Is The Big Bang Really Proof Of Gods Existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cecilianus said:
Spiritual in this case does not mean rational, however; but all living things have souls. Animals souls are not “spiritual” in the same way that ours are, but they aren’t something physical that you can measure - they’re just “bound up” with matter, so to speak, and don’t exist on their own as a separate substance.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge your assertion that consciousness cannot be a physical phenomenon. I haven’t seen anything to back that up other than your personal experience of consciousness.

I have no more to say.
 
mangy_dog said:
My mind is simpler and I don’t tend to see these enormously complicated questions in the light of science.
Click to expand...
Hello “Mangy”. I will use your post to make a summery of my ideas on the matter.
mangy_dog said:
Outside of that point there exists…something. Or is it just that we can’t imagine anything beyond the point of origin?

Sorry everyone, I told you it was simplistic.🤷
Click to expand...
Well its not that simple if one claims that “all” time space energy & matter began to exist.

If all such things began to exist, then one must either say that all such things came out of absolutely nothing for no reason; or, if you are like me whom believes that all things must have a sufficient foundation of being in order to be intelligible, then one must believe that the foundation of our universe is in fact a different order of being that is not space time energy and matter. Which means that we are dealing with something which cannot be defined by physical dimensions. We are witnessing through inference that which is “pure being”, that which simply “is”. We are dealing with something that is timeless and space-less and is in itself by nature of being pure-actuality.

If we are not in fact dealing with a supernatural entity, and yet we are not so intellectual void that we would believe that potentiality exists in nothing, then there is only one last hope for naturalism. Promoters of such a position would have to posit the existence of an infinite number of universes that exists outside of the singularity, and they must also have a sufficient causal connection to the singularity; one that doesn’t defy logic. Hence the many imaginative multi-verse theories.

But, besides the fact that i am ravenously opposed to the concept of an actual infinite, is it really meaningful or logical to suggest that other spaces exists “outside of” space? Some people, including scientists it would seem, would suggest that the very concept is meaningless. Some have instead suggested regions of space. But this cannot be anything more then a relative term since they would all be connected to the same space. They are not disconnected. Also, there is not any scientific evidence to suggest that there are in fact multi-verses in the same sense that we are the causal result. Reading various articles on the topic has given me the impression that the multi-verse will never be anything more then an unprovable hypothesis.

This is why i think that perhaps the idea of the multi-verse is a subjective creation based not on evidence as such but is merely the out pouring of a naturalistic front.

There can be no empirical proof of God, but with out the multi-verse, the Big Bang is a sufficient inductive proof of the supernatural.

The real Question of this thread should be the following: Is there any good reason to accept the hypothesis of a multi-verse. Or has naturalism broken its last leg.
 
MindOverMatter said:
The real Question of this thread should be the following: Is there any good reason to accept the hypothesis of a multi-verse. Or has naturalism broken its last leg.
Click to expand...
No. I see no reason to accept the theory of a “multi-verse”. It’s empirically unverified - and in principle impossible to verify - and no explanation has been given as to how the collapse of a wave-function in another universe (the only cause I’ve seen posited as to how universes “duplicate” - but then again I don’t study these theories; I stick with real science) could cause the creation of an entire universe like our own. Frankly, it seems like rather an underwhelming explanation.
 
Frankly, I’m not sure how a “multi-verse” theory could be used to explain the Big Bang.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Did you write this? If so can you please go in to more detail as to why God is the cause of Quantum events?
Click to expand...
Quantum, like all other natural sciences, is a study of causes through their effects. What do you call the cause of quantum physics? Who or what enforces the laws of physics besides God?
 
I have not read the entire thread but I will share my mother’s opinion which has served me well:

“There was a BIG BANG…then God created the earth.”
 
Geremia said:
Quantum, like all other natural sciences, is a study of causes through their effects. What do you call the cause of quantum physics? Who or what enforces the laws of physics besides God?
Click to expand...
HUP??? That isn’t the Copenhagen interpretation…
 
Geremia said:
The creation of the earth is just the later stages of the Big Bang, though.
Click to expand...
You are tough! OK there was a big bang, then, among other things that happened God, who does things in His own way, created the earth in a manner that would cause us to question His business for all time instead of accepting it on faith that He did create the earth and it is really none of our business how, we should just be happy He did it for us out of love that we don’t return very well. 🤷
 
57classic said:
You are tough! OK there was a big bang, then, among other things that happened God, who does things in His own way, created the earth in a manner that would cause us to question His business for all time instead of accepting it on faith that He did create the earth and it is really none of our business how, we should just be happy He did it for us out of love that we don’t return very well. 🤷
Click to expand...
The Big Bang is a theory, and faith obtains more knowledge of God than human reason and theories do. Read this, especially the Catechism of the Council of Trent quote. Also, what you say reminds me very much of Job 38.
 
