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.
You are free to look at it any way you want - but don't expect us to just follow unless you can provide some evidence to back up your point of view. And you haven't so far.
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... it's more rational to say "well, something couldn't have come from nothing, so something must have been created."? And where did this creator come from? You better not say from nothing, because that would - by your own admission - make your "perspective" and "worldview" irrational.
I don't understand your question. Please dumb it down for me.
You say that "nothing begins without a cause" is "very LOGICAL". Certainly, in our everyday life this seems to apply. You push a glass of water off the edge of the table and it falls and shatters. You go online, pay $12.99 and soon a pizza is delivered to your door. You press the brake pedal on your car and your vehicle slows down. Cause and effect.
The problem is that you try to apply this logic to the Big Bang. What caused it? What came before it? These are questions that don't make sense. Causality ("A caused B") requires temporal ordering ("A happened before B") which, in turn, requires time. And time is a property of the Universe itself.
Well, now you asking me to explain Einstein's theory of General Relativity.
Well, I used to be quite familiar with general relativity. It was required reading if I wanted to spend most of 2008 programming simulations of supermassive black holes. But you know, everyone gets rusty and you seem so well-versed, I just couldn't resist.
There are far more competent and inform sources that can do that.
Of that, there can be little doubt.
Suffice to say that there is no matter without time.
You specifically said that "according to Einstein all time is relative to matter". That wasn't accurate, and neither is this statement. Can you elaborate? What do you mean? Would you, perhaps, like
me to explain general relativity to you?
Yes, there is. Time is a creation.
Objection - assumes facts not in evidence. You haven't
proven that time is a creation. You've only asserted that it is, and assertions are meaningless.
It didn't always exist.
Maybe. Then again, maybe not.
It started, according to science, 13.7 billion years ago.
Well, that's not quite accurate.
Again, these are concepts that not everyone can understand or comprehend.
You must be speaking from personal experience.
Because it is something you cannot comprehend it will not deter me in the least.
Forgive me. I am a scientist and I like to use words correctly so that they make sense.
Having a belief has implications.
That's true.
When you say being an atheist means that they don't believe in a creator it doesn't stop there.
I said that " An atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of deities." I said nothing about a "creator".
It follows that if there wasn't a creator how did the universe come to be?
How did the Universes' creator come to be?
If it didn't just come from nothing -- just alays was even though science has established a beginning -- then why are we here?
Was the creator always here?
Perhaps you can start a thread explaining this.
I leave the creation of such threads to people like you, who posit the existence of a creator they can't prove by labelling the Universe a "creation."
Sure:
This answers nothing, and repasting it won't make it more convincing. I asked you to explain the major discrepancy in your theory: namely, that you claim the Universe can't be uncaused but God (or, "the creator" if you prefer) can be. If you can't, then just say so.
I'll highlight one portion. You write:
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"..
I've already explained why causality breaks down, but you refuse to understand. Still, let's move on. You suggest that the presence of what you label a creation implies a creator. Let's assume that it does. I posit, using the same arguments that you do, that the presence of a creator implies the existence of a pre-creator, who created the creator. And that, in turn, the existence of a pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-creator. And a pre-pre-pre-pre-creator. And so on. Ad infinitum.
I claim that this infinite regress proves your statement to be bunk. If you disagree, then I challenge you to break the infinite regress and proving that a creator is causeless.
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.
The reason why you only made a reference to a creator was because you wanted to avoid having to justify the religious underpinning of your theory. So you coated it liberally in sciencey words.