God seems a bit like Santa Claus for adults. As kids we're told to believe he can do all these miraculous things in one evening that sound preposterous to an adult. Really, religion isn't much different. But if it brings people comfort, so be it.
A few explanations of the Big Bang Theory. https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html https://www.livescience.com/65254-w...actly what,inflation during that first second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Or we could go with the theory that a supernatural being created heaven, earth, mankind, all the millions of plants and animals. Got pissed & covered the earth killing all but one family that lived on a boat.
Still no thoughts from believers about where god might have been before any place existed. Erich Von Daniken's ideas seem more and more likely to me. Just look at the advances in technology on this planet over the last 100 years. What if life started on another planet 100 years before life started on earth. A 1,000 years earlier, 10,000 years earlier. Wouldn't people coming here with such powers be thought of as gods? Maybe mars developed life first and they came here when they started losing their atmosphere.
Sheldon, I'll stand alone in my response again compared to the others, but fairly differentiate between fact and theory, which unfortunately certain others consistently fail to do. The big bang theory and its origin from a singularity is definately a theory, not a fact, although admittedly it is the most popular concept secular scientists propose for the origin of our universe. To consider its credence, you might recognize that it has been repeatedly revised over the past years in order to make it compatable with new scientific discoveries constantly being made. More significantly, the origin of the supposed singularity is still beyond even theoretical propositions. The newfound science of quantum mechanics is attempting to find answers to this origin problem but all proposals to date are mere wild ideas with no mathematical or physical evidential support. In short, the origin of the universe is as unknown for the secular Cosmologist as the origin of life is for the secular Biologist. Both science disciplines have failed thus far to get beyond theory to fact in determining our true origins via naturalistic means. On the other hand, while Atheists, skeptics, and our secular culture in general openly dismisses the Biblical account of creation, Christians have little to fear from the evidence at hand. For starters, we have the most well established, incontroversial laws of science supporting the Bible's account of a supernatural creation - that being the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. In simple terms, it's not possible for the universe to have popped into existance by itself through natural processes. The first law requires that something beyond time, space, and matter MUST have caused the event that we see now as our universe. Besides being eternal - outside the element of time - that something must have been immeasurably powerful and knowledgeable to create such an awesomely complex universe of cosmological features and life forms. It also must have had a mind, conscience, and form of love in order to bestow those features upon his created beings. The Second Law of Thermodynamics negates the big bang theory which proposes that order came from disorder. In other words, according to an undisputed scientific law that we assume governs the entire universe, it is not possible that an orderly universe with over 30 cosmological constants immeasurably fine tuned to support life on earth could result from any type of big bang theory propositions. As is the case of all structures on earth and within the universe, design requires a designer, and the entire universe and all life forms display incredible design. If one wishes to ridicule the Christian creationists and believe the secular point of view on the universe's origins as is predominately presented in the media and schools today, it's easy to go along with the flow and do so. But again, for those seeking the truth about reality and religion, the scientific evidence today currently favors special creationism over naturalistic chance processes. This negates both evolution and the big bang theory. Now, to answer your question about where God was when he created the universe? Obviously he was outside of the universe and all of its physical parameters. Admittedly, any realm outside of our universe is beyond our comprehension, as is God's eternal nature. But, so far, the Bible's description of him and his hand in the creation best fits the scientific evidence available.
But where did they come from? Who made the Mars people? Eventually you get back to "where did it all start?"
That's what I hope to find out. Getting other peoples thoughts is what discussion is all about. I don't believe the bible at all but I'm trying to learn why some people do believe it. I have several ideas about what started it all and none of them involve a man with super powers who has always been alive forever.
We can talk and discuss from now until eternity and we still won't know. However, I do think that beings from other planets came to Earth in ancient times. Where they originated and what they did while they were here, I'd give a pretty penny to know.
To the many folks here, including a good friend of mine elsewhere, who would accept the premise of life on earth originating from aliens rather than any Biblical account associated with religion, I offer these points to consider. First, the best, most smartest scientists in the world, both secular and religious, generally agree that the laws of physics apply to the entire universe. There are no exceptions; that's why they're considered laws. Thus, the Laws of Thermodynamics and at least 30 other laws of physics upholding our universe in a delicate manner apply to any other imaginable planet of aliens in far away galaxies as they do for us. What's this mean? It means that injecting unknown aliens into the equation doesn't help to address the problem of origins. As far as we know, based upon the best available scientific evidence, a supernatural cause beyond time, space, and matter is still required for our natural universe. To reject this likely fact, as many scientists and others do, because of an unyielding biased against the supernatural is irrational. It requires blind faith in something that opposes all of our current evidence. Second, if there were aliens elsewhere in the universe, living under our established laws of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry, it is most likely that they too would be carbon based, since this is the organic compound most suited for combining other elements. And just like humans, they would require incredible design and function in order to live - and be advanced enough to travel here as proponents suggest. What's this mean? It means that you're faced with the same problem of getting life from non-life on the alien world just as evolutionists are faced with that problem here on Earth. And to date, no person or theory has demonstrated that life can come from non-life by naturalistic chance processes. That's why we have the well established Law of Biogenesis saying that life comes only from life according to its kind. I find it amazing but sad that people will completely ignore our most well established laws of science and abundant evidence supporting God's creation in order to cling to their world views. They're free to do so of course, but its an indefensible defiance against truth and reality. It's repeatedly demonstrated that the rejection of God and the Christian Bible's authority is not a matter of insufficient evidence, since both are well supported by science and history. I'd encourage the unbeliever to recognize this, set aside the unfounded objections, and give the positive evidence a fair study.
