Does the Big Bang Suggest a Creator God?

[atheistgirl]

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.

I appreciate your friendly and charitable reply.

Sarah x

 

[zro_x]

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

they may be a *product * of time and entropy, but Hawking hypothesises that the law is *held in existence * by the relationship between gravity and mass.

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

It has quite a lot to do with God. If valid, it means that there is a plausible way for the universe to exist without devine intervention.

 

[dshix]

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

It is interesting how you continually move aside from the point, which is to actually debate whether or not proof for or against the existence of God is true, and move into questioning my intentions or capabilities, mentioning how unpersuaded you are at the same logic.

You repeatedly mention that you ARE unpersuaded, but not WHY you are unpersuaded.

I would be most interested in having a debate as to WHY the Causation proof is flawed, but no, you wish to DECLARE that it is flawed instead of engaging in intelligent debate to that effect.

If you change your tone from argumentative to a debate, I will do the same.

 

[subject97]

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?

her argument would probably be this.

The big bang. And if the big bang has to be caused by something then shouldn’t god have to be cause by something?

 

[dshix]

her argument would probably be this.

The big bang. And if the big bang has to be caused by something then shouldn’t god have to be cause by something?

Because God is The uncaused cause, without a beginning or end.

 

[edwest2]

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

I don’t listen to scientists with ardor anymore. In the past, I just took what they said for granted as true. No longer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TomD123]

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

I’m new to the discussion but it interested me…to the OP I tihnk it does suggest a creator but by no means prove a creator. I think we have to be careful if we are going to talk about the big bang and God to make sure we know what we are talking about with the big bang, otherwise it is better to just use the other traditional arguments that do not hinge on physics knowledge. That said, yes I do think the big bang suggests a creator because the eternal universe idea is debunked.

As for Hawking, I think he is just one guy with some ideas…there are many other physicists who disagree with his reasoning. Philosophers as well because Hawking appears weak in this area. I watched a video on youtube for simplified reasons why he does not see beleif in God as ncessary, his reasoning seemed very week and not very deep

To atheist girl: as for your comment above…one does not go from reason alone to PROVE the existence of the Christian God. These are articles of faith, supernatural knowledge not natural. I think natural knowledge however does lead one to conclude belief in God…Christianity certainly is reasonable but it is revealed not proven from philosophy…so yeah a faith step is necessary.

You say there is not a shred of evidence, I do not want to make this thread into a discussion on something that its not, but I think that sort of shows how you aren’t being fair…I mean the 100s of miracles in support of Catholicism and the deep philosophical tradition in support of God and the many other arguments are all evidence. Even belief from very reasonable and intelligent people is at least some evidence for God…if you want to discount this evidence as false or say the alternative evidence is stronger thats up to you…but it is not an argument with integrity to say “no evidence” when evidence that persuades reasonable people has been presented…

Lastly, I still think you have not given any reason why you can assume something comes from nothing or that the universe began without a cause…I am not discussing the other arguments you want us to find refutations to with simple google searches (I have searced and I am unipressed with much of what I have seen)…The arguments that you aren’t addressing though would be how does something come from nothing and how does the universe begin uncaused???
I think one is hardpressed to state that the universe exists without sufficient reason and without a cause and exists out of nothing…

 

[dshix]

I don’t listen to scientists with ardor anymore. In the past, I just took what they said for granted as true. No longer.

Peace,
Ed

I listen to scientists on matters of science; it is their field. I do not listen to them about religion because they know absolutely nothing about religion.

In the same way, I listen to my priest concerning religion, but not science, unless he happened to be a scientist before becoming a priest.

 

[edwest2]

Because I can.

Sarah x

??? Or to put it another way ???

Ed

 

[TomD123]

they may be a *product * of time and entropy, but Hawking hypothesises that the law is *held in existence * by the relationship between gravity and mass.

It has quite a lot to do with God. If valid, it means that there is a plausible way for the universe to exist without devine intervention.

I think this isn’t entirely true…those things need God…that which is contingent needs an external explanation

 

[SonCatcher]

I appreciate your friendly and charitable reply.

Sarah x

It distresses me equally to see logic so abused. St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian, not a scientist as we know science today. The Prime Mover argument is disjoint from the Big Bang Theory, despite similar appearances.

 

[SonCatcher]

??? Or to put it another way ???

Ed

Because people of all beliefs or lack thereof are invited by this forum to participate in charitable discussion about Catholicism.

 

[dshix]

It distresses me equally to see logic so abused. St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian, not a scientist as we know science today. The Prime Mover argument is disjoint from the Big Bang Theory, despite similar appearances.

Do you care to elaborate on what you mean?

 

[edwest2]

I listen to scientists on matters of science; it is their field. I do not listen to them about religion because they know absolutely nothing about religion.

In the same way, I listen to my priest concerning religion, but not science, unless he happened to be a scientist before becoming a priest.

It doesn’t work that way for me or the Church, or some posters here.

1. “According to science, your holy book is wrong, here, here and here.” Do they have a shred of science to back them up? NO. Or, “According to science, man could detect god/gods like in your holy book.” What science? Where? There isn’t any.
2. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church has infallibly declared that the universe has a finite age.
3. Scientists write books about beings they can’t study, especially the Christian God. And their work obviously has an effect on what they believe.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Look up Gregor Mendel. There were a number of Catholic religious who made scientific discoveries.

Peace,
Ed

 

[atheistgirl]

so yeah a faith step is necessary.

A faith I don’t have.

but I think that sort of shows how you aren’t being fair…I mean the 100s of miracles in support of Catholicism and the deep philosophical tradition in support of God and the many other arguments are all evidence. Even belief from very reasonable and intelligent people is at least some evidence for God…if you want to discount this evidence as false or say the alternative evidence is stronger thats up to you…but it is not an argument with integrity to say “no evidence” when evidence that persuades reasonable people has been presented…

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.

Lastly, I still think you have not given any reason why you can assume something comes from nothing or that the universe began without a cause…

I haven’t said that.

I said there probably is no such thing as absolutely nothing, and that science will give us the answers.

Sarah x

 

[johnnyjones]

If you suscribe to a non deity creation your stuck with explaining the miraculous appearing of the cosmic elements that made all that we know possible. Unless you want to call those elements “god”. It seems to me that infinite matter and an infinite God are very different though, but they both require an almost equal faith to the consternation of the non deist.

 

[dshix]

It doesn’t work that way for me or the Church, or some posters here.

1. “According to science, your holy book is wrong, here, here and here.” Do they have a shred of science to back them up? NO. Or, “According to science, man could detect god/gods like in your holy book.” What science? Where? There isn’t any.
2. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church has infallibly declared that the universe has a finite age.
3. Scientists write books about beings they can’t study, especially the Christian God. And their work obviously has an effect on what they believe.

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Look up Gregor Mendel. There were a number of Catholic religious who made scientific discoveries.

Peace,
Ed

That’s what I just said. Listen to scientists on matters of science, listen to the Church on matters of religion.

 

[dshix]

I don’t think faith is necessary to prove the existence of God. Many people I know have found God through reason alone.

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t listen to scientists with ardor anymore. In the past, I just took what they said for granted as true. No longer.

Peace,
Ed

The point was that it is hypocritical to complain about someone else’s experts when you rely on your own.

 

[atheistgirl]

It seems to me that infinite matter and an infinite God are very different though, but they both require an almost equal faith to the consternation of the non deist.

Nothing gets me consternated.

I’m just not that kinda gal

Sarah x