War, what is it good for?

[Octavious]

I think it's fair to say that the Big Bang theory isn't any more intuitive or convincing than anything religion has come up with. And it is generally misunderstood by the vast majority of the public that have heard of it. If someone asked me in what area the Big Bang took place, and I were to reply it can be found in the downstairs toilet of the closest Wetherspoons pub to the Greenwich Observatory, most people would believe I was talking bollocks. When the reality is, of course, that is perfectly true.

At problem that gets in our way is that the English language is unable to talk about such things with any clarity. You start off by saying that the Big Bang was the beginning of space time, and then you give an estimate of how many billion years ago time started... and then it hits you that the concept of time starting x number of years ago doesn't make a damn bit of sense, and it all falls apart. So what most people do is skate over the tricky bits and hope no-one asks awkward questions. It's a bit like Catholics trying to explain the holy trinity, or teachers organising the class nativity play hoping that nobody asks where the wise men were staying.

But in all seriousness I wouldn't put any faith whatsoever in scientific laws when applying them to the end states of the universe. They just don't hold up

[CaptainFritz28]

Wow. You're advancing a version of the cosmological argument here. It's a bad argument and I'd be happy to argue it with you but goodness me you're framing it badly...

I probably am doing a poor job of framing it, so let me simplify it to the basics of what I'm saying.

The universe exists, and we can observe that it is expanding. We also have the scientific law that everything tends towards chaos. Thus, some time in the past, there had to have been an origin, in which things were ordered better than they are now.
That origin may be a big bang, it may be a creation, it may be whatever you like it to be, but whatever it is it had to start with something existing. However, that doesn't explain how that initial existing thing existed in the first place. It too must have an origin. Atheism cannot explain that origin, as whatever originated that had to exist, and whatever originated that existing thing had to exist, and so on and so forth. Thus, there must be an initial originator, something that could cause into existence a chain of events, or just one event, that would cause the universe to be what it is now. That initial originator has to be intelligent, as whatever existed first must have been more ordered than what we have now, and order does not come from chaos. That initial originator must also have to be eternal.
So we have an eternal intelligent being that has the power to set into motion the creation of the universe. Christians call that God.

If all things must have an origin, then God must have an origin.

How did God originate?

That is the very point. Something must be the beginning. The only explanation is that something existed for eternity, or else that there was a beginning caused by something outside of time. Either of those leads to an eternal intelligent being with the power to create the universe.

[CaptainFritz28]

I think it's fair to say that the Big Bang theory isn't any more intuitive or convincing than anything religion has come up with. And it is generally misunderstood by the vast majority of the public that have heard of it. If someone asked me in what area the Big Bang took place, and I were to reply it can be found in the downstairs toilet of the closest Wetherspoons pub to the Greenwich Observatory, most people would believe I was talking bollocks. When the reality is, of course, that is perfectly true.

At problem that gets in our way is that the English language is unable to talk about such things with any clarity. You start off by saying that the Big Bang was the beginning of space time, and then you give an estimate of how many billion years ago time started... and then it hits you that the concept of time starting x number of years ago doesn't make a damn bit of sense, and it all falls apart. So what most people do is skate over the tricky bits and hope no-one asks awkward questions. It's a bit like Catholics trying to explain the holy trinity, or teachers organising the class nativity play hoping that nobody asks where the wise men were staying.

But in all seriousness I wouldn't put any faith whatsoever in scientific laws when applying them to the end states of the universe. They just don't hold up

You raise a good point here. What I should have started with is the fact that, as you said, a beginning to time makes no sense, and yet using either Atheism or Christianity or anything else you come to the conclusion that there was a beginning to time. As you said, scientifically it doesn't make sense, which is one of the reasons Christians attribute it to the creator of time and science.

[Jamiet99uk]

I probably am doing a poor job of framing it, so let me simplify it to the basics of what I'm saying.

The universe exists, and we can observe that it is expanding. We also have the scientific law that everything tends towards chaos. Thus, some time in the past, there had to have been an origin, in which things were ordered better than they are now.
That origin may be a big bang, it may be a creation, it may be whatever you like it to be, but whatever it is it had to start with something existing. However, that doesn't explain how that initial existing thing existed in the first place. It too must have an origin. Atheism cannot explain that origin, as whatever originated that had to exist, and whatever originated that existing thing had to exist, and so on and so forth. Thus, there must be an initial originator, something that could cause into existence a chain of events, or just one event, that would cause the universe to be what it is now. That initial originator has to be intelligent, as whatever existed first must have been more ordered than what we have now, and order does not come from chaos. That initial originator must also have to be eternal.
So we have an eternal intelligent being that has the power to set into motion the creation of the universe. Christians call that God.

If all things must have an origin, then God must have an origin.

How did God originate?

