Does the Big Bang Suggest a Creator God?

[dshix]

Please stop flattering yourself, it’s very unbecoming

No, it’s not difficult, it’s like,

It doesn’t demonstrate or prove a thing

Sarah x

See, Charlemane, she won’t even bother to prove her point. She just dismisses you.

 

[zro_x]

The reason is that nothing that is not infinite can come into motion or occur without having been caused by something else. This can be easily demonstrated by taking a look at a rock. That rock is not moving. It will sit there until eternity unless weather, and animal, you, or another cause does something to it.

You or something else moving the rock represents the cause which caused the rock to move, which may cause something else, and then that something else may cause yet something else in turn.

The only thing that can possibly exist without having been caused, therefore, is something infinite, that did not have a beginning, and exists of its own self.

But that rock is in this universe, where cause and effect determine whether or not the rock will move. Outside the universe, who knows what’s possible?

 

[TomD123]

A faith I don’t have.

Yes, my point was just that reason alone does not prove Christian God …ur post seemed to suggest that Christians believed otherwise

I’m being very sincere when I say I don’t believe in miracles and do not find any evidence for them. It’s not a blanket statement, I’ve looked very deeply into two, and found them very unconvincing - which I’ve discussed here in the relevant threads of on those miracles and set out my reasons why. I’ve read about hundreds of others, all equally unconvincing to me.
**Well the specifics are a topic for another thread obviously, but that is not my point. Those things which cause reasonable people to assent to a belief cannot be discounted as not even “shreds” of evidence…I’m just saying your statement comes across to me as unfounded because despite your *personal *** understanding, other people who are reasonable and intelligent disagree (on the evidence for miracles, philosophy and God, the soul, the Catholic Church, the historical Jesus being God…etc.)

I haven’t said that.

I said there probably is no such thing as absolutely nothing, and that science will give us the answers.
Well, whatever your “something” is, it must exist timelessly and space-lessly…because the big bang “created” both to my knowledge… And I think there are more implications to your belief but I dont wanna drag my comments out
Sarah x

Comments in bold above

Also, I will add that I think this is no competition to religion and science as to which will give us the “answers.” Right now, I think that science is asking questions as to how the universe began and other questions regarding mechanisms…science can’t really answer the questions of “why” there is a universe or give an explanation for the existence of things the way they are instead of a different way (e.g. why we have this universe not that one). I think science can explain many things but it is not competing with religion here. What answer could science provide that would satisfy you and show God is not needed?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Yes. It strongly suggests that the Bible depicts the real truth about the essence of things. If scientists found on evidence of a beginning, that would tend to undermine the teaching of the Bible that there was a point at which God created things.

But, as the current pope keeps emphasizing, people need to discover God in their heart, most of all. Religion is not like mathematics. God cannot be proved the way certain theorems in geometry can be proved. A person must somehow mystically see that there is such a thing as GOODNESS and such at thing as EVIL, and that these are not just social constructs, and that we all live in a drama with a LOVING and JUST GOD as the ultimate AUTHOR of that drama.

That’s what I think, anyway. Good luck.

 

[dshix]

But that rock is in this universe, where cause and effect determine whether or not the rock will move. Outside the universe, who knows what’s possible?

Heh, you aren’t quite following me. I can’t spend much more time on this.

 

[TomD123]

But that rock is in this universe, where cause and effect determine whether or not the rock will move. Outside the universe, who knows what’s possible?

But still, can you really even imagine something coming into existence without a cuase? Even outside the universe…even really comprehend it? I think thats hard to do…

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe some things can begin to exist without a cause. The only real reason we have to beleive otherwise is that we live in a universe with cause and effect. But that says nothing about how the universe itself was formed.

It depends on the use of the word ‘cause’ I think…I do not think its merely an experiential thing about cause and effect…I think there is more too it. Finally, I think we can expand our understanding to “sufficient explanation” not just cause…

 

[edwest2]

Ah, I see.

Still, I contend that science is more important to listen to in its own field. Asking the Church for information concerning the super collider and the creation of a Higg’s boson is not realistic.

As long as science doesn’t poke around in the spiritual realm, it is legit.

Tell that to the hundreds of posters here, and elsewhere, that try to shove science into explaining religion.

