representative of Christ than anyone else who has ever read the bible as you have not been specifically elected to speak on behalf of him, and given that you claimed to be unable to comprehend the divinity of God, i'd argue that you'd make a pretty poor representative anyway.
  
Furthermore, it would appear that you aren't even aware of what it is that you are arguing for; you have posted in a thread titled "Can a rational argument be made for a creator?" and made the claim that "God has always existed", with your reasoning being that he transcends time and space...you are arguing for the existence of a creator. In addition to claiming that god exists, you have also failed to give any sort of coherent reason as to why he stands outside of time; simply hypothesising that the reason he does is because he's timeless,  then conceding that you're ignorant as to what this means...but it's still true. Sounds like word salad to me.

No, I'm absolutely a representative of Christ.  I go forth and spread the good news and represent him in all I do as outlined in scripture.

Again, I just discussed God's relationship to time and space.  That's what interested me in the thread.   Not here to prove anything to anyone anymore.  I share my faith and given reasons for the hope in me.  If folks don't like that fine....move on and give someone else a chance to get saved.

Those that desire to know God contact me privately...that's what matters.

[da_vinci]

I spent a lot of time and effort in a sincere and genuine debate in our last discussion only to realized that it was all a waste of time. You simply refuse to answer a simple question.

And post like this, and all this "we are the universe", "there is no such thing as time"... is more suited to be discussed inside a Volkswagon Van in a high school parking lot with a bong pipe being passed around.

I want to have a serious discussion and within the confines of modern day science and not be distracted and lead astray and once again have my time and effort wasted.

It got lost in the big thread, we left off on the idea about the care for older people. I know you are convinced otherwise, but if money would be removed from the equation - most old ppl who are taken care by, would die in the streets, like animals....that we are.

Regarding serious discussion - you underemphasize what I've just said: Seemingly very complex stuff can arise from very simple stuff. That is science, that is math and it is proven. Thus - there's no need for some superpower/god/etc... to create any of this that you see and experience. This scenario by any kind of logic and scientific explanation is a lot more likely than some super complex, super being, that appeared out of nowhere, just to create the universe, simple as that.

[pellius]

Alright. I asked you that question because I wanted to be sure of where you were coming from before I committed a response to this thread. I planned on just responding to the science aspects (I don't think that "if there was a big bang, there must have been a big banger" is a logical conclusion), but as I re-read your opening post, I'm wondering if your point is just to lay out an argument that has some semblance of logic? Something that could feasibly have happened as opposed to something you actually believe?

Because you posted this:

 The rationalizations that you present in this thread obviously aren't shared by most Christians. They actually seem pretty antithetical to what most Christians profess to believe. And the simple fact is that most people who belong to organized religions don't apply any type of scientific standards to quantify their faith. So, once again, I'm a little confused. I'm not sure if you're looking for a debate on the merits of your "big banger" theory and whether or not there's a stronger, more likely argument or if  you're just saying that it is possible to make a rational argument regardless of whether or not it is convincing?

There was no intention of addressing the religious aspect, Christian or otherwise. In fact, I was careful not even to mention God but only a Creator. A Creator connotes a very specific role. One that creates. A God has many meanings to many people. I wanted to avoid that.

My intention was to make a rational argument based on modern science to argue for the existence of a Creator. Both to show that it can be done and also to show that it is a valid argument.

If anyone as any issue with any one of the specific arguments I made I welcome challenge. But it is not enough to say, "it's not logical" you have to say why. Just as I did. When I say that since there was a Big Bang there had to be a "Big Banger" I am appealing to the universally accepted law of causality. It's not something I'm just making up. If you reject the law of causality then you reject logic and a well known and accepted principle. The principle of causality.

[Necrosis]

That's right. Einstein doesn't. That's why nothing was said about "calculations outside of time and space". Don't know why you find this nonsensical.

I don't know why being eternal negates action. Do you have any scientific backing for this claim?

You said something existing outside of space and time created space and time, you realize this statement makes absolutely no sense, as nothing can exist outside of space and time by definition. How could you even assert such a thing as if it's scientific? the inferences you are making from his theories are not fact but conjecture, you are then passing it off as if this is common knowledge.

Well, eternity would mean timeless, if there is no time, how can one act? You can't have it both ways. No scientific backing needed as eternity is not a scientific concept that is testable as we are in time. Your argument is philosophical, not scientific, not even one bit.