That is the very point. Something must be the beginning. The only explanation is that something existed for eternity, or else that there was a beginning caused by something outside of time. Either of those leads to an eternal intelligent being with the power to create the universe.

If something existed for eternity then there doesn't have to be a beginning, surely.

[Jamiet99uk]

In any case you didn't answer my question.

[CaptainFritz28]

In any case you didn't answer my question.

True, my apologies. God did not originate, as God is outside of time.

[CaptainFritz28]

If all things must have an origin, then God must have an origin.

How did God originate?

That is the very point. Something must be the beginning. The only explanation is that something existed for eternity, or else that there was a beginning caused by something outside of time. Either of those leads to an eternal intelligent being with the power to create the universe.

If something existed for eternity then there doesn't have to be a beginning, surely.

Ah, but our universe has not existed for eternity. If God existed and will exist for eternity, then there is no beginning or end of time for Him. For us, time is a relative construct, based on the movement of the planets. It is something we made up. Based on what we made up, the universe in physical form can only have existed for a limited amount of time before its origin. Something must have originated it, which something must be outside of time to originate time.

[Jamiet99uk]

That is the very point. Something must be the beginning. The only explanation is that something existed for eternity, or else that there was a beginning caused by something outside of time. Either of those leads to an eternal intelligent being with the power to create the universe.

If something existed for eternity then there doesn't have to be a beginning, surely.

Ah, but our universe has not existed for eternity. If God existed and will exist for eternity, then there is no beginning or end of time for Him. For us, time is a relative construct, based on the movement of the planets. It is something we made up. Based on what we made up, the universe in physical form can only have existed for a limited amount of time before its origin. Something must have originated it, which something must be outside of time to originate time.

What if there was another universe before ours, and what if there will be another one afterwards? What if that process is endless?

[CaptainFritz28]

If something existed for eternity then there doesn't have to be a beginning, surely.

Ah, but our universe has not existed for eternity. If God existed and will exist for eternity, then there is no beginning or end of time for Him. For us, time is a relative construct, based on the movement of the planets. It is something we made up. Based on what we made up, the universe in physical form can only have existed for a limited amount of time before its origin. Something must have originated it, which something must be outside of time to originate time.

What if there was another universe before ours, and what if there will be another one afterwards? What if that process is endless?

Do you mean that before the origin of our universe there was another from which ours originated? Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that if there is such a thing as time, then there was a beginning to time, and that something is outside of time. That something that is outside of time is God.

[Octavious]

What if there was another universe before ours, and what if there will be another one afterwards? What if that process is endless?

It's an interesting idea. Although if you're discussing about before and after then you're necessarily rejecting the notion that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, which means you don't actually believe the Big Bang theory.

Which is fair enough. I don't have any faith in the scientific creation myth either

[Jamiet99uk]

Ah, but our universe has not existed for eternity. If God existed and will exist for eternity, then there is no beginning or end of time for Him. For us, time is a relative construct, based on the movement of the planets. It is something we made up. Based on what we made up, the universe in physical form can only have existed for a limited amount of time before its origin. Something must have originated it, which something must be outside of time to originate time.

What if there was another universe before ours, and what if there will be another one afterwards? What if that process is endless?

Do you mean that before the origin of our universe there was another from which ours originated? Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that if there is such a thing as time, then there was a beginning to time, and that something is outside of time. That something that is outside of time is God.

Your claim is weakly founded.

Why must there have been a beginning to time?

Why is it a "fact" that something must exist outside of time?

[Octavious]

A question for Jamie that I'd be interested in hearing an answer to.

If it could be proven that a belief in God would lead to an increase in mental wellbeing and satisfaction amongst the population, would you encourage the spread of such beliefs?

[Jamiet99uk]

A question for Jamie that I'd be interested in hearing an answer to.

If it could be proven that a belief in God would lead to an increase in mental wellbeing and satisfaction amongst the population, would you encourage the spread of such beliefs?

Just to be clear of the ask... do you mean:

(a) If God is definitely real, and believing this actual reality would improve wellbeing, would I encourage this belief?

or

(b) If God is not real, but nonetheless people's wellbeing would be improved by believing in this falsehood, would I promote it even if I personally believed it to be false?

I think you mean (b) but I'd like to be sure before I answer.

[CaptainFritz28]

What if there was another universe before ours, and what if there will be another one afterwards? What if that process is endless?

Do you mean that before the origin of our universe there was another from which ours originated? Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that if there is such a thing as time, then there was a beginning to time, and that something is outside of time. That something that is outside of time is God.

Your claim is weakly founded.

Why must there have been a beginning to time?

Why is it a "fact" that something must exist outside of time?

