Does the Big Bang Suggest a Creator God?

[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

I also should have used running water as an example. I have to get nit picky don’t I?

Or an even better one. Trying to climb to the top of the CN tower with straws.

 

[dshix]

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.

There are no scientific arguments for the existence of God, only logical arguments made through the use of reason.

For that matter, science cannot say anything concerning God, because science is a study of the physical world and cannot speak for anything outside this world.

 

[johnnyjones]

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

Your better as an agnostic. But still likeable (at this moment )

 

[Ridgerunner]

As a person of faith, I find myself, oddly enough, agreeing with Atheistgirl in part, though I do not agree with her methodology.

The Big Bang (if it was real) may seem supportive of the idea of God, including the God of Christians and Jews, because it has a remarkable resemblance to the beginning of the Genesis story; a resemblance that most ancient creation stories do not have.

But that doesn’t PROVE there is a God.

Science might just be thwarted at the Big Bang from ever really knowing what caused it. some have postulated the idea that the Big Bang was caused by the intersection of two dimensional membrances. But no one has ever seen a membrane, they just posit them because doing so makes the math work for some of them, though not for all. And certainly nobody knows how membranes came to be if, indeed, they exist. And nobody knows what they’re made of or what their properties are, and nobody is ever likely to know.

None of that is really “science” in its strictest sense. “Science” happens only when things can be demonstrated and duplicated experimentally. Nobody can duplicate “strings” or “branes” or even “black holes”, though some think perhaps they might demonstrate consequences of them. It’s all just a way to make the math work in a fairly consistent manner.

Nobody knows much about particle physics, and there are some who don’t think we ever will know much about it. With it as well, we start getting into mathematical models that either have mathematical holes or illogical bits of them, or don’t.

We might be up against a lot of brick walls from a truly scientific standpoint and possibly even from a mathematical one.

None of that tells us for a certainty that there is a God or that there’s not, because there seem to be limits to what can be plumbed from a scientific standpoint.

So where do we go from there? Well, it certainly isn’t illogical to posit the God of the Christians. Nothing in science, and certainly not Hawking, can prove there isn’t. But is that enough? Simply being unable to prove there is NOT a God?

Probably not. But neither can we dismiss those propositions that suggest there IS a God. They might not convince some, but they cannot be categorically dismissed as erroneous on their own terms.

Nor can we really dismiss all miracles. They are called “miracles” precisely because no one has been other to explain them by purely natural means. That doesn’t mean they’re truly the intervention of God, but even a skeptic has to admit that one cannot truly explain them other than by simply inventing alternative explanations that no one has been able to demonstrate.

Skepticism, when it comes to the question of God has an internal supremacy all its own. If I choose not to believe in God or don’t find any “proofs” convincing, then my skepticism will reign supreme, precisely because I can’t put God on a slide or re-create Him in a test tube, or demonstrate Him even as a mathematical necessity. I can’t do it, because if He is what the Christians say He is, he is “utterly other”, entirely beyond our power to fully grasp, by His very nature. We should not think that so odd when we can’t even figure out whether “membranes” exist or what they are if they do exist. Physicists and laypeople alike admit that if they exist they’re “utterly other” as well. But many choose to believe in “branes”, but not in God. That’s a choice between things, neither of which can be analyzed or proved by human means.

Therefore, we need to admit that we are never going to prove to one who elects to be skeptical in the way that person demands that proof be submitted.

But there are other things. Recall the biblical story of Moses when God was not in the fire or in the whirlwind, but in the whisper.

If there is a God having the basic nature the Christians say He has, including the infinite measure of knowledge, wisdom and all other virtues, then He cannot fail to know we’re here, by His very nature. If he has the fullness of all virtues, He cannot fail to care.

But if He is truly the infinite God of the Christians, and if He cares, He would want us to know something about Him. But He can’t fill our finite brain cells with infinity. He can’t really “tell us His full name”. Does the biblical assertion that no living man can look at the face of God and live essentially mean that? We could probably not be immediately flooded with every mathematical and chemical formula involved in an ordinary star and survive the experience. Rather, He would speak to us “in our own tongue”, in ways we could understand. The Christians claim He has and does.

I am sometimes put to wonder about those who, realizing there are trillions of planets in the universe and say the law of averages demands that on some of them there must be intelligences superior to our own…perhaps as inscrutable to us as we are to a blind sea slug. And yet, they refuse to go beyond that. We require that the superintelligent beings
exist, and yet refuse to accept that there can possibly be one that “thought” the entire universe, membranes and whatever makes membranes into being.

(aghhh! too long…will continue)

 

[Ridgerunner]

continued…

And so my own skepticism prompts me, then, to doubt the doubt as an artifical construct itself, and furthermore to doubt the validity of my own doubting in the face of a universe I know for certain that neither I nor anybody else is going to be fully explain in a strictly human way.

