₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
I have always maintained that something has to exist to go bang.


Read the italics below, and tell me if it is not trying to say the same as what you said above.

The Big Bang theory, while explaining the expansion and evolution of the universe we know, doesn't offer an explanation for what existed before the initial singularity. This singularity is a point of infinite density and temperature from which the universe is thought to have emerged.

There are only two possible explanation, it is either the universe came into existence or the universe has always being. If the universe has always being then there would have being an infinite amount of time before we could ever get here, meaning we would not have existed at all.
The cyclical model of universe has being debunked. the law of thermodynamics only works in one direction which is disorderliness essential hence the universe could not have being eternal at all leaving only one possibility which is that the universe truly came into being and was not eternal.

Funny. The technology learnt along their search (and by the way, they are not all atheists as more scientists since the beginning of time have been religious than not), has increase human life span alone, and that's apart from empowering you to converse with me over a long distance. Or would you rather we remain ignorant and without satellites?

Funny how atheists could trust their brains if their brains were a product of cosmic accident? By the way atheism didn't give anything, technology is a product of Intelligence and only intelligence can produce intelligence.

I am trying to convince myself that you are capable of accessing "all evidence", and I feel very certain you will not disappoint me.

You are deluded! Go and learn properly.

Imagine! You would think they read somewhere that they should ask and knock and seek with all their hearts and souls and minds and beings and they will know.

you are an ignorant person.

And yet it is possible to date when humans created their Gods, and God didn't exist everywhere, least not in my great grandfather's time until it was brought to where he was in a book. And there were Gods before God. And God isn't even the oldest God since some Gods have existed before God, though many have since died I admit.

But seriously. Teach me master.

You dont know what you are saying. Tautology everywhere. How can God create God can't you see the stupidity there?

Let me summarize for you, the unverse has a beginning because physically and mathematically it is not possible for the universe to be eternal hence many atheists are forced to say the universe came from nothing but because they cannot u derstand how they are trying to redefine the word nothing which drives them into more insanity others try to shift it to multiverse which only begs the question, the cyclical model has being rejected because it is not possible.
There is only one possibility that the unverse was created from a being outside space and time.
You trickishly dodge the part where life can only come from life. Till today there is no evidence that a non living thing can produce a living thing.
With all the advancement in science and technology yet nobody knows how to make the simplest cell.

Joshthefirst:
No one said God poofed into existence.
How can you create your own adversary and be arguing against it?

"God is timeless and hence doesn't have a beginning."

CoolUsername:
So how do you know about things that don't exist in our world? Sounds like you're describing an imaginary friend

This is off point. But just to point out we not already know the things which do not exist in our world eg flying submarines, oceans you can just drive your Camry on to go to the next continent or water you drink that you can stay one month without needing to drink water etc.

If God was truly imaginary to you people, you people won't be here and all over the place wasting time, resources and energy campaigning and disturbing the world about Him.

budaatum:
So, you are talking about things outside your view and beyond your limit and want us to just play along with you?

It was not us who spoke about God and our world and worlds outside our view. No human can do that.

And like football, as many people have shown, if you don't want to play, you are allowed not to play

budaatum:
Have you considered increasing your view and looking outside perhaps, instead of asking me to stoop to your limit?

No matter how you try to increase your view, you can never see how much money that is inside the wallet of a man standing at the bus stop, nor can you see the Agofure bus leaving Ughelli nor can you ever see which woman would be lying on coolusername's bed.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is off point. But just to point out we not already know the things which do not exist in our world eg flying submarines, oceans you can just drive your Camry on to go to the next continent or water you drink that you can stay one month without needing to drink water etc.

A flying submarine is infinitely more likely to exist than a spaceless, timeless, intelligent being. We can prove that flying machines exist. We can prove that submarines exist. So at least we can theorize putting both concepts together. The burden of proof is on you to prove this spaceless and timeless intelligence.

Dtruthspeaker:
If God was truly imaginary to you people, you people won't be here and all over the place wasting time, resources and energy campaigning and disturbing the world about Him.

If I talk about Spider-Man, does that make him real?

CoolUsername:
A flying submarine is infinitely more likely to exist than a spaceless, timeless, intelligent being. We can prove that flying machines exist. We can prove that submarines exist...

