Is The Big Bang Really Proof Of Gods Existence?

[JOHNONEVI]

Jesus first–exactly. God in the flesh. Consider the possibility of: science and pseudo-science. Consider: undefiled religion and the religion of science(so-called), aka: evolution. Throw in some theistic evolution for good measure. All of these cannot be true. They could all be false. What is the standard? Conclusions of depraved man based on unnecessary inference–or the unadulterated Word of God–long before Guttenburg. Curiously, the first book off the press was The Word of God. Wycliffe and Tyndale were persecuted to death for having tranlated the Word of God into the common vernacular. Who was it who gathered English Bibles and burned them–and their translators? The Prince of the Power of the Air?

God is still the potter–we are the clay. Where are the Soil Scientists? They may be debating the Soul Scientists. Read the end of the Book–the Soul Scientists win.

Selah,

James Least

I laud your insight. Science is discovery. It is a work in progress and will never be conclusive.Evidence of God is all around. But God can only be found within ourselves.Tyndale was swept up in religious persecution that resulted in genocide. His ideas were exploited and abused to further political agendas, the true passion and ideology of his work ignored.Truly taken by The Prince of the Power of the Air.God is the original architect and we are his designs. That is the only perfect order that exists.

 

[Matthias123]

We do, except for one thing. You agree that we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, and you also agree that just because something unlikely happened, it doesn’t make it more likely that intelligence made it happen.

Yet you think that a supernatural cause is the “best” explanation. I do not agree with this – I don’t think stories that haven’t been demonstrated are good explanations, any more than believing that pixies create the universe anew every second is a good explanation.

I find it very unfortunate that you believe that theoretical physics are the only way we can demonstrate that God in fact exists. When Father Georges Lemaître developed what now is known as the big bang theory, he claimed right then and there, that this is a physical theory that has no religious implications. I believe that it can provide evidence and it may one day, via the natural sciences, demonstrate that a God is needed, we do not need to wait for this day. We can demonstrate with certain that God exists through our human reason, and we do not need to wait for cosmology. The best way to do this is causality.

Take the essential series of causes. These are causes that have to be in place in order for the effect to exist, but cannot proceed to infinity. Take for example a pocket watch, the causality of the gears on this pocked watch can keep moving forever, but without the essential cause of the spring, the watch is not going to work. This is in contrast to the accidental series of causes, say for example, the notion that you were accidentally caused by your Grandfather, as he bore your mother, and she bore you. Now this is accidental because if your Grandfather dies you will not cease to exist.

Essential causes cannot proceed to infinity due to an actual infinite number being impossible, there needs to be a first essential cause that not only is the cause of everything that exists, but sustains it. Now this cannot be a mechanical series of free necessaries because then the first cause would still be causing, so we require a free agent, with a will, in order to prevent this phenomenon.

Next is the mere fact that unintelligent matter cannot move towards a fixed or similar end. It has to be directed by an intelligent agent, otherwise the ends would be completely random.

.

The difference in our “epistemology,” as you put it, comes down to the fact that you “accept revelation” and I don’t.

You’re right – I don’t see any good reason to accept the “revelation” of any revealed religion. Perhaps if you could provide one, we could discuss this further. If your reason for accepting revelation is primarily because of personal experiences that by their nature cannot be available to anyone else, then we have nothing further to discuss, and I wish you good day.

Although I do believe that religious experience is a valid way to know God, I will certainly spare you this argument. There are perfectly good reasons to accept revelation, as long as one have the proper foundation in an intellectual position that would predispose the person to accepting such revelation. How is one to believe that God revealed himself if he does not believe he exists?

This however should be argued in another thread.

 

[itinerant1]

In your judgement, what would you say I should do about my depravity?

I pray daily; worship God in Spirit and in Truth, give to the poor including orphans and widows, and those in prison;. give tithes and offerings; study Scripture; hold Bible studies; reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine, hunger and thirst for righteousness.

What say you?

Have a blessed day,

James Least

Become a baptized member of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

(Further posts on this thread need to be on topic: “Re: Is The Big Bang Really Proof Of Gods Existence?”)

