Big Bang and God

[Chaldean_Rite]

Probably the best talk on the Big Bang I’ve heard:

qorbono.com/Genesis/Science/The+Big+Bang

Basically, the BB only models what happens after the big bang, and not b4.

 

[Cecilianus]

But since nobody really knows for sure what happened back then, how do we know “cause” didn’t make sense?

Because it doesn’t in the context of quantum mechanics - applying quantum mechanics to gravity is what we haven’t done yet (why we don’t understand the first 10^-43 seconds).

 

[per4mer530]

Because it doesn’t in the context of quantum mechanics - applying quantum mechanics to gravity is what we haven’t done yet (why we don’t understand the first 10^-43 seconds).

Alas, I am afraid I am not nearly as well-versed in such things as you are. That’s so awesome though, good for you. I guess my whole philosophy on this topic is that, since nobody knows without a doubt what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds, that means that both God creating the universe and the universe spontaneously coming into existence are equally possible. However, the reason I think it’s more plausible that God created everything is because of all the evidence there has been for the existence of a God within recorded history. You are Catholic. Do you agree?

 

[AFormerCatholic]

Yes, yes and yes.

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

Who or what is responsible for the existence of your God?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

that means that both God creating the universe and the universe spontaneously coming into existence are equally possible.

No, because it is a dogma that God created the universe out of nothing.

 

[reggieM]

Who or what is responsible for the existence of your God?

When you answer the question: “What is the source of all causes?”, you can no longer keep asking, “ok, then what caused *that *cause?”

Additionally, when logic takes you to the source of all being, you can’t continue to ask where that existence came from.

Existence cannot have an origin outside of itself. Because outside of itself is non-existence – and as we should know, non-existence cannot produce being or existence since it possesses nothing to work with in order to create something.

How did we arrive at the conclusion that God is the supreme and sole source of Being? Simply by recognizing that physical causes cannot explain themselves and therefore require a non-physical source of being (since the property of existence is non-physical itself).

You can’t give yourself existence – it has to come from somewhere else.

 

[Cecilianus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by per4mer530
that means that both God creating the universe and the universe spontaneously coming into existence are equally possible.

No, because it is a dogma that God created the universe out of nothing.
Today 2:44 pm

per4mer530 meant that as the conclusion to the argument, not as a truth-claim.

 

[Cecilianus]

Alas, I am afraid I am not nearly as well-versed in such things as you are. That’s so awesome though, good for you. I guess my whole philosophy on this topic is that, since nobody knows without a doubt what happened in the first 10^-43 seconds, that means that both God creating the universe and the universe spontaneously coming into existence are equally possible. However, the reason I think it’s more plausible that God created everything is because of all the evidence there has been for the existence of a God within recorded history. You are Catholic. Do you agree?

As a Catholic, I know that God created the world - so of course I agree. But I’d like to know why/how (credo ut intelligam) - and this seems to pose a philosophical problem - if causality did not “come into existence” until a certain point in time (due to conditions in the universe), then how could God have created the world?

A possible solution I thought of was that perhaps the universe did not start at “time 0” - since due to relativity it seems to me that it would take an infnite amount of time for a massive singularity to expand (from the viewpoint of the universe at the time - for us it would still take 10^-43 seconds). This however is an intuitive suggestion, not a mathematical/scientific one, and my physics might be flawed.

I’m a physics major, so I tend to think about questions like these; I thought I’d pose the question someplace where someone better versed in Thomism than I might make a suggestion.

 

[Dameedna]

Perhaps this is pleasing for you?

In the end, its about that which is the most reasonable thing to believe, in response to our existential situation as people. Its not neccesarilly about what we can know.

I do not find either position to be more reasonable than the other, as I said. A Creator, verses an infinite physical reality? Infinity, is pretty much beyond our comprehension. What is infinity minus 1? it’s still infinity. Its difficult to reasonably discuss something that is so completely at odds with our own existance(a start and a finish).

Since I do not find one position more reasonable, the most honest position is that we do not know.

As our knowlege of the universe may change, so may my stance.

