foxpaws said:
But doesn't the big bang - the absolute beginning - deal with only what happens to the matter that created the universe - not where that matter comes from?
Let me stop you right away here for a quick clarification. There is no such thing as “the matter that created the universe.” To be clear, matter is by nature not self-creating. We both agree on this insofar as we reject the idea that the universe just “popped into existence” on its own. While you believe it was “always there” and I believe God created it, neither of us really thinks the physical matter created the universe itself. Perhaps what you meant to say was that the matter that expanded following the Big Bang was reordered and restructured to give rise to the universe in its present condition? As far as “where that matter comes from” – science has no answer that can avoid the principle of non-contradiction.
And speaking of which, we should note here that science is based off of “inductive reasoning” while principles such as the principle of non-contradiction is based on “deductive reasoning” – this may sound too technical, but it is of great importance. Deductive reasoning is “stronger” than inductive reasoning because that which is known deductively is not open to revision. 2+2 is always going to equal 4, regardless of where or when someone is. Inductive reasoning offers only probabilities and can always be open to new ideas which change things. Just because, for example, we observe along a city block that seven houses in a row are white, we cannot say for sure that the eighth house will also be white. In such a way we can say that the sciences must offer theories that do not violate rules that are deductively certain. In such a way, scientists must be cognizant of the principle of non-contradiction when offering theories. This is one reason why scientists use mathematics, for the laws of mathematics follow the laws of deduction, which are absolute and unchanging.
foxpaws said:
And beginning - what can be in that minute before the big bang - there wasn't 'time' - because 'time' was also created by the big bang - along with space.
The standard model of the Big Bang holds that there was neither matter nor time prior to the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. As far as scientists know, there was nothing physical prior to the Big Bang. It’s important to note that there is a really big metaphysical difference between nothing physical and nothing. We have to take off our materialist lenses to understand this.
It would probably also be helpful to say that “time” is a tough term. The Greeks had two important words for it: chronos and kairos. The former refers to what science would call time (in the sense of space-time) while the latter refers to a qualitative sense of time. Chronos can be measured, and it answers the question: what time is it? Kairos, on the other hand, says not what the time is but rather what the time is for. Chronos spreads events out on a timeline, but kairos gives events depth and meaning. An event may take 2 seconds in chronos time – like jumping off a high dive – but placed in the context of kairos time, it can feel like it took “forever”. If we were to speak of time in the context of eternity, we must adequately understand the difference between chronos and kairos while recognizing that in eternity there are no minutes and seconds.
foxpaws said:
But, once again there isn't 'time' before 'bang' so the matter that created the universe could be eternal - there is no concept, no measurement, no passage of 'time' before the bang.
If matter existed prior to the Big Bang, then there would indeed be time in existence with it. Because matter is composed of measurable parts, there entails with it a need for time. At the moment of the Big Bang, the universe had a definite size and structure – it was just very, very small and very, very dense. Thus there would have also been time, just very, very short.
Notice the “if” when I said “if matter existed prior to the Big Bang.” No scientist today believes that the singularity which burst forth in the Big Bang and gave rise to our universe sat there for eternity before exploding. Indeed, we should clarify between “eternity” and “infinite”. Since matter is made up of finite parts which would entail a measureable finite time, the universe must have necessarily needed infinite time for it to have “always been”. But given the nature of infinity, we can say that given an infinite amount of time, all possible events would have occurred – including universal death. But we are still here and still alive. Therefore the universe is not infinitely old.
Furthermore, we can say that God exists in eternity where there is no time. Having no time, eternity also necessarily has no physical parts – for physical parts bring with it the existence of time. Thus there can be no such thing has an “eternal” universe, but rather an infinitely old universe. But as I noted above, the idea of an infinitely old universe is not a logical possibility, much less anything theorized from the sciences after the 1980s. In such a way, both the inductive reasoning of science and the deductive reasoning of philosophy support my views and neither of them supports yours.
foxpaws said:
I don't think anything 'made' God - however, why do we have to have something (God?) 'make' the matter that was at the start of the universe? Cannot they both just 'be'? We don't need an eternal, partless non-material reality to jump start the universe.
I believe I have answered this question, but I will point us back once more to the simple laws of deductive reasoning. Parmenides succinctly stated that “from nothing only nothing comes.” Matter does not justify its own existence and neither does the rational nature of the physical universe nor the biological life on earth. When we look out upon the world and the universe, we should note three tremendous things: that there is anything at all, that what is out there is ordered/reasonable, and that from this order has arisen life. As a Christian, I attribute the first thing to God the Father, the second to God the Son, and the third to God the Holy Spirit. That’s not “scientific” but it certainly doesn’t contradict science – sadly, your position of an infinitely old universe does
foxpaws said:
I think [by a “transcendent, eternal, infinite, spiritual God is the only hope for a material universe”] you mean a material earth - there could be alien species out there - without original sin - with no need for our 'God'. Not made in His image - no need to have His Son to absolve their sins.
We’re straying more into theology here than what the sciences can tell us. But my definition of God stands regardless of life on earth. There was a transcendent, eternal, infinite, spiritual God 13 billion years ago, even though there was no life on earth (indeed no earth at all). There also could be aliens (Pope Benedict XVI has even stated the possibility of their existence), but if this alien life is rational, then we could say they are made in God’s image. And they may even be without sin! In such a case, some theologians have wondered if we would play the part of the serpent in their spiritual history. Let’s hope this is not the case.
foxpaws said:
Federali - not quite following you on this one - That the Christian God is the only one that works for what...
Once again, God is the only being that can be self-existing. The sciences, using inductive reasoning, tell us that the universe has an absolute beginning and philosophy, using deductive reasoning, tells us that matter (with its need for space and time) lacks what is necessary to be self-existing or infinite.
Also, while I personally believe in the Christian God, I use “God” here in a strictly monotheistic sense. You don’t have to believe in Jesus Christ to know the truths of science and philosophy.
foxpaws said:
Closer to Panentheism.
Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all.
Well I have to say, I run into plenty of pantheists, but few who describe themselves as closer to panentheism. But you are very clever and panentheism is a great clever-person’s position. It’s a wonderful place to be if one would like to have it both ways (i.e. have both Christian and pantheist leanings). I do find it funny that, for as being as opposed to a masculine God as you are, that the best Bible verse you use to describe yourself is one in which St. Paul refers to God as Father. Of course, he writes in such a way so as to make sure no one is confused by his statement that God is “in all” – because by being “Father” God is outside of time and space. He enters into it from without to impregnate it with His life. All creation is feminine before Him. By “in all” St. Paul means that God is the sustainer of all that exists. God is holding things in being because all things have their being from Him. To read pantheism or panentheism into St. Paul would be, as scripture scholars would call it, eisegesis rather than exegesis (the former is reading your views into the text while the latter is understanding what the text itself says – big difference). If one quote’s a source (Bible or otherwise) it’s important not to read one’s own beliefs into the text but rather let the text speak for itself (given it's historical, cultural, and literary context, of course).
