Moderated: What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am inviting you to think with me on the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain ourselves.

Gibberish. If you live you exist in a state of being. Tell me which bit of that you don't understand and I'll try and help you. Why should we have to explain ourselves? Explain ourselves to you? Agatha already answered your question, didn't you notice?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Agatha

I already answered your question in post #2207. Here is the relevant part again with the answer highlighted for you:



It's quite rude for you to accuse people of running away from challenges when your questions have been answered, but you have simply failed to read the thread to find such answers.

Cheeky too, considering that Yrreg never answers questions. Yrreg, do you agree with my definition of gods? If not, why not?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by yrreg

That is the trouble with atheists, they have a very limited horizon.


Here, read what I was into when I said that a pilot can fly straight upward from the North Pole above it to farther north in the sky.




Now, what I would like to invite atheists here is to work together to find out what is the psychological smugness of the guy who poses the rhetorical question:

"What lies north of the North Pole?

aside from betraying his narrow outlook of the whole span of existence man should be oriented to, which is typical of atheists, they put themselves in a dungeon and want everyone else to join them inside and never get out.

And then also I would like to invite atheists here to work with me to find out what is the point of reference of man's existence in the universe for themselves -- you guys atheists?



Yrreg

You're still wrong. The celestial pole is a line, and an imaginary one at that. Once you're there, on that line, you're exactly as far north as you can ever go. You may, in celestial pole terms, not go away from the north if you go straight up, but you will never get any further north. Even when you look up the explanations you still get it wrong. Time to give it a rest.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Agatha

[...]

To your question (the first time you have asked me to my recollection, so why "again" I do not know) - 'being' and 'existence' have the same meaning in English, so I'm not clear what you are asking. Perhaps you could rephrase the question in a way which makes a little more sense?

Okay, very good Agatha, you can think, now let's get going.


The question is what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.


First, we work together to come to our concurring concept of what is it to be the default status of something.

Like for example, you are a woman and if I may assume perhaps a mother also, anyway you know what is a mother.

Now, we ask ourselves from our experience and the experience of mankind, what is the essential nature of a mother, so that she can be an office worker, an actress, a corporate executive, a beauty parlor worker, a scientist, etc., but when we push her reset button, voilà, she is a mother above anything else.

Get that?

So, what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.

Think of another word/concept of existence as of non-existence, a singular noun or better pronoun in a way paradoxically a concrete pronoun.

[ You might have to correct me about nouns and pronouns what they are and if the ones I am referring to can be concrete ones. ]



Yrreg

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, very good Agatha, you can think, now let's get going.


The question is what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.


First, we work together to come to our concurring concept of what is it to be the default status of something.

Like for example, you are a woman and if I may assume perhaps a mother also, anyway you know what is a mother.

Now, we ask ourselves from our experience and the experience of mankind, what is the essential nature of a mother, so that she can be an office worker, an actress, a corporate executive, a beauty parlor worker, a scientist, etc., but when we push her reset button, voilà, she is a mother above anything else.

Get that?

So, what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.

Think of another word/concept of existence as of non-existence, a singular noun or better pronoun in a way paradoxically a concrete pronoun.

[ You might have to correct me about nouns and pronouns what they are and if the ones I am referring to can be concrete ones. ]

A prime example of Yrregspeak. Totally devoid of meaning. Can we get back on topic? I don't agree with your definition of god,what is your opinion of my definition of gods? The highlighted part is sheer gibberish.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by yrreg

...what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.

Why do you keep asking this question? It's been pointed out to you several times that it doesn't make any sense.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Agatha

Originally Posted by yrreg

And along the way, please contribute to my collection of stupid [sorry] foolish slogans of atheists, who feel that they have thought enough with rote memorizing of sour slogans, from their fellow masters of deceit who stumble blindly....

Going for a mod ban instead of responding to the request for clarification, are you, yrreg? Not the best way to conduct a discussion, but the insults you type are your responsibility.

You ask:

What is the default situation of being, existence or non-existence?

