honorentheos wrote:We could go in a couple of different directions here. For example, what we mean by "the laws of nature" aren't constant but have undergone some form of change. At a very fine point just on our side of the event horizon that was the big bang, discussed in broad strokes by your professor by the way, the four major forces were all one. What the laws of nature were just prior to the big bang are not known.
The one thing I did admire in your professor was his repeated admission that we, none of us, could answer the question "why existance?" or what was before it without venturing into speculation. So the premise of your statement above is unfounded as we can not say anything with certainty about what was "before".
This ties into the other direction we could go with this, that being the odd sense you express of "constancy" and balance when the professor in the video cited example after example of how this is simply not the case. His contention, not explictly stated but implied, that it is God's willfulness in creation that guided this change does not help your cause. We can't have God being both constant and guiding change and defending the argument that it reflects God's will by referencing his constancy as well as his creation of potential for change. You're not saying anything by that. It's self-referential or circular.
The third option we have is pretty basic but would probably offend you more than the other two above - nothing in your defintion of God in the post above differentiates God from the other "no-thing", meaning that God = the laws of nature. Which is cool by me. I don't think that's what you intended to say, though.
What do you mean nothing differentiates God from the other no-things? You infer the opposite of what I said. I said that the other no-things (laws) could not resist but to cause perpetual creation and could have no beginning. Were as God can initiate a beginning and an end. He may chose to roll from one eternity to another. At will. What is not different there.?
I thought it was cool that the professor stated that we were all there in the beginning. Certainly a beginner has to precede the beginning. From at least another dimension or a previous cycle of a beginning and an end. Maybe it serves as great purpose to suspend everything in an alternate dimension while he collapses and expands a new generation heavens and earth(s) (without number).
Would it take 15 billion years to collapse all things? I am guessing no.
My beloved teacher here is not apprise of anything not found in his Bible with regard to what could precede a beginning. I am. I am aware of an entire cycle of the organization of intelligence in its own dimension before the worlds as we might know them came to be. And that organization could well have gone on for what we count as billions of years as well. Not only was God present he caused all that occurred in that existence too. Making him the Very Eternal Father, of that which is truly eternal, intelligence, or the light of truth, fathered into organized separate spheres of existence.
We cannot get our objective hands on that so it must be false I suppose.....hmm?