Big Bang and God

[Jeff_Yost]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

 

[Touchstone]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

What does ‘plausible’ mean in metaphysical terms? I suggest ‘plausible’ is a concept stolen from the physical world. We understand plausibility only in terms of what we can conceive of based on our physical experience and contemplation thereof, right?

On the face of it, it seems we have little to no warrant in saying what is possible, likely, or driven by necessity or chance at the metaphysical level. Whatever gets proposed here as “plausible” in terms of metaphyics, I’d ask for the warrant for that idea, looking to see if “plausibility” was being smuggled in from our physical understanding of plausibility and conflating that with metaphysical plausibility.

-TS

 

[Reuben_J]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

Yes, yes and yes.

Nothing can exist without a source that makes it exist. Living and non-living things all have a source.

 

[Eucharisted]

Yes, but it is only a theory.

I kinda made a thread about this,but not specifically about the Big Bang. You can read it here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=336749

 

[tonyrey]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

Any explanation is better than none. To say the Universe just appeared is not an explanation because an explanation makes something comprehensible. It is an evasion of the question because it simply draws a line under reality. That the Universe just appeared may be a logical possibility but as a bare assertion it is worthless: it needs to be supported by some reason or evidence. We might simplify the matter still further and say “Nothing exists”! The obvious response is Lear’s “Nothing shall come of nothing” …

A reasonable explanation is that the Big Bang was due to an unknown source of energy. What type of energy? Spiritual because matter by itself is purposeless, valueless and meaningless and personal existence is the highest form of existence we know .

 

[tmellin]

It is perhaps interesting to note that the Big Bang Theory was developed by Georges Lemaitre, a catholic priest and scientist.

 

[o_mlly]

What does ‘plausible’ mean in metaphysical terms? I suggest ‘plausible’ is a concept stolen from the physical world. We understand plausibility only in terms of what we can conceive of based on our physical experience and contemplation thereof, right?

On the face of it, it seems we have little to no warrant in saying what is possible, likely, or driven by necessity or chance at the metaphysical level. Whatever gets proposed here as “plausible” in terms of metaphyics, I’d ask for the warrant for that idea, looking to see if “plausibility” was being smuggled in from our physical understanding of plausibility and conflating that with metaphysical plausibility.

-TS

The “Big Bang” theory attempts to explain the current universe and assumes the pre-existence of the primordial atom. The theory, as I understand it, says nothing about the source of the this matter which is a necessary postulate to its argument. Therefore, the theory does not explain the origin of the universe but only the evolution of our current universe.

“Plausability” suggests that the “fact” is consistent with the currently available information, is not refuted by any known and accepted data, and, in general, would “make sense” if it were indeed correct. If we have no fact as to the origin of the universe, anything is plausible which is not refuted by known and accepted data. Unitl physics offers us a hypothesis explaining the origin of the universe, metaphysics may and certainly must use plausible arguments.

We are curious creatures not bound by the limitations of the scientific method (the scientific method cannot itself be proved by the scientific method) in our pursuit to understand our origin and purpose – first and final causes.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[JDaniel]

What does ‘plausible’ mean in metaphysical terms? I suggest ‘plausible’ is a concept stolen from the physical world. We understand plausibility only in terms of what we can conceive of based on our physical experience and contemplation thereof, right?

On the face of it, it seems we have little to no warrant in saying what is possible, likely, or driven by necessity or chance at the metaphysical level. Whatever gets proposed here as “plausible” in terms of metaphyics, I’d ask for the warrant for that idea, looking to see if “plausibility” was being smuggled in from our physical understanding of plausibility and conflating that with metaphysical plausibility.

-TS

Hello, Touchstone;

From the following definition(s), it would seem that the word “plausible” is really somewhat more aligned with the “metaphysical” than the “physical”. Why do you think it is a “term stolen from physical experience?” (I admit, you may be right. I’m am interested in why.)

1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a swindler… , then a quack, then a smooth,
plausible gentleman — R. W. Emerson>
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>

Further, would you agree that the word “theory”, with regard to science, is closer in meaning to the word “Law” than it is to the word “hypothesis?”

jd

 

[Touchstone]

Hello, Touchstone;

From the following definition(s), it would seem that the word “plausible” is really somewhat more aligned with the “metaphysical” than the “physical”. Why do you think it is a “term stolen from physical experience?” (I admit, you may be right. I’m am interested in why.)