It does not exist now. And, you are already talking rubbish because it is settled that God already existed even before we humans did. So, there is no situation of "likely to exist". So this is Out Of Point.

CoolUsername:
..The burden of proof is on you to prove this spaceless and timeless intelligence.

If I talk about Spider-Man, does that make him real?

Nope. That is not the topic.

The topic was things that exist in our world/the things that don't exist in our world.

And I have given examples of the things that don't exist and your argument was that flying submarines may later exist, which clearly means that you and I are in agreement that it does not exist now.

And that was the issue on ground.

Lucifyre:
"God is timeless and hence doesn't have a beginning."

How does the above mean God proofed into existence?

Dtruthspeaker:
It does not exist now. And, you are already talking rubbish because it is settled that God already existed even before we humans did. So, there is no situation of "likely to exist". So this is Out Of Point...

Nope. That is not the topic.

The topic was things that exist in our world/the things that don't exist in our world.

And I have given examples of the things that don't exist and your argument was that flying submarines may later exist, which clearly means that you and I are in agreement that it does not exist now.

And that was the issue on ground.

Nice dodge but you're not quite there yet. A flying submarine can conceivably begin to exist because it's constituent parts already exist within our universe. The matter needed to create only needs to be rearranged to become something new.
By calling your something immaterial, spaceless, and timeless, you don't have that luxury. That's why your analogy makes no sense and that's why what you're describing sounds like an imaginary friend and that's why do burden of proof is on you prove your point.

Steep:
Intelligence cannot come from non Intelligence, life cannot come from non life. This is the delima of naturalists.
The order and design of the universe plus the existence of life shows there is a living immaterial, spaceless and timeless personal being called God.

doesn't the bolded also apply to this god?

Steep:
There are only two possible explanation, it is either the universe came into existence or the universe has always being. If the universe has always being then there would have being an infinite amount of time before we could ever get here, meaning we would not have existed at all.

I am reading your "being" as been. Correct me if i misunderstand please.

The assumption that there are "only two possible explanations", I doubt, considering the numerous universe creation narratives believed. In fact, isn't this discussion the dispute of myths themselves, or would you like to argue anyone saw a big bang?

That said, yes, I agree that the universe must either have always been or it gradually came into being, and evidence suggests the latter at least from our earthly observation, that it gradually came into being, hence the many creation records like "God said" and big bang, all we humans way of understanding what we observe and writing it in books to disseminate it to those who can not observe for themselves.

Your claim though that "If the universe has always being then there would have being an infinite amount of time before we could ever get here, meaning we would not have existed at all", I don't think I understand.

It seems like you are claiming that if a very large and long amount of time had passed, we humans would not have existed.

Can you explain what you mean by "infinite amount of time", please, and tell me why say, if the universe was born 10 million years ago, humans would not exist.

Steep:
The cyclical model of universe has being debunked. the law of thermodynamics only works in one direction which is disorderliness essential hence the universe could not have being eternal at all leaving only one possibility which is that the universe truly came into being and was not eternal.

I assume eternal means always been. Do atheists claim the universe is eternal?

In fact, I'll ask them myself.

Atheists! Is the universe eternal?

Steep:
Funny how atheists could trust their brains if their brains were a product of cosmic accident?

First, I'm beginning to think it is scientists that you mean when you say atheist, like you abhor their use of their own senses.

Second, I do not think atheists claim their brain is a "product of cosmic accident". In fact, I'd say the atheists claim is their brain is a product of development over a very long period of time, and that humans have evolved consequently from single cells with perhaps some accidents along the way.

Should we ask atheists, again, maybe, instead of you trying to portray them as you seem to think they are?

Steep:
By the way atheism didn't give anything, technology is a product of Intelligence and only intelligence can produce intelligence.

I never said atheism gave anything, I hope.

Steep:
You are deluded! Go and learn properly.

you are an ignorant person.

You are rude!

Steep:
Let me summarize for you, the unverse has a beginning because physically and mathematically it is not possible for the universe to be eternal hence many atheists are forced to say the universe came from nothing......

That doesn't then give anyone the right to impose their god in the gap and tell everyone to just believe it especially if those people would rather go ask and knock and seek with their own hearts and souls and minds and beings, is what I think.

