That’s the entire point of God. An eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space nor time. Without beginning and without end.
Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.
I dare you to present your idea of God, as the creator of the big bang and absent since then, to any member of a current religious group. You are moving goalposts pretty far and if you really want to argue about such an absent universe-starter god, then what’s really the point?
Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.
Why do you need a scientific explanation for that, but you don’t need a scientific explanation for “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Sounds like you’re just replacing what you believe to be an* unprovable claim with your own unprovable claim, which just seems like a huge cop out.
Btw, there are tons of hypotheses on how the universe started “from nothing”, including
It didn’t, our big bang was the result of a previous universe collapsing
the universe was all dark matter, then some yet-to-be discovered reaction started converting the dark matter to “normal” matter
Reactions between matter and anti-matter created the energy needed for the big bang
The point though, is that your base premise is just wrong. Science doesn’t say that the universe started “from nothing”, it says “we don’t know exactly how the universe started, but we’re trying to figure it out”.
This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist. It just defers the problem. If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.
If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?
God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.
This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist.
It doesn’t try to. Science is still trying to figure it out, which is the whole point.
It just defers the problem.
You say “defer”, I say “still trying to figure it out”.
If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.
A solution, but is it the solution? Until demonstrable evidence is presented, it’s just a hypothesis like all the others. The difference is the other hypotheses give us something to test. Yours would have us just throw up our hands and say “idk, must be God I guess”, which doesn’t really fly in the world of science.
Edit: And you still haven’t answered the question: Why do you need a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe, the beginning of time, etc., but you don’t need one for the existence of “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Why hold up scientific rigour in one case, but accept with blind faith in another?
That’s the entire point of God. An eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space nor time. Without beginning and without end.
Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.
I dare you to present your idea of God, as the creator of the big bang and absent since then, to any member of a current religious group. You are moving goalposts pretty far and if you really want to argue about such an absent universe-starter god, then what’s really the point?
Why do you need a scientific explanation for that, but you don’t need a scientific explanation for “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Sounds like you’re just replacing what you believe to be an* unprovable claim with your own unprovable claim, which just seems like a huge cop out.
Btw, there are tons of hypotheses on how the universe started “from nothing”, including
The point though, is that your base premise is just wrong. Science doesn’t say that the universe started “from nothing”, it says “we don’t know exactly how the universe started, but we’re trying to figure it out”.
This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist. It just defers the problem. If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.
If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?
God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.
It doesn’t try to. Science is still trying to figure it out, which is the whole point.
You say “defer”, I say “still trying to figure it out”.
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
A solution, but is it the solution? Until demonstrable evidence is presented, it’s just a hypothesis like all the others. The difference is the other hypotheses give us something to test. Yours would have us just throw up our hands and say “idk, must be God I guess”, which doesn’t really fly in the world of science.
Edit: And you still haven’t answered the question: Why do you need a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe, the beginning of time, etc., but you don’t need one for the existence of “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Why hold up scientific rigour in one case, but accept with blind faith in another?