Origin of Creation

[Neopergoss]

If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from?

Sure, but if we're going to do that, we have to be fair and ask where the quantum singularity that was allegedly the seed for the "Big Bang" came from.  Evolutionist or Creationist, the problem of origin poses an infinitely steep wall brought on by our concept of causation.  How far back do you go before something didn't have to have a cause?  Some would say the universe is going through repeated phases of expansion and contraction, that there were other Big Bangs before the one that brought forth the universe in which we exist - but this isn't any better than claiming a deity who is self-causing or eternal.

Except that there is some rational basis for it. There is no basis for belief in a deity. But you're right that neither one solves the apparent paradox of causality.

You used the word reaction - be careful how you react.  Reactions are emotional.

You're right. I tried not to jump down your throat, especially because I have a fair amount of respect for you from your other posts. Still, because of how common and pernicious creationist attacks on evolution are, I feel the need to be prepared for them and not let them go unanswered.

[johannhowitzer]

Except that there is some rational basis for it.

Watch your words here - I don't think "rational" is the word you want.  "Empirical" might be a bit closer... there is in fact a rational basis for belief in a deity, or every person who believes in one would be exercising wishful thinking - which is obviously not the case, from my encounters with some of the more intelligent theists out there.

To put it a different way, you can get to a deity via philosophy (conclusions upon evidence), but not via science (hard evidence itself).

[Rutarete]

Wow this has gotten heated quickly. If the current debate continues though, i think this might end up being moved to the science subforum, as the main focus seems to be on evolution, when the original focus was existence/creation. Maybe we can shift the focus back more towards the below quote?

If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

[Nepycros]

If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

That's only viable if you believe in a static universe. However, the universe is expanding. That means that it had to have started from a definitive point.

[Neopergoss]

Except that there is some rational basis for it.

Watch your words here - I don't think "rational" is the word you want.  "Empirical" might be a bit closer... there is in fact a rational basis for belief in a deity, or every person who believes in one would be exercising wishful thinking - which is obviously not the case, from my encounters with some of the more intelligent theists out there.

To put it a different way, you can get to a deity via philosophy (conclusions upon evidence), but not via science (hard evidence itself).

You're right. As a theist, I supported my belief with rationality for a long time. My opinion changed because I found flaws in my reasoning. So I suppose there is a rational basis for theism, though I believe it to be flawed. I do think a lot of it comes from wishful thinking -- no one wants to change deeply held religious convictions -- but similar biases affect atheists as well.

That's only viable if you believe in a static universe. However, the universe is expanding. That means that it had to have started from a definitive point.

Well there is a theory that the universe expands and contracts over and over again forever. This would give it a starting point, but it would still allow the universe to have always existed.

[Furby]

I disagree. If the universe expands and contracts, it must have a starting point somewhere.

Think of the graphs of cos/sin. They go up and down forever, but at any time T, we can determine if it is 'up' or 'down.'

The issue is, where do we start? If present time is assumed T=0, can tell what Sin was at t=-100 and t=100, but the question is, how do we know Sin existed -100time ago? We can only show what it would have looked like this far ago, but that doesn't tell us when it actually did start (which it must have).

[OldTrees]

I disagree. If the universe expands and contracts, it must have a starting point somewhere.

Think of the graphs of cos/sin. They go up and down forever, but at any time T, we can determine if it is 'up' or 'down.'

The issue is, where do we start? If present time is assumed T=0, can tell what Sin was at t=-100 and t=100, but the question is, how do we know Sin existed -100time ago? We can only show what it would have looked like this far ago, but that doesn't tell us when it actually did start (which it must have).

The issue of where we start is very important. We could have started at -100 or perhaps we could never go back far enough to reach the beginning.
(The later being the case with the Sin function. For every negative X value you name the Sin function exists before that value).

[Furby]

Correct it does exist, but we can of course set a limit...question is where? The reason in theory the function goes on forever both ways is because the function does not know where you are.

Maybe you are a billion years from the start, so it will continue backwards negative for a while, but of course, you be talking about the past as present, which makes it go forward.

I state this in response to your comment about a sin value existing before the one infront of it.

We need more information to see where we could possibly put a limit on (like x>0).
I know astronomers and physicists have been researching things like star formations/life times, light...and physicists using calculations to determine other material, but outside of religion, I wonder if they can come up with something pretty concrete.

Ex: you say this happened billions of years ago, but we might have gone too far on our 'sine' function.
example: -2pie is farther back than -pie, but both yield the same value. This would all change if we used a graph more like e^x (sorry if I am getting off topic/not making sense, just let me know) 

[OldTrees]

We need more information to see where we could possibly put a limit on (like x>0).

I was using sine to refer to the possibility* that the limit might be x>-infinity.

*Noting the possibility and nothing more. Some people would not consider a limit of (x>-infinity) as having a start point despite being a possibility.

I think science is going to be limited to 3 possible types of discoveries.
a) Situation A was created by previously unknown earlier Situation B
b) Something can come from nothing
c) Time is even more of an illusion than we already told you it was

Note1: You are making sense to me. You are did a good job of explaining how a starting point is possible even if there was some repetition before this universe. Likewise for pointing out that a function can be used to predict backwards to times that did not exist. (My favorite example of that is following a cannon ball backwards from the cannon)

Note2: sine and cos were good models for repeated expansion and contraction.

[Rutarete]

I think scientists would likely get stuck on b

b) Something can come from nothing

because, according to science, nothing does not exist (as in, the state of nothingness, not a vacuum)*. Going by that conclusion, what they at first thought could be 'nothing' is actually something, but when they try to figure out where that came from, they'd get into the eternal(?) loop.

*Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for C), I think: Time is more a concept referring to 'things' than a thing itself.

So of those 3 discoveries you've said they might be limited to, I'm not sure b) is really a discovery.

[Furby]

Explaining B is still going to be the biggest obstacle because it is like explaining where time started in a sense. If scientists could establish that, I am curious to what would that would say.

Note: religion always finds its way back into the argument here which is one of the reasons religion is not yet 'outdated.'

[Rutarete]

Where did it come from that time is the source?