Geremia said:
Physics Can Demonstrate God’s Existence
Click to expand...
I read the article, “Physics Can Demonstrate God’s Existence” and must disagree with its thesis. The views of Aristotle and Aquinas are misrepresented in the article. In the Aristotelian-Thomistic view there is a scientific physics and a philosophical physics. Aristotle’s work *De Physica * contains both. The science of physics is concerned with matter in motion. This physics deals specifically with the quantifiable aspects of phenomenal reality. One cannot argue from quantities to God’s existence. The existence of God remains beyond the scope and competence of any natural science. In other words, physics has nothing to say about God since God is beyond and above phenomenal reality.

We can demonstrate the existence of a First Cause or God by reflecting on the created world, its motion, contingency, design, and so on. But this involves a philosophical reflection on causality. Physics or any science does not reach to the level of causality itself. This is a matter for meta-physics or first philosophy. Only a philosophical or meta-physical demonstration can be made for the existence of a Prime Mover, Uncaused Cause, or God.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory and as such it has nothing to say about God’s existence. The Big Bang suggests to some people the idea of Creation, but science cannot prove creatio ex nihilo because it cannot address the nothing. Big Bang theory can tell us the age of the universe but it cannot tell us when the universe was created. Physics deals with the quantifiable and creatio ex nihilo is not quantifiable, even in principle.

If a physicists speaks about God’s existence he is not speaking as a physicist, he is speaking as a philosopher, or as a man with philosophical or religious beliefs. The distinctions are of critical importance for understanding the scope and competence of natural science.
 
The Big Bang argument is not established on a solid ground.

Due to the limited time of observations of our universe, imaginations of the origin of the world can be observed in our universe today.

The origin of the universe are much far from now.
This is a common conceptual mistake of scientists.

Scientists are imagining of space migration without minimal understanding of the planet we situated in.

The nature of the Earth has explained the non-existence of lives in other planets nearby.
The Earth is full of living organisms (including bacteria) because it is a conscious living object.
When the live of a planet has come to an end, all living objects inside will be extinct.

Why pushing the post of old thought back and fro without accepting the reality that the Earth is a conscious living object?

Nowadays, philosophers become the conservative churches in the past.

The destructions of the life cycles of the Earth will be resulted in extinctions of all of our kinds.

Please start discussion on the conscious Earth now.
We do not have much time left if our civilizations continue to grow in the current speed.

DO NOT HIDE THE TRUTH OF EXTINCTIONS

**Philosophers, the old days are not coming back if you deny the existences of the God ****– **A Conscious Earth.

Teru Wong
 
Shlomo said:
“Big Bang” is just euphemism for “Creation”.

It is one of the examples of theists and atheists believing largely in the same but using different words:

vinishsky.com/pseudo-controversies
Click to expand...
I do not think all atheists believe the universe had to be created. In fact, many believe that eternal physical matter is all there is (materialism). Also, that “We cannot research God scientifically and thus verify His existence” is not true. We may not be able to “research God” but we can definitely “verify His existence” (cf. “Physics can demonstrate God’s existence.”).
 
itinerant1;5709936But this involves a *philosophical [/quote said:
reflection on causality. Physics or any science does not reach to the level of causality itself. This is a matter for meta-physics or first philosophy. Only a philosophical or meta-physical demonstration can be made for the existence of a Prime Mover, Uncaused Cause, or God.

Would you mind defining the difference? Scientists aren’t sitting around trying hard to be non-philosophical; science studies matter and its nature, regardless of whether that becomes “philosophy” or not. The difference between “philosophy” and “science” is a linguistic difference referring to the method, not to the object of study. And science does reach the level of causality, insofar as there is any causality at the quantum level. (I would say that causality is what happens when you add up all the sum total of quantum events - but there ISN’T any causality in nature at the most basic level, in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Nature is statistical and random, and it isn’t there in reality you can’t insert it there with any “philosophy”, so I don’t really understand how a philosophical reflection on the created world is going to help much.)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top