 

[Dameedna]

When you answer the question: “What is the source of all causes?”, you can no longer keep asking, “ok, then what caused *that *cause?”

Additionally, when logic takes you to the source of all being, you can’t continue to ask where that existence came from.

Existence cannot have an origin outside of itself.

Because outside of itself is non-existence

and as we should know, non-existence cannot produce being or existence since it possesses nothing to work with in order to create something.

How did we arrive at the conclusion that God is the supreme and sole source of Being? Simply by recognizing that physical causes cannot explain themselves and therefore require a non-physical source of being (since the property of existence is non-physical itself).

You can’t give yourself existence – it has to come from somewhere else.

Once again, if something has to exist to “cause” existance, then what caused the cause? I agree that an infinite regress “seems” wrong(but then we cannot understand infinity either).

If something is necessary, then it could simply be existance. There is still a fundamental view here, that something cannot come from nothing, but that God…can simply be.

If God can simply be, then a universe can simply be. There is no logical reason I can see that changes this possibility. And before we get into the circular arguments of something cannot come from nothing, then a God has to come from something(infinite regress) hence the “first cause”.

Something has to exist in actuality. No reason, it cannot be the universe, at least logically speaking. Otherwise you just go around and around with the same argument. It seems both are possibilities and its up to decide which one is correct.

The “god” possibility will always come down to faith, not logic as I can see it.

 

[reggieM]

If God can simply be, then a universe can simply be. There is no logical reason I can see that changes this possibility.

The universe possesses existence as a property. It does not cause its own existence. The question is – where did the universe get this property of existence from? If there is a source of this property called “existence”, it cannot get it from somewhere else. We know the universe is not this source - it does not create the property of existence, but only possesses it.

So, the counterpoint is that while the universe did not create the characteristic called “existence” that is possesses, there is no source for it. That is illogical.

If there is a source for the property “existence” – then that source is “uncreated” and one cannot continue to ask “Ok, where did that source of existence get the property from?” We’ve answered the question by pointing to that Entity as the source. It possesses the power to confer the property of existence on other things (or in fact, make things exist because it possesses that power).

Stating that the universe always possessed existence, and it received this property from nowhere is not an explanation. It defies logic because it doesn’t answer the question posed – “where did the property of existence come from?” The universe does not create it – it only possesses it. There is also the property of “non-existence” that exists.

Things that possess the property of “existence” exist.

And before we get into the circular arguments of something cannot come from nothing, then a God has to come from something(infinite regress) hence the “first cause”.

It’s a problem for the reasons given. Proposing a causeless string of events does not provide an answer for the existence of that string. If the answer is, “the string caused itself” then that needs to be proven by the characteristics of the string. If it remains without an explanation-- then the proposal that there is an explanation (God) is more reasonable. The properties and dimensions of that string, as a physical reality, could not create themselves because they would have to possess the properties before they were created.

Something has to exist in actuality. No reason, it cannot be the universe, at least logically speaking. Otherwise you just go around and around with the same argument. It seems both are possibilities and its up to decide which one is correct.

This is what St. Thomas taught – both are possiblities. In his view, revelation fills in the missing pieces of the argument. The pure logic (minus revelation) only gets you to a decision on what is more reasonable to choose (he argued for a finite universe). There is no slam-dunk argument on this one point. Personally, I still don’t see that because I can’t see the logical possiblity of an infinite universe, but that’s just me.

The “god” possibility will always come down to faith, not logic as I can see it.

Well, faith *and *logic. We’re discussing the logic part now and showing the reasonableness of belief in God.

So, yes – one does have to choose with faith, but not blindly, or by going against solid evidence. If there’s evidence on both sides, then the evidence must be weighed and evaluated fairly. Eventually, a person decides which evidence seems stronger.

 

[AFormerCatholic]

You can’t give yourself existence – it has to come from somewhere else…Additionally, when logic takes you to the source of all being, you can’t continue to ask where that existence came from.

We agree, a being cannot give itself existence. Why does everything in the universe, according to you, have to follow this law, except for your God?

Are you aware of how ridiculous that sounds? This is what you’r saying;

" Everything needs a cause, except for my God."

