Page 4 of 7

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:35 am
by Kenny
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:13 am Unless you agree that the Big Bang theory created all matter, energy, space, and time.
No; I’m not the one who believes that.
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:13 am But I guess it might seem ridiculous to someone who dismisses the consensus of the scientific community regarding the Big Bang creating all matter, energy, space, and time.
You keep saying that as if it’s true. Just because you claim what you are saying is the consensus of the scientific community doesn’t make it so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
(Under Misconceptions)
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:49 pm
by DBowling
Kenny wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:35 am
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:13 am Unless you agree that the Big Bang theory created all matter, energy, space, and time.
No; I’m not the one who believes that.
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:13 am But I guess it might seem ridiculous to someone who dismisses the consensus of the scientific community regarding the Big Bang creating all matter, energy, space, and time.
You keep saying that as if it’s true. Just because you claim what you are saying is the consensus of the scientific community doesn’t make it so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
(Under Misconceptions)
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.
We've already discussed this...
But as a little reminder... just in case you somehow forgot.

Your article is correct.
"the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space were caused.
I never claimed it did.

However as demonstrated by the National Geographic and NASA links...
The consensus position regarding the Big Bang theory does describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

Continuing to deny the scientific consensus doesn't somehow make your denial true.
It just means that you disagree with the scientific consensus.
nothing more... nothing less

Here is the primary difference between our two positions.
- I have no reason to reject the Wikipedia description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the National Geographic description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the NASA description of the Big Bang.
So I pretty much accept all three descriptions.

You on the other hand
- More or less embrace the Wikipedia description of the Big Bang
(except for the pesky statement that ""the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning")
- But you passionately dismiss the National Geographic position that space, time, energy and matter were created by the Big Bang because it directly contradicts your world view.
- And you also dismiss the NASA position that space, time, energy, and matter were created by the Big Bang because it directly contradicts your world view.

So which one of us embraces what science proposes about the Big Bang, and which of us dismisses significant portions of Big Bang theory due to ideological issues?

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:08 pm
by Kenny
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:49 pmHowever as demonstrated by the National Geographic and NASA links...
The consensus position regarding the Big Bang theory does describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

Continuing to deny the scientific consensus doesn't somehow make your denial true.
It just means that you disagree with the scientific consensus.
nothing more... nothing less
So your claim that the Big Bang theory describes WHEN energy and matter were caused is based on the National Geographic and NASA links? Because on post #25 I pointed out line by line, minute by minute the flaws in both of those links, why they should not be believed because they not only contradict each other, but in some cases contradict themselves! And you’ve conveniently neglected to address the flaws I’ve found in those links. Do you have a credible source that does not contradict itself?
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:49 pm Here is the primary difference between our two positions.
- I have no reason to reject the Wikipedia description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the National Geographic description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the NASA description of the Big Bang.
So I pretty much accept all three descriptions.
How can you accept all three descriptions when they are in direct contradiction with each other? Again; post #25 I pointed out these contradictions that you neglected to address. For you to accept all three tells me you must have not looked at the videos. Perhaps you can look at the videos again and if you still agree with the NASA and National Geographic descriptions, respond to the criticisms and contradictions I pointed out in post #25

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:50 pm
by DBowling
Kenny wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 6:08 pm
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:49 pmHowever as demonstrated by the National Geographic and NASA links...
The consensus position regarding the Big Bang theory does describe WHEN energy, time, and space were caused.

Continuing to deny the scientific consensus doesn't somehow make your denial true.
It just means that you disagree with the scientific consensus.
nothing more... nothing less
So your claim that the Big Bang theory describes WHEN energy and matter were caused is based on the National Geographic and NASA links? Because on post #25 I pointed out line by line, minute by minute the flaws in both of those links, why they should not be believed because they not only contradict each other, but in some cases contradict themselves! And you’ve conveniently neglected to address the flaws I’ve found in those links. Do you have a credible source that does not contradict itself?
I don't get terribly bent out of shape on the dimension issues you mention for two reasons.
1. Those specific dimensions are just speculations regarding the state of the Big bang during periods when even Wikipedia acknowledges is unknowable by modern science.
2. Those dimension issues do not involve or even impact major issues such as whether or not matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang.

