Does the Big Bang Suggest a Creator God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fomalhaut said:
I’m not going to reply to these posts. My answers are in my previous messages in the thread. Feel free to read them. Linusthe2nd, I tried, and visibly failed, to make you understand how science works. There’s not much I can do for you now. Feel free to strut around about your victory.
Click to expand...
You have the wrong picture. There are no " victors " in the search for Truth, only finders. As the Gospel parable goes “…a certain man, crossing a field, found a great treasure. He immeciately sold all he had and purchased the field…” That is what it is all about, finding the Truth and hanging on to it until the end. No reason to " strut " involved. Christ died for us all, we are His whether we recognize it or not. But we have a better chance of finding the Treasure if we co-operat with Him. 👍
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Formalhaut

**The name is confusing and scientific outreach on the subject doesn’t help. No the Big Bang was not a huge explosion that came out of nothing and allowed matter to flow everywhere. The Big Bang was a dense and hot state of the universe, long ago. We don’t know what happened to it before. **

You are begging the question.

Time began 14 billion years ago. There is no “before” that. There is nothing in the theory to suggest that the universe had no start. This is only the fondest wish of atheists everywhere that it is so. :rolleyes:

The universe is getting bigger every day as galaxies fly farther apart in every direction. So let’s not kid ourselves that the universe at the start was just a hot dense state that always existed and didn’t need to expand into its present size because there was no one behind the universe to start the fireworks.
Click to expand...
Your post got me to thinking, is there an “end” our boundary to space? I too have always believed that the universe is constantly expanding.

The idea that it had no start and is just there conjures images of a giant snowglobe. Does that mean when the universe reaches the edge it will collide with a giant glass wall and bounce back?
 
Tony

Your questions are good ones. Nobody knows the answers except God. 😉
 
Linux

**No. I don’t believe that science can discover an ultimate point where they can say physics stops here. There may be a multi-verse. **

But we can never prove it; there is nothing in the Big Bang that suggests multi-verse; so that’s fiction, not science.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Linux

**No. I don’t believe that science can discover an ultimate point where they can say
I don’t think you are really answering my question but making a straw-man.odphysics stops here. There may be a multi-verse. **

But we can never prove it; there is nothing in the Big Bang that suggests multi-verse; so that’s fiction, not science.
Click to expand...
Yet there is a reasonable possibility that a multi-verse exists. So I don’t see why the big-bang a-prior would suggest a God; God cannot be proven by the scientific method either. So I don’t understand why a lack of evidence regarding a multi-verse would make God a more likely cause.
 
Linux

**Yet there is a reasonable possibility that a multi-verse exists. So I don’t see why the big-bang a-prior would suggest a God; God cannot be proven by the scientific method either. So I don’t understand why a lack of evidence regarding a multi-verse would make God a more likely cause. **

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Linux

**Yet there is a reasonable possibility that a multi-verse exists. So I don’t see why the big-bang a-prior would suggest a God; God cannot be proven by the scientific method either. So I don’t understand why a lack of evidence regarding a multi-verse would make God a more likely cause. **

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Click to expand...
These are not arguments.
 
Linux

Yet there is a reasonable possibility that a multi-verse exists. So I don’t see why the big-bang a-prior would suggest a God; God cannot be proven by the scientific method either.

There is just as reasonable a possibility that God exists. More reasonable.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove everything that we know. If that were so, we would have to use it to prove morality, aesthetics, political principles, history, etc. Clearly impossible a method, yet we believe many things to be true without scientific proof.

Do you agree? :confused:
 
Linus

**These are not arguments. **

They are more arguments than your silly multi-verse! 😃
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Linux

Yet there is a reasonable possibility that a multi-verse exists. So I don’t see why the big-bang a-prior would suggest a God; God cannot be proven by the scientific method either.

There is just as reasonable a possibility that God exists. More reasonable.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove everything that we know. If that were so, we would have to use it to prove morality, aesthetics, political principles, history, etc. Clearly impossible a method, yet we believe many things to be true without scientific proof.

Do you agree? :confused:
Click to expand...
While you can prove logically that God exists and is the cause of physical reality in general, you cannot prove logically or scientifically that he is the direct cause of this particular universe or that this is the only universe that God created. Therefore I don’t see the big-bang as a-prior suggesting a creator in the direct sense of the word as opposed to an evolution of universes of which God is the ultimate cause. A beginning of this universe is not necessarily the beginning of physical reality itself.