[OB1]

You said something existing outside of space and time created space and time, you realize this statement makes absolutely no sense, as nothing can exist outside of space and time by definition. How could you even assert such a thing as if it's scientific? the inferences you are making from his theories are not fact but conjecture, you are then passing it off as if this is common knowledge.

Well, eternity would mean timeless, if there is no time, how can one act? You can't have it both ways. No scientific backing needed as eternity is not a scientific concept that is testable as we are in time. Your argument is philosophical, not scientific, not even one bit.

Agreed.

[bigmc]

there is no god

just our own in built fear of mortality

belief is the weak mans coping mechanism for death

[Necrosis]

There was no intention of addressing the religious aspect, Christian or otherwise. In fact, I was careful not even to mention God but only a Creator. A Creator connotes a very specific role. One that creates. A God has many meanings to many people. I wanted to avoid that.

My intention was to make a rational argument based on modern science to argue for the existence of a Creator. Both to show that it can be done and also to show that it is a valid argument.

If anyone as any issue with any one of the specific arguments I made I welcome challenge. But it is not enough to say, "it's not logical" you have to say why. Just as I did. When I say that since there was a Big Bang there had to be a "Big Banger" I am appealing to the universally accepted law of causality. It's not something I'm just making up. If you reject the law of causality then you reject logic and a well known and accepted principle. The principle of causality.

What logical or scientific argument have you made though? just saying einstein a few times doesn't mean it's true. You can't appeal to the law of causality and then break the law when it suits you? So the law of causality proves there is a god because there would be an infinite regress? god being eternal sidesteps the law (nice logic, we have a law, that is broken..... law that is broken......) and you believe this is logical or scientific? it's neither.

Things fall due to the law of gravity, "but what started the falling" a big faller they say, he doesn't fall, so he started all the other falling.

The big bang was not a creation, it was an expansion of space time from a point of infinite density and mass called the singularity, you have your facts wrong.

[OB1]

belief is the weak mans coping mechanism for death

...or in some cases for life even.

[avxo]

It's a Friday night... I'll play.

Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith.

Not quite the same

Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.

This is partially true.

Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause.  Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.

Aquinas wasn't unintelligent, but even if were to accept his argument at face value, it tells us nothing about this "unmoved mover". If we look at the argument with a critical eye, then we see that it simply doesn't even stand up to rational scrutiny; it's fundametally flawed: it starts by claiming that everything requires a cause, therefore necessitating a first cause, which it goes on to argue, must be uncaused. In other words contradicts its own premise.

But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god. Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.

So, first thing first: time is a property of the Universe. When you speak of "beginnings" you are implying temporal and causal relationships and it's unclear how such relationships can be understood outside of time. If you think that it's clear, I look forward to hearing your explanation

Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..

"Nothing begins without a cause" may be "very LOGICAL" to you and I in our everyday life, but it's certainly not "very LOGICAL" to claim that it applies to the Big Bang. If you think that isn't true, then please explain the theoretical framework under which you extend temporal causality and establish a total order of events outside of space-time.

But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.

Can you explain what you mean that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter" just so we're both on the same page? Thanks.

So there is no time before the Big Bang.

If there is no time, there is no "before".

But say there is time before the Big Bang

Please stop using term like "before" incoherently.

So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing.

Except believing that everything comes from nothing isn't a requirement for atheists. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities.

It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.

So... explain to me again why the Universe can't be uncaused but God can be?

Again, this is not meant to change anybody's mind or convert anybody though I do welcome any challenges to my SPECIFIC arguments and to my line of reasoning and the conclusions thereof. It is to dispute the notion that those who believe in God rely simply on just blind faith and wishful thinking. That we are just mindless drones believing in fairy tales that we were  raised on. Also, I just touch on one aspect of the existence of a Creator. The First Cause aspect. There is more. God's fingerprints are all around us. If time and motivation is there I might present my case for that as well. The case not just for a Creator but for a God.

If you do not rely on blind faith and wishful thinking, then you should be readily able to offer a description of the attributes of your God that will allow me to distinguish him from nothing at all?

The reason these issues are so important is that what  you believe, how you got here, is there any eternal accountability, determines your perspective on life and your perspective on life determines how you will ultimately behave. Not so much day to day, but that as well, but when you are morally challenged. It's one thing not to steal when you are rich and can have anything this world has to offer. It's quite another when you're not and really, really want something and can get away with just taking it.

