Does the Big Bang Suggest a Creator God?

[samiam1611]

Is “sentience” material? Are truth, reason, consciousness, feelings, sensations material? Sure, thoughts are accompanied by observable physical neurological events, but thoughts aren’t material. It’s those that accompany them that are material (neurotransmitters, neuronal impulses etc.)

Yeah that’s what I meant. How can neurological events, such as thoughts, happen without neurotransmitters etc? I mean sentience can’t happen without a brain! Not that sentience itself is material.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Absolute nonesense !!

 

[mymamamary]

Really?

I don’t

Nothing

Sarah x

There has to be one thing that we place as our Golden Calf into Our Lives. Usually the thing that would cause us the most hurt to lose, and the thing that we need the most. So, although You don’t go bowing down to this or that, in reality, You do worship something. As for that fallacy, I think its the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I still don’t see the logic of a world this vast happening randomly. Every time such a theory is proposed, its shot out of the water.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

They live on pipe dreams. Their only argument is, " I don’t want God to exist, therefore He does not exist." They are like little children stamping their feet and screeming at top register, " NO, NO, NO, I don’t want that!!! " We see it all through this forum. :tiphat:

 

[mymamamary]

They live on pipe dreams. Their only argument is, " I don’t want God to exist, therefore He does not exist." They are like little children stamping their feet and screeming at top register, " NO, NO, NO, I don’t want that!!! " We see it all through this forum. :tiphat:

Yes indeed we do. In my mind, there is no such thing as a true athiest, or if there are, they are very rare and not well formed.

They are either Anti-Theist

or

Hardcore agnostic

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then why post here?

Best,
Ed

Exactly what I have been saying for some time. The reason is that we have given them a platform to spread their ideology. Of course they would deny that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

Let’s hope you see the difference. Besides they hand select the scientist they want to listen to. Still, all they have in the end is wishful thinking. We at least have philosophy, the Book, and Divine Revelation on our side. They have nothing but pipe dreams - and a lot of arrogant stubbornness.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Nothing, absolutely nothing can begin to exist without a cause and that cause can only be God. Defined Catholic Dogma. All Catholics must believe that to remain in union with the Church.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[billcu1]

Yes or no? Why?

Absolutely. Evolution is how we came to be. That’s how God works. We still have the muscles behind our ears that we once used to move our ears but few can use them. Life can be created from water alone.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s ok.

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

 

[Holly3278]

While I respect Steven Hawking as a brilliant scientist, I must say that he is wrong on this. The universe most certainly did need a creator to bring it into being. I might be misinterpreting what he is saying though.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Good suggestion for my Amozon gift card.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

I like " something had to cause something. " That is better than " something from nothing. " The latter expression always seems to confuse people.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If by Creator God you mean a sentient being, a deity, then no, not to me it doesn’t.
I don’t see how immaterial & sentience can go together, nor how something immaterial can produce (create) matter. That just seems so made up.

The God of Christianity is not " sentient. " He is Pure Existence. Which means is a living Intellect with a Will and Infinite Power Who Loves and Creates and Who operates most intimately as a primary efficient cause, sustainer, and director of all that exists outside Himself, drawing all theings to His desired end. Now, what is so bad or repugnant about that. Why all the fear ? Seems to me we have everything to gain and nothing to loose.

 

[atheistgirl]

atheistgirl

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

Really? Tell that to your fellow atheist, Richard Dawkins, who swears by Darwin…

You seem to be the one with issues with Dawkins - you tell him

I could care less about him and what he thinks and does

He is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

There has to be one thing that we place as our Golden Calf into Our Lives.

Well, actually, there doesn’t.

That might be true for you, but it’s not for me.

Sarah x

 

[samiam1611]

They live on pipe dreams. Their only argument is, " I don’t want God to exist, therefore He does not exist." They are like little children stamping their feet and screeming at top register, " NO, NO, NO, I don’t want that!!! " We see it all through this forum. :tiphat:

You’re being kind of rude. Putting a smiley face at the end doesn’t change that. What does not seeing convincing evidence of God have to do with pipe dreams? You guys are the ones who believe God loves you and have hope that there is eternal bliss when you die. Seems like you are the ones with the pipe dreams.

The God of Christianity is not " sentient. " He is Pure Existence. Which means is a living Intellect with a Will and Infinite Power Who Loves and Creates and Who operates most intimately as a primary efficient cause, sustainer, and director of all that exists outside Himself, drawing all theings to His desired end.

Well if you don’t believe God is sentient I’ll have to take your word on that, but the words you just used to describe Him indicate sentience to me. Love? Desire? Director? Intellect? That doesn’t indicate sentience to you? Not to mention you refer to God as Him, Father, Son, etc. If you didn’t see God as sentient wouldn’t you just refer to Him as “it”?

Now, what is so bad or repugnant about that. Why all the fear ? Seems to me we have everything to gain and nothing to lo-]o/-]se.

Hmm I don’t know how you got fear from my post, or that I thought the idea of God was bad or repugnant. I just don’t believe. Intellect in particular just does not work for me. What, it’s like magical thoughts floating around in the air without a brain making those thoughts? How could something invisible be capable of loving, creating matter, communicating with humans, and all that stuff?
I’d be interested in hearing you elaborate on what exactly you believe, if you could dumb it down a bit for me and explain how something invisible and non-sentient can have attributes such as those you mention. I mean I know you can’t literally explain how, but can you acknowledge that it is reasonable for me to believe that you believe in a sentient being bc of those attributes, and explain why I’m wrong?

And there^ you have a reason for atheists to be on this forum - not to spread their idealogy or stir up trouble, but to learn about others’ beliefs.

 

[shoe]

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.

I don’t think it’s a jump at all, actually. Physicists may think all they wish to think, but they cannot account for the origin of energy or matter, and therefore creation. The first law of thermodynamics is called the law of conservation, which says that energy can be converted from one form of energy to another form, but nothing exists that can create or destroy it. And since energy, or matter, cannot create itself, then an outside source Who is above all things must be the Creator (God); and since energy is no longer being created or destroyed, then physical creation of the universe is no longer taking place. I think that it’s safe to assume that the creation process that God used in the beginning to create the universe must have been a totally different process than any process that today’s physicists may create in the laboratory in the here and now. Consequently, physicists are unable to study the beginning of the universe (since it isn’t beginning) and say with any evidence that “some natural thing did” it. Personally, I think it’s more logical and makes more sense to say “some Supernatural thing did” it, since natural things didn’t exist until God created nature (big bang).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

Can you write posts longer than 2-3 sentences that never express a thought beyond tersely dismissing what others think? ?