Does the Big Bang prove the existence of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomdstone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To me it shows that God is ‘bigger’ than the universe He created.
 
I always thought the big bang theory was an accurate summary of the creation of the universe from our own limited perspective, it’s like science always says how things happened but it doesn’t explain why, it couldn’t do that, they just say it was a coincidence and a random event but I don’t believe that, it’s too perfectly sculpted to have been a fluke, you know.
At least that’s my Agnostic thought on the matter.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I believe the Big Bang comes as close as anything in science to proving the universe was created. This certainly is consistent with the account in Genesis, even when we question the allegorical nature of that account. Whether one wants to call the Creator God or something else seems to me a matter of choosing rather than knowing as an intellectual certainty. The choice one makes is then based not just on the reasons of intellect, but as well on the reasons of the heart, as Pascal tirelessly reminds us. Only when the intellect and the heart work together can we say the soul has given itself entirely to conviction either way/ One might as well open one’s heart to God, who satisfies and inspires with joy and hope, as to open it up to a multiverse which offers nothing but cold and everlasting doom … and no certainty at all that the multiverse even exists.
Click to expand...
Well no, the Big Bang model as originally proposed does not necessitate an absolute beginning. There have been advancements in modern physics though that have demonstrated that every model we have of the universe necessitates an absolute beginning in the finite past-time. This formula also apparently applies to most (if not all) of the current formulations of the multiverse. Those that it does not have run into other quite serious problems with the known laws of physics. On your last point that is current though, string ‘theory’ and the multiverse hypothesis are speculative and are only supported by a coherent mathematical model.

Debating for and against the existence of God has long been in the realm of Philosophy, and the debate is very interesting. It also help when people ask how can we believe in God in an age such as ours, with its advances in the natural sciences? It is a helpful question to ask ourselves as rational beings, our faith will never contradict its findings and it can be helpful to understand how they supplement each other.
 
Blood_Angel said:
I always thought the big bang theory was an accurate summary of the creation of the universe from our own limited perspective, it’s like science always says how things happened but it doesn’t explain why, it couldn’t do that, they just say it was a coincidence and a random event but I don’t believe that, it’s too perfectly sculpted to have been a fluke, you know.
At least that’s my Agnostic thought on the matter.
Click to expand...
An agnostic reminds me of a bewildered rustic sitting on a fence wondering how he got there, where he should go and what he should do. I’m pretty sure you’re not in that position. 😉
 
tonyrey said:
An agnostic reminds me of a bewildered rustic sitting on a fence wondering how he got there, where he should go and what he should do. I’m pretty sure you’re not in that position. 😉
Click to expand...
Note: Agnosticism is a label that can also be applied philosophically to traditionally Catholic positions, including that of Aquinas himself 😉
 
Skeptic92 said:
Well no, the Big Bang model as originally proposed does not necessitate an absolute beginning.
Click to expand...
I did not say it did, did I?

What I said is that it shows the universe was created. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the universe always existed, or that it was spawned by another universe, or that a multiverse exists.

And there never will be. God arranged it that way. 😃
 
Skeptic92 said:
He did assert though that we can not know what God is, and is therefore Agnostic. Catholicism and Christianity as a whole is not a gnostic faith.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but unfortunately the term “agnostic” is most commonly associated with the existence of God, even though it has a more general understanding as you pointed out. I think Aquinas’ position was that we can have an ever-increasing finite understanding of God but we have to keep in mind that it is not complete and never will be. If you think you have God “figured out” then that’s proof that you don’t understand Him at all.
 
As I recall, Aquinas revealed to others, as he approached the end, that all he knew seemed as straw compared to the private revelations he had received. So near the end it seems he was less agnostic than he had ever been. If he ever was truly agnostic, it was about things we are all pretty much agnostic about. However, it’s doubtful he was so agnostic as to believe he had no certainty of anything in the absolute agnostic sense.

His agnosticism would have been consistent with his realization of the limitations of the power of Reason to reveal, as opposed to the power of Revelation to reveal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top