What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[onewheeldave]

....

I for example could say that "super-god" is by nature and by definition, always-existing, uncreated and incapable of non-existence and super-god for reasons we don't understand created God and instilled within God the belief that God wasn't created by super-god but is by nature and by definition, always-existing, uncreated and incapable of non-existence.

 

Does this definition mean that the concept of 'super-god' should be taken seriously?

 

You've made the same mistake as before- if, as we're assuming, god is always-existing, uncreated and incapable of non-existence, then it's logically impossible for God to be created by anything (including your 'super-god', purely because God is by definition uncreated and always-existing.

 

To create something, that thing must, prior to the creation, not exist.

[plekhanov]

Your god is entirely different to my god.

You seem to think that god is interested in humans or animals of any sort.

My god I'm an atheist, I don't have a god and was clearly talking about the characteristics of their sky pixies that most theists believe them to have.

 

It think that god did one thing.

Created the Universe.

The Universe has run its own course since it started in the expansion of the so called 'Big Bang'.

Everything is a by product of that process.

The reason that humans need to believe in some god, is that we inadequate to the task of imagining the imensity of it all.

Yes and? Whilst belief in such a sky pixie has fewer objectionable affects upon society that the more commonly imagined psychopathic narcissist bigot sky pixies there is still no evidence for one and your arguments for your sky pixies existence have no firmer foundation than theists, though at least as a deist you make fewer testable claims and as such your position is a stronger one.

[plekhanov]

You've made the same mistake as before- if, as we're assuming, god is always-existing, uncreated and incapable of non-existence, then it's logically impossible for God to be created by anything (including your 'super-god', purely because God is by definition uncreated and always-existing.

 

To create something, that thing must, prior to the creation, not exist.

We are assuming no such thing. You are asserting that is the case with zero evidence to justify such a monumental assertion.

 

You have simply dreamt up some arbitrary characteristics and declared that they by definition apply to a sky pixie you call "god" with no evidence as to why we should accept this definition as having any more correspondence to reality than the definitions of balrogs, leprechauns or super-god.

[HeadingNorth]

No it doesn't does it?

In that case the so called 'singularity' had existed for ever and just decided 15 billion years ago to make its presence felt.

You can call it what you want, but something was there, before time and space as we know it today.

 

 

There's no evidence that anything was. By definition, there cannot be any evidence.

 

Insisting that something was there just because the alternative "can't be so" leads to a logical self-contradiction, as shown at the very beginning of this thread. Therefore, the only sensible conclusion is that the Universe does not need a cause.

[artisan]

My god I'm an atheist, I don't have a god and was clearly talking about the characteristics of their sky pixies that most theists believe them to have.

Yes and?

 

No one is an atheist, as you get older the easier it is to believe in some kind of god.

I do not believe that in 10 or 15 years, or may be sooner, I will go to oblivion, shut my eyes and never see anything again.

I believe we are assimilated into the Universe, or ashes become ashes.

The chemicals that make up our bodies, are the same ones that have been here since the Stars were created.

Hydrogen, carbon, etc.

They have been here since the dawn of time, and never altered.

It would be marvellous to think that we could stand and look down on it all, but I will reserve judgement on that one.

[artisan]

There's no evidence that anything was. By definition, there cannot be any evidence.

 

Insisting that something was there just because the alternative "can't be so" leads to a logical self-contradiction, as shown at the very beginning of this thread. Therefore, the only sensible conclusion is that the Universe does not need a cause.

 

But by the very fact that we are Humans it does need a cause.

By saying 'ignore it' as some of you are, you are not defining it.

The very nature of being a human is to seek and define things.

How can we even begin to explain it, when we dont know it all began?

 

Dont forget, the Big Bang is all theory, we have not been here long enough to confirm anyof it.

 

For all we know it could have been for ever, then would that place you people?

[onewheeldave]

We are assuming no such thing. You are asserting that is the case with zero evidence to justify such a monumental assertion.

 

You have simply dreamt up some arbitrary characteristics and declared that they by definition apply to a sky pixie you call "god" with no evidence as to why we should accept this definition as having any more correspondence to reality than the definitions of balrogs, leprechauns or super-god.

 

That's why, in connection with a God with defining characteristics including being uncreated/always existed, I used terms like if and assume

 

Now, assuming that God is uncreated/always existed, then certain things follow (it's a logical argument).

 

You've twice tried to show that other things could 'create' such a God (ie definiton and your 'super-god').

 

Now you appear to be saying that you're not refering to that defintion of God?

 

Fair enough, but, then your arguments simply do not relate to anything I've said.

 

If you are refering to that defintion of God, then be aware of the that that nothing, can create a thing that already exists.

 

You can of course, argue that there isn't a God that matches that description (of being uncreated/always existed), in which case, go ahead.

[HeadingNorth]

But by the very fact that we are Humans it does need a cause.

 

 

No it doesn't. The Universe existed before we did, so whether or not it has a cause is clearly not connected to the fact that we now exist.

[HeadingNorth]

That's why, in connection with a God with defining characteristics including being uncreated/always existed, I used terms like if and assume

 

Now, assuming that God is uncreated/always existed, then certain things follow (it's a logical argument).

 

 

Granted, but it's a pointless one. There is no reason to assume that such a God exists at all, since there is no reason to assume that the Universe must have been created by anything.

 

If we're going to invoke entities merely because we choose to, then Plekhanov's super-god is just as valid as your god.

[artisan]

No it doesn't. The Universe existed before we did, so whether or not it has a cause is clearly not connected to the fact that we now exist.

 

No, No you totally misunderstand.

Or are you deliberately doing it?

I mean because we are Humans we need an explanation for everything.

It is our very nature to investigate and define the whole of our existence.