And I don't see you dismissing the Wikipedia article because you disagreed with the statement that space and time were meaningless in the singularity
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:49 pm Here is the primary difference between our two positions.
- I have no reason to reject the Wikipedia description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the National Geographic description of the Big Bang
- I have no reason to reject the NASA description of the Big Bang.
So I pretty much accept all three descriptions.
How can you accept all three descriptions when they are in direct contradiction with each other? Again; post #25 I pointed out these contradictions that you neglected to address.
No you didn't...
You pointed out contradictions between the Big Bang theory and your presuppositions.
Just because I reject your presuppositions as illogical or flawed, doesn't mean that I reject either science or the Big Bang theory.

And you need to go back and read the thread again.
I have addressed your assertions about alleged contradictions.
You just disagree with my position.
... and the consensus position of scientists regarding the Big Bang.
For you to accept all three tells me you must have not looked at the videos. Perhaps you can look at the videos again and if you still agree with the NASA and National Geographic descriptions, respond to the criticisms and contradictions I pointed out in post #25
Been there done that...
multiple times...

But I'm willing to give it another shot...
Which specific claims from either the videos or the Wikipedia article do you think I do not accept?
I'll be happy to let you know if I accept or reject those statements.
Or some may simply be irrelevant because science simply doesn't know.

It will be interesting to see how many I can respond to with cut/paste from earlier in this thread.

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:04 am
by Kenny
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:50 pm I don't get terribly bent out of shape on the dimension issues you mention for two reasons.
1. Those specific dimensions are just speculations regarding the state of the Big bang during periods when even Wikipedia acknowledges is unknowable by modern science.
So you acknowledge the videos you provided did make some claims that are not backed up by science or the big bang theory?
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:50 pm2. Those dimension issues do not involve or even impact major issues such as whether or not matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang.
Actually I think it does. If they were willing to fudge the facts by making claims of size, perhaps they were willing to fudge the facts by including matter and energy along with space and time’s creation by the big bang.
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:50 pm And I don't see you dismissing the Wikipedia article because you disagreed with the statement that space and time were meaningless in the singularity
Back on post #23 didn’t I make it perfectly clear that I found the idea of time and space being meaningless under specific conditions perfectly reasonable? Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually said.
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:50 pm No you didn't...
You pointed out contradictions between the Big Bang theory and your presuppositions.
Just because I reject your presuppositions as illogical or flawed, doesn't mean that I reject either science or the Big Bang theory.

And you need to go back and read the thread again.
I have addressed your assertions about alleged contradictions.
You just disagree with my position.
... and the consensus position of scientists regarding the Big Bang.
Which post # did you address them?
DBowling wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:50 pm Been there done that...
multiple times...

But I'm willing to give it another shot...
Which specific claims from either the videos or the Wikipedia article do you think I do not accept?
I'll be happy to let you know if I accept or reject those statements.
Or some may simply be irrelevant because science simply doesn't know.

It will be interesting to see how many I can respond to with cut/paste from earlier in this thread.
*Your 2 videos claim the Big Bang was a massive explosion, but the Wikkipedia link makes it clear it was not an explosion but an expansion.
*Your first video claims during the explosion matter and energy were created, then tens of thousands of years after the explosion years during the Planck Epoch it makes it clear that matter and energy didn’t exist yet.

Initially your first video claims the singularity was several centimeters in size, but later after the Planck Epoch and during the inflammatory Epoch which was hundreds of thousands of years later, it grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit.
*Your second video claimed the singularity immediately went from the size of an Atom to billions of miles across.

With so much contradiction, how can you claim to agree with all 3? I look foreword to you cutting and pasting some of your previous responses that answered those questions.