You were the one that said a lack of scientific evidence makes something fictional, not me.
 
Linux

**You were the one that said a lack of scientific evidence makes something fictional, not me. **

Yes, and I am still waiting for your evidence of a multi-verse.

There is evidence in Genesis that the universe originally contained a great blast of light. Science has confirmed this.

Where has science offered evidence confirming the existence of more than one universe? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Linux

**You were the one that said a lack of scientific evidence makes something fictional, not me. **

Yes, and I am still waiting for your evidence of a multi-verse.

There is evidence in Genesis that the universe originally contained a great blast of light. Science has confirmed this.

Where has science offered evidence confirming the existence of more than one universe? :confused:
Click to expand...
First, you cannot use the Bible as evidence. You can take it as a starting point, and compare observations to what it says. But assuming it is true and using it as evidence is circular reasoning. As for the multiverse, there is no evidence yet, but we have some ideas on how to observe it. Wait a few decades, that’s not the first time science predicts the existence of something before it is found.
 
Formalhaut

**First, you cannot use the Bible as evidence. You can take it as a starting point, and compare observations to what it says. But assuming it is true and using it as evidence is circular reasoning. **

I did not use circular reasoning. I assumed what the Bible said to be true, and then science proved it to be true. How is that circular reasoning? Sounds like the opposite of circular reasoning to me.

**As for the multiverse, there is no evidence yet, but we have some ideas on how to observe it. Wait a few decades, that’s not the first time science predicts the existence of something before it is found. **

Your faith in science to prove anything it sets its mind to prove is most touching. Even a million years from now you could say, “Well, we haven’t got the evidence of another universe, but we’ll have it some day no doubt.”

How is that so different from the faith of those who believe in God without requiring scientific evidence? :confused:
 
Linux said:
Yet there is a reasonable possibility that a multi-verse exists. So I don’t see why the big-bang a-prior would suggest a God; God cannot be proven by the scientific method either. So I don’t understand why a lack of evidence regarding a multi-verse would make God a more likely cause.
Click to expand...
The multiverse scenario is pure speculation and runs into the difficulty of compounding rather than simplifying the explanation. Rather than just explaining the origin of the universe, multiverse theories are saddled with explaining the origin of a mechanism by which an infinite number of universes can be “cranked out.” The multiverse merely “puts off” explanation by appealing to a more complex, and far less likely, scenario.

I think Paul Davies also answered this with the observation that if anything like a multiverse were the case we are stuck with trying to explain why we do not find ourselves in the situation of living in a far smaller and far more likely mini version of our universe.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Linux

**You were the one that said a lack of scientific evidence makes something fictional, not me. **

Yes, and I am still waiting for your evidence of a multi-verse.

There is evidence in Genesis that the universe originally contained a great blast of light. Science has confirmed this.
Click to expand...
Genesis is not a science book. If it were, then i would have to say the bible is false since the world is older than 10,000 years old.
 
Linux said:
While you can prove logically that God exists and is the cause of physical reality in general, you cannot prove logically or scientifically that he is the direct cause of this particular universe or that this is the only universe that God created. Therefore I don’t see the big-bang as a-prior suggesting a creator in the direct sense of the word as opposed to an evolution of universes of which God is the ultimate cause. A beginning of this universe is not necessarily the beginning of physical reality itself.

You were the one that said a lack of scientific evidence makes something fictional, not me.
Click to expand...
But there is absolutely no evidence that there are or have been other universe. That is pure speculation. But, as you say, if there are other universes God created them as well.
Our universe has a First Cause, which has attributes which could only exist in the nature of the God of Christianity. In either case there could only be one such cause no matter how many universes you might imagine. There can be only one Pure Act of Existence. 👍
 
Fomalhaut said:
First, you cannot use the Bible as evidence. You can take it as a starting point, and compare observations to what it says. But assuming it is true and using it as evidence is circular reasoning. As for the multiverse, there is no evidence yet, but we have some ideas on how to observe it. Wait a few decades, that’s not the first time science predicts the existence of something before it is found.
Click to expand...
The multiverse is in principle unobservable, and thus can never be science. This is not about current limitations of science, but about principal limitations of science.

For a detailed discussion, see chapter 1.3.4. of my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm
 
Linux said:
Genesis is not a science book. If it were, then i would have to say the bible is false since the world is older than 10,000 years old.
Click to expand...
Where in the Bible does it say that, specifically, without additional interpretation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top