And no, I no longer consider some science legit. Some of it is just propaganda.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To those who doubt:

"36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

"37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

"Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13"

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Peace,
Ed

 

[dshix]

Tell that to the hundreds of posters here, and elsewhere, that try to shove science into explaining religion.

And no, I no longer consider some science legit. Some of it is just propaganda.

Peace,
Ed

You aren’t really listening to what I’m saying. Oh, well.

 

[edwest2]

But still, can you really even imagine something coming into existence without a cuase? Even outside the universe…even really comprehend it? I think thats hard to do…

It depends on the use of the word ‘cause’ I think…I do not think its merely an experiential thing about cause and effect…I think there is more too it. Finally, I think we can expand our understanding to “sufficient explanation” not just cause…

And where is the universe? Is it a flattened ball (spheroid) floating in nothing?

Something from nothing just doesn’t make sense.

Peace,
Ed

 

[atheistgirl]

What answer could science provide that would satisfy you and show God is not needed?

When I say there isn’t a shred of evidence, I am strictly referring to me - there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

I’m aware others believe otherwise, and respect that belief.

I shouldn’t think it necessary to spell it out every single time, but, for clarity, when I say there’s not a shred of evidence, I’m saying, there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

Science already does a good job of showing (me!) no Deity is necessary.

Science does not have all the answers, for sure, right now, but we get closer and closer to answering all the really big questions with each day that passes.

There will almost certainly always be questions science continues to work on, in fact, there will be, because that is the very nature of science.

There really is no question in my life that I need anything other than science to answer, and it does a good job of it so far.

Our knowledge of biology, medicine, sociology, cosmology, physics and so on continue to provide me with satisfactory answers, or satisfactory hypothesis and investigation to any questions I may have. No Deity required.

And I’m glad you agree it’s not possible to get to the God of Christianity by reason alone - there are some here who claim it is.

Sarah x

 

[dshix]

When I say there isn’t a shred of evidence, I am strictly referring to me - there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

I’m aware others believe otherwise, and respect that belief.

I shouldn’t think it necessary to spell it out every single time, but, for clarity, when I say there’s not a shred of evidence, I’m saying, there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

Science already does a good job of showing (me!) no Deity is necessary.

Science does not have all the answers, for sure, right now, but we get closer and closer to answering all the really big questions with each day that passes.

There will almost certainly always be questions science continues to work on, in fact, there will be, because that is the very nature of science.

There really is no question in my life that I need anything other than science to answer, and it does a good job of it so far.

Our knowledge of biology, medicine, sociology, cosmology, physics and so on continue to provide me with satisfactory answers, or satisfactory hypothesis and investigation to any questions I may have. No Deity required.

And I’m glad you agree it’s not possible to get to the God of Christianity by reason alone - there are some here who claim it is.

Sarah x

This is a very fair way of putting it.

 

[johnnyjones]

The “big bang” is speculation. Just like one would speculate on the existence of God. You could theorize it till your eyes pop out but as my grandfather use to say, “was you there Charlie”.

It takes a heeping dose of suspended belief to accept that all complexity came together in this kaotic event. You could counter that it takes the same belief for God but that belief at least has order from disorder.

 

[SonCatcher]

To those who doubt:

"36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12

"37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

"Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13"

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church

Peace,
Ed

Excellent quotation. Here’s another:

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

 

[mymamamary]

No, it doesn’t.

I have. They’re not convincing.

Lol… nothing was debunked

Hardly debunking is it

Sarah x

They aren’t convincing, but next to impossible to debunk. Folks like Dawkins only whine cause they can’t make as nearly of a solid case in 5 points like Aquinas could. It may not have been debunking, but consider that Penrose is a colleauge of Hawkings and didn’t do it because of religious convictions. Penrose did it because He knew Hawkings theory doesn’t hold.

 

[mymamamary]

When I say there isn’t a shred of evidence, I am strictly referring to me - there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

I’m aware others believe otherwise, and respect that belief.

I shouldn’t think it necessary to spell it out every single time, but, for clarity, when I say there’s not a shred of evidence, I’m saying, there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

Science already does a good job of showing (me!) no Deity is necessary.

Science does not have all the answers, for sure, right now, but we get closer and closer to answering all the really big questions with each day that passes.

There will almost certainly always be questions science continues to work on, in fact, there will be, because that is the very nature of science.

There really is no question in my life that I need anything other than science to answer, and it does a good job of it so far.

