Does the Big Bang prove the existence of God?

[tonyrey]

Perhaps a parallel question would be whether consciousness proves the existence of God, or at least something spiritual. Consciousness seems to have a non-material nature, but a strict evolutionist may disagree.

The onus is on the materialist to explain consciousness without reference to anything but matter, a feat that has not been accomplished and shows no signs that it will be…

 

[Skeptic92]

Why is God the simplest explanation? Also, why should the simplest explanation be necessarily correct? The reason i ask this is because some atheists say that God requires an even greater explanation than the universe.

It is basically the principle of parsimony (Occams razor), however it is technically not proper to this debate unless you are evaluating scientific theories. Also people misunderstand the terms ‘law’ and ‘theory’ in a scientific context. Law would simply be a statement of its effect, theory is a body of coherent and consistent knowledge which best fits the evidence presented. ‘Law’ is more definitional, and theory is explanatory and both are the ‘highest’ a scientific theory can be, before ‘theories’ scientific hypothesis are just that hypothesis. You can differentiate between speculative and supported hypothesis, which are just measured by if there is any material/empirical evidence for the mathematical model (in terms of Physics).

Answer to the question: No, the debate is lively on the existence of God and the principles of metaphysics going on at the moment due to the findings of the natural sciences. It is also methodologically impossible to justify the negative premise of ‘There is no God/s’, as such Atheism could be seen to be ‘non-rational’: note this does not mean irrational I simply mean that it is the rational faculty of scepticism (want of evidence) taken to an extreme.

 

[tonyrey]

It is basically the principle of parsimony (Occams razor), however it is technically not proper to this debate unless you are evaluating scientific theories. Also people misunderstand the terms ‘law’ and ‘theory’ in a scientific context. Law would simply be a statement of its effect, theory is a body of coherent and consistent knowledge which best fits the evidence presented. ‘Law’ is more definitional, and theory is explanatory and both are the ‘highest’ a scientific theory can be, before ‘theories’ scientific hypothesis are just that hypothesis. You can differentiate between speculative and supported hypothesis, which are just measured by if there is any material/empirical evidence for the mathematical model (in terms of Physics).

Answer to the question: No, the debate is lively on the existence of God and the principles of metaphysics going on at the moment due to the findings of the natural sciences. It is also methodologically impossible to justify the negative premise of ‘There is no God/s’, as such Atheism could be seen to be ‘non-rational’: note this does not mean irrational I simply mean that it is the rational faculty of scepticism (want of evidence) taken to an extreme.

Isn’t total scepticism self-destructive and therefore irrational?

 

[balto]

Isn’t total scepticism self-destructive and therefore irrational?

Yes, because if you demand absolute certainty before you are willing to accept anything then you would need absolute certainty that being skeptical of everything is warranted. In other words, you’d need to be skeptical of your skepticism.

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes, because if you demand absolute certainty before you are willing to accept anything then you would need absolute certainty that being skeptical of everything is warranted.

I disagree, because skepticism is not a position. A total skeptic wouldn’t make a claim such as “I shouldn’t believe in anything”. They wouldn’t make any affirmations at all.

This topic is beside the point, though, because I don’t think anyone on this thread has been advocating total skepticism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A common misconception. “Theory” is the highest level of achievement in science; there is nothing beyond a theory. We never reach the point where we classify theory as fact, for example.

Fiddlesticks! Didn’t you notice that Fr. Lamaitre himself warned Pius XII not to use this theory as " proof " for an absolute beginning of the universe? Are there not scientists of good reputation who see the expansion of the universe in broader terms? I am not questioning the value of science, I am saying we can form no final judgments when a significant amount of knowledge is missing or unobtainable. You should know that I would love to be able to say that the " Big Bang " demonstrates an absolute beginning of the universe. To my mind and to that of qualified others, it does not reach that level of certitude.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well the multiverse hypothesis really doesn’t escape the problem because then the problem has just been kicked up one more level (i.e. the Multiverse is what exists unconditionally, not the universe). There’s a lot of emotional connotations with God that identifies Him as having the attributes of the Judeo-Christian God, which is why many reject God because they reject Christianity, when most fundamentally God is defined as He who is, i.e. He doesn’t need a reason to exist, He just does exist. Saying the the Universe or Multiverse or Laws of Physics just exist unconditionally is just renaming God. It doesn’t really matter all that much if we call it “God” or the “Multiverse” if the terms refers to the same reality. Hence the debate is usually really over what God is like (e.g. personal vs. impersonal, etc.), not whether He exists.