As being and existence are synonyms, the question is poorly phrased. Non-existence would be the same as non-being, so obviously anyone would say that the answer is existence. Why do you ask? Do you recognise that being and existence are synonyms?
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.
Last edited by Agatha; Today at 05:58 AM. Reason: Add the quote as the thread is moving quickly

Existence has been encrusted by atheists with a lot of distractions, but press the reset button and it will come up clearly that there is always something.

Now, I ask you, is it to your thinking that there is always something and that is the default status, or are you subscribing to the desperate tack of atheists today who now go into the default status of existence as nothing?

Because they are now into telling mankind that there was nothing then something came forth and that is the universe.


Okay, to be brief, think and answer: Has there always (always here is both a logical always and a chronological always) been something instead of nothing.

You are to choose between something and nothing as the all complete total absolute indispensable explanation for existence.


And don't forget since you are a woman and perhaps mother also, about the reset button for you to get back to mother status when you forget your essential nature of being a mother, that is an illustration of what I mean by default status.




Yrreg

[Kid Eager]

Oh dear. Yrreg is confusing evidence with questions

QUESTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Step 1: Assert a position
Step 2: Produce evidence

Rinse, lather repeat

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, to be brief, think and answer: Has there always (always here is both a logical always and a chronological always) been something instead of nothing.

I'm not used to these abstruse cosmological terms, but I'll have a go. Since t==0 there has been something, but something can be nothing and nothing can be something but nothing is sometimes something when nothing is sometimes nothing and sometimes nothing is nothing except when it's something, but only sometimes.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by yrreg

And Gee, just let me know when you are going to bring up the evidence card again, and I will challenge you again to work with me to concur on what is evidence.

No. I will challenge you to actually understand the many clear explanations that have already been provided. Everyone else here already concurs. As I said before, any failure to concur belongs to you.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, very good Agatha, you can think, now let's get going.

The question is what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.

As being and existence are synonymous (words which mean the same thing), I have already answered and explained: something which is in a state of being is by definition in a state of existence.

Originally Posted by yrreg

we work together to come to our concurring concept of what is it to be the default status of something.

Not everything has just one simple default state, especially when you are talking of complex organisms such as human beings. For example, my usual default state at this time of night in my time zone is to be asleep. In the morning my default state will be to be awake. I think that the concept you are working towards is not best expressed by the phrase "default status".

Quote:

Like for example, you are a woman and if I may assume perhaps a mother also, anyway you know what is a mother.

I see no particular reason why you would be quite so creepy and personal, but yes I do have children.

Quote:

Now, we ask ourselves from our experience and the experience of mankind, what is the essential nature of a mother, so that she can be an office worker, an actress, a corporate executive, a beauty parlor worker, a scientist, etc., but when we push her reset button, voilà, she is a mother above anything else.

Sadly this is not universally true; in the first place humans do not have a reset button and in the second place not all mothers display mothering characteristics at all times. Hence the number of women who have committed crimes of abuse, neglect and even murder against their children. Fewer than the numbers of fathers, I believe, but that is a derail.

Quote:

Get that?

Get what? That you seem to have a one-dimensional, patriarchal and outdated view of humans? Yes, I got that.

Quote:

So, what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.

Again? OK, as being and existence (sorry it's tiresome putting in UBB code on my phone, or would have italicised those) are synonymous, so if something is in a state of being it is by definition in a state of existence. What is there to explain? It's just two words which mean the same.

Quote:

Think of another word/concept of existence as of non-existence, a singular noun or better pronoun in a way paradoxically a concrete pronoun.

This is another nonsensical sentence, and your lack of fluency in English makes it difficult for any reader to determine what you are asking. If you want another synonym for existence, I am sure you can find an online thesaurus, and it would be easier for you to consult such a site than me, given that I am typing on my phone rather than on my laptop.

