Creationist Equivocation

[Objectivist]

If existence is primary, then it is eternal.  Existence is primary.  The question "where did it all come from" is a nonsensical question that trades in stolen concepts.  The universe is existence seen as a whole and represents all beings, their attributes, their actions, their relationships, etc., so saying that the universe came into being is like saying the universe came into itself.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that existence preceded the Big Bang? How does that work? I know there are various theories...

Do you hold that the universe is somehow eternal, with no beginning? If existence preceded the Big Bang, and existence is something, then there was something before. 

I know you don't believe in any supernatural stuff, so we don't have to go through that. But I'm curious if you see a point at which all the stuff started (Big Bang-like). 

I've watched a few Roger Penrose videos on YouTube but they are way over my head.

According to the big bang theory, there was a singularity.  The singularity was all the energy in the universe was in a very small area and it was very, very hot.  So yes there was something there before if before even has meaning in that context.  We know that when space is warped, time slows down.  If the singularity was an infinitely dense area of spacetime and energy, then in that state  one second may just be the same as infinity.  If time began with the expansion of the singularity then there is no problem.  I understand that the singularity is really a result of applying the math of general relativity beyond its limits, the plank distance.  There are other hypotheses that don't predict a singularity such as loop quantum gravity and cyclical conformal cosmology.  

I do hold that the universe, all that exists, is eternal since time is a part of the universe.  Time presupposes existence.  Existence doesn't presuppose time.  I don't see any reason to suppose that something hasn't always existed.  I recognize that energy and matter are interchangeable and that one can become the other, that neither can be created or destroyed in a closed system.  My views are not contradicted by either the big bang or Thermodynamics.  But I'm not an expert in either.  

I think that if one proposes that at one time nothing existed, besides contradicting one's self, one would have a hard time justifying this proposition since nothing wouldn't leave any evidence of its "existence".  The very concept of evidence presupposes existence, i.e., facts that are evident.  This also presupposes that consciousness also exists for the evidence to be evident.  I think there's no escaping the fact that existence exists.  It's the most fundamental fact.  One either accepts this or denies this.  The problem is that denial is a type of conscious action that presupposes both the existence of consciousness and some object that the consciousness is aware of.

[polymath257]

If existence is primary, then it is eternal.  Existence is primary.  The question "where did it all come from" is a nonsensical question that trades in stolen concepts.  The universe is existence seen as a whole and represents all beings, their attributes, their actions, their relationships, etc., so saying that the universe came into being is like saying the universe came into itself.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that existence preceded the Big Bang? How does that work? I know there are various theories...

Yes, there are various theories.

1. The Big Bang is the start of space, time, matter, and energy.

In this case, there was no 'preceded the Big Bang': the phrase is strictly meaningless. And, since causality only makes sense once time started, there is no meaning to the phrase 'cause of the universe'.


2. The Big Bang is a phase transition between an earlier contracting phase and the current expansion phase.

In this case, time is probably infinite into the past. But so are space, matter, and energy. Again, the phrase 'cause of the universe' is literally meaningless.

3. The Big Bang is a local phenomenon in an overall expansion.

Again, in this case, time is likely to be infinite into the past along with space, matter, and energy.

In ALL cases, matter and energy are co-eval with time and space.

Do you hold that the universe is somehow eternal, with no beginning? If existence preceded the Big Bang, and existence is something, then there was something before.

The term 'eternal' is ambiguous in its meaning. It can mean 'for all time' or it can imply an infinite expanse of time. In the first case, time could be finite into the past.

It is possible the universe has a beginning. But, in that case, time also has a beginning and the universe is 'eternal' in the first sense of existing throughout time.

So, it is possible the universe existed before the Big Bang. That is not yet known, but is a possibility. But, if it was the case, then matter and energy also existed prior to the BB.

I know you don't believe in any supernatural stuff, so we don't have to go through that. But I'm curious if you see a point at which all the stuff started (Big Bang-like). 

I've watched a few Roger Penrose videos on YouTube but they are way over my head.

The jury is out on this. Under several quantum theories of gravity, it is possible for time to be infinite into the past along with matter, space, and energy. If, instead, General Relativity is correct in this, time started at the Big Bang and there was literally no 'before'.

So, if your definition of 'beginning' includes having a time prior to that existence, I do not believe the universe had a beginning, even if it only goes finitely far into the past.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In biblical Hebrew the word for create is 'bara' which signifies something new. The biblical word for make is 'asah' which signifies to fashion or alter an existing thing. The concepts are distinct, even in the source text.

[Belacqua]

At this point, is there anything left to say?

An atheist won't believe in creation by God. And if he's in agreement with the current science, as reported here, he won't believe the universe appeared ex nihilo.

A Christian or a Jew might believe in creation ex nihilo, but not for scientific reasons.

So other than repeating over and over that the other team has bad reasons, I don't know what one can say about it.

[Jehanne]

At this point, is there anything left to say?

Why won't the Creator spontaneously heal adult amputees? Such would really make their day; I would be so very pleased, also!

[Objectivist]

At this point, is there anything left to say?

An atheist won't believe in creation by God. And if he's in agreement with the current science, as reported here, he won't believe the universe appeared ex nihilo.

A Christian or a Jew might believe in creation ex nihilo, but not for scientific reasons.

So other than repeating over and over that the other team has bad reasons, I don't know what one can say about it.

You're right there's nothing left to say if you won't provide us with evidence that the Rhyolite pebble in my backyard was wished into existence by a god.  I know where it came from and it wasn't a god.  It came from existence which has always existed.   

The point of this thread was to point out a flaw in creationism that I've never seen pointed out.  It gets a pass because I guess there are so many philosophical problems with the notion that it is not needed but it's just more ammunition in the fight against irrational philosophy.  

You say that atheists won't believe that a god created everything ex nihilo by wishing it into existence, because that's the method proposed by creationists, and I've just shown, and many others have shown that there is no rational reason to believe it.  Creationists will continue to believe and try to "debate" and they will never, ever acknowledge flaws that are pointed out.  In 25 years I've never once seen it happen once.

[Jehanne]

Get an old piece of wood, paint it, put flowers on it, place it in your backyard and call it "god". Who's to say?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Get an old piece of wood, paint it, put flowers on it, place it in your backyard and call it "god".  Who's to say?

The Christian neighbours who are going to stone you to death for worshipping a pagan icon? Cuz, that’s, you know, kinda their thing.

Boru

[LinuxGal]

Beating up on creationists is low hanging fruit. It's boring.