Still, I have never heard an atheist or a scientist claim the universe is eternal. They think they so smart they know when the universe was born.

budaatum:
I assume eternal means always been. Do atheists claim the universe is eternal?
In fact, I'll ask them myself.
Atheists! Is the universe eternal?

I've heard something about a big crunch hypothesis.
According to this big crunch hypothesis, the universe ends in a reversal of the big bang or a collapse of the universe and then another universe begins afterwards. The hypothesis claims that our universe may not be first or last, but that our universe is just one in a never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches. This hypothesis indicates an infinite cycle of universes.

Although, it's just a hypothesis.

Everyday247:
I've heard something about a big crunch hypothesis.
According to this big crunch hypothesis, the universe ends in a reversal of the big bang or a collapse of the universe and then another universe begins afterwards. The hypothesis claims that our universe may not be first or last, but that our universe is just one in a never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches. This hypothesis indicates an infinite cycle of universes.

Although, it's just a hypothesis.

Thank you very much. I too have heard many hypothesis, and it is conceivable that something must have come out of something as the big crunch hypothesis suggests. The big bang theory suggests the same thing to me, since something has to exist to go bang if one thinks about it.

What I admire more is your "it's just a hypothesis", as in something to further consider, as opposed to something to be believed and stop asking and knocking and seeking.

Dtruthspeaker:
It was not us who spoke about God and our world and worlds outside our view. No human can do that.

I have books that us humans wrote "about God and our world and worlds outside our view".

One is called the Holy Bible. Goggle if you never seen a copy.

Dtruthspeaker:
No matter how you try to increase your view, you can never see how much money that is inside the wallet of a man standing at the bus stop, nor can you see the Agofure bus leaving Ughelli nor can you ever see which woman would be lying on coolusername's bed.

What you've described above is nowhere like what I'd call "increasing ones view", and in fact might better be seen as poking sticks in ones view so one does not see any view at all. For how is it that increasing ones view extends to someone else's wallet or woman?

Joshthefirst:
How does the above mean God proofed into existence?

Is this a joke. You assert your god just exists, what's that if not what it is.

Everyday247:
doesn't the bolded also apply to this god?

All you'd get is the tired cliche of special pleading.

Everyday247:
doesn't the bolded also apply to this god?

It cannot apply to God because he is eternal while the universe is not.
God and the universe do not belong to same category. Take for example the Sun and the Moon, the moon depend on the Sun for her light but the Sun does not depend on anything for its light, they both depend of different category.
God by definition is untreated eternal but the creation depends on God to have its being.

Whether we wants to agree with this we all know that something must be eternal either the universe or something or someone outside of the universe.

budaatum:
I am reading your "being" as been. Correct me if i misunderstand please.

The assumption that there are "only two possible explanations", I doubt, considering the numerous universe creation narratives believed. In fact, isn't this discussion the dispute of myths themselves, or would you like to argue anyone saw a big bang?

yes there are myths and what's not, that is why evidence is uttermost importance to ascertain truth.
There might not be a big bang or there might be but however every evidence points to the direction of a universe that has a beginning.

That said, yes, I agree that the universe must either have always been or it gradually came into being, and evidence suggests the latter at least from our earthly observation, that it gradually came into being, hence the many creation records like "God said" and big bang, all we humans way of understanding what we observe and writing it in books to disseminate it to those who can not observe for themselves.

yes true, humans observe and gather evidence then interpret it.

Your claim though that "If the universe has always being then there would have being an infinite amount of time before we could ever get here, meaning we would not have existed at all", I don't think I understand.

It seems like you are claiming that if a very large and long amount of time had passed, we humans would not have existed.

Can you explain what you mean by "infinite amount of time", please, and tell me why say, if the universe was born 10 million years ago, humans would not exist.

Alright, what I meant when I said that if the universe has always being then we wouldn't have being. Supposing you were walking on road going to a point at the end of the road but however the road is infinite would you ever get to your destination? Now try and reverse it supposing you were at an infinite time backward in the past would you have gotten to today? The answers are NO this is because no matter the time spent there will always be an infinite time left to get to your destination hence if the unverse was eternal there will never be today.
What I mean by infinite is endless time. Sometimes it is used to mean an incredible amount that placing a particular number maybe difficulty but however it is not truly infinite.

I assume eternal means always been. Do atheists claim the universe is eternal?

In fact, I'll ask them myself.

Atheists! Is the universe eternal?

eternal can mean timeless.

First, I'm beginning to think it is scientists that you mean when you say atheist, like you abhor their use of their own senses.

This is rude and dishonest of you, you falsely accused me of something I didn't do.

Second, I do not think atheists claim their brain is a "product of cosmic accident". In fact, I'd say the atheists claim is their brain is a product of development over a very long period of time, and that humans have evolved consequently from single cells with perhaps some accidents along the way.

Should we ask atheists, again, maybe, instead of you trying to portray them as you seem to think they are?

@bolded you have said it yourself.

I never said atheism gave anything, I hope.


You are rude!

you seem to attribute intelligence to atheism.
I apologize for the harshness of language.

That doesn't then give anyone the right to impose their god in the gap and tell everyone to just believe it especially if those people would rather go ask and knock and seek with their own hearts and souls and minds and beings, is what I think.

Still, I have never heard an atheist or a scientist claim the universe is eternal. They think they so smart they know when the universe was born.

Nobody is imposing god of the gap but oftentimes atheists love impose time of the gap argument.
Before the discovery of the microwave background and the expansion of the universe the default belief in the scientific community was that the unverse was eternal till today there are ignorant atheists still believe that others with knowledge have switch to mutiverse theory or the universe popping from nothing which itself is only possible by supernatural power as only a supernatural power can produce things out of nothing hence they end with a miracle without a miracle worker.

Steep:
It cannot apply to God because he is eternal while the universe is not.

This raises questions:
Firstly, how does one know if something (God or anything else) is eternal?
Secondly, how do you know that the universe isn't eternal?

God and the universe do not belong to same category. Take for example the Sun and the Moon, the moon depend on the Sun for her light but the Sun does not depend on anything for its light, they both depend of different category.

I don't understand how this analogy relates to the question. What are the different categories the sun and moon belong to?
What are the different categories God and the universe belong to?

God by definition is untreated eternal but the creation depends on God to have its being.

What is that definition of God that makes god eternal?
Why do you say creation* must depend on God and not something else?

*It's too early to conclude that the universe is a creation when we currently do not understand how the universe works and it's nature.

Whether we wants to agree with this we all know that something must be eternal either the universe or something or someone outside of the universe.

You are making hasty generalisations by saying "we all know that something must be eternal", because first of all, we currently don't know how the universe work.
And also, is there any such thing as "outside the universe"?
The universe is defined as space and time. So it doesn't make sense to say "outside the universe" because "outside" is an attribute of space. If there's a "here" and "there", it implies a presence of space. Unless you are claiming that there's another universe outside our universe. Or that our universe is in another universe which is a wild claim.

budaatum:
I have books that us humans wrote "about God and our world and worlds outside our view". ..

No big deal someone writing about what they do not know directly.
The university is full of people writing what they do not ever know.

budaatum:
What you've described above is nowhere like what I'd call "increasing ones view", and in fact might better be seen as poking sticks in ones view so one does not see any view at all. For how is it that increasing ones view extends to someone else's wallet or woman?

No one cares what you call it but what we all know is that increasing view means that where before you could only see the guy standing at the bus stop with his wallet in his pocket, an increased view would be you seeing through that wallet to see the money/monies and the denominations inside that wallet.

CoolUsername:
Nice dodge but you're not quite there yet. A flying submarine can conceivably begin to exist because it's constituent parts already exist within our universe. The matter needed to create only needs to be rearranged to become something new.

Pointing out the fall in argument is not a dodge.

Secondly, the point is, you agree that does not exist now hence an example of things that do not exist. So there is no valid argument to be made here.

CoolUsername:
By calling your something immaterial, spaceless, and timeless, you don't have that luxury. That's why your analogy makes no sense and that's why what you're describing sounds like an imaginary friend and that's why do burden of proof is on you prove your point.

Where did I allege that God was "immaterial, spaceless" etc? From the thread, it is you who said so.

Everyday247:
This raises questions:
Firstly, how does one know if something (God or anything else) is eternal?
Secondly, how do you know that the universe isn't eternal?

All evidence shows that the universe cannot be eternal.
God by basic definition is eternal else he would not be God. The basic definition of what God is, is that he is timeless, spaceless and immaterial personal being.

I don't understand how this analogy relates to the question. What are the different categories the sun and moon belong to?
What are the different categories God and the universe belong to?

God belongs to the category of what is eternal while the universe belong to the category of what is not eternal. I used the sun and the moon to demonstrate how categories work. The sun belong to the category of things that generate their light while the moon belong to another category of things that depend on others for light. It is therefore illogical to try to force the sun into the moon's category or vice versa. That is what you are trying to do trying to force God into categories of created things.

What is that definition of God that makes god eternal?
Why do you say creation* must depend on God and not something else?

The definition of God that makes him eternal is because he is before all created things and therefore cannot be part of created things.
I say creation depend on God because creation itself is an effect and every effect has a cause.

*It's too early to conclude that the universe is a creation when we currently do not understand how the universe works and it's nature.

Do you have any evidence that the unverse may be eternal? Science is base on evidence and not wisful thinking, if there is another evidence that the unverse is eternal then the current understanding will change but so far all evidence prove the unverse has a beginning.

You are making hasty generalisations by saying "we all know that something must be eternal", because first of all, we currently don't know how the universe work.
And also, is there any such thing as "outside the universe"?

dude there only two possibities either the unverse has always existed in any shape of form (multiverse, parallel universe etc included) or something outside of the unverse brought it into being. This has nothing to do with our understanding of how the universe works.

The universe is defined as space and time. So it doesn't make sense to say "outside the universe" because "outside" is an attribute of space. If there's a "here" and "there", it implies a presence of space. Unless you are claiming that there's another universe outside our universe. Or that our universe is in another universe which is a wild claim.

The fact that you don't understand it, does not make it untrue. What matters is the evidence to what we feel is true or possible and the evidence is, the unverse (space-time) has a beginning (it has not always being.

You are probably a materialist that is why you think the only reality that existent is the physical reality however evidence says the physical reality has a beginning.

Dtruthspeaker:
Pointing out the fall in argument is not a dodge.

Secondly, the point is, you agree that does not exist now hence an example of things that do not exist. So there is no valid argument to be made here.

There you go again. Like I said, it can conceivably exist through the rearrangement of already existing material and leveraging the laws of Physics. That's literally how most human inventions came to be.

So once again, how do you know about something that exists outside that context?

Dtruthspeaker:
Where did I allege that God was "immaterial, spaceless" etc? From the thread, it is you who said so.

Do you believe God is a material being? Do you believe God exists in our observable universe?

Steep:
All evidence shows that the universe cannot be eternal.
God by basic definition is eternal else he would not be God. The basic definition of what God is, is that he is timeless, spaceless and immaterial personal being.

what are these evidences that show that the universe is not eternal?
You did not answer my question on how to determine if something is eternal or not.
If someone claims that the sun is eternal, how do we verify this claim?

Also as a side note, spaceless, timeless and immaterial are attributes that can be found in nonexistent things. The definition of existence is something that occupies space and is under the effect of time.

God belongs to the category of what is eternal while the universe belong to the category of what is not eternal. I used the sun and the moon to demonstrate how categories work. The sun belong to the category of things that generate their light while the moon belong to another category of things that depend on others for light. It is therefore illogical to try to force the sun into the moon's category or vice versa. That is what you are trying to do trying to force God into categories of created things.

Firstly, who established that the universe is a creation?
As far as current science is concerned the origin of the universe is unknown.
Secondly, you are the one that created the category of "intelligence that must come from other intelligence". And god is an intelligent being, which automatically falls into the category of "intelligent beings that must be created". You made a contradictory statement.

The definition of God that makes him eternal is because he is before all created things and therefore cannot be part of created things.
I say creation depend on God because creation itself is an effect and every effect has a cause.

What you said is that "intelligence begets intelligence" and "life cannot come from non life, and god automatically falls under the category of living/intelligent which makes god subject to the same rule you imposed on all intelligence/life.
Also, god is also an effect and therefore requires a cause.
You keep using the terms created and creation, do you have any evidence for creation?

Do you have any evidence that the unverse may be eternal? Science is base on evidence and not wisful thinking, if there is another evidence that the unverse is eternal then the current understanding will change but so far all evidence prove the unverse has a beginning.

I'm surprised that you are talking about science based on evidence, while making unscientific claims without evidence.
Do you have any evidence that the concept of eternal things/eternity exists?
Science so far, has not proven the existence of eternal things.

dude there only two possibities either the unverse has always existed in any shape of form (multiverse, parallel universe etc included) or something outside of the unverse brought it into being. This has nothing to do with our understanding of how the universe works.

Who told you that there are only two possibilities?
So because you can only think of two possibilities means that there only two? Scientifically speaking, there may be many other possibilities that we are not aware of. Just because you can only think of two, doesn't mean that there are only two.

The fact that you don't understand it, does not make it untrue. What matters is the evidence to what we feel is true or possible and the evidence is, the unverse (space-time) has a beginning (it has not always being.

While the evidence say that the universe had a beginning, I do not rule out the possibility of infinite or eternal cycles of universes i.e universes that came before our own and universes that will come after.

You are probably a materialist that is why you think the only reality that existent is the physical reality however evidence says the physical reality has a beginning.

Yes I'm a materialist. I believe only in the physical reality because it can be tested and experimentally verified.
Meanwhile there's no means to verify non material realities meaning there's no way to differentiate between them and falsehoods.

budaatum:
Thank you very much. I too have heard many hypothesis, and it is conceivable that something must have come out of something as the big crunch hypothesis suggests. The big bang theory suggests the same thing to me, since something has to exist to go bang if one thinks about it.

What I admire more is your "it's just a hypothesis", as in something to further consider, as opposed to something to be believed and stop asking and knocking and seeking.

Some people mistakenly think the BB came from nothing. I dunno how they arrive at that since all the descriptions of the BBT include mentions of a hot dense state before the expansion.

Everyday247:
what are these evidences that show that the universe is not eternal?
You did not answer my question on how to determine if something is eternal or not.
If someone claims that the sun is eternal, how do we verify this claim?

Simple evidence and logical deduction. Evidence shows the sun is not eternal and gets what so is the universe.

The evidence points to the universe not being eternal but having a beginning, likely through the Big Bang.[/b] This evidence includes:
Expansion of the universe:
The observed expansion of the universe suggests it has been growing from a smaller, denser state.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):
The CMB, leftover radiation from the early universe, provides a snapshot of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, indicating it was not always at its current state.
General Relativity:
The theory of general relativity, tested by numerous observations, predicts that spacetime cannot be static and must either expand or contract, suggesting a beginning point.
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
This law states that the universe is trending towards disorder, meaning it cannot have been eternally in a stable state of equilibrium.
Mathematical models:
Some mathematical models, like the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorem and Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, suggest the universe began from an initial singularity.
Observations of the universe's structure:
The distribution of galaxies and the existence of large-scale structures, such as superclusters, point to a universe that evolved from an initial, more homogeneous state.
Evolution of matter:
The formation of heavier elements in stars and the subsequent distribution of these elements throughout the universe suggests an ongoing process of evolution, not a static, eternal state.

Also as a side note, spaceless, timeless and immaterial are attributes that can be found in nonexistent things. The definition of existence is something that occupies space and is under the effect of time.

that definition does not apply to whatever is outside of space and time.

Firstly, who established that the universe is a creation?
As far as current science is concerned the origin of the universe is unknown.
Secondly, you are the one that created the category of "intelligence that must come from other intelligence". And god is an intelligent being, which automatically falls into the category of "intelligent beings that must be created". You made a contradictory statement.

You are straw Manning. I never said intelligence must come from intelligence but rather only intelligence can create intelligence same with life, only life can create life.

What you said is that "intelligence begets intelligence" and "life cannot come from non life, and god automatically falls under the category of living/intelligent which makes god subject to the same rule you imposed on all intelligence/life.
Also, god is also an effect and therefore requires a cause.
You keep using the terms created and creation, do you have any evidence for creation?

Evidence for creation is the fact that the universe has a beginning

I'm surprised that you are talking about science based on evidence, while making unscientific claims without evidence.
Do you have any evidence that the concept of eternal things/eternity exists?
Science so far, has not proven the existence of eternal things.

If science has not proven that eternal things exist does that mean they don't exist?
Is science the only way to get knowledge? If yes, can you scientifically prove your answer?

Who told you that there are only two possibilities?
So because you can only think of two possibilities means that there only two? Scientifically speaking, there may be many other possibilities that we are not aware of. Just because you can only think of two, doesn't mean that there are only two.