I can assure you, logic will not have you arrive at a conclusion that a supernatural Deity is responsible for creation.

Logic, rationality, common sense and honest inquiry, will have you arrive at the conclusion that all Gods, not just your God, but all Gods, are a figment of mans imagination.

I’d love to see the logical test to determine which invisible God (s) are the true Gods, as opposed to the fake invisible Gods.

 

[reggieM]

We agree, a being cannot give itself existence. Why does everything in the universe, according to you, have to follow this law, except for your God?

Are you aware of how ridiculous that sounds? This is what you’r saying;

" Everything needs a cause, except for my God."

It sounds ridiculous to you because you’re making a mistake in the concepts.
In fact, it’s your view that sounds ridiculous (athough understandable) as I tried to point out.

You’re asking what is the cause of the First Cause.

I’ll work on some good examples, because this comes up often, but off the top of my head … for example … all animals breathe air for survival. “Ok, but what does air breathe for survival?” Or, every fish swims in water. “Ok, what does water swim in”?

So, therefore, the First Cause is the source of all causality. “Ok, then what caused the first cause”?

I can assure you, logic will not have you arrive at a conclusion that a supernatural Deity is responsible for creation.

I appreciate your assurance, but I’m going to need a bit more than that.

Logic, rationality, common sense and honest inquiry, will have you arrive at the conclusion that all Gods, not just your God, but all Gods, are a figment of mans imagination.

Already, your logic breaks down when you propose multiple “gods” so, again, I think you’ll have to do more than just offer some atheistic slogans. Why not engage the points I already posted?

I’d love to see the logical test to determine which invisible God (s) are the true Gods, as opposed to the fake invisible Gods.

Well, you started on a good path at the beginning. You agree that beings cannot give themselves existence, but they possess that property.

Apparently, your logic would state they possess the property but it came from nowhere.

This sounds a lot like the invisible ridiculousness you’re concerned about, to me.

In other words, it’s a complete breakdown of rationality.

 

[MindOverMatter]

What is infinity minus 1? it’s still infinity.

Infinite minus 1 ? An infinite is not defined or confined by quantity, as you have just demostrated. If a true infinite was defined by the amount of numbers that it contained, then it would become less then infinite if i was to deduct any ammount from it.
An absolute infinite that is infinite because of the numbers that it contains is meaningless.

Its difficult to reasonably discuss something that is so completely at odds with our own existance(a start and a finish).

Well if all physical things began to exist at some point, then we must infer the eternal expression. We must believe that existence is more then physics; we must believe that existence transcends the physical.

There is nothing dishonest or illogical about that. Its just telling it how it is. An honest person would know this

Since I do not find one position more reasonable, the most honest position is that we do not know.

Let me see. The world poping out of complete nothingness and the world being a creation of a timeless, inteligent, pure actuality that we call God. It seems evident to me that God is the most reasonable thing to believe in.

As our knowlege of the universe may change, so may my stance.

The universe has been scientifically proven to have a beginning. The universe has been said to be finite. And i just showed you why an infinite number of something is impossible; so what are you waiting for?

 

[Janet1983]

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

No it does not. The Big Bang theory is striving to prove that God is not necessary in creation, because it all just happened…
I like this Big Bang theory here better: God spoke and bang it happened.

 

[Cecilianus]

No it does not. The Big Bang theory is striving to prove that God is not necessary in creation, because it all just happened…
I like this Big Bang theory here better: God spoke and bang it happened.

As a scientific theory, the Big Bang just tries to explain how the universe happened. Atheistic cosmologists like Dr. Stephen Hawking are striving to prove that “God is not necessary in creation”; the Catholic priest who formulated the Big Bang, Abbe Georges Lemaitre, held your “Big Bang theory”. The theory itself - apart from the motivations and goals of the particular scientists, is just a theory. It doesn’t speak of God because of its methodological naturalism; neither does it presume to argue for atheism. Arguments of this sort (does the Big Bang prove God or not?) are not strictly speaking science but philosophy (which is in no way a demotion, however ).