Does the Big Bang Suggest a Creator God?

[zro_x]

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

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.

 

[SonCatcher]

Do you care to elaborate on what you mean?

what you said, naturally:

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

 

[edwest2]

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

The more I read posts like this, the less trust I have for scientists. On scientific matters, I prefer the Church’s explanations. Science has dropped off my radar on subjects like this. I’ve seen the same illogical arguments posted here over and over again.

Best,
Ed

 

[dshix]

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.

You could claim that something can come into existence without being caused, but it is not really logical. No caused thing can create itself, so without something causing it, it cannot come into existence.

 

[dshix]

what you said, naturally:

Ah, I see.

The more I read posts like this, the less trust I have for scientists. On scientific matters, I prefer the Church’s explanations. Science has dropped off my radar on subjects like this. I’ve seen the same illogical arguments posted here over and over again.

Best,
Ed

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.

 

[flyinghouse]

I like how a person “without faith” can still somehow predict with zero evidence that science will provide the answers to everything.

 

[flyinghouse]

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.

Don’t hold your breath.

 

[dshix]

Don’t hold your breath.

Hold my breath? Heh. What do you mean?

 

[zro_x]

You could claim that something can come into existence without being caused, but it is not really logical. No caused thing can create itself, so without something causing it, it cannot come into existence.

There is nothing about an effect without a cause that violates logic. It only violates our intuition and personal experience.

I’d like to mention here that even though I am defending the zero-energy universe hypothesis, I am not saying that this is definitely the way that the universe formed, only that it is plausible and consistent with our observations of the universe, and that even if it were true, it would present no threat to Catholocism.

 

[flyinghouse]

Hold my breath? Heh. What do you mean?

idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Don’t+hold+your+breath

 

[MHT32]

According to atheists it doesnt, to me im kinda neutral on whether it suggests there is a creator. We dont know if the Big Bang happened or not, its a theory. But if the Big Bang happened, then one could assume that God would have been behind it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

Was post # 38 page 3 so difficult you couldn’t answer it?

 

[dshix]

There is nothing about an effect without a cause that violates logic. It only violates our intuition and personal experience.

I’d like to mention here that even though I am defending the zero-energy universe hypothesis, I am not saying that this is definitely the way that the universe formed, only that it is plausible and consistent with our observations of the universe, and that even if it were true, it would present no threat to Catholocism.

First off, I’ll just say I agree 100% with your second paragraph; these kind of discussions are interesting and enjoyable, and the Church does not command us to believe either way.

Having said that, I respectfully disagree. If there is an uncaused cause, that means it must not have had a beginning. The reason for this logic is because if it had a beginning, something must have set it into motion. Therefore, if you accept the premise that the cause in question had no beginning, then it must be infinte.

That, from a Catholic perspective, is God. He is the uncaused cause which caused all other things.

 

[dshix]

atheistgirl

Was post # 38 page 3 so difficult you couldn’t answer it?

No, atheistgirl just doesn’t care to actually have intelligent debate.

 

[dshix]

idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Don’t+hold+your+breath

lol.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

dshix

**That, from a Catholic perspective, is God. He is the uncaused cause which caused all other things. **

Right. Having created the principle of causality, how can God be subject to it?

 

[zro_x]

Having said that, I respectfully disagree. If there is an uncaused cause, that means it must not have had a beginning.

Why is that, logically?

 

[dshix]

dshix

**That, from a Catholic perspective, is God. He is the uncaused cause which caused all other things. **

Right. Having created the principle of causality, how can God be subject to it?

Indeed.

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl

Was post # 38 page 3 so difficult you couldn’t answer it?

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

 

[dshix]

Why is that, logically?

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.