Does the Big Bang Suggest a Creator God?

[ProdglArchitect]

My understanding of Hawking’s theory, and in particular the zero-energy universe, is that the laws of cause and effect only apply in this universe because gravity and mass permeate it and fill it with concentrations of postive and negative energy. If gravity were not around, the laws of cause and effect would not apply, and effects (such as the big bang) could occur without a cause.

But cause and affect as we know them are a product of time / entropy, not gravity…

People like this cannot accept God at this point, because if they do, one major aspect of their entire lives would essentially be a lie. Not only that, but they’d also have to acknowledge that they’ll have a lot of explaining to do when they die. Instead of that, they spend their time trying to convince themselves that God doesn’t exist; and so we get nonsense like this.

Either way, while it’s an interesting theory, it still has absolutely nothing to do with God.

 

[atheistgirl]

Yes it does.

No, it doesn’t.

See the first mover arguement of St.Thomas Aquinas. Or see the First Cause arguement of St. Thomas Aquinas.

I have. They’re not convincing.

If you are mentioning the Stephen hawking theory that was debunked here it is, from His colleague nonetheless

indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16815

Lol… nothing was debunked

Criticising M-theory, Penrose said: "It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations.

Hardly debunking is it

Sarah x

 

[ProdglArchitect]

No, it doesn’t.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are persisting in saying that matter, physics, etc. spontaneously erupted from absolute eternal nothingness?

Further, you are stating that it all erupted with no prompting and without an external force acting on it.

You are also stating that, in spite of having absolutely no idea what this non-force is, it absolutely could not be God?

One last thing, by following Hawking’s theory, you are putting forth a potential “cause” with absolutely no scientific way to prove it… isn’t that what Atheists get onto Christians for all the time?

 

[dshix]

Athiestgirl,
concerning the Proof of causation, I have a question.

Do you deny that all caused things must have been caused by something else?

If not, then how do you explain the existence of the world? It is impossible for there to be an infinite series of caused events. The very nature of a caused event requires that it has been caused by something, that is has a beginning. If every caused thing has a beginning, then there cannot be an infinite series of events.

Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause. If this is not God, what, in your opinion, is it?

 

[atheistgirl]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are persisting in saying that matter, physics, etc. spontaneously erupted from absolute eternal nothingness?

Further, you are stating that it all erupted with no prompting and without an external force acting on it.

You are also stating that, in spite of having absolutely no idea what this non-force is, it absolutely could not be God?

There’s probably no such thing as absolute nothingness.

My position is science, eventually, will give us the answer, and that answer won’t include anything supernatural.

One last thing, by following Hawking’s theory, you are putting forth a potential “cause” with absolutely no scientific way to prove it… isn’t that what Atheists get onto Christians for all the time?

I’m putting forth no cause whatever.

I’m merely listening with interest to what the scientists have to say.



Sarah x

 

[dshix]

There’s probably no such thing as absolute nothingness.

My position is science, eventually, will give us the answer, and that answer won’t include anything supernatural.

I’m putting forth no cause whatever.

I’m merely listening with interest to what the scientists have to say.



Sarah x

So, in a nutshell, you would rather wait to hear what the “experts” say, instead of going through a sequence of reasoning that will lead you to the truth?

It looks to me as if you have already decided that there is no God, and you’d just prefer to ignore all reason or proof to the contrary.

 

[atheistgirl]

Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause. If this is not God, what, in your opinion, is it?

Seriously flawed.

The debunking of this logic can be found easily with a simple search.

Sarah x

 

[dshix]

Seriously flawed.

The debunking of this logic can be found easily with a simple search.

Sarah x

If you find a single, reasonable, legitimate, LOGICAL argument to refute the existence of God, I will refute it.

Oh, and just dismissing my arguments as “flawed” both makes you look ignorant (since you didn’t prove it) and doesn’t help your point in any way.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There’s probably no such thing as absolute nothingness.p

… I don’t really know how to respond to this one without sounding repetitive. If something occupies nothingness, then there is no nothingness. If there is no nothingness then something must have created that which exists. You cannot escape the necessity of a first cause when dealing with physical realities.

My position is science, eventually, will give us the answer, and that answer won’t include anything supernatural.

So… you hold a stance that is completely unverifiable until it is verified… that sounds sort of like, “there’s not way to KNOW if God exists until we’re dead.”

Our “death” is your “eventually;” The stances are exactly the same, and you mock us for ours… well, maybe not you specifically, but Atheists in general.

I’m putting forth no cause whatever.

I’m merely listening with interest to what the scientists have to say.

Sarah x

You cannot logically refute our cause without putting forth another. By refuting our cause, you are claiming that some other cause must be the correct one. In this instance, since you say you are following science, then you are putting forth the cause that people like Hawking have suggested, which is what we are arguing against.

 

[edwest2]

Seriously flawed.

The debunking of this logic can be found easily with a simple search.

Sarah x

Having fun? Your argument has no scientific foundation whatsoever. Something cannot come from nothing on its own. The more I see posts like this, the more I realize that some post here claiming or clinging to something scientific, but that’s not true, is it?

To my fellow Catholics, if it reads wrong and is illogical, then it is.

Best,
Ed

 

[atheistgirl]

So, in a nutshell, you would rather wait to hear what the “experts” say, instead of going through a sequence of reasoning that will lead you to the truth?

My reasoning tells me there is no way, with reason, to get to the God of Christianity, or any supernatural entity.