This is false. There is no evidence of any supernatural cause. Our universe may itself be eternal. The "big bang" may just be part of te cycle and may have happened many times. Our universe may end by collapsing into a gigantic black hole becoming again a singularity only to repeat the big bang. Know one knows, Scientists can only guess which is no better than anyone else's guess. It makes more sense for the universe to be eternal that to attribute super powers to a mythical eternal being wo looks like us. … Of course there is no evidence of any of this but my guess is as good as yours, actually I think better.
A law of physics states that matter can not be created or destroyed, only transformed. E=MC^2 according to Einstein. If matter or energy are a constant either God made it so or it was always there. Back to square one.
I'm going to isolate this part of the overall post by Joseph Carl. [As far as we know, based upon the best available scientific evidence, a supernatural cause beyond time, space, and matter is still required for our natural universe. To reject this likely fact, as many scientists and others do, because of an unyielding biased against the supernatural is irrational. It requires blind faith in something that opposes all of our current evidence.] "As far as we know" leaves open possibilities. Science continues to uncover the previously unknown. Who in 1950 could have imagined that exploring Mars would be possible? "likely fact" way different than stating "absolute fact" To be open to the possibility that life not necessarily carbon based exists & not necessarily in our known galaxy IMO is as valid as thinking that a supernatural being 13 1/2 billion years old along with other supernatural beings exist somewhere.
That's why God gave everyone He created free will...so they could decide for theirselves what they were going to believe. However that free will may be the end of many...and to others it may be the beginning of salvation and eternal life. It doesn't really matter how things began... I'm here now and much more interested in where I'm going when I leave here. And I don't need a Scientist to tell me where that will be...
Sheldon, you've raised two objections that I'll address. The creation evidence will apparently never be acceptable for you, Bob and some others here, but let me clarify something for the others that may be less entrenched in their unfounded non-beliefs. First, your insistence on an eternal universe was shared by many scientists until Einstein's theory of relativity was accepted. Since then, the premise of a finite universe has been further confirmed by cosmological evidence (like the variable temperature of the universe, red star shift, galaxy spirals, planetary magnetic forces, comet life cycles, etc ), as well as further mathematical and theological determinations. Today, almost all scientists, including the most popular Atheist authors, accept that the universe is finite, and thus had a beginning. You're free to disregard such widely accepted scientific conclusions, but to do so requires a blind faith that opposes our best evidence and perception of reality today - even accounting for the speculative work being attempted through quantum mechanics to negate this evidence. Second, your insistence that there's no evidence for a supernatural cause of the universe obviously discounts the point I previously made. Let me summarize another way: Fact: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics discounts the reasonable possibility of our universe arriving from nothing. Fact: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics discounts the reasonable possibility of our orderly universe arriving from a big bang or any other natural, chance, disorderly process. A reasonable conclusion then IS supported by the above evidence - that a supernatural cause, being something beyond our laws of physics governing the known universe, must have caused the universe. Notice, I haven't labeled this conclusion as a fact, but it is the strongest position supported by scientific evidence today. I understand that Atheists are desperately trying to find alternative answers to any theistic solution to the origins problem, but denying the evidence really is irrational. In truth, they could find better arguments to justify their opposition to God's existence than defending a naturalistic beginning for the universe or biological life - both of which have science favoring the Biblical model. I've said enough on this point which is mostly off topic from the original OP. You all might remember that I listed the most popular basis for people accepting evolution these days - the reasons in fact that are still taught in school textbooks, museums, and the media. My intent was to demonstrate to less informed individuals here that the theory of evolution stands on very weak ground. I did this intentionally without presenting the evidence for Biblical creation because that would comprise too much material for one thread. I'd suggest that the staunch Atheists here focus on defending the evolutionary foundations I criticized - or propose other scientific evidence that outweighs these points. So far, there's been almost no valid objections or good evidence presented on the specific matter at hand of why you believe in evolution - other than an unfounded bias against the supernatural.
Or you could read about other theories https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html or this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056018/Laws-physics-change-depending-universe.html A lot can happen in 13 &1/2 billion years There is even the potential of an unfounded bias against evolution.
Why does it have to be creationism "or" evolution? Did God perhaps use evolution as the process of creation? We can't be sure. Jesus used parables in the new testament. Could the old testament be written as parables to be interpreted and taught by ministers and not taken literally?