Reply #17: I was making the point of the argument. [View All]

[RandomThoughts]

Although as the first reply says, me saying from nothing to something, is an assumption, his comment of it being something just in another state, would make my comment just about change of state. Although maybe the idea of big bang happening was created as back story to existence for us. Shrug, really we are talking about areas that if supernatural modifications of space time are possible, can not be evaluated in just a science world.


The point is in the equation, God could exist in same state, thereby not needing creation. A change of state needs some action on something. But something with consistent state can be said to always exist. So if you say the state of God is consistent, then there is no need to claim God ever needed a beginning, but it can be said God always existed.

While the change in state of the big bang, requires some action, although there are some that comment on membrane collision moving into a reaction from vibrations within the multiverse, the basic idea I would guess of the guys argument is that the big bang is a state change requiring some interaction.


How do I know God exist, well that is faith not proof. Although the supernatural is proven.

I do however know the supernatural exists, and I know there are certain rules within that context that have never been broken. So my view of supernatural events have a construct to try and gain understanding. My exact view on the form above the supernatural, God, is faith, and I agree it is not something that is within my complete comprehension, so I can not prove my view of existence is correct, only that there is more then just the normal world.