Does the Big Bang do more to prove or disprove a theistic entity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Laurence_of_PA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Laurence_of_PA

Guest
In at least my point of view, the Big Bang implies that the Universe is not infinite and thus had to have had a beginning, rather than being infinite and without such a need. Had it been of infinite length, it wouldn’t need a first cause (a Theistic entity we’ll say), but because the Big Bang did originate the Universe, a first cause would logically have to be involved, and this first cause by my definition would be the theistic entity (God). Or in other words, The Big Bang Theory affirms the existence of God.

Now I know I’ll start some trouble with all this because I know non-theists disagree and possibly other theists think there’s more to it. So, does the Big Bang do more for the case of theism or atheism?
 
I don’t think one could EVER disprove the existence of God. The fact that we exist proves the existence of God. The universe is finite, and by the law of entropy, must have come from something less finite, aka infinite, than itself, aka God.

Just my 2cents ^^
 
Laurence_of_PA said:
In at least my point of view, the Big Bang implies that the Universe is not infinite and thus had to have had a beginning, rather than being infinite and without such a need. Had it been of infinite length, it wouldn’t need a first cause (a Theistic entity we’ll say), but because the Big Bang did originate the Universe, a first cause would logically have to be involved, and this first cause by my definition would be the theistic entity (God). Or in other words, The Big Bang Theory affirms the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Yep, I pretty much agree. A universe with no discernable beginning would seem less in need of a Creator than a universe with a definite beginning.
 
Yes, I think the BB theory does more to prove than disprove God’s existence–although I’d more easily say “implies” or “fits with” the existence of God. BTW, didn’t a Catholic priest-scientist (in good standing) first articulate this theory?
 
Yes, I think that the Big Bang fits nicely with theism, in that it implies a particular instant of creation.

However, I disagree that a spatially or temporally infinite universe would not also be in need of a creator. Matter, space, and time, of whatever extent, are not necessary beings. They do not contain within themselves sufficient reason for their own existence.
 
The more important thing than the big bang is the concept of time, which our universe is bound by. As you cannot have an actual infinite (see the Kalam argument), time itself cannot be infinite – at least, not in our universe. Thus, even with a universe that spacially and energy-wise is not required to be finite…you’re still in need of a point of creation, and per the law of cause and effect (the guiding principle of science), you thus need something to create the universe. Now, is it possible that something is not directly God as we think about him…I suppose, at least from an empirical and logical level, but you still would have to have God in there somewhere up the chain.
 
Einsteinian physics (and consequentially the big bang model) have more proof under their belt than any other scientific model or theory including Newtonian physics, I do not doubt the big bang cosmological model, what I often have doubts about is that this physical universe was the first reality created. It might just be that I have a penchant for exotic theoretical physics (and other things I dont have a clue about:D ), but the M-Brane, P-brane, and all that other jazz, while being THEORETICAL and confined to mathematical proofs, seem none-the-less possible. God does like creating things afte all!
 
Of course the cosmological argument proves it,

it’s one of the common arguments on which the case for God is made. the creation ex nihilo and expansion of the universe is even in the Bible. Facts that were long unknown to exist.

BUT - of course…there is more to say to the arguments for/against the existence of God.
 
JimG said:
Yes, I think that the Big Bang fits nicely with theism, in that it implies a particular instant of creation.

However, I disagree that a spatially or temporally infinite universe would not also be in need of a creator. Matter, space, and time, of whatever extent, are not necessary beings. They do not contain within themselves sufficient reason for their own existence.
Click to expand...
I think this is a pretty crucial point. In itself, the Big Bang neither supports nor undermines the need for a Creator.

Keep in mind neither Aristotle nor Thomas Aquinas knew of the Big Bang, and both proceeded on the more difficult assumption that the universe had no beginning. The cosmological argument does not NEED the Big Bang; nor does it need a “beginning” to the universe.

Having said all that, however, the Big Bang IS pretty extraordinary to think about. What would a “singularity” actually be like, an hour before it occurred? I know, I know, don’t tell me—there wouldn’t BE “an hour before” it occurred! But think about that statement! :hypno:
 
Doesn’t the bible tell us that God created light on the first day and then the sun and the moon and the stars a couple of days later. Before the big band theory, people who didn’t believe in God used that to ‘prove’ that the bible was wrong since how could light have come before the sun and the stars.

But at the moment of the big bang, photons (particles of light) were flying around all over the place. The universe was saturated with light.

Amazing how the big band theory confirms something that was in the bible thousands of years earlier.
 
The problem with trying to use the big bang theory to prove God’s existence is that scientists might find a theory which can explain using the known laws of physics without needing God’s direct intervention in the natural order. This is a classical weakness of natural theology, as the example of evolution shows us, things which seemed to require a supernatural designer can actually be resolved using a scientific theory.

It is more interesting to ask why something exists at all and why the laws of physics have the forms they do and to contemplate what relation exists between the created and uncreated, between conditioned being and unconditioned Being.
 
Sir_Knight said:
But at the moment of the big bang, photons (particles of light) were flying around all over the place. The universe was saturated with light.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that photons were the first particles to emerge from the big bang. There may have been no particles at all at first, followed by a devolution into several types of very short lived particles.
pparc.ac.uk/ps/bbs/bbs_formation.asp
 
From your link …

The smallest amount of time that can be described by the laws of physics is 10 -43 seconds (1 over 10 with 42 noughts after it), so we can say that the Universe was created during that instant. The laws of physics as we know them now can’t explain what happened at that moment but theorists have been able to build up a picture of what happened next.

The Universe exploded into a seething fireball of particles and radiation and during the next fractions of a second, the particles and forces we know of were created.

… Radition is normally of three types: alpha (two protons & two neutrons), Beta (eletron) and gamma (photon). So it appears that photons WERE flying around all over the place during those first fractions of a second. Might not have been visible light, but light never the less as mentioned in the bible – “Let There Be Light”.
 
Science cannot prove the existence of God because God is beyond the realm of science to study with the tools proper to science. That said, there isn’t a single scientific fact that makes a proper understanding of God unreasonable, and there are scientific truths that provide indirect evidences that God is real.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
We don’t even know that there was a Big Bang. It will remain just a theory.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Doesn’t the bible tell us that God created light on the first day and then the sun and the moon and the stars a couple of days later. Before the big band theory, people who didn’t believe in God used that to ‘prove’ that the bible was wrong since how could light have come before the sun and the stars.

But at the moment of the big bang, photons (particles of light) were flying around all over the place. The universe was saturated with light.

Amazing how the big band theory confirms something that was in the bible thousands of years earlier.
Click to expand...
Rabbinical thought seemed to gravitate toward “light and darkness” being first created in principle before the actual light of the sun, moon and stars. Interesting food for thought anyway.
 
The Big Bang theory doesn’t preclude the existence of matter/energy, nor of time, before the ‘Bang’. Check out the recently published Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang.

Like what was said before, the key question is Why is there anything at all? That remains true whether time/matter is ‘eternal’ or not.
 
Ahimsa said:
The Big Bang theory doesn’t preclude the existence of matter/energy, nor of time, before the ‘Bang’. Check out the recently published Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang.

Like what was said before, the key question is Why is there anything at all? That remains true whether time/matter is ‘eternal’ or not.
Click to expand...
  1. Assuming a “rubber band” type setup, where the universe keeps collapsing on itself, doing another big bang, and starting all over again (I’m guessing this is your point), you still are in need of something to set off the first big bang – you can’t get out of the cause and effect rule.
  2. This leads to the concept of an actual infinite – these simply cannot logically exist in a quantized universe, or megaverse, multiverse, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top