Please explain to me exactly what events gave rise to the quantum fluctuation that supposedly created our universe? And when did these events first begin? And if they did not first begin, but go back in causal history forever, then isn’t this really just a case of quantum confusion? Isn’t this atheistic theory just MAGIC?
Moved to STM.
It might be helpful to know how familiar you are with quantum theory, in order that people can answer it at an appropriate level.
What does it have to do with atheism?
Another one of those ‘try and insert God into any, real or imagined, knowledge gap’…
How much money do I have in my pocket? God.
How much is 2015x5102? God.
X? God.
Y? God.
Or are you trolling?
Familiar with it enough to know they can’t answer it. LOL!
Everything and nothing.
John can’t figure out how the universe could have always been and also the existence of God.
And yes, the Big Bang theory, quantum version or not, does have that problem of MAGIC creation from nothing.
Let me ask you a question. Why did we have a Big Bang instead of an infinite steady state universe? What was the function of the Big Bang? I mean, why a Big Bang? Why does the universe need a Big Bang? And once you’re done thinking about that, I’ll give you my answer. The answer is because only a Big Bang gives you a moment of creation where the initial starting spatial order of things is set. The universe needs the Big Bang, because there can be no spatial order without an initial spatial order. And do you know what that means? It means that creation does occur and is a POSSIBLE power - not magic at all. And with creation comes the need for a God to decide what to make real and what not to make real out of the infinitely materially possible.
Maybe. Still has nothing to do with atheism, or God.
Unless you decided in your head that the only possible explanation is God.
Kind of like, if somebody stole my pen, and I decided it’s the pixies fault. Why pixies and not gremlins, or why not something we know exists?
What is the role of God in the cosmos? Ask yourself this question. Then, you will see why it has something to do with atheism.
You must mean, “Why did someone want to say that there was a Big Bang”? So far, I have found no convincing evidence there ever was one, and quite a bit against the notion.
“The universe need…”???
The universe doesn’t “need” anything and certainly not a BB.
…breathless with anticipation…
Yes. People want there to be a BB because they want there to be creation from a known state.
The real question is why people want that so badly as to invent any excuse to believe it and lie to the masses of the world concerning it. “After you get done thinking about that, I’ll give you my answer.”
Yeah, it means that you are an … well, that you are wrong (still).
That might be an excuse, but it is not the facts.
And btw, magic is merely what you cannot understand, for whatever reason. So to you, creation from nothing would certainly be magic. And magic is one of those things that seriously doesn’t get along with Christianity (witches, warlocks, and the like).
The real issue of God is above this kind of drivel.
@James S Saint
The Big Bang is consensus science. So, why do you think your obviously contrarian notion that there was no BB is right? Because it pretty surely seems you’re wrong.
I personally think you confuse the notion of the BB as something from nothing, when that’s not at all what it is - not even to atheists. The BB is evidence for something from something else. The question is what is this something else? Is it the immaterial uncaused reality known as God? Is it just another higher dimensional form of material reality?
It isn’t “consensus science”. It is pop-science. And it is propagandized to the masses, not merely an interesting theory in science.
I my case, I happen to know without question that the universe could not have begun … ever. So with me, it is my proof versus … I don’t care who. I have no particular worship toward what social preachers say about what science is supposed to have proven. I know of far too many of their errors, past and present. Science isn’t really science anymore. It has become merely the new national secular religion.
You on the other hand, seem to be still caught up in their mind game believing them to be the voice of the new god, Science. You try to make arguments against them using their own proposed axioms, “science has proven…” (wrong!).
The proof of the Big Bang is the cosmic background radiation. The proof of the BB is the red shift of galaxies. The proof of the BB is the FACT that the sky is not filled with light. And I’m sure there are many many more proofs of the BB. That’s plenty of proof for the BB. Your contention is simply that the BB is impossible, because something can’t come from nothing. Well, certainly something can’t come from nothing, but obviously the BB happened which means it is not a case of something coming from nothing as you contend. You’re obviously wrong.