 

[Geremia]

In regard to methodological naturalism the history of science has shown that this approach is most productive and most objective. If individual religious beliefs, philosophical positions, and ideologies are left out of scientific investigations or ignored (to ignore is very different than to deny), then science because more objective. Clearly, the experiments and conclusions of one scientist can be verified by another regardless of their differing non-scientific beliefs. In fact, the natural sciences truly advanced when scientists began leaving final causes out of their explanations of natural phenomena. Final causes are now left to the philosopher. I am not aware of any prominent scientist today who disagrees with methodological naturalism as most appropriate.

So natural scientists should ignore the effect of the supernatural order on the natural order?

Regarding St. Paul’s statement, he is referring to gnontes, which is an inceptive, speculative sort of knowledge about God. I might even characterize that kind knowledge as quasi-philosophical, but with some individuals it is more intuitive. This knowledge of God’s existence comes from reflection on nature, its order, design, beauty, or goodness. It is not something quantifiable or verified by scientific methodology.

Gnontes is not derived from philosophical demonstration such the Aristotelian demonstration for the existence of a First Cause. I’m sure St. Paul realized very few Gentiles were knowledgeable in Aristotelian philosophy or even the sciences of the day. So, he is speaking about a knowledge of God’s existence that is available to all, however imperfect that knowledge may be. That is why he says the Gentiles are without excuse. They would have plenty excuses if the knowledge of God he talked about was a scientific or strictly philosophical knowledge.

Episteme (ἐπιστήμη) is “knowledge of an event or a thing through its causes” (what we moderns would call “science”) and is distinct from the other forms of knowledge: techne (art, skill, craft; τέχνη, carpenter/artisan: τέκτων), nous (νόος, verbal: νοέω), sophia (wisdom; σοφία). St. Paul uses νοέω, the verbal form of νόος, in Rom. 1:20.

 

[hecd2]

So natural scientists should ignore the effect of the supernatural order on the natural order?

Absolutely and a thousand times yes. If scientists posit supernatural explanations for observed phenomena, then they fundamentally undermine the scientific method, destroy its explanatory power and replace explanation by obfuscation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[CosmicActor]

Absolutely and a thousand times yes. If scientists posit supernatural explanations for observed phenomena, then they fundamentally undermine the scientific method, destroy its explanatory power and replace explanation by obfuscation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

So you’re saying there will come a day when a materialistic explanation will be found for the beggining of materialism. Thats a philosophical belief, not a scientific fact. I sense a little scientism There are already things that the scientific method cannot explain. Such as, is there an objective meaning in life? Why does something exist instead of nothing? Sociology, philosophy, psychology, and history are not science. Yet they reveal truth, no? Hey, I love science as much as the next guy, but a method of knowing is not something to worship.

 

[hecd2]

So you’re saying there will come a day when a materialistic explanation will be found for the beggining of materialism. Thats a philosophical belief, not a scientific fact. I sense a little scientism There are already things that the scientific method cannot explain. Such as, is there an objective meaning in life? Why does something exist instead of nothing? Sociology, philosophy, psychology, and history are not science. Yet they reveal truth, no? Hey, I love science as much as the next guy, but a method of knowing is not something to worship.

You appear to be having a little difficulty in understanding what appeared to me to be a quite clear statement that was about the necessity for natural science to cleave to methodological naturalism and not at all about natural science’s domain of competence.

Let’s just repeat what I said word for word. I suggest you read it more slowly and see if you can understand it this time: “Absolutely and a thousand times yes. If scientists posit supernatural explanations for observed phenomena, then they fundamentally undermine the scientific method, destroy its explanatory power and replace explanation by obfuscation.”

As an aside, I know several psychologists who would be quite upset at being placed outside the walls of science, but we know they only pretend to do empirical science, right?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[CosmicActor]

You appear to be having a little difficulty in understanding what appeared to me to be a quite clear statement that was about the necessity for natural science to cleave to methodological naturalism and not at all about natural science’s domain of competence.

Let’s just repeat what I said word for word. I suggest you read it more slowly and see if you can understand it this time: “Absolutely and a thousand times yes. If scientists posit supernatural explanations for observed phenomena, then they fundamentally undermine the scientific method, destroy its explanatory power and replace explanation by obfuscation.”