Our knowledge of biology, medicine, sociology, cosmology, physics and so on continue to provide me with satisfactory answers, or satisfactory hypothesis and investigation to any questions I may have. No Deity required.

And I’m glad you agree it’s not possible to get to the God of Christianity by reason alone - there are some here who claim it is.

Sarah x

See, thats a distinction that does not make sense to me. Atheists tout science, yet cannot show a gram of science in favor of proving the fact that “GOD does not exist”. Theists however have more scientific discoveries on their side. You cannot discover someone supernatural by using mere natural methods. Its a logical disconnect. Its an impossible dilemma. Its like trying to bridge a river with water, You just can’t do it!

 

[SonCatcher]

Its a logical disconnect. Its an impossible dilemma. Its like trying to bridge a river with water, You just can’t do it!

Freeze it, first.

 

[atheistgirl]

See, thats a distinction that does not make sense to me.

That’s ok.

Atheists tout science, yet cannot show a gram of science in favor of proving the fact that “GOD does not exist”.

I can only speak for myself, and generally do. What other atheists think is entirely a matter for them.

I’ve said here many times, I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Nobody can.

But I can look at the evidence, or lack of evidence, for such a deity existing, and come to a reasonable conclusion based on this.

Theists however have more scientific discoveries on their side.

You cannot discover someone supernatural by using mere natural methods. Its a logical disconnect.

Did you see what you just did there

Its like trying to bridge a river with water, You just can’t do it!

Freeze it!

Sheesh, I thought you were a philosopher

Sarah x

 

[TomD123]

And where is the universe? Is it a flattened ball (spheroid) floating in nothing?

Something from nothing just doesn’t make sense.

Peace,
Ed

Of course it does not…something from nothing is absurd. Did I come across that I disagreed?

Actually, I was saying that trying to picture an uncaused or unexplained reality is highly difficult if not impossible…not just unobserved in our universe

When I say there isn’t a shred of evidence, I am strictly referring to me - there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

I’m aware others believe otherwise, and respect that belief.

I shouldn’t think it necessary to spell it out every single time, but, for clarity, when I say there’s not a shred of evidence, I’m saying, there isn’t a shred of evidence, to me.

Science already does a good job of showing (me!) no Deity is necessary.

Science does not have all the answers, for sure, right now, but we get closer and closer to answering all the really big questions with each day that passes.

There will almost certainly always be questions science continues to work on, in fact, there will be, because that is the very nature of science.

There really is no question in my life that I need anything other than science to answer, and it does a good job of it so far.

Our knowledge of biology, medicine, sociology, cosmology, physics and so on continue to provide me with satisfactory answers, or satisfactory hypothesis and investigation to any questions I may have. No Deity required.

And I’m glad you agree it’s not possible to get to the God of Christianity by reason alone - there are some here who claim it is.

Sarah x

Thank you for clarifying about the evidence…that makes sense…I just find it better then to say there is no evidence that convinces me…from my perspective when I hear someone say “there is no evidence” sounds like they are either unaware of or dismissing out of hand real reasons to believe…

As for what you are saying about science…I like what mymamamary said:

See, thats a distinction that does not make sense to me. Atheists tout science, yet cannot show a gram of science in favor of proving the fact that “GOD does not exist”. Theists however have more scientific discoveries on their side. You cannot discover someone supernatural by using mere natural methods. Its a logical disconnect. Its an impossible dilemma. Its like trying to bridge a river with water, You just can’t do it!

That is what I was trying to say…science and religion are not in competition for answering the same questions. Science discusses mechanisms and how the universe works to explain questions. Religion is totally different. Natural sciences answer natural quetions. Supernatural religion answers super natural questions. Science is very promising! We will discover much! But I think some questions are out of the reach of science, because they are not scientific questions.

 

[mymamamary]

That’s ok.

I can only speak for myself, and generally do. What other atheists think is entirely a matter for them.

I’ve said here many times, I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Nobody can.

But I can look at the evidence, or lack of evidence, for such a deity existing, and come to a reasonable conclusion based on this.

Did you see what you just did there

Freeze it!

Sheesh, I thought you were a philosopher

Sarah x

Let me clarify that. There are more scientific arguements that bend the scale towards theists, however even they do not outright prove HIS Existence. Hence that thing called Faith. I should have clarified my point.