If there was nothing before God created the universe then how do you explain this?

[umbrella39]

Can one completely believe the big bang theory, not believe in most of the Bible, but still believe in God?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Can one completely believe the big bang theory, not believe in most of the Bible, but still believe in God?

I do...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Can one completely believe the big bang theory, not believe in most of the Bible, but still believe in God?

Anything logically coherent and consistent is logically possible. If it conflicts with some supposed fact in reality then one must consider his degree of confidence in the putative fact and weigh it against his confidence in his other a priori beliefs.

As best as I can discern, your suggestion about the Big Bang and god is logically possible and does not necessarily conflict with any fact in reality.

 

[umbrella39]

Anything logically coherent and consistent is logically possible. If it conflicts with some supposed fact in reality then one must consider his degree of confidence in the putative fact and weigh it against his confidence in his other a priori beliefs.

As best as I can discern, your suggestion about the Big Bang and god is logically possible and does not necessarily conflict with any fact in reality.

Thank you for your replies gentlemen...

I was born and raised a Catholic and despite 3 different science degrees and the feeling that I should somehow know better.. I still believe in God. Perhaps no longer the God I was taught to believe in but one that I can try to convince myself I have made sense of now. If I am to deny the Bible and believe that everything that there ever was and ever will be in this vast expanse started out as an infinitesimally small singularity billions of years ago and is still expanding to this day.. I had to come up with my own version of how these two things could somehow exist together and not be an either or. I am sure there is a part of me that feels like I am just bullshitting myself and trying to keep the door open for when I DO die… Juuuust In Case… I don’t want to be a doubter on that day. I have also evolved in how I feel regarding those who don’t believe in God. I was taught they don’t go to Heaven. I don’t believe that today. I feel that if someone has been mostly a good person and are sorry for the bad things they have done in their lives, they will go. My religious upbringing may be too ingrained to even entertain that some great being didn’t have a hand in all of this. As someone who wholeheartedly accepts the theory of how the Universe was created… again, I still believe in God. This should not have to be a contradiction…. I hope.

 

[snarfbot]

before the big bang there was nothing, no matter, antimatter whatever, no physical laws or logic, nothing in its most pure sense.

therefore when the universe just popped into existence in an event scientists call the big bang, it was not defying physics as we understand them, as they only exist within our universe.

thats why its so funny to me when people are so quick to dismiss god as the creator, in favor of science. when the event in question literally transcends physics.

makes ya think

 

[sandorski]

before the big bang there was nothing, no matter, antimatter whatever, no physical laws or logic, nothing in its most pure sense.

therefore when the universe just popped into existence in an event scientists call the big bang, it was not defying physics as we understand them, as they only exist within our universe.

thats why its so funny to me when people are so quick to dismiss god as the creator, in favor of science. when the event in question literally transcends physics.

makes ya think

You do not and can not Know this.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Thank you for your replies gentlemen...

I was born and raised a Catholic and despite 3 different science degrees and the feeling that I should somehow know better.. I still believe in God. Perhaps no longer the God I was taught to believe in but one that I can try to convince myself I have made sense of now. If I am to deny the Bible and believe that everything that there ever was and ever will be in this vast expanse started out as an infinitesimally small singularity billions of years ago and is still expanding to this day.. I had to come up with my own version of how these two things could somehow exist together and not be an either or. I am sure there is a part of me that feels like I am just bullshitting myself and trying to keep the door open for when I DO die… Juuuust In Case… I don’t want to be a doubter on that day. I have also evolved in how I feel those who don’t believe in God. I was taught they don’t go to Heaven. I don’t believe that today. I feel that if someone has been mostly a good person and are sorry for the bad things they have done in their lives, they will go. My religious upbringing may be too ingrained to even entertain that some great being didn’t have a hand in all of this. As someone who wholeheartedly accepts the theory of how the Universe was created… again, I still believe in God. This should not have to be a contradiction…. I hope.

It is from this stark face-to-face with the brute facts that you are now free to have faith, if you like.

It's like marriage, you can marry anyone who agrees. There's no magic to marriage, there's a choice to stay with one person and allow that person so into your life that it enhances the meaning you find in everything.

Similarly, you can accept any faith that will let you in. There's no magic to faith, there's a choice to stay with one group of people and allow that group so into your life that it enhances the meaning you find in everything.

I'm a Christian, a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. We work toward social justice and against bigotry against women, minorities, and homosexuals. We do good for the poor and help lift them up.

Despite this, I know that Christianity was in part invented by Paul as an upgraded version of Mithraism.

