This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yes, it makes sense within the system of belief. If you don't believe it, then it doesn't make sense.

There isn't any way around belief here: In the beginning there was the Big Bang. So, what triggered the Big Bang? What came before the Big Bang? We don't know, we haven't found out yet, so we have no choice but to believe "somehow" the Big Bang happened.

In the beginning, God said... or In the beginning the Word was... is like the Big Bang: What came before God, or the Word? We don't know. Somehow God brought about the cosmos. We don't know how, and we almost certainly will never get an explanation.

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

For context, I'm an atheist. I live as if there is no divine intelligence running the game and looking out for me (or torturing me). That's practical atheism. Some people may be practical agnostics, living and acting as if there's a real chance either way. Practical agnosticism sounds incredibly stressful. It's logically possible that I could change my position. Something amazing would have to happen.

Now to the issue. I for one can't make sense of beings before time creating time and so on. It's a round square. The words snap together on paper but there's no semi-distinct image in the mind to go along with those words.

But is that what all theists mean? I don't think so. I can vaguely imagine an intelligent being within time who created the world and all of us. Where this dude could come from I cannot say. Can I mae sense of a God who was always here?

But can I make sense of a universe that was always here? Or the birth of time and physicists might have it? Or quantum mechanics? Yet I believe QM as a method of prediction and for the design of technology.

In short, I'm aware of no tradition, religious or scientific, that gives an explanation of the biggest picture that fits comfortably within the intuition. Science offers stuff that works whether I believe in it or not, so I have bias in that direction. On the other hand, it might be a little too easy to jump from what science does right to its big picture guesses. Arguably the machines for prediction and control that work whether we believe in them or not are the essence. Religion can be viewed as the kind of technology that may work for believers but is not shaped to satisfy nonbelievers.

I don’t know how to quote officially, but in response to the question, “what came before God,” God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. That is why He cannot be killed.

Based on the answers I have been given here, I draw my conclusion: nobody has any idea whether God exists, science doesn’t have any idea either. Until someone proves or disproves God, I will continue to serve Him, because it’s better to be safe than sorry.

People in their life may seek First Cause in order to better understand life.

Belief in a First Cause can take many forms, e.g. God, Big Bang, the Dao, and the enumeral versions that exist in all cultures.

For me, the beginning is Mind. The Mind that we observe everywhere in the universe in all of its forms. The exploration of Mind reveals many interesting and practical ideas for navigating through life, physical, mental, and spiritual. Life is interesting because it is being explored.

I will continue to serve Him, because it’s better to be safe than sorry. — Starthrower

that is Pascal's Wager, a perfectly sensible approach.

There are two possibilities: god exists, god does not exist

You have two choices: god exists, god does not exist

You win if you chose "god exists" and in fact "god exists"

You lose if you choose "god does not exist" and in fact "god exists".

If you choose "god exists" and in fact "god does not exist" you lose nothing.

If you choose "god does not exist" and in fact "god does not exist" you lose nothing.

So, your choice is the safe one, and possibly very beneficial.

One has to tell why the act of creation out of noting is logically possible and the process of noting to something is logically impossible.

What if the stuff was there at the beginning? This make sense since there is no before the beginning.

it makes sense because God has infinite power

You have the problem of before the beginning. It cannot be anything before the beginning.

Thank you. In fact, it is benefitial, at least to other people. My belief in God influences my decisions in that I try to be kind to people and refrain from drugs, alchohol and violence. I do not suggest someone becomes a Christian, however, if they really don’t believe in it. That won’t stop me from trying to show them that God is real and is active.

God is from before. God created time, created limits. All things are from God, except the void.

There cannot be any beginning if there is still a before.

God influences my decisions in that I try to be kind to people and refrain from drugs, alchohol and violence. — Starthrower

Many will approve your abstinence from drugs, alcohol and violence, but you know, God was never very outspoken against alcohol. In fact, there are a few places in the OT where "strong drink" is recommended. We don't know what sort of drug use the ancient Israelies may have had available, and at least in the OT, God doesn't seem all that opposed to the regular application of violence (though He seems to have improved his position on this issue over time).

If you are speaking of the Israel conquests, God was using Israel to punish other countries.

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?

Why a being? Why not just a chance occurrence that set the ball rolling.

Because it would take googols of years for random chance to form a Universe at all, and much, much longer to form a Universe like this.

I thought there is evidence of a big bang?

Perhaps, but there is equal (if not more) evidence of intelligent design.

Intelligent from who's point of view?

What do you mean?

The only concept of God that I agree could exist is a kind of "sentient" universe. However, even if that is true, then it does not explain how the universe came to be, self aware or no. Nevertheless, the Big Bang Model and current advances in our understanding of quantum and classical physics suggest that the universe does indeed come from nothing. This does not disprove the existence of God, but it does stimulate within me the concept of sentience outside what we call the universe or space-time: if the universe indeed came from nothing, then what is the nature of nothing? More importantly, is it still there?

From the universe's point of view it may be all based off chance, no intelligence required. Of course we don't like that idea.

However, even if that is true, then it does not explain how the universe came to be, self aware or no. Nevertheless, the Big Bang Model and current advances in our understanding of quantum and classical physics suggest that the universe does indeed come from nothing.

There is a dispute about this.

Awesome, thank you. I don't have time to read it right now but I will at my earliest convenience.
Based on the title, however, I think it reflects some of my own reservations that I had about Krauss's work before I read his book. He convinced me.

Ok, i managed to get as far as his first, legitimate criticism. I'll summarize it as follows: Classical Physics follows a set of rules, so Quantum Physics must follow the same rules.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Quantum Physics. The entire point behind Quantum Physics being so strange and wonderful is that it does not follow what we thought were the physical rules of the universe as we perceived them. There is no reason to believe that they should other then that is how our limited perspective up until now has shown us. However, our perspective is just that, limited. Scientific pursuit is all about expanding that perspective and if we discover things that do not conform to our predictions, all the better. To summarize: just because it doesn't do what we think it should do, doesn't mean its not doing it. There is plenty of evidence showing us that it operates in a different way to Classical Physics.

So far all the author of this article has done is make arguments from ignorance. I hope this improves.

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

Does the concept of an uncaused world that nevertheless seems contingent make sense?

Look at Albert's criticism of Krauss which appeared in NYTimes review of books.

Sure, I'm on George Ellis. I'll be there soon enough, hopefully.

Hmm doesn't seem to cover anyone called Albert? Are you referring to Albert Einstein and/or do you have another link for me?