flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (12/30/84)
From: Eliyahu Teitz. > If you believe, though, that the universe is timebounded, then > where did it come from? If you like the big-bang theory, from where the > bang? The theory, as I understand it, assumes gasses floating around > that exploded. Where, pray tell, did these gasses come from? They > were "just there". If so why not think that somehow they were put > there ( by, you guessed, G-D ). Why not? Well, why so? Personally I liked "The Meaning of Life" by Kurt Baier, reprinted in E.D. Klemke et. al., eds., *Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science* (except where Baier strays into moral philosohphy). From: berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) michab > > A) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > > a deity, (3) the deity was created by ???, ... > > B) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > > a deity, (3) the deity didn't have to have been created > > C) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe didn't have to > > have been created by an entity/deity > > ... > > You can't have your cake here and eat it too. When one proclaims, > > "How could the universe not have been created? There must have been > > a creator.", then one might have to accept the same possibility about > > the creator (that IT must have had a creator). If you don't accept > > that (God didn't have to have a creator), then, once again, it is > > equally fathomable that the universe didn't have to either. >... > Assuming that G-d is non-corpreal, it would be similarly meaningless to > assume that G-d is subject to the framework of time. Why is it harder > to assign timelessness to G-d than spacelessness? Well, I recall someone arguing that if G-d is a thinking, conscious person G-d must be located in time or at least some kind of "meta-time". I think I'll let him explain why. > Without time, there is no before and after, no begining and end. It > is meaningless to talk about G-d's begining, His creation if he is > in a timeless realm. > Therefor us timed beings were created, G-d (assuming He is non-corpreal) > was not. Q.E.D. The "therefor" is a non sequitur. What allows you to conclude that us timed beings were created? You have not answered the argument you quoted. --Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink (until 1/11, then back to ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 )
lffast@watrose.UUCP (lffast) (12/31/84)
[Text from reference(s) follows] Just to help out Paul, we timed beings only believe that the universe is in a time domain. This assumption helps us to solve many problems but it isn't necessarily true. This problem of the starting time of the universe indicates that our theories of time are not yet complete. In my mind, if you can hypothesize a somehow timeless god creating the universe, you can hypothesize a somehow timeless universe. > Without time, there is no before and after, no begining and end. It > is meaningless to talk about G-d's begining, His creation if he is > in a timeless realm. > Therefor us timed beings were created, G-d (assuming He is non-corpreal) > was not. Q.E.D.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (01/03/85)
{ quote at end }
How do you scientifically explain the big bang? How can something just
be there? Mustn't there be a conservation of energy? Where did it all come
from in the beginning?
Eliyahu Teitz.
> From: Eliyahu Teitz.
> > If you believe, though, that the universe is timebounded, then
> > where did it come from? If you like the big-bang theory, from where the
> > bang? The theory, as I understand it, assumes gasses floating around
> > that exploded. Where, pray tell, did these gasses come from? They
> > were "just there". If so why not think that somehow they were put
> > there ( by, you guessed, G-D ).
>
> Why not? Well, why so? Personally I liked "The Meaning of Life" by Kurt
> Baier, reprinted in E.D. Klemke et. al., eds., *Introductory Readings in the
> Philosophy of Science* (except where Baier strays into moral philosohphy).
> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/05/85)
In article <1074@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > How do you scientifically explain the big bang? How can something just > be there? Mustn't there be a conservation of energy? Where did it all come > from in the beginning? (Obnoxious flame on...) How do you theologically explain God? How can he just be there? Mustn't he have had parents or something? Where did he come from in the beginning? :-) (Obnoxious flame off...) It is easy to reach the limits of knowledge. On any subject. The fact that knowledge is incomplete does not diminish the validity of that knowledge. Now, there really has recently been proposed a quantum bubble theory of the origin of universes as big bangs. It maintains conservation of energy. It's been published in respected scientific journals. However, we can still ask how the before-our-universe situation came about. By the way, it's occurred to me that the idea of God having always existed is not really supported by the Bible. All the Bible really says is that God is supposed to be older than everything we know of. That's not necessarily infinite. For all we know, he had parents, but is too self-important to let us in on it. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh