TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

did the big bang also create God?

the soup that all of this came from was created from nothing and if that is true then there was nothing before their was something and since we have no proof of why it happened it would have to be put down to happenstance.I am sure that my theory is too simple so if there is someone who can give me a better theory have at it


Closing Statement from arthur mitsias

there is a God not in the Universe but in us and this is something that has been nurtured in every culture and every culture thought they were the chosen ones and that they knew what God wanted,man gave God an ego and all we really want God to do is answer the questions that have been asked for countless eons ,why?and how? And as far as athiests and those that believe in God they have one thing in common moments of doubt

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 20 2012: Hi Arthur, in my mind big bang or creation cannot take place from nothing. Something has to be there to explode or come into existance.
    The only explanation that I can live with is a creation from nothing material. Only a creation from something spiritual is possible and still happens every day. Whether we create a painting or a car, that creation is based on and started by a love of paining or cars, or money for that matter. No small or big bang was involved :)

    God is a God of love, and from that love, everything was created that was created.
    That process is explained in this booklet. See if you can see truth in this..
    • thumb
      Jul 20 2012: Hi Adriaan, I just don't get how you don't accept something from nothing, but you do accept something from spirit. But then spirit doesn't need a cause. It seems a circular argument. Can you see the issues with this reasoning.

      Basically you are saying something can't come from nothing. Something can come from something (spirit) but this special something doesn't need to come from anything. Technically this is the fallacy of special pleading mixed with an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity.

      You don't really know what there was before the big bang. You don't really know how it all happened. You just have a belief that satisfies you even if it is fallacious.

      If spirit can exist eternally, why not some natural preconditions for the universe? Was there nothing before the big bang? Was there something? What is nothing? Could 2 opposites that cancel each other out come into being +1 -1 = 0? Do we have any idea of conditions before the big bang? No but some people have old books that make.

      Other than it makes sense to you, do you have any compelling evidence for your belief or does it come down to faith in some religious teachings?
      • Jul 22 2012: Hi Obey,
        --"Basically you are saying something can't come from nothing. Something can come from something (spirit) but this special something doesn't need to come from anything."--

        First sentence: yes and second sentence: yes (if by saying "something (spirit)" you are referring to God.
        Indeed, I am saying the universe could not start from nothing that existed before the universe existed and made the universe start by exploding.
        But you are 'saying' that's what happened!! And you are constantly asking ME for evidence? What evidence do you have??

        What I am also saying is that each time we create something now, it is created by our spirit. It is not created by our neurons or electrical connections or chemical (Im)balance. We have seen and thought about it and figured it out long before in our mind, before we put pen to paper or the chisel to wood.
        What this means is that God is the cause, the spiritual world is the means and the physical world is the effect. That is how the universe started and works and that is also how we work and get things started.
        You can decide that thinking, loving and meditating is all created by the meat between your ears because science cannot detect anything beyond matter. But all those activities are spiritual activities and no neuron can tell you what to love or say. There just is no alternative to spirit. It is only our spirit that makes us responsible for our actions.
        When you change your mind, do you change neurons?
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2012: Hi Adriaan,

          My answer is I don't know how it all started or what there was before the big bang or what there is outside the space of the current universe.

          Big Bang is based on our understanding of the universe, and how it works, back tracking nearly 14 billion years, seeing back 10 billion years with Hubble, detecting the background radiation from the bi bang, the force of gravity, observations etc.

          Your answer is everything needs a cause except a God. You offer no explanation for God. You actually have answered the question with a bigger more complex question.

          You assert spirit but all the human experiences can be better explained in part by evolution, psychology, neuroscience.

          There can be purely physical explanations for love, hate, fear.

          Just because you don't believe them or can't understand them doesn't make spirit the only answer. Try reading or youtubing pinker etc.

          You believe in spirit, but there is no evidence to prove it.

          Your changing mind versus changing neurons statement indicates a complete lack of understanding.
      • Jul 23 2012: Nothing is when everything is somewhere else, like you said: (+1) + (-1) = 0 = nothing, or A + B + C + n = 0 = nothing.
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2012: Robert,
          commenting on your reply to me.

          You are right, science is not religion. They can never come together because they deal with entirely different issues. That being said, there are underlying principles to religion that are worth knowing, such as spirituality and philosophy, but organized religions are not going there.
          The Catholic church divorced itself from science after its attack on Galileo so that science would not undermine its doctrine. It was a step in the wrong direction, and until it is remedied, the problems will remain.
          At the turn of the 20th century, the word theology contained a reference to "that which is revealed by nature". The modern definition contains no such reference, and I believe it is because of what the Catholic church did in divorcing itself from science. They took God out of reality and many words were redefined to accommodate that change.

          Science cannot prove God in its current definition because it is wrong. Until the definition is changed to reflect the truth, science will continue to dispute God, and rightly so.
          Religions are built on associations. God is the common denominator, which we know in science as quantum fields. But the definition of God focuses on a personification, which is anthropomorphic, and quantum fields are not anthropomorphic. So long as religions view God as anthropomorphic, they will never be able to prove God exists because it isn't right to start with. That's my two cents worth.
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2012: Hi Roy,

          why not call quantum fields, quantum fields?

          why label them god with all the baggage this word carries?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.