Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?

[Wootah]

Assuming the universe was created via the big bang, did the universal constants exist before the big bang or were they created at the same time as the big bang?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #77]

Frankly the fact that Bible exists at all, that the quality of the copying has been so high for several thousand years, its uniqueness and so on, strike me as uncanny, part of the reason I attach significance to it and regard it as some kind of link to God the creator.

I am interested in your answer to my question "what if it read "In the beginning MIND created..."?"

Well to all intents and purposes it could, after all the English word "God" has been translated from the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִ֑ים pronounced as "’ĕ·lō·hîm" which has its roots in pre-Israelite semitic tribes and languages as meaning "deity".

Inside the Bible too we find a multitude of definitions and elaborations, for example "God is spirit" so Genesis could conceivably be written "In the beginning Spirit created..." the term "spirit" too is described in various ways and in various places as being ethereal, able to influence yet not itself be influenced or comprehended, much in keeping with the mystery of the the universe's orgins.

Yet there is the fact that a MIND can indeed be - at least influenced - and at least somewhat comprehended by other minds.

Is there any biblical documentation which can show us that the God-idea therein is capable of being influenced and comprehended?

Yes, it seems that God being comprehended and influenced can happen as and when God desires that.

God is the source of any understanding of God, we - people - cannot fathom or understand God by analysis or by our own reasoning, this seems to be stated in several places and in several ways.

If we understand something about God it is because God has imparted that understanding to us.

These are general and informal responses to your question though, I'd have to sit down and sift the books to give examples.

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #77]

Frankly the fact that Bible exists at all, that the quality of the copying has been so high for several thousand years, its uniqueness and so on, strike me as uncanny, part of the reason I attach significance to it and regard it as some kind of link to God the creator.

I am interested in your answer to my question "what if it read "In the beginning MIND created..."?"

Well to all intents and purposes it could, after all the English word "God" has been translated from the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִ֑ים pronounced as "’ĕ·lō·hîm" which has its roots in pre-Israelite semitic tribes and languages as meaning "deity".

Inside the Bible too we find a multitude of definitions and elaborations, for example "God is spirit" so Genesis could conceivably be written "In the beginning Spirit created..." the term "spirit" too is described in various ways and in various places as being ethereal, able to influence yet not itself be influenced or comprehended, much in keeping with the mystery of the the universe's orgins.

Yet there is the fact that a MIND can indeed be - at least influenced - and at least somewhat comprehended by other minds.

Is there any biblical documentation which can show us that the God-idea therein is capable of being influenced and comprehended?

Yes, it seems that God being comprehended and influenced can happen as and when God desires that.

God is the source of any understanding of God, we - people - cannot fathom or understand God by analysis or by our own reasoning, this seems to be stated in several places and in several ways.

If we understand something about God it is because God has imparted that understanding to us.

These are general and informal responses to your question though, I'd have to sit down and sift the books to give examples.

When examples are provided, we can discuss this further.

The Mind is the source of any understanding of the Mind, we - people - can fathom or understand the mind by analysis or by our own reasoning, so any contrary statements are questionable.
If we understand something about the Mind it is because the Mind has imparted that understanding to us, through our mind.
This seems a natural enough conclusion to make.
Thus, I am weary of script that informs us anything contrary to that most natural process.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #77]

Frankly the fact that Bible exists at all, that the quality of the copying has been so high for several thousand years, its uniqueness and so on, strike me as uncanny, part of the reason I attach significance to it and regard it as some kind of link to God the creator.

I am interested in your answer to my question "what if it read "In the beginning MIND created..."?"

Well to all intents and purposes it could, after all the English word "God" has been translated from the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִ֑ים pronounced as "’ĕ·lō·hîm" which has its roots in pre-Israelite semitic tribes and languages as meaning "deity".

Inside the Bible too we find a multitude of definitions and elaborations, for example "God is spirit" so Genesis could conceivably be written "In the beginning Spirit created..." the term "spirit" too is described in various ways and in various places as being ethereal, able to influence yet not itself be influenced or comprehended, much in keeping with the mystery of the the universe's orgins.