Is your premise that morality can only come from God?

[Al Doggity]

My intention was to makee to argue for the existence of a Creator. Both to show that it can be done and also to show that it is a valid argument.

If anyone as any issue with any one of the specific arguments I made I welcome challenge.

Ok- just wanted to get that clarified. I was initially going to respond completely differently.

Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.

Necrosis already pointed this out, but the big bang was not the creation of ALL MATTER. It was the creation of the universe. Two different things. One could make the argument that time as we are able to measure and observe it began with the big bang, but that's more an issue of special relativity. It's not the actual beginning of time.


There were a couple different directions that I thought you might have been going in. I thought this could either be a really interesting physics thread or a really boring religion thread. But in terms of pure science, your basic premise is really off. Matter existed before the big bang and so did time and events. This particular argument is not a rational argument for a creator.

[johnnynoname]

Sad as hell.. Religion can really ruin a person's life if they don't have a strong mind to think for themselves..

absolutely

but I make this point again---you don't need religion to have "God"

I still don't get why people can't remove those two entities from themselves.......they ARE NOT mutually exclusive

[10pints]

Whoa! Huge shift from the original challenge. So do you concede that one can believe in a creator by using rational and science based reason? I already admitted to you that I am ill equip to deal with all the issues involved in believing in a Christian God. I am not a Biblical scholar. I thought I made that clear.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a Christian. I was not asking you to explain the bible, just your reasoning regarding subscription to Christianity, as opposed to other religious options, if indeed you were a Christian.

In relation to the use of rational and science based arguments to justify a belief in a creator, I believe the first cause argument stems from the empirical nature of the world of the senses. The world of sensual phenomena requires matter, space and time. However, in the world of noumena, these sensible prerequisites do not exist, as as such, neither does the need for a prime mover, or first cause.

Indeed, the very presence of a noumenal element to human existence, indicates to me, that we simultaneously exist outside of matter, space and time. I would go so far as to say that; consciousness has a quantum mechanism of action, and our physical selves have evolved the apparatus to receive this quantum transmission. If you are interested in this, you can research Roger Penroses' OR theory. I should add, that his theory is not widely accepted in the scientific community.

In conclusion, I do not believe the arguments you have presented are scientific, and the Aquinian rational that you are relying on is antediluvian, to say the least. Regardless of our differing opinions, I thank you for taking the time to articulate your position.

[da_vinci]

absolutely

but I make this point again---you don't need religion to have "God"

I still don't get why people can't remove those two entities from themselves.......they ARE NOT mutually exclusive

What is "god" without a religion? What defines "a way to believe" in any god if there's no religious doctrine? Just simple belief that "it exists"? That just doesn't make sense in that case..

[Man of Steel]

Ah so this is why the thread stopped.....it's on MOS turf LOL!!!

[pellius]

there is no god

just our own in built fear of mortality

belief is the weak mans coping mechanism for death

You are just stating a belief on personal opinion. I present rational arguments based on modern science. If you can address any specific argument, like necrosis did (I will respond to him but it's much more involved), I am all ears. Other than that your comment is worth just as much as the guy ranting on the street corner.

[pellius]

Ah so this is why the thread stopped.....it's on MOS turf LOL!!!

Not yet. I still have a ton of posts to reply to and it's a lot of work and will take some time to get to.

I'm very glad and grateful that it has been kept civil and has stimulated thought and provocative conversation.

[pellius]

You said something existing outside of space and time created space and time, you realize this statement makes absolutely no sense, as nothing can exist outside of space and time by definition. How could you even assert such a thing as if it's scientific? the inferences you are making from his theories are not fact but conjecture, you are then passing it off as if this is common knowledge.

And here is where the mutual frustration begins. This is also an example where I believe it is not intelligence that is the deciding factor but perspective and world view.

To me it makes perfect sense. It's been established by science that the universe, time and matter, had a beginning. The law of causality states that something, which is time and matter, has to have a cause. A cause that exist outside of time and matter.

We are at an impasse.

Well, eternity would mean timeless, if there is no time, how can one act? You can't have it both ways. No scientific backing needed as eternity is not a scientific concept that is testable as we are in time. Your argument is philosophical, not scientific, not even one bit.

Again we see things from an entirely different perspective. You consider eternity to be timeless in the sense that there is no time. I consider eternity to endless time. Like numbers, it goes on forever.