So, once you accept the FACT that the BB occurred, then the next question is what did the BB come from? But, more importantly, why a BB from a singularity? Why not a stead-state universe? And the reason to me appears to be that the BB is what set the initial starting spatial order of material reality. Why? Because it’s necessary for there to be any material reality at all. It’s so obvious to me what the point of the BB is and who’s behind it aka GOD.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
More bullshit.
Nope.
That’s plenty of bullshit.
I’d say that would be a pretty strong argument, assuming one knew why it’s impossible.
That wasn’t my contention. Obviously you are wrong.
The BB comes from Bullshit … obviously.
Why not?
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
So God is a Bull with diarrhea?
I don’t think so.
The BB theory postulates that there was a moment in time when nothingness was the actual state of the universe, exclusive of God. Since I have proven that nothingness is impossible bullshit (and even on one of your other threads), then it is their theory that the BB comes from bullshit too. They have hints of what they want to believe. And they are filtering for faithful followers.
So we are all in agreement. The BB really is But-Bullshit.
@James S. Saint
If an infinite regressive backward causal chain were possible, then why don’t we have an eternal infinite steady-state universe? Instead, we have a Big Bang universe. This tells me that infinitely regressive backward causal chains are impossible. This also tells me that atheism is nonsense, because it relies on the infinitely regressive backward causal chain to replace God. Because infinite backward causal chains are impossible, then creation is possible, e.g. the Big Bang, which tells me that the uncased immaterial reality that is God is REAL.
You are stuck on this idea that the material universe must always exist. It does not always exist, because it must be created. Created out of what you say? It’s created out of the uncaused mind of God with His power to create the materially real. It’s a mystery, but nonetheless real. The BB is the best thing to happen to God in a century!
Reminds me of the Hitchiker’s Guide for some reason… to paraphrase the quote, the universe exists and everyone generally agrees this was a VERY BAD IDEA!
Depending on what you really mean by “steady-state”, we do have one.
Bullshit.
Emm… no it doesn’t. AoC was right in that this subject really doesn’t have anything to do with atheism. Atheists are happy with the BB and a lot of other nonsense. They aren’t exactly the thinking class.
I’m glad you feel comfy by one means or another. But I just happen to know that your reasoning is wrong. And this has nothing to do with the God subject either, really. But I guess that you have to be in the thinking class to know that.
Yes, I am. It isn’t going to change. I showed you why.
It is being created every instant of everyday.
Being created out of the day before.
Yep … each and every instant, every day, every year, eternally.
Apparently a mystery and magic to you, but not to me.
The BB happened to God??
…there’s a new one. 
So God blew up?? Now scattered into trillions of little pieces? 
John, good to see you back, on that note, I can’t believe you’re still arguing that the cosmos began. Now, I see you’re point, if it didn’t begin, it couldn’t be here in the first place, but the same can be said of God as well. We know for a fact that something must come from nothing if the cosmos began. FACT!! so we have two choices, the cosmos never began and therefor never was, or the cosmos came from nothing at all (including God). Those are really our only two choices. Now we can try to expand our minds to find a third option, but this is already exhausting my mind. I say this to both you and James. I think there are things you are both missing here.
That’s your error.
You guys buy something as bizarre as Relativity because someone told you to, bending space and time. But you can’t figure out the simple calculus of time … geeezzz.
Well, the atheists are generally speaking very unhappy about the Big Bang. In fact, the atheist physicists are so upset about the singularity that they are currently attempting to undermine it as obsolete - instead suggesting that the universe never got quite that small. So, what you’ll hear instead is that there was this small spatial density where the laws of physics are still in tact and that this small density then expanded. There is quite a rush to try and prove a repeating universe with a Big Crunch, even though the evidence is against it. Or, you may hear garbage theories about gravity escaping from another universe creating our universe. Or, the big shocker - the assertion that the multiverse should be taken as FACT without having to prove it through the scientific method.
Your proof of the impossibility of nothingness does not take into account an uncaused immaterial reality responsible for the creation of material reality. In other words, if one removes all material reality from well, eh…reality, one could still be left with an uncaused immaterial reality and not pure nothingness.
The creation associated with movement is not the same type of creation that starts the initial spatial order of material things. Two different types of creation. The creation of movement leaves the information of a previous history of backward causal chains. The creation of initial spatial order of all material things does not have information regarding a prior history of backward causal chains.