Yet there is the fact that a MIND can indeed be - at least influenced - and at least somewhat comprehended by other minds.

Is there any biblical documentation which can show us that the God-idea therein is capable of being influenced and comprehended?

Yes, it seems that God being comprehended and influenced can happen as and when God desires that.

God is the source of any understanding of God, we - people - cannot fathom or understand God by analysis or by our own reasoning, this seems to be stated in several places and in several ways.

If we understand something about God it is because God has imparted that understanding to us.

These are general and informal responses to your question though, I'd have to sit down and sift the books to give examples.

When examples are provided, we can discuss this further.

The Mind is the source of any understanding of the Mind, we - people - can fathom or understand the mind by analysis or by our own reasoning, so any contrary statements are questionable.
If we understand something about the Mind it is because the Mind has imparted that understanding to us, through our mind.
This seems a natural enough conclusion to make.
Thus, I am weary of script that informs us anything contrary to that most natural process.

None of what you say is particularly unreasonable but does raise questions itself.

First how can a mind "understand" itself? what does it mean to understand one's own mind?

If some other mind created your mind, isn't it reasonable to infer that that mind will understand you better than you understand yourself?

Second, if there is knowledge that we cannot acquire through our sensory apparatus then surely we have to admit that to gain such knowledge, it must be revealed to us?

I see no intellectual difficulty with the idea that a mind/spirit/whatever created the universe and therefore created me and my mind and that that mind has knowledge that I do not have nor can know - unaided.

[William]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #83]

First how can a mind "understand" itself? what does it mean to understand one's own mind?

Here am I is where I ought - examining my conscious thought.

What is "mind?" An immaterial thing which interacts with material things.

If some other mind created your mind, isn't it reasonable to infer that that mind will understand you better than you understand yourself?

Are we created? Was our mind created or are our minds fragments of the overall Mind?
I would say that a Mind which placed aspects/fragments of itself into material form/a reality simulation would intimately know the mind-'selves'/individuate minds as they truly are rather than as they think they might be/what they are.

What are created are not "minds" but personalities/characters/Egos. Mind - in relation to form - made such creations possible. Mind is not a created thing, but something which has always existed [is eternal].

Second, if there is knowledge that we cannot acquire through our sensory apparatus then surely we have to admit that to gain such knowledge, it must be revealed to us?

If the sensory apparatus is designed in that manner, then yes. If the mind is free from such apparatus, then no.

For example, my own subjective experience has allowed for an encounter with a non-human entity who had a non-human form and who was able to convey to my mind an absolute knowing unconditional love for me along with a sure knowing that it knew me better than I knew myself.
So - for me through said experience, I can verify [for myself] that such things can happen because such a thing has happened to me.

In this, the knowing had to be revealed to me and it came through as that. I knew without doubt that the entity loved me unconditionally and knew me better than I knew myself.
I think that is what can be called profound revelation.

Other types of revelation are gist's, and hints and intuitivism etc. Subtle and in need of quiet, in-depth introspection.

Revelation comes in all 'shapes and sizes' and is not restricted or necessarily beholding to any cultural script.

Thus - when I read "God said let there be light" I interpret "Mind spoke onto the mind-screen of the Mind and it became." or words to that effect.
[you can read my thoughts on this more comprehensively in this thread;

The Effect of Sound and The Universe]

Further to that, I then examine the concept of this universe being a projection of the thought of a mind making 'sound' [and God spoke] which caused the thing projected upon to vibrate matter/shape/form into being, upon the screen of said mind-field [re quantum theory] in a macroscopic manner [to our microscopic position within said field] thus we are able to understand the process since we can do it in similar manner [imagination]...thus 'made in the image/imagination of' etc...

I see no intellectual difficulty with the idea that a mind/spirit/whatever

Mind/Spirit/Ghost/Immaterial...

created the universe and therefore created me and my mind and that that mind has knowledge that I do not have nor can know - unaided.