BTW, I don't recall off the top of my head where I made any reference at all to eternity. Can you quote me where I have?

I know you are frustrated and even angry. I use to get that way. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. Disagreement will always be there. We just have to live it.

[pellius]

What logical or scientific argument have you made though? just saying einstein a few times doesn't mean it's true. You can't appeal to the law of causality and then break the law when it suits you? So the law of causality proves there is a god because there would be an infinite regress? god being eternal sidesteps the law (nice logic, we have a law, that is broken..... law that is broken......) and you believe this is logical or scientific? it's neither.

It gratuitously diminishes my post by saying I'm just "saying" Einstein therefore it's scientific. I reference his General Theory of Relativity and it's implications regarding matter and time.

I didn't break the law of causality. I made no attempt to prove the existence of God. To call something a Creator is very specific. To call something a God opens a Pandora's box.

The Creator isn't a side step to the law of causality because a Creator exist outside of time.

Things fall due to the law of gravity, "but what started the falling" a big faller they say, he doesn't fall, so he started all the other falling.

The big bang was not a creation, it was an expansion of space time from a point of infinite density and mass called the singularity, you have your facts wrong.

I simply disagree. The Big Bang was a creation. It could have started as a singularity just as an explosion started out as a grenade. It still begs the question who made the grenade, who started the singularity?

I don't why you think it's more rational that a singularity always existed but not a Creator. That's why these eventually come to matters of faith. Neither can be proven but one can use his knowledge and intelligence to determine what makes more sense. I appeal to the scientifically accepted belief that nothing moves without a reason.

Perhaps you can write a post showing how something came from nothing based on modern science.

Will you do it?

[pellius]

It's a Friday night... I'll play.

Not quite the same

As I mentioned before, it's not enough to disagree. You have to explain why. Why not the same?

Aquinas wasn't unintelligent, but even if were to accept his argument at face value, it tells us nothing about this "unmoved mover". If we look at the argument with a critical eye, then we see that it simply doesn't even stand up to rational scrutiny; it's fundametally flawed: it starts by claiming that everything requires a cause, therefore necessitating a first cause, which it goes on to argue, must be uncaused. In other words contradicts its own premise.

Only within the context of the beginning of the universe. The beginning of matter and time. Which has been established at being 13.7 billion years ago. The Creator exist outside of matter and time. Many people have difficulty comprehending that and I understand why. I don't. I look at time, space and matter as a creation.

The only other alternative is that something came from nothing. And that very well might be true. I can't prove otherwise. I just believe my argument for a creator is more rational. The idea that something comes from nothing to me, my perspective, my worldview, is not rational.

So, first thing first: time is a property of the Universe. When you speak of "beginnings" you are implying temporal and causal relationships and it's unclear how such relationships can be understood outside of time. If you think that it's clear, I look forward to hearing your explanation.

I just did.

"Nothing begins without a cause" may be "very LOGICAL" to you and I in our everyday life, but it's certainly not "very LOGICAL" to claim that it applies to the Big Bang. If you think that isn't true, then please explain the theoretical framework under which you extend temporal causality and establish a total order of events outside of space-time.

I don't understand your question. Please dumb it down for me.

Can you explain what you mean that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter" just so we're both on the same page? Thanks.

Well, now you asking me to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity. There are far more competent and inform sources that can do that. Suffice to say that there is no matter without time.

If there is no time, there is no "before".

Yes, there is. Time is a creation. It didn't always exist. It started, according to science, 13.7 billion years ago. Again, these are concepts that not everyone can understand or comprehend.

Please stop using term like "before" incoherently.

Because it is something you cannot comprehend it will not deter me in the least.

Except believing that everything comes from nothing isn't a requirement for atheists. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities.

Having a belief has implications. When you say being an atheist means that they don't believe in a creator it doesn't stop there. It follows that if there wasn't a creator how did the universe come to be? If it didn't just come from nothing -- just always was even though science has established a beginning -- then why are we here? Perhaps you can start a thread explaining this.

So... explain to me again why the Universe can't be uncaused but God can be?

Sure:

Belief in a Creator of the universe and the belief that the universe came out of nothing, i.e, first there was nothing: no space, no time and then bang, a Big Bang; is both a matter of faith. Which side you choose doesn't necessarily have to do with intelligence. There are smart people and stupid on both sides. It is your perspective, your world view, that partly determines this.