1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a swindler… , then a quack, then a smooth,
plausible gentleman — R. W. Emerson>
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>

Further, would you agree that the word “theory”, with regard to science, is closer in meaning to the word “Law” than it is to the word “hypothesis?”

jd

First, I would say a “theory” is a hypothesis, a hypothesis that’s undergone some evidence fitting and testing. A “law” is descriptive, and need not be explanatory or predictive beyond what it directly describes. But even here, we need to be precise in our usage (or mine, at least): when I say “law-based”, or “governed by physical law”, I’m not referring to human formulations of “scientific law” – like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but rather the constraints and dynamics of physics itself.

On plausibility, I don’t have any problem with the definition you offer here, or the label ‘plausible’ per se. What is problematic in the original post is “more plausible”. That’s where Leonard Susskind would say it’s “more plausible” that our universe is just a “bubble” in the “foam” of the cosmic landscape, and Jeff Yost would say it’s “more plausible” that God created the universe. And never the twain shall meet, because the superficiality of any reasoning extreme; saying what you think is “more plausible” about the possible causes of the universe tells us a lot more about you than metaphysics.

Scientifically, plausibility obtains from coherence with physical law. The resurrection, for example, seems implausible based on its contrariness to physical law. That’s physics at work underwriting the semantics of plausibility as we use it for phenomena in this universe. Saying “Jesus was crucified”, as a contrast, seems eminently plausible, not a problem with physical law at all (or other measures of plausibility we may overlay, like historical practices of the time, etc.).

But in terms of origins of the universe, we got nothin’. We don’t have a clue, even a clue what dynamics or constraints obtain. Anything is casually plausible just because we don’t have the beginnings of knowledge as to what causes, forces or personality were at work, if any. It’s very tempting to think of metaphysics as simply the extension of physics – that somehow the constraints and rules inside the universe obtain (or something like them) outside the universe – and there you can see me falling into that trap right there, using “outside the universe” as if that’s a coherent concept.

It’s very hard to talk about metaphysics in a disciplined, epistemologically sound way. We don’t have the experience or vocabulary to apply, and so we tend to just start treating metaphysics like physics. We rely on our intuitions which are senses honed and realized in the physical universe.

All of which to say, all things which are logically possibly are casually plausible on this question. The probabilities, though, selections or preferences we might assert, are perfectly inscrutable from our vantage point. Saying “God created the universe is more plausible than it just coming into existence from nothing or cycling infinitely” is completely unfounded so far as I can see. It only informs us about the speaker’s preferences and desires, rather than anything about reality itself.

And that cuts both ways. If I say, “It’s more plausible the universe is an infinite, cyclical universe without cause or beginning” I’m committing the same error, and really just speaking about myself rather than any kind of insight into fundamental reality.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

The “Big Bang” theory attempts to explain the current universe and assumes the pre-existence of the primordial atom. The theory, as I understand it, says nothing about the source of the this matter which is a necessary postulate to its argument. Therefore, the theory does not explain the origin of the universe but only the evolution of our current universe.

“Plausability” suggests that the “fact” is consistent with the currently available information, is not refuted by any known and accepted data, and, in general, would “make sense” if it were indeed correct. If we have no fact as to the origin of the universe, anything is plausible which is not refuted by known and accepted data. Unitl physics offers us a hypothesis explaining the origin of the universe, metaphysics may and certainly must use plausible arguments.

We are curious creatures not bound by the limitations of the scientific method (the scientific method cannot itself be proved by the scientific method) in our pursuit to understand our origin and purpose – first and final causes.

Peace,
O’Malley

Hi O’Malley,

See my response to JDaniel on this topic, where I basically agree with what you are saying in terms of plausibility. It’s the injection of the idea of “more plausible” which fails in the OP. “More plausible” necessarily depends on some kind of metaphysical knowledge – not conjecture, but knowledge about what the dynamics are – that we just do not have. For example, in this universe we understand through observation that humans can design and develop highly complex, intricately coordinated and structured systems. It’s tempting to “steal” this concept, and suppose metaphysics is just like physics. But we’ve no reason to think that’s the case, other than it’s easy to go there.

-TS

 

[JDaniel]

First, I would say a “theory” is a hypothesis, a hypothesis that’s undergone some evidence fitting and testing. A “law” is descriptive, and need not be explanatory or predictive beyond what it directly describes. But even here, we need to be precise in our usage (or mine, at least): when I say “law-based”, or “governed by physical law”, I’m not referring to human formulations of “scientific law” – like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but rather the constraints and dynamics of physics itself.