Quote:

[ You might have to correct me about nouns and pronouns what they are and if the ones I am referring to can be concrete ones. ]

A noun is a 'naming word', names of things, places or people or concepts. An abstract noun is naming a concept rather than a thing, place or person. Aconcrete noun is a word for something tangible, something that you can see, smell, touch ir taste. A pronoun is a word like 'you' or 'she' or 'him'. Pronouns can be subject or object pronouns depending on what part of a sentence they are in. While I am at it, a verb is a 'doing word' which describes action of some sort ( the verbs "be" and "exist" describe the action of existence). Adverbs modify verbs, and adjectives modify nouns. So 'purple' is an adjective, and 'clearly' is an adverb. Does that help with any confusion you may have about the English language and parts of speech?

To get back to your request for another word which is synonymous with existence, I will have to let you look that up as I can't easily on my phone.

I am not running away from your questions but going to bed, as my default state at after half past midnight is to be asleep.

If you have more questions, please can you attempt to put them in clear language rather than the jumble of words you've used above. It is the duty of the writer to phrase things clearly, not the duty of the reader to disentangle clauses, sub-clauses and malapropisms.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Existence has been encrusted by atheists with a lot of distractions, but press the reset button and it will come up clearly that there is always something.

Now, I ask you, is it to your thinking that there is always something and that is the default status, or are you subscribing to the desperate tack of atheists today who now go into the default status of existence as nothing?

Because they are now into telling mankind that there was nothing then something came forth and that is the universe.


Okay, to be brief, think and answer: Has there always (always here is both a logical always and a chronological always) been something instead of nothing.

You are to choose between something and nothing as the all complete total absolute indispensable explanation for existence.


And don't forget since you are a woman and perhaps mother also, about the reset button for you to get back to mother status when you forget your essential nature of being a mother, that is an illustration of what I mean by default status.

Please refrain from personalising this, it's rude and rather creepy.

In reference to the part I have highlighted, this is a strawman on your part as nobody has said that there was nothing and then there was something. What people have said, several times, is that as far as we can tell with science's current understanding, time started (this is called t=0) at the beginning if the universe. The entirety of the matter which comprises the universe was in existence at that point. This is a gross simplification but it's late here and you can read about it on this site: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoo...ng/BigBang.htm

ETA The Catholic Church agrees that the big bang theory is the best explanation for our universe, which might help you accept the explanation.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by yrreg

See, every reader here, Agatha can't think, she dares not accept my challenge.

Here is my invitation again, and forgive me for embarrassing you because I love all women: they are the mothers of mankind i.e. humanity which embraces women of course.

I am inviting you to think with me on the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain ourselves.


Dear readers here, she will again slip away from that challenge.


And everyone else here who can think, please let us work together to resolve the issue, what is the default status of being etc.




Yrreg

The default status of being is that it exists. Although some people would argue that one can exist without being, one cannot be without existing, because the definitions of being and existence are, though not quite identical, tautological that way. Wow, that was some hard hard philosophy there. I feel like A.J. Ayer reborn!

I'm not sure about etcetera though. The status of that is somewhat varied.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Because they are now into telling mankind that there was nothing then something came forth and that is the universe.

No. No, no, no, no... NO!

There wasn't "nothing" before the universe. There is no evidence that there is even a such thing as "before the universe". There is no time on the beyond the Big Bang. Time does not go on and on forever behind us. There is no need to explain how the universe could have "come forth from nothing" because there is no indication that this ever happened.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

No. No, no, no, no... NO!

There wasn't "nothing" before the universe. There is no evidence that there is even a such thing as "before the universe". There is no time on the beyond the Big Bang. Time does not go on and on forever behind us. There is no need to explain how the universe could have "come forth from nothing" because there is no indication that this ever happened.

Oh FSM, we'll be back to what is north of the north pole again.

[MNBrant]

Aristotle solved this with his law of immutablility. For god to be perfect he cannot do anything. Of course this is above my pay grade.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

To tell the truth, I'm so sick of people's ideas of a god on these threads, they are all so simple and childish.


Paul

This thread is a prime example. I'm not bored with it yet, I can't wait to see what Yrreg comes up with next.

[kmortis]

due to a recent spat of bad behavior, this thread is now set to Moderated status. It will be cleaned out and MAY come off after that is complete. Do not start new threads or post about this topic in other threads to circumvent this status.

Posted By:kmortis

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Anyway.