And then thinking, about the existence of God, “why isn’t it so” and knowing there is no valid answer to that, and cannot be, yet knowing there definitely seem to be those “whisperings”, that “speaking in our own tongue”, I am led to believe rather than to disbelieve. Am I a bit disappointed that it’s “whisperings” instead of legions of angels and trumpets? Well, a little. But if there’s a God, then He’s God and I’m not. I dont’ get to rule Him.

No, I dont’ claim to be a philosopher, scientist or theologian. But I do know that mere skepticism is not, in itself, adequate, in beholding the universe and the inklings of mysteries we will never fully comprehend, to cause me to disbelieve.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

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.

Since you refer every inquiry to the sciences, I would say Science is your Deity, and Darwin is its prophet.

 

[mymamamary]

There are no scientific arguments for the existence of God, only logical arguments made through the use of reason.

For that matter, science cannot say anything concerning God, because science is a study of the physical world and cannot speak for anything outside this world.

I said scientific discoveries, not arguements. Philosophical arguements? yes there are…

 

[dshix]

I said scientific discoveries, not arguements. Philosophical arguements? yes there are…

Fine. There are not scientific discoveries that directly prove the existence of God; you can only use these discoveries to find His existence through reason.

 

[atheistgirl]

Or an even better one. Trying to climb to the top of the CN tower with straws.

It could be done

Especially if your straw were baled



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Since you refer every inquiry to the sciences, I would say Science is your Deity, and Darwin is its prophet.

The beauty of science is it’s not a deity, and Darwin is so last century

Sarah x

 

[murraymuzz]

I don’t believe it does personally, there is no way of knowing if anything existed before the singularity event, because at the singularity all known laws of physics breakdown, I personally think it is impossible for humanity to know with certainty what exists outside our universe.

However as I believe in God, and the Catholic Church, I do believe at some point something came ex nihlo and the big bang doesn’t have to be viewed as the something out of nothing event.

 

[dshix]

I don’t believe it does personally, there is no way of knowing if anything existed before the singularity event, because at the singularity all known laws of physics breakdown, I personally think it is impossible for humanity to know with certainty what exists outside our universe.

However as I believe in God, and the Catholic Church, I do believe at some point something came ex nihlo and the big bang doesn’t have to be viewed as the something out of nothing event.

Very true, very true.

 

[shoe]

Yes or no? Why?

Yes, I think so. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that no new material exists in nature that can give an account of its own existence; therefore, if the big bang created the conditions that brought about the universe, then some Power initially had to be outside and not part of the natural universe to ignite the fuse. Natural processes simply cannot create energy - from nothing comes nothing. Therefore, if a person believes in the Big Bang theory, then it follows logically that he or she must also believe that something Supernatural caused it, because to believe otherwise is to deny the very laws of physics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Therefore, if a person believes in the Big Bang theory, then it follows logically that he or she must also believe that something Supernatural caused it, because to believe otherwise is to deny the very laws of physics.

This is a jump Shoe. You can’t go from the Big Bang to supernatural just like that, because some natural thing might have caused the Big Bang, and some physicists think some natural thing did. But the more you dig, the less dirt it produces. We might be at an impenetrable wall with the Big Bang or if the “membrane folks” are right, we’re at the wall right before what may well be the impenetrable one.

 

[dshix]

This is a jump Shoe. You can’t go from the Big Bang to supernatural just like that, because some natural thing might have caused the Big Bang, and some physicists think some natural thing did. But the more you dig, the less dirt it produces. We might be at an impenetrable wall with the Big Bang or if the “membrane folks” are right, we’re at the wall right before what may well be the impenetrable one.

You are correct. We can’t go directly from the Big Bang all the way to God, but rather from the Big Bang through a sequence of reasoning, to God.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Have to go do other things now, folks, so I have to leave it with you, interesting though it is.

By the time I come back, which will probably not be for a couple of days, I suspect this thread will have become a singularity.

Be of good cheer!

 

[AugustSon]

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

I can understand your frustrations, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. In the first, science deals with observable events using the 5 senses, augmented or not (use of telescopes, microscopes, etc). They can be used to investigate natural and physical phenomenon. What science CANNOT do is ever give a purpose. As in; we are comfortable with the fact that animal bones buried in rock strata from hundreds of thousands of years ago is good evidence that such fossils were at one time living creatures in the past. Can we prove it?.. No. We can INFER it, and thus make theories of the evolution of life on Earth. Darwin’s theory of how life mutates into more complex creatures is still just that… a theory. Even as a practicing catholic, I agree with Darwin’s theory, knowing as a scientists is does indeed have issues that have as yet been resolved.

Where we get MEANING and PURPOSE is in the discussion of philosophy, where we as creatures who `know that we know and can know’ use science to add to knowledge, and discernment and debate to derive meaning. Science can identify the pigments, age, canvas type, and frame wood of a Van Gogh painting, it cannot tell us WHY he painted it, or his intended purpose.

Science can add to philosophy, but it cannot replace it. Philosophy can add nothing to science, but can be used in its discussions and debates.

Might I suggest reading Dr. John Lennox, and Pope John Paul II’s `Fides et Ratio’ for a healthy dose of reasonable discussion in these matters.