Also, you seem to think I have a special agenda against the idea that energy and matter were created during the Big Bang; as if this somehow leads to an intelligent creator that caused it all. As I pointed out before, even if the theory did say matter and energy were created, you have to go outside the theory if you gonna insert God from the spiritual world in order to make that work, and that is about as scientific me claiming the existence Kenny’s world and claiming I am responsible for the Big Bang

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:58 am
by Philip
Ken: Also, you seem to think I have a special agenda against the idea that energy and matter were created during the Big Bang; as if this somehow leads to an intelligent creator that caused it all. As I pointed out before, even if the theory did say matter and energy were created, you have to go outside the theory if you gonna insert God from the spiritual world in order to make that work...
Ken, this is where your "logic" falls apart, because what actually happened shows things of marvelous design suddenly appeared, and they functioned brilliantly and perfectly INTERACTIVELY - these are all things that require intelligence!!! And those incredibly building blocks began assembling within minutes - as what appeared HAD to appear - and in just the right order, types, capabilities, and cross-functionalities / interactivities, and on a massive scale - lest we would not have a universe and planet with life today! It matters not what produced these - least not per the reality that such things don't and cannot invent, design, or control their own movements and interactions - cause they are otherwise "non-intelligent." And whether one calls the Big Bang and explosion or expansion - perhaps a better term would be a massive but incredible explosion, yet one of unfathomably powerful precision of assembling order and trajectory - the exact opposite of what every other explosion produces: destruction and chaotic debris without design or function. You're obvious problem is that it disturbs you that this event and things produced required great intelligence and power, which presents evidence that there WAS a Creator - and it's your dislike of the possible Identity of the Creator that keeps you in denial that intelligence was required!

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:43 am
by Kenny
Philip wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:58 am
Ken: Also, you seem to think I have a special agenda against the idea that energy and matter were created during the Big Bang; as if this somehow leads to an intelligent creator that caused it all. As I pointed out before, even if the theory did say matter and energy were created, you have to go outside the theory if you gonna insert God from the spiritual world in order to make that work...
Ken, this is where your "logic" falls apart, because what actually happened shows things of marvelous design suddenly appeared, and they functioned brilliantly and perfectly INTERACTIVELY - these are all things that require intelligence!!!
So the Universe just suddenly appeared? And it is of a brilliant design and functions brilliantly? Just curious; how would the Universe be different if it was not a brilliant design and didn’t function very well? How would the Universe be different if it did not have an intelligent designer?

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:50 am
by DBowling
Kenny wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:04 am
But I'm willing to give it another shot...
Which specific claims from either the videos or the Wikipedia article do you think I do not accept?
I'll be happy to let you know if I accept or reject those statements.
Or some may simply be irrelevant because science simply doesn't know.
*Your 2 videos claim the Big Bang was a massive explosion, but the Wikkipedia link makes it clear it was not an explosion but an expansion.
An explosion is a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward.
So it is accurate to describe the Big Bang as either an expansion or an explosion.

I do agree with what Wikipedia says in the following statement
"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distances between comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space.
*Your first video claims during the explosion matter and energy were created, then tens of thousands of years after the explosion years during the Planck Epoch it makes it clear that matter and energy didn’t exist yet.
You are wrong on the facts here
Matter and energy were created during the Big Bang explosion/expansion. The Planck Epoch makes up the earliest phase of the expansion and does not encompass the full duration of the Big Bang.

The Planck Epoch lasted from time = 0 to 10^(-43) seconds (your assertion that the Planck Epoch occurred tens of thousands of years after the beginning of the explosion/expansion is inaccurate. 10^(-43) seconds is the smallest fraction of a second not tens of thousands of years)

According to the National Geographic video, energy existed during the Planck Epoch, but matter did not exist during the Planck Epoch (which I have no disagreement with).
Your description of the timing of the Planck Epoch and the absence of energy during the Planck Epoch are both factually incorrect, but I have no disagreement with either Wikipedia or National Geographic regarding the Planck Epoch.
Initially your first video claims the singularity was several centimeters in size
the video does describe the singularity as...
"only a few millimeters wide it was similar to a supercharged black hole"
I do not think that the singularity was a few millimeters wide (I think it was infinitesimally small)
But as I noted earlier, speculation about the size of the Big Bang singularity is just that, speculation.