While the evidence say that the universe had a beginning, I do not rule out the possibility of infinite or eternal cycles of universes i.e universes that came before our own and universes that will come after.

Did you Even read what you wrote, you just proved me right. All the possibilities you brought out are all example of eternal universe, which by the way has being debunked, if you are really serious to know the truth you will actually go and find out why they were rejected.

Yes I'm a materialist. I believe only in the physical reality because it can be tested and experimentally verified.
Meanwhile there's no means to verify non material realities meaning there's no way to differentiate between them and falsehoods.

Good at least you are honest. Now answer this, Is mathematics material in nature? Does mathematics exist?
What color is evil, goodness, love? What kind of material is consciousness made off?
Where does the human value come from?

CoolUsername:
There you go again. Like I said, it can conceivably exist through the rearrangement of already existing material and leveraging the laws of Physics. That's literally how most human inventions came to be.

Are you not hearing what you are saying? "It can exists" means it does not exist now.

CoolUsername:
So once again, how do you know about something that exists outside that context?

Because we can all see that all creators are always outside the world of their creations. Steve Jobs and Mr Toyoda are not inside their phone and car.

CoolUsername:
Do you believe God is a material being?

Here I see the materials we know fall into solid, liquid, gases, hybrid of solids, liquid and gases. And then there is spirit, a matter which the whole world acknowledges that it is here with us and the material of which no man knows.

And God already acknowledges that He is Spirit, a material we do not know yet we know it's existence, hence the beginning and a step into of a world we do not know.

CoolUsername:
Do you believe God exists in our observable universe?

Sure! It takes A Person Who is an Artist, Landscaper, Engineer, and an Inventor to create this universe we see.

Everyday247:
This raises questions:
Firstly, how does one know if something (God or anything else) is eterna?.

Easy. Eternal means something continuing for a very very very long time and still continuing at the time of query.

And since Hammurabi's world till today, people still talk of experiencing the touch and presence of God

LordReed:
Some people mistakenly think the BB came from nothing. I dunno how they arrive at that since all the descriptions of the BBT include mentions of a hot dense state before the expansion.

So according to you, big bang is like a flour to an oven which forms a loaf of bread?

If it is so, I ain't seen what we could call seas and fishes and animals and humans come out from the expansion of flour into a loaf of bread.

Steep:
_{Simple evidence and logical deduction. Evidence shows the sun is not eternal and gets what so is the universe.
The evidence points to the universe not being eternal but having a beginning, likely through the Big Bang.[/b] This evidence includes:
Expansion of the universe:
The observed expansion of the universe suggests it has been growing from a smaller, denser state.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):
The CMB, leftover radiation from the early universe, provides a snapshot of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, indicating it was not always at its current state.
General Relativity:
The theory of general relativity, tested by numerous observations, predicts that spacetime cannot be static and must either expand or contract, suggesting a beginning point.
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
This law states that the universe is trending towards disorder, meaning it cannot have been eternally in a stable state of equilibrium.
Mathematical models:
Some mathematical models, like the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorem and Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, suggest the universe began from an initial singularity.
Observations of the universe's structure:
The distribution of galaxies and the existence of large-scale structures, such as superclusters, point to a universe that evolved from an initial, more homogeneous state.
Evolution of matter:
The formation of heavier elements in stars and the subsequent distribution of these elements throughout the universe suggests an ongoing process of evolution, not a static, eternal state.}

Wow! 😲
You're a theist that believes in the big bang?!
you're the first I've seen on Nairaland.
congratulations! 🎉 👏 🥳

According to the big bang theory, a singularity expanded into what we know as the universe. But then questions remain:
1. where did this singularity come from?
2. How long had this singularity been around before it expanded in the form of the big bang?

What if someone claims that this singularity has always existed (eternal), how would you counter this?

Off Topic question: As a theist that believes in the big bang:
1. How do you reconcile your religious beliefs that the world is ten thousand years old with the approximately 14 billion years of the big bang theory?
2. if you believe in the big bang theory proposed by science, do you also believe in the theory of evolution also proposed by that same science?
3. I thought Christian theists believed in a 6 day creation not the big bang theory?

that definition does not apply to whatever is outside of space and time.