 

[AugustSon]

I contend that the Big Bang does indeed suggest a creator god. One must remember the Augistinian cause which, despite disagreements to it, holds a known scientific basis for its trustworthiness: something cannot come from nothing. F=ma, any way you slice it. Things are caused. The Big Bang (which I contend, as a professor on astronomy, has been badly named) is a unique event in that before its first planck-time moment, none of the known quantities of physical reality existed; neither time, space, mass, energy or gravity existed. Technically, there wasn’t even a nothing, as nothing implies a something to signify it is differentiated. Be that as it may (and apologies for attempts to get brains wrapped around THAT one!), the Big Bang was the prime expression of the physical Universe. It was a definitive beginning with that ushered into existence a physical reality called the Universe. Simply put; someone (God) had to create and throw the switch to begin it.

And before detractors clammer to suggest the multi-verse' version, note that as reasonable creatures with reason enabled mind, Occam's Razor still stands: adding multiple universes to increase the mathematical probability of our Universe eventually creating’ life is just adding the number of dice to a bucket in hopes that a few more of them will probably' roll out a one. This is not science; this is pseudo-science of the gaps’.

Bottom line: there was nothing, there was everything, instantaneously in all places, allowing for physical laws to rule over the quark-soup to disperseit all into the matter, energy , time and space we now know, see and observe. As a scientist, I do not need to add `unseeable-dice’ to the bucket. I go on what we know: there was nothing, and something HAD to cause the something.

I believe that Big Bang instigator is God.

 

[edwest2]

I can understand your frustrations, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. In the first, science deals with observable events using the 5 senses, augmented or not (use of telescopes, microscopes, etc). They can be used to investigate natural and physical phenomenon. What science CANNOT do is ever give a purpose. As in; we are comfortable with the fact that animal bones buried in rock strata from hundreds of thousands of years ago is good evidence that such fossils were at one time living creatures in the past. Can we prove it?.. No. We can INFER it, and thus make theories of the evolution of life on Earth. Darwin’s theory of how life mutates into more complex creatures is still just that… a theory. Even as a practicing catholic, I agree with Darwin’s theory, knowing as a scientists is does indeed have issues that have as yet been resolved.

Where we get MEANING and PURPOSE is in the discussion of philosophy, where we as creatures who `know that we know and can know’ use science to add to knowledge, and discernment and debate to derive meaning. Science can identify the pigments, age, canvas type, and frame wood of a Van Gogh painting, it cannot tell us WHY he painted it, or his intended purpose.

Science can add to philosophy, but it cannot replace it. Philosophy can add nothing to science, but can be used in its discussions and debates.

Might I suggest reading Dr. John Lennox, and Pope John Paul II’s `Fides et Ratio’ for a healthy dose of reasonable discussion in these matters.

May I suggest you hang out here long enough to read posts where science conquers all? May I suggest the following:

amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0143037889

Nope. Science has become the replacement of God for too many. And it answers all the other problems with neuroscience. Don’t you know we’re just bags of chemicals that respond to outside stimuli? Kind of like flatworms but with more appendages and the ability to drive.

I’m not familiar with Dr. John Lennox but I will read “Fides et Ratio.”

Best,
Ed

 

[mymamamary]

I contend that the Big Bang does indeed suggest a creator god. One must remember the Augistinian cause which, despite disagreements to it, holds a known scientific basis for its trustworthiness: something cannot come from nothing. F=ma, any way you slice it. Things are caused. The Big Bang (which I contend, as a professor on astronomy, has been badly named) is a unique event in that before its first planck-time moment, none of the known quantities of physical reality existed; neither time, space, mass, energy or gravity existed. Technically, there wasn’t even a nothing, as nothing implies a something to signify it is differentiated. Be that as it may (and apologies for attempts to get brains wrapped around THAT one!), the Big Bang was the prime expression of the physical Universe. It was a definitive beginning with that ushered into existence a physical reality called the Universe. Simply put; someone (God) had to create and throw the switch to begin it.

And before detractors clammer to suggest the multi-verse' version, note that as reasonable creatures with reason enabled mind, Occam's Razor still stands: adding multiple universes to increase the mathematical probability of our Universe eventually creating’ life is just adding the number of dice to a bucket in hopes that a few more of them will probably' roll out a one. This is not science; this is pseudo-science of the gaps’.

Bottom line: there was nothing, there was everything, instantaneously in all places, allowing for physical laws to rule over the quark-soup to disperseit all into the matter, energy , time and space we now know, see and observe. As a scientist, I do not need to add `unseeable-dice’ to the bucket. I go on what we know: there was nothing, and something HAD to cause the something.

I believe that Big Bang instigator is God.

It can’t be a matter of belief. Its a matter of knowledge. The Universe is WAAAAYYYYY too complex and big to have just erupted on its own, and be able to form life, especially like Our human bodies as complex as they are. Of course, humans are just one of the MAAAANNNYYY complex things on this planet. Now, a Big Bang jsut randomly happening and creating all this around me is far too random and not likely, according to the odds of Quantum Physics.