On plausibility, I don’t have any problem with the definition you offer here, or the label ‘plausible’ per se. What is problematic in the original post is “more plausible”. That’s where Leonard Susskind would say it’s “more plausible” that our universe is just a “bubble” in the “foam” of the cosmic landscape, and Jeff Yost would say it’s “more plausible” that God created the universe. And never the twain shall meet, because the superficiality of any reasoning extreme; saying what you think is “more plausible” about the possible causes of the universe tells us a lot more about you than metaphysics.

Scientifically, plausibility obtains from coherence with physical law. The resurrection, for example, seems implausible based on its contrariness to physical law. That’s physics at work underwriting the semantics of plausibility as we use it for phenomena in this universe. Saying “Jesus was crucified”, as a contrast, seems eminently plausible, not a problem with physical law at all (or other measures of plausibility we may overlay, like historical practices of the time, etc.).

But in terms of origins of the universe, we got nothin’. We don’t have a clue, even a clue what dynamics or constraints obtain. Anything is casually plausible just because we don’t have the beginnings of knowledge as to what causes, forces or personality were at work, if any. It’s very tempting to think of metaphysics as simply the extension of physics – that somehow the constraints and rules inside the universe obtain (or something like them) outside the universe – and there you can see me falling into that trap right there, using “outside the universe” as if that’s a coherent concept.

It’s very hard to talk about metaphysics in a disciplined, epistemologically sound way. We don’t have the experience or vocabulary to apply, and so we tend to just start treating metaphysics like physics. We rely on our intuitions which are senses honed and realized in the physical universe.

All of which to say, all things which are logically possibly are casually plausible on this question. The probabilities, though, selections or preferences we might assert, are perfectly inscrutable from our vantage point. Saying “God created the universe is more plausible than it just coming into existence from nothing or cycling infinitely” is completely unfounded so far as I can see. It only informs us about the speaker’s preferences and desires, rather than anything about reality itself.

And that cuts both ways. If I say, “It’s more plausible the universe is an infinite, cyclical universe without cause or beginning” I’m committing the same error, and really just speaking about myself rather than any kind of insight into fundamental reality.

-TS

Thank you for your well-reasoned reply. You are so darned intelligent - it would seem fitting, at least to me, if you would simply come over from the dark-side into the light. I always wonder, when I read your thoughtful posts, “what’s in it for you?” Why, when you know that you are doing no more than beating your head against the proverbial wall, and blood is effusing perhaps at a greater and greater rate, do you persist?

Some “religious” people might be swayed to cross over to the dark-side by your arguments, but, none of us Catholics will. And, generally, when we do, even though we may leave the flock for many years, we tend to come back (home). Now, of course, I don’t have to tell you that I am not speaking about the casual adherent, or, the casual Atheist either. You, like most of us, are not a casual Atheist/Agnostic. All of this seems to be rather poignant for you. That’s why I like you and your style.

There are so many incredibly intelligent people on this forum. In fact, you know that from your position, as it is harder for us to debate our side as our side is very, very complicated. Much has to be learned, to be presupposed, before cogent, metaphysical arguments can evolve. And then, we have to be fully able to review those presuppositions for each and every opposer.

I want to respond to some of your post, but, have to leave the house. I may not get to it until later tonight, if you don’t mind.

Hope this made sense. I had to hurry it.

jd

 

[Touchstone]

Thank you for your well-reasoned reply. You are so darned intelligent - it would seem fitting, at least to me, if you would simply come over from the dark-side into the light. I always wonder, when I read your thoughtful posts, “what’s in it for you?” Why, when you know that you are doing no more than beating your head against the proverbial wall, and blood is effusing perhaps at a greater and greater rate, do you persist?

I think being thoughtful is its own reward, although, I’ll grant that often enough it does seem like beating one’s head against the wall. I abandoned Christianity several years ago as I was performing my “due diligence” in preparation for starting RCIA and converting to Catholicism from my lifelong fundamentalist evangelical Christianity. I got to know this forum in that context – realizing the poverty and irrationality of Protestantism, attracted to what was at least a nominally coherent narrative of the Christian faith in the RCC, historically, intellectually, practically.

I’ll spare you the boring details, but the short version is: I decided that my errors in embracing evangelical Protestantism were due to my inability and/or unwillingness to be ruthless in my testing and stressing of my own beliefs. I pledge to do that, to really do that, in preparation for becoming a Catholic, so that it would “stick”. I did NOT want to swim the Tiber and have buyer’s remorse or be anything less than a fully faithful, assenting Catholic for good. That commitment, which I thought essential to coming to Rome, drove me from it, and from Christianity overall.