I hate to say this, but Loss Leader is here and he has not reacted to my charges.


Now that you zooterkin bring up evidence again, I invite you to dialog with me on evidence: what is it, what is its target, and how it operates to hit its target.

Perhaps Loss Leader will take up my invitation to work with me hopefully this time without looping and retracting his words and thoughts, on a second round of my project to seek agreement with atheists on concepts in re God debate.



Yrreg

I see you still haven't learned how to debate people in a concise and respectful manner. You should also stop lying about people retracting their words because you haven't proved that at all.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Anyway.

I hate to say this, but Loss Leader is here and he has not reacted to my charges.


Now that you zooterkin bring up evidence again, I invite you to dialog with me on evidence: what is it, what is its target, and how it operates to hit its target.

Perhaps Loss Leader will take up my invitation to work with me hopefully this time without looping and retracting his words and thoughts, on a second round of my project to seek agreement with atheists on concepts in re God debate.



Yrreg

I wasn't talking to you.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Just the same, I will ask you [again]: What is the default situation of being, existence or non-existence?

'being' and 'existence' are synonymous, so (surprise, surprise) your question is nonsensical.
You are asking:
' what is the default situation of being: being or non-being?'
or
'what is the default situation of existence: existence or non-existence?'
(I have no idea what 'situation' means in this context, but that's the least of your worries.)

[stijndeloose]

Yrreg, here's some bedtime reading, which I invite you to consider with the utmost diligence. This will require some serious thinking, thinking being what sets Homo sapiens apart from our non-Homo sapiens brethren, and all that:

Originally Posted by JHendrix

Thanks for the willingness to look at this monster. I'd appreciate any feedback, rip it to shreds if I've made a mistake in here! I would ask that this not be reposted elsewhere without my permission.

Mild updates were made since the posting, the changes are in RED.

Science and the Kalam - By JHendrix of http://www.rationalskepticism.org (still leary of putting my real name online atm)

The Kalam cosmological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of god, with the twist that it is usually presented as having substantial scientific evidence supporting its conclusion. This is problematic because it perverts the science in misleading ways to justify a conclusion that the evidence in no way supports.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the two pieces of scientific evidence usually cited in support of the Kalam absolutely do not support its premises in the way the argument requires. It will then be shown that the Kalam has substantial problems with modern science, and requires its defenders to take unscientific, non falsifiable positions on fundamental aspects of physics in order to maintain the argument.

Since this paper will cover a large amount of complex topics of science and philosophy, I have tried to include references to various topics so that the reader will better be able to educate themselves on any given topic. I highly recommend any confused readers look into each of these topics to confirm for themselves the validity of what I am saying.

[SNIP]

Due credit should be given to JHendrix, who originally posted this paper here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ge....html#p1425614.

Thank you for giving this your undivided attention, Yrreg!

Edited by kmortis:

Snipped to comply with Rule 4

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Okay, to be brief, think and answer: Has there always (always here is both a logical always and a chronological always) been something instead of nothing.

Yes, but remember that "always" started at the Big Bang. There was no "before".

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Originally Posted by Agatha

Evidence is anything which makes a proposition more or less true. We already did this months ago.

Hey, did you read that from somewhere, I want your own thinking from your experience if you have any, when you search for evidence in your own lifetime so far -- or you never did any search for evidence at all?

I read it earlier in the thread; it was the pared-down definition that everybody (except you) agreed was the most succinct explanation, and the one least likely to lead to misunderstanding. It is a much better definition than yours, which is needlessly verbose and unwieldy, and which contains an assumption that evidence necessarily has a direction.

Originally Posted by yrreg

But we will talk about that when you are through with our present issue, the default status of being, existence or non-existence, and explain.

I don't think I can state it any clearer than I have done; being and existence are synonyms in the way you are using them. Thus, the default status of being is existence purely by definition. There isn't anything to explain: being is equivalent to existence.

However, very few objects have one single default status. In the simplest terms, during a person's lifetime, their default status is to be alive, after their lifetime their default status is dead. Their body will exist a while longer (how long depends on the way it is treated after death).