The difference in our observation is that I understand my 'self' as being that Mind/Spirit/Ghost/Immaterial eternal thing, rather than a created thing - such as my personality/ego etc. This recalibrating ones understanding of an identification with the flesh/form/function of material to that of "ghost in a machine" [eternal spirit in form/material environment] helps one to better connect and assume the understanding that I am/we are - in essence - the creator within the creation...

Does the bible indicate in its script anywhere, that this is indeed the case?

Rather than simple 'snap one's fingers' and have everything just-so, we created an environment where we could corroborate as individuate minds which, when used accordingly can achieve what once was impossible to even conceive, such as this type of project;

[brunumb]

Since the universe cannot have a scientific explanation then the fact that it is there shows that God exists.

Assumes facts not in evidence. If you think you have proved God exists, submit your thesis and await your Nobel prize.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #73]

By "unexplained" do you mean "we don't yet have a scientific explanation" or "there can never be a scientific explanation"?

I mean we don't yet have a complete scientific explanation.

What ideas are people "coming up with"?

Big Bang model, multiverses, universes continuously beginning, ending, then beginning again, etc. The very fact that we don't have a complete, confirmed mechanism for how the universe began leaves the door open for all kinds of hypotheses, some of which are "out there" and some of which have observational support (eg. the Big Bang model). This is the same reason god beings are still on the table. We just don't have the complete answer and who knows if/when we will. But god beings probably have the least scientific support of them all, simply because gods have never been shown to actually exist.

Since the universe cannot have a scientific explanation then the fact that it is there shows that God exists.

The fatal flaw in that statement is "the universe cannot have a scientific explanation." You've yet to show that this is valid beyond just claiming it to be so. Given the accomplishments of science to date it seems to have a far better chance of eventual success than postulating god beings.

You need to expose the flaw in my argument Dr. just saying "You can't claim that a scientific explanation is impossible" is hardly a rebuttal.

The flaw in the argument is that you've not described why a scientific explanation is impossible or shown that it is impossible. You've just stated it with some comments about something not being able to create itself. We don't know if this universe sprang from a prior universe's "big crunch", or if some giant quantum field existed that suddenly transformed into a Big Bang like scenario, any other possible mechanism that we don't know or understand yet. We simply don't know the answer, which means you cannot make any claims about whether it happened naturally, or not, and certainly not that this is "impossible."

My prior post is a proof that the material universe's presence cannot be explained in material terms, a thing cannot be its own explanation, it never has been in science either.

It is not any kind of proof because no one knows for sure how the universe came into existence. There may well have been "something" (material or field wise) prior to a Big Bang type event (if that is indeed a correct model), and we just don't know what that something was. If you're talking about a genuine "t = 0" point we don't know how to process that either if there was such a thing. There are just too many unknows for anyone to claim a natural series of events for origin of the universe (or a universe) is impossible.

I infer that God exists by showing that the presence of the universe can never have a material/scientific explanation, God is inferred, the universe is evidence for God.

Except you have not shown that a material/scientific explanation is impossible ... you've just stated it with very weak arguments. Not understanding how the universe came into existence does not imply that a god being must therefore exist. But that appears to be the leap you are making.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #72]

*snip*

Post #72 is this;

What I have found interesting about the idea of a being who created this universe, is that it opens up a whole lot of possibilities re answering 'why' such a universe was created and why consciousness was placed within such a universe....some of those answers move well away from the traditional religious answers, even to the point of being heretical and blasphemous.

Meanwhile the materialist world continues to crumble under the weight of its own productions...seemingly unstoppable and certain granting no respite to the curious mind which is promised only the certainty of oblivion once the individuals brain dies.

Thus, the curious mind - naturally enough - looks elsewhere...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #87]

Post #72 is this;

Not sure what happened there, but I fixed it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Since the universe cannot have a scientific explanation then the fact that it is there shows that God exists.