Nevertheless, I know it may come across as a backhanded compliment, but it isn’t at all meant to be when I say that if I’m wrong, and God does exist, it seems much, much more likely that the Catholic Church is the best/closest to the “real truth” than any of the other forms of Christianity, or other theistic faiths I’m aware of. As you know, I’m convinced it’s fundamentally mistaken, and is not nearly sufficiently ruthless in testing its own beliefs as it should be, but I can certainly appreciate a tradition of philosophy, reason and thoughtfulness that exist in the RCC that is sadly lacking elsewhere. I also post sometimes over at evolutionfairytale.com, a YEC creationist site, and that always gives me some perspective. We disagree, vehemently, here, but the conversations are thoughtful conversations between adults for the most part. That’s much to the credit of the Catholics and their big brains on this forum. Go visit evolutionfairytale.com or similar sites sometime, and you’ll see what I mean.

(sorry for the digression, there)

Some “religious” people might be swayed to cross over to the dark-side by your arguments, but, none of us Catholics will. And, generally, when we do, even though we may leave the flock for many years, we tend to come back (home). Now, of course, I don’t have to tell you that I am not speaking about the casual adherent, or, the casual Atheist either. You, like most of us, are not a casual Atheist/Agnostic. All of this seems to be rather poignant for you. That’s why I like you and your style.

I don’t suppose I’ll sway any of the posters I’m talking to, nor is that my goal. I was swayed toward a path toward Rome by thoughtul, articulate, and love-as-action Catholics, including some posters here on this forum, so I do know that while the trench lines rarely budge in terms of the people posting and their positions, ideas are powerful, dangerous things, and the discourse itself has all sorts of effects we, the posters can’t see. I, like you, I’m sure, occasionally get PMs and emails that make this quite obvious, but really, this is edifying just because it’s the “clash of ideas”, and you and I are both bettered by that, even if we aren’t converted or persuaded of anything. Others reading hopefully find something thoughtful and proviocative to consider, and that’s worthwhile. It was and is beneficial to me.

There are so many incredibly intelligent people on this forum. In fact, you know that from your position, as it is harder for us to debate our side as our side is very, very complicated. Much has to be learned, to be presupposed, before cogent, metaphysical arguments can evolve. And then, we have to be fully able to review those presuppositions for each and every opposer.

I agree, it’s really difficult. It’s no job for feeble minds or lazy posters. There are some extraordinary minds on this forum, I agree. Just so we’re clear, that’s one reason I liek to participate here. I enjoy and appreciate being around big brains attached to big hearts, and there seems a good supply of such folk here. Even across the theist/atheist divide I find much more “connection” with that then i do with “worldview peers” who have small brains and small hearts. As above, I’m “hell bent”, so to speak, on ruthless testing of my own views, and here I find a good testing grounds. This is a profitable place for me to prove out my beliefs and test my ideas – a “wind tunnel” of sorts for my atheism.

I want to respond to some of your post, but, have to leave the house. I may not get to it until later tonight, if you don’t mind.

Hope this made sense. I had to hurry it.

jd

Thanks, hope you and Mr. Yost and the rest don’t mind my wandering off topic (behind you!).

-TS

 

[East_Anglican]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

Logically an ever expanding universe had a beginning and therefore must have had a creator. That is what Einstien thought anyway.

Of course we can find scientific eveidence that for what has becaome known as the big bang theory but we can’t fiond any for God starting it. Though I strongly believe God did start it.

 

[avflf]

I understand that some dissonant voices in the astronomic field have question the Big Bang theory because of anomalies in the Red Shift and Doppler effect. A new theory - The Electric Universe - seems to contradict much of what is commonly accepted by astronomers and physicists. Has anyone looked into this new approach to the origin of matter?

 

[Futurepriest21]

No, It does not disprove God as my religion teacher says as long as you believe God was the cause of the big bang theory and he used it to create the world God has no limits and could create the world in seconds he did not need seven days. Please do not limit God.

 

[hugh_miller]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

Yes I think that the “Big Bang” hypothesis indirectly supports the existence of God as the prime mover. However it is being used to support biological evolution of life from the rocks of the earth which is supposedly 4.567 billions of years old according to radiometric dating of the select minerals in meteorites and vulcanic meterials in the earth. However The Tree of Life as proposed by evolutionists is collapsing all around them as noted in a recent New Science Magazine issue based on the study of genetics. The study of how the sediments formed and the rapidity at which they formed is further eroding the Darwinian and Neodarwinian hypotheses.