But that is a very simplistic way of looking at things, as a living person's default status in a broad sense could be many different states depending on their activities, the time of day, their upbringing, their stage of life, and so on.

I don't think the term 'default status' is really helping you explain what you mean. Perhaps you could move on from the long-agreed "being is equivalent to existence" and move to the next step, so that we can work out what you are attempting to show.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Agatha

[...]

Quote:
So, what is the default status of being: existence or non-existence, and explain.

Again? OK, as being and existence (sorry it's tiresome putting in UBB code on my phone, or would have italicised those) are synonymous, so if something is in a state of being it is by definition in a state of existence. What is there to explain? It's just two words which mean the same.

[...]

You are not connecting with me, ask yourself has there always been something?

Tell me whether you can understand these words from me:

• In the status in logical anteriority of the universe and in the logical exteriority of that universe the same that is studied by atheist scientists has there always been something instead of nothing?

If you cannot understand some words or some phrases above let me know.



You see, Agatha, you do not see things in the big big big big big picture of existence or non-existence.

And it is because for you (and you don't realize it) existence is self-pre-delimited already in your heart and mind to exclusively matter in time and space.



Yrreg

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Existence has been encrusted by atheists with a lot of distractions, but press the reset button and it will come up clearly that there is always something.

Now, I ask you, is it to your thinking that there is always something and that is the default status, or are you subscribing to the desperate tack of atheists today who now go into the default status of existence as nothing?

Because they are now into telling mankind that there was nothing then something came forth and that is the universe.


...
Yrreg

And yet again Yrreg you lie and misrepresent the position of science which is not atheism.

The universe did no come from 'nothing', it came from 'we don't know', I say you lie because this has been explained to you many many times and you have in other threads responded to this fact, that science does not say the universe came from nothing.

So once again you drag out the same theology encrusted strawman and yet again send the same encrusted strawman around the same old course.

Knowing that you are telling a falsehood, isn't that a sin?

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for moderated thread.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

You are not connecting with me, ask yourself has there always been something?

Tell me whether you can understand these words from me:[/list]In the status in logical anteriority of the universe and in the logical exteriority of that universe the same that is studied by atheist scientists has there always been something instead of nothing?[/list]

If you cannot understand some words or some phrases above let me know.

I understand but as I attempted to explain to you by PM, neither anteriority nor exteriority are words, and the concepts are much better expressed by 'before' and 'outside'.

Further, your question is meaningless; firstly there is no 'before' the universe, as time started at the moment the universe came into being. Since it is not possible for there to be a time which was before time, there was never a 'before' the universe.

Secondly, as the definition of the word 'universe' is 'everything that exists', it is equally not possible for there to be anything which exists outside the universe. If something exists, it is by definition within the universe.

Originally Posted by yrreg

You see, Agatha, you do not see things in the big big big big big picture of existence or non-existence.

I'm surprised this got approved for a moderated thread, it seems to be clearly addressing the arguer rather than the argument. However, I refute your allegation and would suggest that I am more than capable of seeing the big picture, and further, to understand the essential difference between existence and non-existence.

Originally Posted by yrreg

And it is because for you (and you don't realize it) existence is self-pre-delimited already in your heart and mind to exclusively matter in time and space.

More addressing the arguer? However, yes, as a rational person and sceptic, I do not believe that anything which is not "matter in time and space" exists outside the realm of imagination.

If it is your contention that something exists outside time and space, then you will need to provide evidence that this is possible as well as evidence for the existence of whatever it is. Belief and faith, however strong they might be, are not evidence.

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for moderated thread.

[yrreg]

I am going to talk with Agatha, so sorry guys if I don't reply to your posts, and I hope this is no violation of the rules.




Dear Agatha, I am saying that atheists have pre-self-delimited their heart and mind as to see nothing in the universe except matter in time and in space, or in short what they think that scientists advocate, or folks they claim for themselves to be into science.

Tell me frankly, you don't subscribe to anything outside the universe of guys like Krauss, Hawking, Stenger and their fellow club-members?

