Well for one thing it's not called a cake. And it still doesn't address the question of why the Earth (in any form) should be there (especially separated from from the heavens) before the Big Bang.
No how about you answer a question, can it absolutely be proven that the big bang occur? or are you going by faith, that the scientist are correct in their theory?
Still peddling that myth Buff? Proof? Science doesn't do proof. And as for faith - I've already answered that. Posts 11, 13, 20 and, more specifically, 47.
I wonder if God knows how He was created. What was created first....God? or a place for God to exist in? If God was not created then is it possible for Him to exist without really being anywhere? Personally I can't picture anything existing while being nowhere so how did the place for God to exist in, get there before He did?
I wonder why atheists bother characterizing an impotent god for the sake of their fraternizing. If you can picture the sun on a normal day without a flashlight, it shouldn't be such a difficult task.
God has only existed since we came along. He was awol for 15 billion years before that. Theists talk about creation but fail to attempt an explanation for God's existence let alone a place for Him to exist in.
I can't picture the sun without it having a place to exist in. The whole existence of God, the creator, depends on Him first having some place to exist in. I don't care what this place consists of, or if it has volume or any other characteristic that establishes a place of existence, it had to exist before God came along. I think theists should concentrate on how this place was created. But that would mean God is subject to the same questions that inspires humanity's quest for their origins. Please explain how a place for God came into existence after God did?
Actually my point was that you don't require a flashlight to picture it ... Your whole premise is that existence, or more specifically, the nature of space, shares some independent aspect from god If you wouldn't argue that light has to come into existence before the sun, there is an alternative means to address the relationship between a potency and something understood to be the source of that potency. Perhaps you could lead the way by explaining how the sun came into existence after the sunlight Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The relationship between man and God can be compared to the invention of a loony toons cartoon character, before Walt Disney goofy didn't exist. Walt Disney in comparison was similar to a kid having an invisible friend playing with his cartoons the way he did. God is not independant of our fashioning.
There's a stark similarity between a kid with an invisible friend and an empiricist with a post dated cheque ....
It seems you could appreciate the wisdom of knowing God is not the same for every person. The question is why isn't God the same for every person? I can agree knowledge is derived from experience. However, some people attempt to substitute knowledge with quackery. Trust in the invisible issuer of the invisible check is subjective and not normative because I think it not a standard of correctness in behavior.
If you can appreciate that knowledge is derived from experience, a variety of experiences means a variegated response to the phenomena. This doesn't of course mean anything goes. For instance just because there are several takes on the wave/particle duality doesn't automatically mean the whole issue gets lost in a hubris of opinion. well take your statement about loony tunes and god. Unless you have something empirical to bring to the table regarding abiogenesis, you are simply bringing a further "invisible "entity to a discussion of what the universe was like before life appeared. IOW even though such rain cheques are not a norm of scientific investigation, a brief over view of the history of it reveals numerous examples of jumping the gun on claims
I am grateful I have the ability to recognize the difference between actual knowledge and guesswork presented as a teaching tool. Cartoons compared to abiogenesis isn't even close to relating to my comments. Invisible rain checks making unsupported claims by a phony invisible friend is imagation run-amok.
Actually my question isn't complicated.... Where did the space, area, region, whatever you want to call it that God occupied before creation, come from? God cannot exist unless He is somewhere. There simply cannot only be a god, for there would be no place for him to exist. I can have a place with no god but can I have a god that hasn't a place to be in?
Your question is no more complicated than this one - What did the sun illuminate before it started emitting sunlight? And there cannot be a god upon whom the very nature of spatial existence is contingent because?
I guess that also must mean you have the ability to determine what normative issues frame a teaching. If you feel that you can use the state of affairs before life existed to contrast the state of affairs when life did exist in relation to god, its already there in your guesswork. There's no essential difference between a post-dated empirical rain cheque, an invisible friend, or an invisible friend bearing a post dated rain cheque. -edit - actually there is a difference : an invisible friend is simply one that you cannot see. A post dated empirical rain cheque is spurious.