As one writer in a another thread wrote about science:

1. there is something that is true or real.
2. there we have to ability to know this truth or reality
   So the question is not a metaphysical stumper, it is a basic rational assumption. This is an extremely important point. If rationality is called into question, it hinders studies of religion and sciences. It would be the fulfill of G. K. Chesterton’s fear that evolution is not threat to religion, but to rationality…

MY COMMENTS: I think the Big Bang hypothesis falls into category of a threat to rationality. I do not have much time these days to enter into long discussions as I have taken my guardian angel’s advice and the advice from one of the ardent pro-evolution regulars on one of the threads RE origins to submit a twenty some page paper to a scientific journal. So please forgive me for submitting the abstract of the paper and then bowing out to continue preparing another technical paper for submission. I think that the paper as seen in the abstract meets the criteria noted above regarding the scientific method and an understanding of “abrupt appearance”
of all life forms as noted by church councils in particular Lateran IV of the 13th century.

---

**DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS - **same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna.

Author: Hugh Miller

Abstract:

The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum this writer asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for RC testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 +/- 380 for the *Triceratops *and 23,170 +/-170 for the *Hadrosaur *were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer. Total organic carbon was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna.
Key Words:

Radiocarbon dating, Dinosaur, bone collagen, organic carbon, bone apatite, fossil wood, amber, megafauna

COMMENTS CONTINUED: What does the above scientific data suggest? It helps give a reality check to people who are deceived by the regurgitated Mithras religion that we came from a rock, [or the ene product of a Big Bang] i.e. and we evolved thereafter from bacteria ad nauseum. Such data provides the ammunition for real scientists and for those folks who support the church fathers to continue to challenge the evolution hypothesis in lab, field and theological venues.

Unlike Chesterton I do consider evolution [and its astronomical justification hypothesis, “The Big Bang”] as a threat to religion [and faith in the word of God; and, it has also brought much evil consequences to all of us which Chesterton did not live to see unfold]. But I do agree with Chesterton that evolution [and the Big Bang as threats to rationality so I shall continue to do battle with the deceptions created by the evolutionary hypothesis [and the implication of the Big Bang as happened billions of years ago] as best I can. I do this as a humble chemist using the talents and the circumstances that the Lord has provided and the team of scientists, educators and theologians with whom I am privileged to associate.

Moses sizzles as Darwin [and the Big Bang fizzles]

Happy 200th Birthday Sir Charles but I guess you know better now. Too bad that you can’t come back to advise the faculties of the Gregorian UN in Rome and in particular Fr. Jenkins, president of Notre Dame UN in Indiana, USA.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/progress.gif​

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/progress.gif[/RIGHT]

 

[wbarquez]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

Yes, for the contingency of material reality makes it reasonable to believe in the existence of a necessary entity from which the whole of material reality initially came. The fact that the universe had a beginning means that the universe is contingent and finite, and since the whole of material reality that is contingent and finite did not initially come from nothing, it follows that the whole of material reality that is contingent and finite initially came from something that is absolutely necessary and actually infinite.

 

[frodosfoot]

First, I would say a “theory” is a hypothesis, a hypothesis that’s undergone some evidence fitting and testing. A “law” is descriptive, and need not be explanatory or predictive beyond what it directly describes. But even here, we need to be precise in our usage (or mine, at least): when I say “law-based”, or “governed by physical law”, I’m not referring to human formulations of “scientific law” – like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but rather the constraints and dynamics of physics itself.

On plausibility, I don’t have any problem with the definition you offer here, or the label ‘plausible’ per se. What is problematic in the original post is “more plausible”. That’s where Leonard Susskind would say it’s “more plausible” that our universe is just a “bubble” in the “foam” of the cosmic landscape, and Jeff Yost would say it’s “more plausible” that God created the universe. And never the twain shall meet, because the superficiality of any reasoning extreme; saying what you think is “more plausible” about the possible causes of the universe tells us a lot more about you than metaphysics.

Scientifically, plausibility obtains from coherence with physical law. The resurrection, for example, seems implausible based on its contrariness to physical law. That’s physics at work underwriting the semantics of plausibility as we use it for phenomena in this universe. Saying “Jesus was crucified”, as a contrast, seems eminently plausible, not a problem with physical law at all (or other measures of plausibility we may overlay, like historical practices of the time, etc.).