And then these guys also go into semantics so that nothing is in effect something, even though they keep insisting that they are talking about nothing, and also they tend to multiply things so that universe is not already everything that exists, but there are other universes, an infinitude of universes which they call multiverse.

If you are like them, I can't see how we can ever get connected.


Better you take up the card of B. Russell:

Quote:

See or google:

• The Copleston / Russell Debate on the Existence of God (1948) A transcript of the famous BBC radio broadcast.

[...]


R: Well, the word "gratuitous" suggests that it might be something else; I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.

C: Well, I can't see how you can rule out the legitimacy of asking the question how the total, or anything at all comes to be there. Why something rather than nothing, that is the question? The fact that we gain our knowledge of causality empirically, from particular causes, does not rule out the possibility of asking what the cause of the series is. If the word "cause" were meaningless or if it could be shown that Kant's view of the matter were correct, the question would be illegitimate I agree; but you don't seem to hold that the word "cause" is meaningless, and I do not suppose you are a Kantian.


[…]


R: I don't think he'd [the scientist] say so. If there's a world in which most events, but not all, have causes, he will then be able to depict the probabilities and uncertainties by assuming that this particular event you're interested in probably has a cause. And since in any case you won't get more than probability that's good enough.

C: It may be that the scientist doesn't hope to obtain more than probability, but in raising the question he assumes that the question of explanation has a meaning.

But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

R: Yes, that's my position.

C: Well, if it's a question that for you has no meaning, it's of course very difficult to discuss it, isn't it?

R: Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say -- shall we pass on to some other issue?

[ They passed on to Religious Experience. ]


[...]

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for moderated thread.

Yrreg

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by yrreg

I am going to talk with Agatha, so sorry guys if I don't reply to your posts, and I hope this is no violation of the rules.

Dear Agatha, I am saying that atheists have pre-self-delimited their heart and mind as to see nothing in the universe except matter in time and in space, or in short what they think that scientists advocate, or folks they claim for themselves to be into science.

<snip derail into multiverse theories>

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for moderated thread.

The definition of "the universe" is everything that exists. By definition, them nothing can be 'outside' it. If it is your contention that anything exists outside the universe, despite the glaring contradiction in terms, then you need to show evidence.

No matter how many times you accuse sceptics of "delimiting their...mind[s]", it remains the case that you have yet to show evidence of anything existing other than what is in the universe. Without evidence, all you have is faith and belief. Critical thinkers and sceptics will never find mere faith persuasive, the only thing which would persuade an atheist to change his or her position on the existence of gods is evidence.

The burden is on you to provide such evidence. For the avoidance of doubt, evidence in this context means something which is repeatable and testable.

It is past midnight here as I write this, so I will not be replying further tonight.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Tell me whether you can understand these words from me:

• In the status in logical anteriority of the universe and in the logical exteriority of that universe the same that is studied by atheist scientists has there always been something instead of nothing?

We know the individual meanings of the words you've typed. However their composition makes them rather challenging to parse. The latter part of the sentence seems to distill your question into something accessible, so let's concentrate on that.

Quote:

...has there always been something instead of nothing?

As far as we know, yes. You see, there is no time before space and time. You still seem to be imagining time as something that goes on and on forever into the past, that we could time travel back to the moment of the Big Bang and then continue on into the past to see what came before it, and that this means that there has to be a discreet moment in time that marks a transition from nothing to something. But this is not the case.

So in a sense, the answer to your question is, "Yes, the universe has always existed". But don't mistake this to mean that space/time is eternal. The universe seems very likely to be unbounded, yet finite.

Do you understand?

[jakesteele]

Originally Posted by yrreg

What's exactly, specifically wrong with my definition of God?

as maker of heaven and earth and everything.

Yrreg

Zero point singularity
that is non-spacial and of infinite mass
that is consciously aware of itself and has purpose and intent

THAT THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE CONCIEVED OF

THE ULTIMATE ABSOLUTNESS

a coherent and unified body body of power intrinsic to which is the potential for all possibilities to occur. This body of power consists of three aspects; the known, the unknown and the unknowable.