The idea of God always existing

[Undeceived]

Modern science teaches us that the universe began in a “big bang.” Most theists would point to this and say, “See! Something had to be before the big bang.” They fail to understand that there wasn’t any time or space before the big bang.

If there wasn't time or space, then time and space began at the Big Bang. Do you have evidence or logic behind the concept of beginning without a cause--any scientific reason at all to believe a fortuitous origin is possible? In order not to fall into infinite regress, the cause of time and space (or some prior cause) must not have a beginning. There must be a "pure actuality," or "actus purus," in the terms of Aristotle. What would you say is the actuality that caused time and space to begin? Would you instead hypothesize an event without a cause?

[genkaus]

If there wasn't time or space, then time and space began at the Big Bang.

Wrong. "Beginning", without a spatio-temporal context, does not make any sense.

[Darkstar]

If there wasn't time or space, then time and space began at the Big Bang.

Why? Time, maybe, but why space? Space could very well be eternal. The idea of space being arranged into an omnipotent being prior to the beginning of the universe without a cause, allowing said sentient and omniscent being to cause the universe, on the other hand, does not seems valid at all. In the words of Carl Sagan "why not save a step?"

[Undeceived]

If there wasn't time or space, then time and space began at the Big Bang.

Why? Time, maybe, but why space? Space could very well be eternal.

Possibly, depending on what you call 'space'. If it has no qualities and no bounds, it is nothing, and there might be no point in arguing beginning at all. You could call such a state eternal. But that's no victory for the generation of matter, because if a vacuum has the mere potentiality for material, that material only becomes an actuality with a third-party cause (Aristotle). By that same line of logic, any kind of plane for quantum fluctuations also needs a cause.

The idea of space being arranged into an omnipotent being prior to the beginning of the universe without a cause, allowing said sentient and omniscent being to cause the universe, on the other hand, does not seems valid at all.

No one was proposing space arranging into a being "prior to the beginning of the universe." They were, however, explaining that the first cause in the chain must have no beginning--it must be pure actuality. This could be a divine being, or an undiscovered force (no evidence). Or there could be a way for our current natural laws to be violated, eliminating the need for a cause->effect (with all evidence to the contrary). Again I ask, which is the most plausible to you? Or do you have another proposition to add to the list?

---

Wrong. "Beginning", without a spatio-temporal context, does not make any sense.

Time starts the instant time itself comes into existence. In the timeline of time, time is at point 0. There is no "before" but we can look back and say there was a start. If you see this differently, please explain.

[Darkstar]

Why? Time, maybe, but why space? Space could very well be eternal.

Possibly, depending on what you call 'space'.

By 'space' I mean matter.

No one was proposing space arranging into a being "prior to the beginning of the universe." They were, however, explaining that the first cause in the chain must have no beginning--it must be pure actuality. This could be a divine being [no evidence], or an undiscovered force (no evidence). Or there could be a way for our current natural laws to be violated, eliminating the need for a cause->effect (with all evidence to the contrary). Again I ask, which is the most plausible to you? Or do you have another proposition to add to the list?

Bolded added by me.
Why a divine being? In the words of Carl Sagan "why not save a step?" Which is more plausible to you? (I pick the first, by the way):
1. The universe came into being without a cause
2. An omnipotent, omniscent, infinite being came into existence without a cause, and then proceeded to create a universe from nothing.
Here, I'll even post Sagan's video:

---

---

[IATIA]

The eternal first cause is a case of special pleading.

IE,EVERYTHING must have a cause! (except God who is the one special exception) The argument is nonsense.

If everything must have a cause, then the problem of infinite regression exists or the problem of the uncaused cause.

However, effect before cause. Causality is unproven.

[Kousbroek]

Possibly, depending on what you call 'space'. If it has no qualities and no bounds, it is nothing, and there might be no point in arguing beginning at all. You could call such a state eternal. But that's no victory for the generation of matter, because if a vacuum has the mere potentiality for material, that material only becomes an actuality with a third-party cause (Aristotle).

This shows the forum 2 things imo ..

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. You seem to think that we are just as or even dumber than you are which is just an outright insult,

[Undeceived]

Possibly, depending on what you call 'space'.

By 'space' I mean matter.

I'm not sure about matter, but when scientists are debating the beginning of the universe they're usually talking about energy. Time is change and change only happens when energy is applied to matter. Scientists agree that positive energy surfaced at one point and time. Some call it the Big Bang. Without energy, matter remains inert. Could energy be eternal? Only if you are willing to take the cause and effects of energy back into infinity--an infinite regress. But if infinite regress doesn't bother you, Sagan's theory isn't disproven (though it might be in infinite, unknowable limbo).

No one was proposing space arranging into a being "prior to the beginning of the universe." They were, however, explaining that the first cause in the chain must have no beginning--it must be pure actuality. This could be a divine being [no evidence], or an undiscovered force (no evidence). Or there could be a way for our current natural laws to be violated, eliminating the need for a cause->effect (with all evidence to the contrary). Again I ask, which is the most plausible to you? Or do you have another proposition to add to the list?

Why a divine being? In the words of Carl Sagan "why not save a step?" Which is more plausible to you? (I pick the first, by the way):
1. The universe came into being without a cause
2. An omnipotent, omniscent, infinite being came into existence without a cause, and then proceeded to create a universe from nothing.

3. A personal, eternal, causeless being created the universe. He/she did not "come into existence", but always was. Here's the argument in summary: Infinite regress can only be avoided when the first efficient cause is eternal. But being eternal means having no change, and change is required to start a universe. That leaves us with only one solution: the eternal causal agent is a personal entity who can choose to make change in spite of his/her own changeless nature.

[Darkstar]

3. A personal, eternal, causeless being created the universe. He/she did not "come into existence", but always was.

"Why not save a step and say the universe always was?"

Here's the argument in summary: Infinite regress can only be avoided when the first efficient cause is eternal. But being eternal means having no change, and change is required to start a universe. That leaves us with only one solution: the eternal causal agent is a personal entity who can choose to make change in spite of his/her own changeless nature.

How does that avoid infinite regress? That leaves open the question "who created god?" And if it doesn't, then why can't the universe be causeless? Which is more likely to happen without a cause; random atoms or an omnipotent being. And no, you cannot say it is the omnipotent being because he is onmipotent and can thus do anyhting, because this would mean he would have had to have created himself. Or, if he "always was" would not an infinite amount of time have had to pass to reach this point?

[Undeceived]

3. A personal, eternal, causeless being created the universe. He/she did not "come into existence", but always was.

"Why not save a step and say the universe always was?"

Because our natural laws say that energy cannot always have been. No beginning = scientific contradiction. We need a causal agent that is by definition supernatural (meaning outside of the natural system) so that there is no contradiction with natural laws. God fits the bill. All natural things are caused, but a supernatural being or force would not have to be caused, because they are spiritual and do not require physical energy. The causal agent has to be eternal, and eternal means unchanging (again, all changes have causes and we can't logically have infinite causes). Our universe is always changing, and its entropy is increasing, meaning the energy is running down from one starting point. What caused that spike in energy, that it is able to run down over time?

Entropy: a measure inversely related to the energy available for work in a physical system. So imagine the line above running in a downwards slope from the beginning of time.

Or, if he "always was" would not an infinite amount of time have had to pass to reach this point?

God is changeless, so time does not exist for him. He is always in the present. He made time for our world so we could learn and make choices--so we could change.