I find it curious that a Theist does not consider an Atheist as stupid but simply wrong. Of course an Atheist will argue that their belief is based on reason, evidence and rational argument whereas a Theist's belief is based on blind faith, emotion and up bringing.

I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.

Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause.  Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.

But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his god.

Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.

And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.

Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..

But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.

So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.

So it is not just the theist that requires faith, it is also the atheist that requires faith. It takes faith to believe that everything comes from nothing. It took reason, as I had just outlined here, that everything created came from a Creator. God.

 

If you do not rely on blind faith and wishful thinking, then you should be readily able to offer a description of the attributes of your God that will allow me to distinguish him from nothing at all?

There is a reason why I only made reference to a Creator. Calling something a Creator is very specific. Referring to a God opens a Pandora's box. Something I did not want to do.

Is your premise that morality can only come from God?

No.

[pellius]

Ok- just wanted to get that clarified. I was initially going to respond completely differently.

Necrosis already pointed this out, but the big bang was not the creation of ALL MATTER. It was the creation of the universe. Two different things. One could make the argument that time as we are able to measure and observe it began with the big bang, but that's more an issue of special relativity. It's not the actual beginning of time.

Well, science disagrees. All time and matter started with the Big Bang 13.7 years. Now, as string theory suggests, and as I addressed in my original post, there could have been billions of Big Bangs preceding ours. But that still begs the question, what cause these?

And actually it's, I believe, an issue of General Relativity. Special Relativity addressed time and space and why the speed of light is the "highway limit".

There were a couple different directions that I thought you might have been going in. I thought this could either be a really interesting physics thread or a really boring religion thread. But in terms of pure science, your basic premise is really off. Matter existed before the big bang and so did time and events. This particular argument is not a rational argument for a creator.

Again, science disagrees with you. The was no time or matter before the Big Bang. Otherwise science could not have establish a "beginning" of the Big Bang 13.7 billions years ago.

[pellius]

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were a Christian. I was not asking you to explain the bible, just your reasoning regarding subscription to Christianity, as opposed to other religious options, if indeed you were a Christian.

In relation to the use of rational and science based arguments to justify a belief in a creator, I believe the first cause argument stems from the empirical nature of the world of the senses. The world of sensual phenomena requires matter, space and time. However, in the world of noumena, these sensible prerequisites do not exist, as as such, neither does the need for a prime mover, or first cause.

Indeed, the very presence of a noumenal element to human existence, indicates to me, that we simultaneously exist outside of matter, space and time. I would go so far as to say that; consciousness has a quantum mechanism of action, and our physical selves have evolved the apparatus to receive this quantum transmission. If you are interested in this, you can research Roger Penroses' OR theory. I should add, that his theory is not widely accepted in the scientific community.

In conclusion, I do not believe the arguments you have presented are scientific, and the Aquinian rational that you are relying on is antediluvian, to say the least. Regardless of our differing opinions, I thank you for taking the time to articulate your position.

I am a Christian but defending that is very laborious and addressed issues I myself can't answer: (Why is there evil in the world? Why do so often we find that good people suffer and bad people prosper? Why is the world so unjust and unfair). And of course, you simply can't talk Christianity without speaking of the Bible: Where did Cain get his wife? God asked Abraham to kill his own son just to prove his faith? So God wanted to show off to the Devil that he has some hardcore true believers that weren't just in for the Heaven angle and did so at Job's expense?...

This is a lot of work and I know it won't make a whit of difference.

This post is a perfect example. Every argument I made was based of science. To say that Aquinas very obvious observation that "things move" is antediluvian is mind boggling. Look around you. Movement in not an antiquated concept. Causality is not only a very well accepted scientific principle but common sense. And then to have you say that nothing I said was scientific.

You can disagree with my conclusion but to say it was not based on science is simply disingenuous.

Now how about you? Why don't you explain how the universe came to be based on modern, mainstream science? Let's compare your reasoning and presentation with mine.

It's all fine and good to say things like:

"the very presence of a noumenal element to human existence, indicates to me, that we simultaneously exist outside of matter, space and time."

 "consciousness has a quantum mechanism of action, and our physical selves have evolved the apparatus to receive this quantum transmission."

But that's just you theorizing and Kantian philosophizing. Nothing is based on any mainstream, modern, scientific principles.