Assumes facts not in evidence. If you think you have proved God exists, submit your thesis and await your Nobel prize.

I take it you disagree with something I wrote?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #73]

By "unexplained" do you mean "we don't yet have a scientific explanation" or "there can never be a scientific explanation"?

I mean we don't yet have a complete scientific explanation.

Why do you think a scientific explanation is a possibility? prior to anything existing (laws, matter, fields) what/how could interactions take place?

They can't, clearly science cannot explain science, laws cannot govern the emergence of laws.

What ideas are people "coming up with"?

Big Bang model, multiverses, universes continuously beginning, ending, then beginning again, etc. The very fact that we don't have a complete, confirmed mechanism for how the universe began leaves the door open for all kinds of hypotheses, some of which are "out there" and some of which have observational support (eg. the Big Bang model). This is the same reason god beings are still on the table. We just don't have the complete answer and who knows if/when we will. But god beings probably have the least scientific support of them all, simply because gods have never been shown to actually exist.

I'm not sure if you understand what we're discussing here, each of those hypotheses pertain how an existing system changes not how it comes to exist, none of those hypotheses deals with the origin of the universe.

Since the universe cannot have a scientific explanation then the fact that it is there shows that God exists.

The fatal flaw in that statement is "the universe cannot have a scientific explanation." You've yet to show that this is valid beyond just claiming it to be so. Given the accomplishments of science to date it seems to have a far better chance of eventual success than postulating god beings.

You need to expose the flaw in my argument Dr. just saying "You can't claim that a scientific explanation is impossible" is hardly a rebuttal.

The flaw in the argument is that you've not described why a scientific explanation is impossible or shown that it is impossible.

I have, the only conclusion I can reach now is that you do not understand this subject.

You've just stated it with some comments about something not being able to create itself. We don't know if this universe sprang from a prior universe's "big crunch", or if some giant quantum field existed that suddenly transformed into a Big Bang like scenario, any other possible mechanism that we don't know or understand yet. We simply don't know the answer, which means you cannot make any claims about whether it happened naturally, or not, and certainly not that this is "impossible."

If a "giant quantum field" existed then right there you're not explaining the origin you're simply explaining a point in the life of an already existing system.

Yes I agree we do not know the answer but we do know what kind of answer it will not be, it of necessity will not be a scientific answer because that requires that the system already be present.

My prior post is a proof that the material universe's presence cannot be explained in material terms, a thing cannot be its own explanation, it never has been in science either.

It is not any kind of proof because no one knows for sure how the universe came into existence.

Not knowing how it came into existence is not the same as knowing how it did not come into existence, it is the latter that I've been discussing with you.

There may well have been "something" (material or field wise) prior to a Big Bang type event (if that is indeed a correct model), and we just don't know what that something was. If you're talking about a genuine "t = 0" point we don't know how to process that either if there was such a thing. There are just too many unknows for anyone to claim a natural series of events for origin of the universe (or a universe) is impossible.

If there was "something" if that is your starting point for an explanation then it is not explaining origins at all, only development of an already existing system.

I infer that God exists by showing that the presence of the universe can never have a material/scientific explanation, God is inferred, the universe is evidence for God.

Except you have not shown that a material/scientific explanation is impossible ... you've just stated it with very weak arguments.

Not understanding how the universe came into existence does not imply that a god being must therefore exist. But that appears to be the leap you are making.

That is not what I proved, I proved how the universe cannot have come into existence, the proof is not how it came to exist but rather how it cannot have come to exist, how it came to exist "God" is a rational inference from the inarguable fact that it cannot have arisen in any scientifically explicable manner.

You seem reticent to accept that science places limitations on what we can explain scientifically, there are problems to which we simply cannot apply science, logically impossible to apply it.

The answer to the problem about how anything material came to exist clearly must start with nothing material existing, that has to be the starting point and since science can only be invoked when something already exists it cannot be applied to this problem.

This is so simple a child could understand it - a thing cannot explain its own presence.