Fortunately we are not orphans with no Father to teach us the truth about such matters. The Church has provided us with infallible teaching in regard to how the universe began and Who God is and What His nature is. You will find it all in the Catechism.

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

Fiddlesticks! Didn’t you notice that Fr. Lamaitre himself warned Pius XII not to use this theory as " proof " for an absolute beginning of the universe? Are there not scientists of good reputation who see the expansion of the universe in broader terms?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I was just pointing out that, while one can say the Big Bang model is “just a theory”, models of gravitational fields are “just a theory”, models of atoms are “just a theory”, etc.

We never reach the level of certitude in science in which we deem anything “proof” of a theory. Einstein was famously quoted as saying “No number of experiments could prove me right–one experiment could prove me wrong.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think it helps support the way God created the universe not exactly God himself. Such as how the Big Bang has a beginning, which can relate to “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” -Genesis 1:1.

We know from Faith that only God can create. Neither material beings, nor spiritual Angels can create anything. They may educe other creatures from matter already existing, but that is not creating, as Thomas Aquinas explains.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If the universe had a beginning then that proves something outside the universe created it. Since the universe could not bring itself into existence from non-being. In order to do that it would have to exist prior to its own existence in order to bring itself into being. But that would be logically impossible. So something outside the universe that is not dependent on the universe for its own existence existed prior to the universe.

What could possibly exist prior to the universe?

God
Multiverse - but then current science shows it also must have a beginning. So we just move the problem back a step…

Perhaps God being the best explanation because he is the only real explanation for existence. Otherwise you are left with no explanation.

I like these from Scripture, " These two latter texts merit more than passing attention. Wis., xiii, 1-9 reads:

But all men are vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. Or if they admired their power and effects, let them understand by them that he that made them, is mightier than they: for by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. But then again they are not to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?

Here it is clearly taught

•that the phenomenal or contingent world — the things that are seen — requires a cause distinct from and greater than itself or any of its elements;
•that this cause who is God is not unknowable, but is known with certainty not only to exist but to possess in Himself, in a higher degree, whatever beauty, strength, or other perfections are realized in His works,
•that this conclusion is attainable by the right exercise of human reason, without reference to supernatural revelation, and that philosophers, therefore, who are able to interpret the world philosophically, are inexcusable for their ignorance of the true God, their failure, it is implied, being due rather to lack of good will than to the incapacity of the human mind.
Substantially the same doctrine is laid down more briefly by St. Paul in Romans 1:18-20:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. "

See the Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm ( really good stuff here ).

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps a parallel question would be whether consciousness proves the existence of God, or at least something spiritual. Consciousness seems to have a non-material nature, but a strict evolutionist may disagree.

Yes, the argument from conscience appears full proof, as is the argument from an immaterial intellect. Those convinced of the " E " theory have many, many problems. But we are not allowed to discuss this topic.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We may or may not have more than one universe. Science can only prove that we have one universe. Science may speculate all it wants about multiple universes. It will never be able to prove their existence using the scientific method, for the simple reason that no argument for more than one universe will ever be falsifiable. So the very complaint scientists bring against argument for the existence of God should also be brought against arguments for multiple universes.

Very good.

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

Fortunately we are not orphans with no Father to teach us the truth about such matters. The Church has provided us with infallible teaching in regard to how the universe began and Who God is and What His nature is. You will find it all in the Catechism.

Linus2nd

Agreed, but a lot of this information is knowable via rational inquiry, which is why St. Thomas Aquinas’ work is so significant. The Church gives us certitude that it is correct, but I still think it is useful to understand rationally why it is so.