I also know MLK Jr. struggled with the same issues, and still took from Christ, and with full faith in Christ, made the world a better place:

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/influence-mystery-religions-christianity

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

before the big bang there was nothing, no matter, antimatter whatever, no physical laws or logic, nothing in its most pure sense.

What do you think the "sense of nothing" is? In what way do you think it is coherent to speak of "nothing existing"?

 

[snarfbot]

What do you think the "sense of nothing" is? In what way do you think it is coherent to speak of "nothing existing"?

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic or you just can't read very well. Maybe both. "Sense of nothing" wasn't even part of my message, which you quoted so you should know. My statement was; "in the purest sense" in this usage "sense" means meaning as opposed to feeling. Feel free to replace it with the word "form" in your mind if it helps you understand.

Your second sentence is even worse. It's an unusual use of the word "incoherent" for one (which would probably be better applied to describing your thought process), secondly it's accusatory as though it's somehow implicitly incoherent to think or talk about "nothing existing", which is of course another phrase not used in my message, that you responded to and quoted but you put in quotations anyway, as if to attribute to me. Strange.

You do not and can not Know this.

Is this the entirely of your argument? Physicists seem to generally agree on this one. In fact the word before is sort of meaningless in this context as before the big bang there was no time which also got started in the big bang. So absolute nothingness. Of course one can never know for sure, even if you built a time machine....

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic or you just can't read very well. Maybe both. "Sense of nothing" wasn't even part of my message, which you quoted so you should know. My statement was; "in the purest sense" in this usage "sense" means meaning as opposed to feeling. Feel free to replace it with the word "form" in your mind if it helps you understand.

HI Snarf!

Do notice that his question "what do you think the 'form of nothing' is? Still applies.

Now I read you as saying "before the big bang there was nothing, no matter, antimatter whatever, no physical laws or logic, nothing in its most pure sense [of the word; that is: the most central core of what one aims at when speaking the word]"

Am I off here?

 

[sandorski]

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic or you just can't read very well. Maybe both. "Sense of nothing" wasn't even part of my message, which you quoted so you should know. My statement was; "in the purest sense" in this usage "sense" means meaning as opposed to feeling. Feel free to replace it with the word "form" in your mind if it helps you understand.

Your second sentence is even worse. It's an unusual use of the word "incoherent" for one (which would probably be better applied to describing your thought process), secondly it's accusatory as though it's somehow implicitly incoherent to think or talk about "nothing existing", which is of course another phrase not used in my message, that you responded to and quoted but you put in quotations anyway, as if to attribute to me. Strange.



Is this the entirely of your argument? Physicists seem to generally agree on this one. In fact the word before is sort of meaningless in this context as before the big bang there was no time which also got started in the big bang. So absolute nothingness. Of course one can never know for sure, even if you built a time machine....

It is the entirety of my argument. No, Physicists do not agree with your assessment. They, like my argument, understand that they simply do not Know what was before the Big Bang. Your argument doesn't even make sense if you think a God made the Universe. By necessity a god must be something.

 

[snarfbot]

It is the entirety of my argument. No, Physicists do not agree with your assessment. They, like my argument, understand that they simply do not Know what was before the Big Bang. Your argument doesn't even make sense if you think a God made the Universe. By necessity a god must be something.

So now you're being pedantic; since a god is something my arguments are invalid right? That's your counter?

 

[sandorski]

So now you're being pedantic; since a god is something my arguments are invalid right? That's your counter?

No, that's a separate point. A valid one though. You, or anyone, has no basis upon which to state what existed prior to the Big Bang.

 

[snarfbot]

HI Snarf!

Do notice that his question "what do you think the 'form of nothing' is? Still applies.

Now I read you as saying "before the big bang there was nothing, no matter, antimatter whatever, no physical laws or logic, nothing in its most pure sense [of the word; that is: the most central core of what one aims at when speaking the word]"

Am I off here?

I don't think it's applicable no. I contemplated responding to it but thought it would further detail the conversation.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

No, that's a separate point. A valid one though. You, or anyone, has no basis upon which to state what existed prior to the Big Bang.

Or what did not...

And given epistemological uncertainty, what remains for the strong atheist or strong theist (that is, the gnostic of any kind) seems to be a simple desire for Gnosticism.

As far as I can tell, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists are the only ones being intellectually honest. No matter how truely and deeply I have felt the presence of God.

 

[snarfbot]

Or what did not...

And given epistemological uncertainty, what remains for the strong atheist or strong theist (that is, the gnostic of any kind) seems to be a simple desire for Gnosticism.

