mattdamore

I don't even believe that Ross sides with the view that God organized already existing matter in the formation of the universe. I believe he adheres to the ex nihilo interpretation, which is why I saw the inconsistent explanation made by fishbulb when he was using the actual latin of the phrase and applying it to the action of God forming and organizing the matter to suit his will regarding the formation of the universe and drawing some illicit equivalency.

Mike

Who's Hugh Ross? Never heard of him. But my comments weren't simply my own thoughts. Science recognizes that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I believe this as well, and I believe that in the form of either matter or energy all that is in the universe and beyond it must therefore have always existed in some form or other however small or large. Both God and the universe are eternal this is true whether you believe that the universe came from God and is thus another manifestation of His eternal nature, or whether you (Theo) believe that the universe co-exists eternally with God.

The atheists here on the otherhand believe in a universe that has not always existed in its present form, but that the raw material and/or the impetus for its development must have always existed, be it in the form of a singularity or--wait, that's not on the other hand it is on the same hand--we're just using different terms: singularity=the universe contained in unity or in one phenomenon vs. God=the universe contained in unity or in one entity. As the bible says the Lord God is one God (or Unity or Singularity). Welcome to the strange place where science and religion agree.

mattdamore

First, what scientific law makes this true?
Second, the begs the question of whether or not God created ex nihilo.

What do you think of these quotes:
Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. This is because, as you go back in time, you reach a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."{1} Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.

and

For as Anthony Kenny of Oxford University urges, "A proponent of the big bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the . . . universe came from nothing and by nothing."{2}

1.Massimo Pigliucci, "God as a Falsifiable Hypothesis".

2. David Hilbert, "On the Infinite," in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Introduction by Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 139, 141.

fishbulb

I'm not quite sure I follow you. Have you interpreted what I wrote as support for the existence of a creator god? My point is that no credible reason has been given to support the idea that a god could exist without having been created but that the Universe couldn't. The point is that these are simply unsupported assertions; there are, as it were, no facts in evidence to discuss. At least not that I am aware of.

"Something cannot come from nothing" is not a fact nor is it data. It is a conclusion (or an assumption). We can conclude through induction that most things in the Universe did not just pop into existence spontaneously (nevertheless there do appear to be things that do exactly this) but rather are formed by some process. But to assume that what is (generally) true of parts of the Universe is true of the Universe as a whole is a classic textbook composition fallacy.

If god doesn't exist in the ordinary sense of the term, then it doesn't exist. Existence is a pretty binary thing: either something exists or it doesn't. It is nonsensical to talk about something existing outside of time or space. You might as well say that god is a flat cube; the words are meaningless. Now, it is possible that there are things that defy understanding and knowledge, but then we can't know they exist or understand them, rendering it meaningless to talk about them.

You've lost me. If you're suggesting that time had a beginning and so the universe has existed for a finite period of time, I have no argument with that view. Time is, after all, a function of the universe, and so coincides with it. A finite amount of time has passed since what we perceive as the beginning of the Universe and the Universe has been, by definition, in existence since the beginning of time.

I don't think that has anything to do with any argument that holds that the Universe had to have been created by a god which itself was not created by any other entity. There is simply no evidence to support this premise.

There is no evidence to refute the claim that an uncreated creator god could have created the universe, but there is also no evidence to support the claim that an uncreated creator god must have created, or at least did create, the Universe.

Hawkingfan

Are you joking with this nonsense? I really hope so. If you are not joking, then good luck finding an "acoustic element" in space where SOUND CANNOT TRAVEL (and therefore, not even be heard--been watching too much Star Wars?). And if you're not joking, please tell us what ground-breaking theories you have to explain the 100 Data Points of the Big Bang Theory starting with an explanation for the red-shifting of galaxies, an explanation for the cosmic background radiation, and an explanation for the nucleosynthesis of elements.

Hawkingfan

Who says that we are not able to create? It depends on what you're talking about. And if we can't create anything, who says that something had to create us? Why do you assume that if we cannot create, that god is able to? Just because I cannot create does not mean that god can. And it certainly doesn't mean god exists.
Ever hear of sexual reproduction? Ever hear of test-tube babies? Ever hear of an artist?

Hawkingfan

Unproved assertion.

Normal

I thought nucleosynthesis of elements comes mainly from stars and not the big bang itself.

Hawkingfan

Totally an unproved assertion for which there is no evidence.
Like hell we're just using the same terms. Could we say Allah=the universe contained in unity or in one entity? How about the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Yes, we can. But is it nessecary? Nope. Occam's Razor says uh-uh.
Welcome to the place where science and religion agree? What about the idiocy Christianity and Islam claiming to be scientific?

Hawkingfan

Read A Brief History of Time Chapter 10 (I think). But here at pbs.org in the Hawking section, Dr. Michio Kaku, Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics at the City University of New York mentions it in passing and actually refers to someone like Mike who pats himself on the back because they have criticized a theory:

"
It is always possible for a theory to be wrong. However, this means that we must come up with a better one, rather than just complaining!

For example, there are literally hundreds of data points which fit the Big Bang theory precisely, so we have confidence in the theory (e.g. nucleosynthesis of elements, red shifts of galaxies, microwave background radiation).

It's a free country, so anyone can voice their aesthetic displeasure at the Big Bang theory, but not everyone can come up with a rival theory which explains these hundreds of data points! It's easy to criticize: it's much, much harder to come up with a better theory."