Things exist. Existence does not just pop out of nothing. How do we know this? Observable science.
Perhaps there were universes before ours. That does not explain our universe. Ours had an origin, and we know this because of, again, observable science.
The idea of an origin involves the idea of a beginning of time. Other universes, if they existed, had their beginnings and ends, and ours does as well.
The idea of a beginning to time implies something before and after it. Something outside of it. You have claimed that that is a series of unending universe's.
It is very similar to the (I think Hindu) idea that the Earth rests on the back of a giant tortoise. When inquired what the tortoise sits on, the answer was given - it's tortoises after tortoise, all the way down.

Your argument is circular. While you try to disprove a circular argument. See, it is as I said. Even Atheism is circular when it comes to this.
Your argument claims that a supernatural, unexplainable, eternal, and more ordered phenomenon with the ability to give us intelligent life caused our universe.
So essentially you are just arguing for a weak version of God.
Difference is, my unprovable claim is based on a book that has quite a lot of truth to it, which has been responsible for the most good done of any book ever, with prophecies written centuries before the events themselves, and all accurate nonetheless.
Your unprovable claim is based on... you.

I think I'll stick with the Bible on this one.

[Octavious]

A question for Jamie that I'd be interested in hearing an answer to.

If it could be proven that a belief in God would lead to an increase in mental wellbeing and satisfaction amongst the population, would you encourage the spread of such beliefs?

Just to be clear of the ask... do you mean:

(a) If God is definitely real, and believing this actual reality would improve wellbeing, would I encourage this belief?

or

(b) If God is not real, but nonetheless people's wellbeing would be improved by believing in this falsehood, would I promote it even if I personally believed it to be false?

I think you mean (b) but I'd like to be sure before I answer.

Let's leave God's existence a matter of faith, and answer c "you personally don't believe He exists, but evidence that you believe to be accurate shows that if others believe in Him their lives will be measurably improved".

[Jamiet99uk]

Do you mean that before the origin of our universe there was another from which ours originated? Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that if there is such a thing as time, then there was a beginning to time, and that something is outside of time. That something that is outside of time is God.

Your claim is weakly founded.

Why must there have been a beginning to time?

Why is it a "fact" that something must exist outside of time?

Things exist. Existence does not just pop out of nothing. How do we know this? Observable science.
Perhaps there were universes before ours. That does not explain our universe. Ours had an origin, and we know this because of, again, observable science.
The idea of an origin involves the idea of a beginning of time. Other universes, if they existed, had their beginnings and ends, and ours does as well.
The idea of a beginning to time implies something before and after it. Something outside of it. You have claimed that that is a series of unending universe's.
It is very similar to the (I think Hindu) idea that the Earth rests on the back of a giant tortoise. When inquired what the tortoise sits on, the answer was given - it's tortoises after tortoise, all the way down.

Your argument is circular. While you try to disprove a circular argument. See, it is as I said. Even Atheism is circular when it comes to this.
Your argument claims that a supernatural, unexplainable, eternal, and more ordered phenomenon with the ability to give us intelligent life caused our universe.
So essentially you are just arguing for a weak version of God.
Difference is, my unprovable claim is based on a book that has quite a lot of truth to it, which has been responsible for the most good done of any book ever, with prophecies written centuries before the events themselves, and all accurate nonetheless.
Your unprovable claim is based on... you.

I think I'll stick with the Bible on this one.

I never argued for the existence of any such thing. Nope.

[Jamiet99uk]

A question for Jamie that I'd be interested in hearing an answer to.

If it could be proven that a belief in God would lead to an increase in mental wellbeing and satisfaction amongst the population, would you encourage the spread of such beliefs?

Just to be clear of the ask... do you mean:

(a) If God is definitely real, and believing this actual reality would improve wellbeing, would I encourage this belief?

or

(b) If God is not real, but nonetheless people's wellbeing would be improved by believing in this falsehood, would I promote it even if I personally believed it to be false?

I think you mean (b) but I'd like to be sure before I answer.

Let's leave God's existence a matter of faith, and answer c "you personally don't believe He exists, but evidence that you believe to be accurate shows that if others believe in Him their lives will be measurably improved".

I am not a liar. I can only advocate for things I think are true.

I can't advocate for a God I think is false, full stop.

Lying is harmful.

[Jamiet99uk]

Things exist. Existence does not just pop out of nothing.

You are arguing that God popped out of nothing.

[CaptainFritz28]

Things exist. Existence does not just pop out of nothing.

You are arguing that God popped out of nothing.

God never popped into existence. To pop into existence requires having an origin, when we already stipulated that God is eternal. You assume that God is confined by time, when He is the one who created time, and thus is not constrained by it.

[Octavious]

I am not a liar. I can only advocate for things I think are true.

I can't advocate for a God I think is false, full stop.

Lying is harmful.

Can you advocate for the use of placebos in medicine?