The key here is that the precise size of the singularity (which science doesn't know for sure anyway) has no bearing on whether matter, energy, space and time were created by the Big Bang.

I do agree with the key relevant point about the singularity from the video
"Big Bang began as a hot and infinitely dense point"
, but later after the Planck Epoch and during the inflammatory Epoch which was hundreds of thousands of years later, it grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit.
As noted above you are factually incorrect regarding the timing of the Planck Epoch

You are also factually incorrect about when the universe grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit.
According to the video that occurred during the Inflationary Epoch (not the Planck Epoch)
*Your second video claimed the singularity immediately went from the size of an Atom to billions of miles across.
Which is also factually correct.
This occurred during the Electroweak Epoch which took place from 10^(-36) seconds to 10^(-12) seconds.
With so much contradiction, how can you claim to agree with all 3? I look foreword to you cutting and pasting some of your previous responses that answered those questions.
I would recommend being more concerned about correcting the multitude of factual errors on your part, before you start critiquing information from reputable scientific organizations like National Geographic and NASA.

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:51 am
by abelcainsbrother
We Christians believe in an eternal God and this is one way we know our God created the universe,it is part of our evidence of how we know God created it,but yet non-believers think they can ignore that our God is eternal and it changes the God we believe in to some non-eternal God somehow.How they think they can make it stick to our God somehow is beyond me.Just because they refuse to acknowledge our God is eternal and ignores the evidence of our eternal God's ability to create universes very easily does not make atheism true.

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:02 pm
by Kenny
DBowling wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:50 am An explosion is a violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward.
So it is accurate to describe the Big Bang as either an expansion or an explosion.
There is a big difference between expansion vs explosion. If it is going to claim to speak for scientific observations and theory, the least they could do is understand these differences.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... explosion/
DBowling wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:50 am You are wrong on the facts here
Matter and energy were created during the Big Bang explosion/expansion. The Planck Epoch makes up the earliest phase of the expansion and does not encompass the full duration of the Big Bang.

The Planck Epoch lasted from time = 0 to 10^(-43) seconds (your assertion that the Planck Epoch occurred tens of thousands of years after the beginning of the explosion/expansion is inaccurate. 10^(-43) seconds is the smallest fraction of a second not tens of thousands of years)

According to the National Geographic video, energy existed during the Planck Epoch, but matter did not exist during the Planck Epoch (which I have no disagreement with).
No. AT 1min 05sec into the video it says the explosion happened and during that time matter and energy were created. at 1min 19sec it speaks of 2 major era’s that happened after the explosion was the radiation era where all the epoch’s began to include the Planck Epoch where it claims matter did not exist during this time.
DBowling wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:50 am the video does describe the singularity as...
"only a few millimeters wide it was similar to a supercharged black hole"
And it’s wrong to say that; the Wikkipedia article is very clear, they can only speak of the size of the observed Universe, not the entire Universe; this video speaks of the entire Universe as being only a few cm wide; so you have to disagree with one of them on that point.
DBowling wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:50 am As noted above you are factually incorrect regarding the timing of the Planck Epoch

You are also factually incorrect about when the universe grew from the size of an atom to the size of a grapefruit.
According to the video that occurred during the Inflationary Epoch (not the Planck Epoch)
Bruh! That’s what I said!

“after the Planck Epoch and during the inflammatory Epoch which was hundreds of thousands of years later”,

those were my exact words
DBowling wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 10:50 am Which is also factually correct.
This occurred during the Electroweak Epoch which took place from 10^(-36) seconds to 10^(-12) seconds.
So when did it go from a few cm wide (claims of the first video) to the size of an atom (claims of the second video) vs we can’t determine the size of anything because we can only guess concerning the size of the observable Universe which is not the entire Universe (claims of Wikkipedia)? You can’t claim they are all right, because each contradicts each other, so you gotta pick one.