As far as I can tell, agnostic theists and agnostic atheists are the only ones being intellectually honest. No matter how truely and deeply I have felt the presence of God.

I like this, it's the sort of philosophical arguments that the thread needs. That said, while you said the honest position to hold was that of agnosticism, wouldn't that also be the only position that is definitely incorrect? It's the middle really, the safe position. Truth is at the extremes.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I like this, it's the sort of philosophical arguments that the thread needs. That said, while you said the honest position to hold was that of agnosticism, wouldn't that also be the only position that is definitely incorrect? It's the middle really, the safe position. Truth is at the extremes.

Yes: I feel that honesty demands my epistemic humility. No doubt the truth is actually much more complex than we can comprehend...

I live my life as though I'm a Gnostic, experiencing the down-pouring of grace in communion, being filled with joy during worship, and the up welling of the Holy Spirit when it seeks to work through me.

And yet, I must be honest with myself: I do not KNOW.

I do know I agree with Hume's disproof of the naturalistic proofs of God:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#CosArgGodNecExi

Which, by extension, shows me that my naturalistic observations of divinity are also not proof.

 

[dank69]

I agree that God/Higher power created life too, but you're not gonna make much headway here, particularly with last paragraph.

You're gonna be stupid/ignorant of evolution/"painting the target around the arrow"/an incredulous fool etc, as soon as Slerpin Wax reads your posts.

Just a warning.

What's the difference between P&N and DC? Apparently nothing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not sure if you're being pedantic or you just can't read very well. Maybe both. "Sense of nothing" wasn't even part of my message, which you quoted so you should know. My statement was; "in the purest sense" in this usage "sense" means meaning as opposed to feeling. Feel free to replace it with the word "form" in your mind if it helps you understand.

What im getting from this is that you do not have answers to my questions. That was why I asked them, in fact, so your validation is appreciated. You don't know what you're talking about.

Your second sentence is even worse. It's an unusual use of the word "incoherent" for one (which would probably be better applied to describing your thought process), secondly it's accusatory as though it's somehow implicitly incoherent to think or talk about "nothing existing", which is of course another phrase not used in my message, that you responded to and quoted but you put in quotations anyway, as if to attribute to me. Strange.

You're the one that said nothing existed. I don't find that statement to be coherent. That's why I asked. You didn't answer because you are afraid to admit you're just bullshitting.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

That's why I asked. You didn't answer because you are afraid to admit you're just bullshitting.

"is nothing" is an incoherent statement ontologically speaking; but, if Zizek's reading of Hegel is correct, is the very essence of meaning - that is, when an ontological category of being fails deliver on the promise of being most fundamental is precisely when that category rises out of that failure, firmly established as primary. That is, because, as you rightly point out, "is nothing" is an incoherent statement which leads to encountering incoherence when an ontological category comes to it's place of being-nothing, in that place the incoherence of is-nothing is rejected and thus the epistemological status of that category arises. In this way Zizek argues that Christianity is an Atheistic religion, literally killing God, out of which Godhood arises: thus enabling a Hegelian-historical form of predestination - a person was never predestined until they are, at which point they always were; a predestination only revealed in seeing one's self fall from predestined grace.

I mean... I think 1000 pages is a LOT to devote to "the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"; but who am I to say?

I also don't know what I'm talking about, no doubt there's some nuance that makes all the difference that I'm missing (thus why my note to you here) I just read a few books...

 

[snarfbot]

What im getting from this is that you do not have answers to my questions. That was why I asked them, in fact, so your validation is appreciated. You don't know what you're talking about.


You're the one that said nothing existed. I don't find that statement to be coherent. That's why I asked. You didn't answer because you are afraid to admit you're just bullshitting.

stop quoting me with your nonsensical replies please, youre out of your element.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

stop quoting me with your nonsensical replies please, youre out of your element.

Thank you for confirming my points by demonstrating that you are unable to provide any rational counterarugment.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"is nothing" is an incoherent statement ontologically speaking; but, if Zizek's reading of Hegel is correct, is the very essence of meaning - that is, when an ontological category of being fails deliver on the promise of being most fundamental is precisely when that category rises out of that failure, firmly established as primary.

I agree insofar as meaning is more ontogically primary than phenomenal reality, so where all phenomenal reality is disregarded, all that remains must be meaning. However, in cosmological physical terms, there can be no state where there is no thing, because states supervene on things.That's all I'm really arguing at this point.

 

[TeeJay1952]

The ole supervene argument again?

 

[Yakk]

GOD: "Let there be light"

Chuck Norris : "Say Please!"