God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[Whateverist]

Why do you approach this in such an authoritarian manner? Why begin by deciding what the experts think? Couldn't we just discuss the way things stand directly without the expert middlemen? It makes you come off as putting on airs in ways you probably do not intend.

I find the choice of 'nothing' or 'no nothing' to be as unhelpful as that between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Both nothing and supernatural are categories devoid of certain members. What good does it do to start that way?

Intuitively, I assume that before any event you can name there would've been the necessary prior conditions. If you believe in God then you think that catalyst was already there. I don't assume the local big bang is and will be the only one. With most models of multi-verses there is no predicted effects which we should be able to test from within the local big bang. That doesn't mean the big bang is unique. It just means we're in no position to know in either event. Where knowledge isn't possible, I prefer to admit I just don't know.

Again, I am not claiming belief in God.

No, and I'm not assuming that you do. I'm just addressing one of the two competing theories you mentioned which you seemed say both imply a nothing-beginning. I don't think the existence of an eternal god is consistent with a true nothing any more than I think a big bang is consistent with a true nothing.

With regard to my referring to scientific experts, I do so because they are assumed to be the people who are "in the know" about things that related to our understanding about the nature of reality, consciousness, existence. My subjective opinion means nothing to anyone but me.

From my point of view, whether what you have to say reflects what you think is expert-approved or merely what you have reason to believe is all the same. Unless you can weigh what the 'experts' think directly, what you think they think has no more value than just your "subjective opinion". You cannot remove yourself from the debate .. but carry on!

Personally I think the multiverse theory is fascinating, as is the holographic universe theory. I wouldn't say I "believe in them" per se, but they're interesting to think about and discuss. I'm very skeptical, but I rule out no possibilities unless I feel like I have good reason to.

I like that about you. I'd just encourage you to place more value in your own lowly opinion. [Hint: It isn't avoidable.]

[sswhateverlove]

I like that about you. I'd just encourage you to place more value in your own lowly opinion. [Hint: It isn't avoidable.]

Thank you. Based on my experience though, I don't see others appreciating it as much as you do. Most people don't want to hear my opinion unless I can point to numerous experts who share it. Well, so is life.

[Cyberman]

Even experts have to show their work. All you've been asked to do is provide citations for the things you claim so they might be verified independently.

[Anomalocaris]

I like that about you. I'd just encourage you to place more value in your own lowly opinion. [Hint: It isn't avoidable.]

Thank you. Based on my experience though, I don't see others appreciating it as much as you do. Most people don't want to hear my opinion unless I can point to numerous experts who share it. Well, so is life.

No, you just have to show you have what it takes to form opinions worth hearing about.

If your opinions exhibit high positive correlation to the opinions of those who have demonstrated their opinion is worth hearing (ie experts), then your opinion has improved chance of being worth hearing in themselves. You still have to show your work when challenged, but we may more,often give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you can show your opinion is well grounded and logically formulated, than your opinion would be worth hearing about.

So far what I heard of your opinions suggests that your opinions are not very well grounded, are based on some significant misconceptions and misinterpretations, and your logics contains many leaps which, had you taken the pains of small, scrutinized steps, you would have realized were unsound.

So your opinions are by themselves not of a great deal of value for the time it takes to read them. Discussion the holes in your logic is a little more worthwhile.

But you are still better than many. You may get your facts wrong and take wrong steps in your logic, at least you recognize right facts and right logic leads to sound conclusions, unlike some who assume whatever conclusion suits their digestion, and would unscrupulously lay whatever smoke screen they believe it would take to disguise the total absence of any attempt at facts or logic.

[sswhateverlove]

So far what I heard of your opinions suggests that your opinions are not very well grounded, are based on some significant misconceptions and misinterpretations, and your logics contains many leaps which, had you taken the pains of small, scrutinized steps, you would have realized were unsound.

So your opinions are by themselves not of a great deal of value for the time it takes to read them. Discussion the holes in your logic is a little more worthwhile.

But you are still better than many. You may get your facts wrong and take wrong steps in your logic

So, I guess I should now question why I should trust your judgement regarding my "misconceptions", "unsound logic", or how valuable my opinions are?

You're coming off as quite arrogant. Care to share your credentials?

[Zidneya]

Just about everything... Who are you, and what are you doing here?

Yeah.
Because I can get that you are an agnostic and you are full of skepticism however shouldn't you I dunno study a little more before making claims?

“from nothing, God created everything” and “from nothing, the Big Bang created everything”. One is called “religion” and the other is called “scientific fact”, but both make the same claim.

If I remember correctly the Big Bang claimed the origin of the universe and what came before last time I checked the official scientific answer was We don't know. Instead of the traditional religious answer that says: God he was there he always was there and stop asking.

[sswhateverlove]

Just about everything... Who are you, and what are you doing here?
Yeah.
Because I can get that you are an agnostic and you are full of skepticism however shouldn't you I dunno study a little more before making claims?

If you're interested, you should read my Intro post. It is where you would expect it to be.

[fr0d0]

As a theist, I take interest in science purely on its own grounds. I understand that my faith says nothing about the physical universe and it's processes, and am awed by it. My faith and understanding of Christianity is not weakened, but strengthened by that stance. Like you (OP), I am fascinated by the subject, and especially difficult questions. The reference made by scientists to "God" when they mean something beyond present understanding is lazy and disingenuous in a way (a misuse of the premise), but I understand what they're trying to express.

[Tonus]

Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".

Scientists do not cloak assertions as "theories" in order to promote them as truth. Scientists build theories using knowledge and understanding obtained by experimentation and research, ie: facts.

You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is, or how it is different from facts, or how it uses facts, or the method by which a theory may be strengthen, weakened, or dismissed altogether as we learn more. You're going to find that you are talking past a lot of us if you're working from the premise that scientists can make any claim as long as they refer to it as a "theory" and push it on an unsuspecting public as fact.

[sswhateverlove]

Most scientists would disagree with you. That's why their assertions are called "theories".

Scientists do not cloak assertions as "theories" in order to promote them as truth. Scientists build theories using knowledge and understanding obtained by experimentation and research, ie: facts.

You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is, or how it is different from facts, or how it uses facts, or the method by which a theory may be strengthen, weakened, or dismissed altogether as we learn more. You're going to find that you are talking past a lot of us if you're working from the premise that scientists can make any claim as long as they refer to it as a "theory" and push it on an unsuspecting public as fact.

A theory is a theory because scientists recognize that you can never know for certain that you controlled for all possible influences. All scientific evidence derived conclusions carry that as an implicit assumption. So, I'd say there is no "is". (Performative contradiction intended).