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:41 pm
by Kenny
abelcainsbrother wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:51 am We Christians believe in an eternal God and this is one way we know our God created the universe,it is part of our evidence of how we know God created it,but yet non-believers think they can ignore that our God is eternal and it changes the God we believe in to some non-eternal God somehow.How they think they can make it stick to our God somehow is beyond me.Just because they refuse to acknowledge our God is eternal and ignores the evidence of our eternal God's ability to create universes very easily does not make atheism true.
Though I may not agree with your religious beliefs, I do respect when people with a religious world view like you stand on their beliefs rather than trying to conflate secular science with religious claims; twisting and contorting science in an effort to fit the square peg of science into a round hole of religion; and it never quit fits. Science will never contour to the beliefs of religion and religious people should quit trying to pretend that it will. If you believe God created the Universe and everything in it, stand on that! The fact that you unapologetically stand by what your bible tells you, even if it goes against scientific observation; if nothing else I’ve gotta respect you for that.

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:05 pm
by abelcainsbrother
Kenny wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:41 pm
abelcainsbrother wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:51 am We Christians believe in an eternal God and this is one way we know our God created the universe,it is part of our evidence of how we know God created it,but yet non-believers think they can ignore that our God is eternal and it changes the God we believe in to some non-eternal God somehow.How they think they can make it stick to our God somehow is beyond me.Just because they refuse to acknowledge our God is eternal and ignores the evidence of our eternal God's ability to create universes very easily does not make atheism true.
Though I may not agree with your religious beliefs, I do respect when people with a religious world view like you stand on their beliefs rather than trying to conflate secular science with religious claims; twisting and contorting science in an effort to fit the square peg of science into a round hole of religion; and it never quit fits. Science will never contour to the beliefs of religion and religious people should quit trying to pretend that it will. If you believe God created the Universe and everything in it, stand on that! The fact that you unapologetically stand by what your bible tells you, even if it goes against scientific observation; if nothing else I’ve gotta respect you for that.
Well I believe there is a crisis in both science and creationism.They both are wrong and yet are out to prove the other one wrong while they talk past one another ignoring their own problems.You seem to believe science but if you believe in evolution you are just as wrong as creationists pushing the wrong creation interpretations as truth trying to make them fit in science that is wrong.You all teach only one world that contradicts what the fossil record shows both secular scientists with evolution and creationists pushing the most popular creation interpretations.But you atheists are not into science like ya'll let on as atheists pick and choose which science they accept and reject science they disagree with.Atheists accept The Theory of Evolution as a proven scientific theory but yet reject the Big Bang Theory.This is why Day Age creationism is not effective.So this proves atheists are not into science like they put on. Me I question both especially when science is pushing evolution as true when it is'nt.

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:19 pm
by Philip
Ken: So the Universe just suddenly appeared?
Yes, this is the consensus of science and also what the Bible tells us!
Ken: And it is of a brilliant design and functions brilliantly?
A little summary for your reading pleasure! https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... m-fictions

How many astronomers and scientists do we have constantly marveling at the wonders, functions and surprises of the universe!
Ken: Just curious; how would the Universe be different if it was not a brilliant design and didn’t function very well?
If the building blocks didn't exist, function, and interact as designed, there would be only chaos, and there could be NO life! From star formation to life itself - let's take a look at some of the many ways! https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... -june-2004

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:49 pm
by Kenny
Philip wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:19 pmIf the building blocks didn't exist, function, and interact as designed, there would be only chaos, and there could be NO life!
What are these building blocks that you speak of?

Re: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 4:22 pm
by abelcainsbrother
Kenny wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:49 pm
Philip wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:19 pmIf the building blocks didn't exist, function, and interact as designed, there would be only chaos, and there could be NO life!
What are these building blocks that you speak of?
I think if you knew and understood how the history of our earth is not about evolution like we've been propagandized to believe but the true history of the earth is a Pre-Adamite world that was a different world than this world that perished before God made this world,Then God made this world. If you could understand that men of God Christians realized this through bible study long before modern science even got started you would be amazed at the truth of God's word. The popular creation interpretations Christians push and promote today are not correct but there is one they overlooked that is correct about the history of our earth with a Pre-Adamite world with pre-Adamite races in it.