Faith is required.

There would be no need for faith, if reason was all that was required.

You simply can not get from zero, to the God of Christianity, using reason.

It looks to me as if you have already decided that there is no God, and you’d just prefer to ignore all reason or proof to the contrary.

No.

I happily await the day I’m proved wrong.

I’m a very pragmatic, practical, realistic person.

If there’s a God I should be worshiping, and I have a soul, that depends on this, and the consequences of failure might be eternal separation or damnation, darn right I want to know and believe in this God.

But, for me, there’s not a shred of evidence this is the case.

Sarah x

 

[edwest2]

My reasoning tells me there is no way, with reason, to get to the God of Christianity, or any supernatural entity.

Faith is required.

There would be no need for faith, if reason was all that was required.

You simply can not get from zero, to the God of Christianity, using reason.

No.

I happily await the day I’m proved wrong.

I’m a very pragmatic, practical, realistic person.

If there’s a God I should be worshiping, and I have a soul, that depends on this, and the consequences of failure might be eternal separation or damnation, darn right I want to know and believe in this God.

But, for me, there’s not a shred of evidence this is the case.

Sarah x

Then why post here?

Best,
Ed

 

[SonCatcher]

So, in a nutshell, you would rather wait to hear what the “experts” say, instead of going through a sequence of reasoning that will lead you to the truth?

Why decry the experts of science? We listen to the experts of our religion with similar ardor.

 

[atheistgirl]

If you find a single, reasonable, legitimate, LOGICAL argument to refute the existence of God, I will refute it.

Oh, and just dismissing my arguments as “flawed” both makes you look ignorant (since you didn’t prove it) and doesn’t help your point in any way.

I’m not going to get drawn into the flaws in the arguments, cosmological and others, as suggested by your post.

That’s why I suggest a simple search to find them.

I’ve read all these arguments, and I remain unpersuaded by them.

Getting into the grit of these, would be derailing this thread - which would be ‘‘ignorant’’ of me, and has been the subject of hundreds of threads on this forum.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Then why post here?

Best,
Ed

Because I can.

Sarah x

 

[dshix]

My reasoning tells me there is no way, with reason, to get to the God of Christianity, or any supernatural entity.

This is false and ignorant. Rather, if you TRY to find the truth, you will find it. If you try to obfuscate it, as you are, you will not find it.

Faith is required.

There would be no need for faith, if reason was all that was required.

You simply can not get from zero, to the God of Christianity, using reason.

We are not going from zero to God. We are looking at the world around us, and man himself, to reach logical conclusions based on what we know.

I happily await the day I’m proved wrong.

I’m a very pragmatic, practical, realistic person.

Actually, I think that you happily attempt to frustrate people who have proved you wrong countless times. I have laid logical proof before you already in a previous post, which you conveniently ignored.

If there’s a God I should be worshiping, and I have a soul, that depends on this, and the consequences of failure might be eternal separation or damnation, darn right I want to know and believe in this God.

But, for me, there’s not a shred of evidence this is the case.

I sure hope you look for it someday.

God Bless.

 

[dshix]

I’m not going to get drawn into the flaws in the arguments, cosmological and others, as suggested by your post.

That’s why I suggest a simple search to find them.

I’ve read all these arguments, and I remain unpersuaded by them.

Getting into the grit of these, would be derailing this thread - which would be ‘‘ignorant’’ of me, and has been the subject of hundreds of threads on this forum.

Sarah x

Heh, you’re so unflappable. A “simple search” will bring you plenty of proofs for God’s non-existence. A detailed search will provide many proofs for his existence.

As one philosopher said, “Those who learn a little about philosophy quickly disown God; those who go deep into philosophy immediately find Him again.”

By attempting to seem all high and mighty and “logical” by claiming that I am the problem in this conversation, you are neither proving your side nor convincing me or anyone else.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

I’ve read all these arguments, and I remain unpersuaded by them.

What is there about the following two quotes that makes you think the first quote is not demonstrated by the second one … written 3,000 years later?

Book of Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in his book Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[SonCatcher]

My reasoning tells me there is no way, with reason, to get to the God of Christianity, or any supernatural entity.

Faith is required.

There would be no need for faith, if reason was all that was required.

You simply can not get from zero, to the God of Christianity, using reason.

No.

I happily await the day I’m proved wrong.

I’m a very pragmatic, practical, realistic person.

If there’s a God I should be worshiping, and I have a soul, that depends on this, and the consequences of failure might be eternal separation or damnation, darn right I want to know and believe in this God.

But, for me, there’s not a shred of evidence this is the case.

Sarah x

This is a fair response. Rest assured that He is calling you. It is difficult to recognize how He calls sometimes (even for believers). I will pray that you will respond in the way He has chosen.

 

[atheistgirl]

Actually, I think that you happily attempt to frustrate people who have proved you wrong countless times. I have laid logical proof before you already in a previous post, which you conveniently ignored…

I have no intention of frustrating anyone, but it’s interesting you use such a term - perhaps apologetics isn’t really your bag.

You didn’t prove anything to me.

If you did, I’d have had it proved to me, and been persuaded by your arguments.

You brought nothing new, and I’ve heard it all before, and remain unpersuaded.

Now, since you’ve referred to me as ignorant several times, please add me to your ignore list, so you won’t need to be exposed to my ignorance, and I will repay the compliment by adding you to mine

Sarah x