Yes it does.
If something doesn't exist, it cannot be found anywhere in the universe, which makes it spaceless.
If something doesn't exist, it won't be found at any point in time (past, presence and future), which makes it timeless.
An event that never occurred is eternal e.g when will someone who was never born die? the answer is never.
Anything that never begun can never end. (can be said to be eternal)

You are straw Manning. I never said intelligence must come from intelligence but rather only intelligence can create intelligence same with life, only life can create life.

What's the difference between the statements: " intelligence must come from intelligence" and "Only intelligence can create intelligence"?

Evidence for creation is the fact that the universe has a beginning

This is logical leap. How is something having a beginning evidence for creation?

If science has not proven that eternal things exist does that mean they don't exist?
Is science the only way to get knowledge? If yes, can you scientifically prove your answer?

If science has not proven the existence of something means it can be either false or true since no confirmation can be made.

Science is "currently" the only way to prove the existence of something. If there are any other methods of proving the existence of something, they haven't been discovered yet.

Did you Even read what you wrote, you just proved me right. All the possibilities you brought out are all example of eternal universe, which by the way has being debunked, if you are really serious to know the truth you will actually go and find out why they were rejected.

When and where were they debunked?
And who debunked them?
How were they debunked?

Good at least you are honest. Now answer this, Is mathematics material in nature? Does mathematics exist?
What color is evil, goodness, love? What kind of material is consciousness made off?
Where does the human value come from?

Mathematics is an abstract concept. Mathematics is neither sentient nor alive. Mathematics cannot create things. Mathematics cannot think.
Are you saying that your god is abstract?
Or that your god is neither sentient nor alive?
Or that your god can't think?
Or that your god cannot create things?

Evil and goodness are characteristics or properties of things.

Love is an electro chemical process that occurs inside brains.

Consciousness is a process that occurs inside the brains of living things.

Human values come from the brains of humans.

Dtruthspeaker:
Easy. Eternal means something continuing for a very very very long time and still continuing at the time of query.

And since Hammurabi's world till today, people still talk of experiencing the touch and presence of God

Hammurabi's world till today is not eternal. It started from Hammurabi's world.
For something to be eternal it must be timeless.
And events that never occurred are timeless.

Dtruthspeaker:
Are you not hearing what you are saying? "It can exists" means it does not exist now.

Understand what I'm saying. All the matter and energy required to create them already exist. That particular configuration of matter may not exist all the already material does. What humans do is rearrange already existing matter into new configurations.

Is this what you believe God does?

Dtruthspeaker:
Because we can all see that all creators are always outside the world of their creations. Steve Jobs and Mr Toyoda are not inside their phone and car.

They exist in the same realm and are bound by the same laws. Matter of fact, when we die, our bodies will decompose and may later become part of the building blocks of some other invention.

In summary, Steve Jobs is not a part of his invention but rather both he and his invention are a part of the universe.

Dtruthspeaker:
Here I see the materials we know fall into solid, liquid, gases, hybrid of solids, liquid and gases. And then there is spirit, a matter which the whole world acknowledges that it is here with us and the material of which no man knows.

And God already acknowledges that He is Spirit, a material we do not know yet we know it's existence, hence the beginning and a step into of a world we do not know.

Sure! It takes A Person Who is an Artist, Landscaper, Engineer, and an Inventor to create this universe we see.

Matter is defined anything that has mass and occupies space. What is the mass of a spirit particle (if you may call it that)? What is the volume? The burden of proof is on you to make the case for the existence of the Spirit.

budaatum:
Thank you very much. I too have heard many hypothesis, and it is conceivable that something must have come out of something as the big crunch hypothesis suggests. The big bang theory suggests the same thing to me, since something has to exist to go bang if one thinks about it.

What I admire more is your "it's just a hypothesis", as in something to further consider, as opposed to something to be believed and stop asking and knocking and seeking.

I'm not saying it's impossible but much like the multiverse hypothesis, doesn't it just kick the can further down the road?

They just raise questions as to what started the cycle or what caused the multiverse to come to be. But we don't have these answers.

However, what we do know is that the universe rapidly expanded 13.8 billion years ago. In the absence of any further evidence, the most logical path to take should be the one with the least assumptions which would be that the universe has always existed in some form. This can then be disproven once evidence suggests otherwise.