Randolpin

I can say it was nothing because there is no spacetime or physical space and time in that state. I can conclude that if T=0 therefore it a boundary between timeless and the time state. If before T is timeless and nothing then what is left? What is the cause of the universe? This is a question that philosophy can answer. As Dr. Craig points out there is transcendent, immaterial, spaceless and timeless property required for the universe to originate in that situation and there is only two candidates that possibly fits that property either abstract objects like numbers or else an unembodied mind or consciousness. But abstract objects like the number 1 can't cause to create anything. So plausibly we are left with an unembodied mind being the cause of the universe.

But the metaphysical definition of nothing is that nothing produces nothing therefore it has no properties that will operate to produce something. Let's base on the metaphysical aspect.

This is fact and this attested by New Testament scholars like N.T. Wright.

But your definition of nothing is not the metaphysical definition of nothing. It's the implications of the big bang model. And also again B-G-V theorem suggest that our universe is inescapably began to exist.

T=0 meaning this is the boundary between the timeless and time.

In Christianity, it is agreed historically that Jesus died by Crucifixion and this same fact is what the Quran denies. Therefore we can conclude that the Quran has historical errors.

But the B-G-V theorem holds regardless of any model like oscillating models etc. It shows regardless of the model inescapably, our universe requires a beginning.

Please cite at least one religion that has evidences. But even that, it doesn't mean that all religions are equal. Or my belief in Christianity is false. Obviously evidences is what we want and I provided. But they died because of the truth that they hold. They saw and meet Jesus Christ . The truth so strong that they can't deny it. Unlike other religions like Muslim, they die because they are afraid or they long for a reward.

I think you mean the singularity moment of the bigbang. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that the universe is inescapably requires a beginning.

But Christianity is not like other world religion and is far from being a myth because of the astounding evidences excavated by New Testament historians and scholars like Wolfhart Pannenberg and others on the historicity of the empty tomb, postmortem appearances and the origin of the disciples faith. Think about it, why early Christians are willing to die not to deny the truth they had?

But it's our best scientific theories that shows that our universe came from nothing and by nothing. The big bang is the event of the creation of not only matter and energy but also spacetime itself.

Heathen religions are formed by gentiles who were not the chosen people of God.

Nothing is somewhat meaningless to think about because there is nothing to think about. Now I want to think about it together with you guys because it is in some way important to think about. I will draw two areas of discipline to diagnose about how they look on "nothing". First in philosophy, it is metaphysically valid that nothing produces nothing. It is obvious in our own intuition that what comes from nothing is always nothing. Nothing is in a sense "nonbeing", so nonbeing produces nonbeing in a logical manner. Now the second is in physics. I am shocked on how scientist like Krauss define nothing. I will paraphrase on what he said that "nothing" is something. How can this be? It is absurd metaphysical impossibility. If Krauss defines nothing as the quantum vacuum, therefore it is not nothing at all it is something. Quantum vacuum has properties. Why Krauss equalized Quantum vacuum to the word nothing when in fact nothing has no properties at all? Let's talk about it guys in an open-minded way without any biases. Thank you in advance.

My rational understanding regarding dark matter is it is a continues force that still happening after the "big bang". It is in other words the aftermath of the big bang. According to modern science, physical space itself formed in the big bang. So base on this, dark matter is actually a formation of space that is why our universe expands. The space until now continue to form, pushing previously created space. Now question may arise," Where thus this force creating the space came from?" This question is connected to the big bang and the origin of the universe itself. They have the same answer.

Are there any formulas for finding the LCM of at least 2 numbers? All I know is tedious methods which give you a long amount of time of computing (not always? If yes, then what is it? If no then is it still possibe that we can find a formula?

It depends on the person. If he really seeks the truth and If he has open his mind and open his heart in seeking God he will find Him.

God is the judge of our actions.He is the universal judge for our right or wrong doings does it become objective only if there is a God.

But I mean faith is trust on evidences and Christianity is not far from this definition. First if God doesn't exist, objective moral values do not exist. It is only pure subjective.In a deep sense there is no real right and wrong. Right and wrong are the same.But heres the catch.Why we tend to see things really wrong and really right if there is no objectivity of it? honestly, believing that there is a God is not blind faith or just I believe it without any convincing reasons. Like the great thinkers of the old-Anselm, Augustine,Aquinas, Leibniz etc, it's not just blind faith that I believe in God aside from my personal experience of Him. Obviously like them, I critically think it.Anselm for example invented the ontological argument which is still hotly debated today. Watch the debate between William lane Craig and Kevin Scharp-" Is there evidence for God in youtube and it is explaiined well by WLC.

A person that comes out with a theory. This theory later on is found to be conflicting with evidence. This person has "faith" in said theory so he/she refuses to let go of it or deny it. This person is not a scientist. But empirical data themselves gathered from cosmology, morality etc. fits to the concept of God as the best explanation. I do not intended to mean that way. I just want to show that their is still presupposition being happening to a scientist ultimately. Yes, scientist believe that gravity always acts the same way.They presupposes thru those evidences that it will always happen. Their is faith here.

This topic imposes the idea that all of us presupposes. We are bias of our own worldviews. Example, for a scientist, he is a presuppositional being who presupposes for example that an things if drop will always go to the ground because of gravity. He presupposes that it will also happen in the future, but there is no evidence for the scientist that it will happen nor he can predict it. He just presupposes. He has only a faith that it will happen. Scientist can't really know that things still fall to the ground in the future because his knowledge is finite or limited only. I want to explain more but let me begin by this introduction.

I can't see how my arguments are debunked. Since I don't provide more about it. I may ask, why we feel Numinous as a human being? What is the reason?

If we observe the whole creation around us,-the stars, the planets, galaxies, earth-based creations (trees etc.) we experience the majesty of creation that seems to shout on us to reveal something or it want to reveal on us something. And why we have this same feeling or experience at first when we are alone?

We can look the purpose of something through it's existence by asking the question" Why these are the characteristics of the universe and not the other characteristics? We can argue that there is a purpose because of this. To clarify, example your friend gave you a cake. You can ask, "why my friend gave me a cake instead of a doughnut?" There must be a purpose for your friend for giving a cake rather than a doughnut for you.