 

[balto]

We never reach the level of certitude in science in which we deem anything “proof” of a theory. Einstein was famously quoted as saying “No number of experiments could prove me right–one experiment could prove me wrong.”

It’s really frustrating isn’t it? We don’t know when we’re right but we know for sure when we’re wrong. It still doesn’t invalidate scientific inquiry though. On the other hand, a lot of philosophical proofs are negative proofs rather than positive ones (I think the terms are a priori vs. a posteriori, but I forget which is which). You set up a series of completely disjoint hypotheses that cover every possible scenario and then prove that all but one are logically inconsistent, so the last one must be true. I’ve seen variations of the First Cause argument presented this way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Some people believe that physical laws are mathematical models which approximate conditions in the real world, but are not absolute and immutable.

I think it would be more correct to say that physical laws, expressed mathematically, show relationships only, they do not explain the nature of reality. The nature of reality consists of much more than quantity and the mathematics used to express it.

There are indeed laws of nature viewed as characteristic behavior, habits, powers, etc which have their source or orgin in the nature of each individual. Mechanical and mathematical formulas neglect most of this. Natural Philosophy and Science look at the same object in different ways. Each can reinforce and aid the other, there should be no real conflict between the two.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I was just pointing out that, while one can say the Big Bang model is “just a theory”, models of gravitational fields are “just a theory”, models of atoms are “just a theory”, etc.

We never reach the level of certitude in science in which we deem anything “proof” of a theory. Einstein was famously quoted as saying “No number of experiments could prove me right–one experiment could prove me wrong.”

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agreed, but a lot of this information is knowable via rational inquiry, which is why St. Thomas Aquinas’ work is so significant. The Church gives us certitude that it is correct, but I still think it is useful to understand rationally why it is so.

Me too, that is why I spend so much time with St. Thomas .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ok so the BB doesn’t “prove” there’s a God…but if there’s no God, who exactly was Jesus and how does he tie in?

AntB. There are many ways of " proving " God exists, as the Church teaches. Further more, the Church defines, De Fide, that God does indeed exist, as Revealed in the Scriptures, and defines, De Fide, much about His nature. But take a look at the following:

" Wis., xiii, 1-9 reads:

But all men are vain in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. Or if they admired their power and effects, let them understand by them that he that made them, is mightier than they: for by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. But then again they are not to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?

Here it is clearly taught

•that the phenomenal or contingent world — the things that are seen — requires a cause distinct from and greater than itself or any of its elements;
•that this cause who is God is not unknowable, but is known with certainty not only to exist but to possess in Himself, in a higher degree, whatever beauty, strength, or other perfections are realized in His works,
•that this conclusion is attainable by the right exercise of human reason, without reference to supernatural revelation, and that philosophers, therefore, who are able to interpret the world philosophically, are inexcusable for their ignorance of the true God, their failure, it is implied, being due rather to lack of good will than to the incapacity of the human mind.
Substantially the same doctrine is laid down more briefly by St. Paul in Romans 1:18-20:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. "

See the Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm ( really good stuff here ).

Have no fear, we know with absolute certitude that God exists.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

 

[spina1953]

It is by faith given to us by God that we believe in Him. God gave us a brain that can reason as well as choose. Science is a discipline , and can be used to complement religious thinking. The universe is so vast that it cannot be comprehended as to how big or large it really is. Is the universe really expanding or is it really that the galaxies are moving through the universe and not space. Some scientists say that so far even with the Hubble telescope no one has seen a time when there where no galaxies. So when the big bang happened is not really known, and is assumed as to when it might have happened. We do not really know if it was a big bang or a little bang. We do not know what banged or how it banged or what was before the bang. We do not know what caused it to bang. Yet, when we look at what can be seen of the universe from our planet, the vastness of it and all that can be seen, it does by reason allude to something greater then it or us to have created it. I will say that the big bang or anything else will never really prove one way or the other whether or not God created, so all we have left is faith in believing God exists and that He created the universe and all that it contains.