But in terms of origins of the universe, we got nothin’. We don’t have a clue, even a clue what dynamics or constraints obtain. Anything is casually plausible just because we don’t have the beginnings of knowledge as to what causes, forces or personality were at work, if any. It’s very tempting to think of metaphysics as simply the extension of physics – that somehow the constraints and rules inside the universe obtain (or something like them) outside the universe – and there you can see me falling into that trap right there, using “outside the universe” as if that’s a coherent concept.

It’s very hard to talk about metaphysics in a disciplined, epistemologically sound way. We don’t have the experience or vocabulary to apply, and so we tend to just start treating metaphysics like physics. We rely on our intuitions which are senses honed and realized in the physical universe.

All of which to say, all things which are logically possibly are casually plausible on this question. The probabilities, though, selections or preferences we might assert, are perfectly inscrutable from our vantage point. Saying “God created the universe is more plausible than it just coming into existence from nothing or cycling infinitely” is completely unfounded so far as I can see. It only informs us about the speaker’s preferences and desires, rather than anything about reality itself.

And that cuts both ways. If I say, “It’s more plausible the universe is an infinite, cyclical universe without cause or beginning” I’m committing the same error, and really just speaking about myself rather than any kind of insight into fundamental reality.

-TS

 

[frodosfoot]

First, I would say a “theory” is a hypothesis, a hypothesis that’s undergone some evidence fitting and testing. A “law” is descriptive, and need not be explanatory or predictive beyond what it directly describes. But even here, we need to be precise in our usage (or mine, at least): when I say “law-based”, or “governed by physical law”, I’m not referring to human formulations of “scientific law” – like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but rather the constraints and dynamics of physics itself.

On plausibility, I don’t have any problem with the definition you offer here, or the label ‘plausible’ per se. What is problematic in the original post is “more plausible”. That’s where Leonard Susskind would say it’s “more plausible” that our universe is just a “bubble” in the “foam” of the cosmic landscape, and Jeff Yost would say it’s “more plausible” that God created the universe. And never the twain shall meet, because the superficiality of any reasoning extreme; saying what you think is “more plausible” about the possible causes of the universe tells us a lot more about you than metaphysics.

Scientifically, plausibility obtains from coherence with physical law. The resurrection, for example, seems implausible based on its contrariness to physical law. That’s physics at work underwriting the semantics of plausibility as we use it for phenomena in this universe. Saying “Jesus was crucified”, as a contrast, seems eminently plausible, not a problem with physical law at all (or other measures of plausibility we may overlay, like historical practices of the time, etc.).

But in terms of origins of the universe, we got nothin’. We don’t have a clue, even a clue what dynamics or constraints obtain. Anything is casually plausible just because we don’t have the beginnings of knowledge as to what causes, forces or personality were at work, if any. It’s very tempting to think of metaphysics as simply the extension of physics – that somehow the constraints and rules inside the universe obtain (or something like them) outside the universe – and there you can see me falling into that trap right there, using “outside the universe” as if that’s a coherent concept.

It’s very hard to talk about metaphysics in a disciplined, epistemologically sound way. We don’t have the experience or vocabulary to apply, and so we tend to just start treating metaphysics like physics. We rely on our intuitions which are senses honed and realized in the physical universe.

All of which to say, all things which are logically possibly are casually plausible on this question. The probabilities, though, selections or preferences we might assert, are perfectly inscrutable from our vantage point. Saying “God created the universe is more plausible than it just coming into existence from nothing or cycling infinitely” is completely unfounded so far as I can see. It only informs us about the speaker’s preferences and desires, rather than anything about reality itself.

And that cuts both ways. If I say, “It’s more plausible the universe is an infinite, cyclical universe without cause or beginning” I’m committing the same error, and really just speaking about myself rather than any kind of insight into fundamental reality.

-TS

A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposal of a possible explanation of a subject or set of observations. A hypothesis is then tested using the scientific method, which is much more than just “…some evidence fitting and testing.” If the hypothesis is proven to be correct, it becomes a theory. A theory is a set of proven principles on a particular subject. The “Theory of Relativity” is not a hypothesis. It is a proven scientific principle.

 

[tonyrey]

Does the Big Bang theory of science indirectly prove that God exists? Since according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe at one time existed as a single point and expanded ever since, this shows the Universe had an origin. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to say that God created it, rather to say the Universe just appeared out of nothing, all on its own? What do you think? Just wondering

The Big Bang theory by itself does not take us very far. But when taken in conjunction with the subsequent history of the universe and the development of rational, creative beings capable of love it is a solid foundation for belief in a rational, loving Creator.