As an aside, I know several psychologists who would be quite upset at being placed outside the walls of science, but we know they only pretend to do empirical science, right?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

First, psychology is ‘developmental science’. There are no ‘laws of nature’ of psychology. There is a difference. Let your psychologists friends deal with that. Heck you can deal with the bible in a methodological way empiricly. When has science proven naturalism explains everything? You resort to philosophical beliefs, not scientific facts, for that comment. One proof for this is your apparent inability to prove that false. Also, I never said we shouldn’t use the scientific method to try and understand all that we can.

 

[itinerant1]

You appear to be having a little difficulty in understanding what appeared to me to be a quite clear statement that was about the necessity for natural science to cleave to methodological naturalism and not at all about natural science’s domain of competence.

Let’s just repeat what I said word for word. I suggest you read it more slowly and see if you can understand it this time: “Absolutely and a thousand times yes. If scientists posit supernatural explanations for observed phenomena, then they fundamentally undermine the scientific method, destroy its explanatory power and replace explanation by obfuscation.”

As an aside, I know several psychologists who would be quite upset at being placed outside the walls of science, but we know they only pretend to do empirical science, right?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Does not methodological naturalism represent a method for remaining within natural science’s domain of competence, which is the study of empirical phenomena, their relations, natural causes, and so on?

There is, as you say, a science of psychology. And even the historical sciences?

 

[itinerant1]

So natural scientists should ignore the effect of the supernatural order on the natural order?

Episteme (ἐπιστήμη) is “knowledge of an event or a thing through its causes” (what we moderns would call “science”) and is distinct from the other forms of knowledge: techne (art, skill, craft; τέχνη, carpenter/artisan: τέκτων), nous (νόος, verbal: νοέω), sophia (wisdom; σοφία). St. Paul uses νοέω, the verbal form of νόος, in Rom. 1:20.

The natural scientist should, as a scientist, ignore the metaphysical and supernatural. To “ignore”, is different than to “deny”. Methodological naturalism ignores metaphysical causes and explanations. Philosophical naturalism, on the other hand, denies metaphysical causes.

One of the things that began in the late medieval Catholic universities was an ignoring of metaphysical causes such as finality. Subsequently, ignoring final causes in the natural sciences has allowed the natural sciences to take wings.

The term “science” in its general sense is an organized body of knowledge derived from a set of fundamental principles. Hence, there are theological and philosophical sciences, and the natural sciences. Each has its proper methods, formal and material objects. But we use the term “science” in modern times in general discourse to designate the positive or natural sciences.

Natural scientists seek only natural explanations or descriptions of physical phenomena. The more liberal scientists in various natural sciences will see that natural causes do not provide complete explanations of nature. However, if he speaks about metaphysical causes or ultimate causes instead of just proximate causes, he is not speaking as a natural scientist. He is speaking as a philosopher or as a man.

Many scientists have philosophical and religious views. But they should not be brought into natural science itself. It is a matter of discipline.

Imagine what chaos that would bring: a myriad of varying philosophical and religious views published in scientific journals. Peer review would become a no holds barred slug fest. Observing methodological naturalism in the natural sciences allows scientists with vary philosophical and religious views, or no explicit views at all, to work together in the same science.

It’s problematic enough as it is with methodological naturalism because some scientists believe methodological naturalism necessarily entails philosophical naturalism. Some scientists can and do, easily take their ideology for science. But to say that a scientist, as a scientist, should not ignore the supernatural order, is to unleash chaos in the natural sciences. ID theorists want theology to be an integral part of the natural sciences. I am thinking specifically of comments made by Phillip Johnson, who reportedly said that the first words in any science text should be “In the beginning was the Word…” Sorry, but that is not natural science. It’s theology.

If we want religion and philosophy to be an integral part of natural science, then science becomes an open battlefield for whose belief system should dominate and control science.

Things are troubled enough with atheistic versions of evolution being taught as if they were strictly science. Evolution theory, as a strictly scientific theory is not theistic or atheistic.

P.S. Now for my grand finale controversial claim: In every scientific theory there is an underlying metaphysical vision. But this is a different track.

 

[hecd2]

When has science proven naturalism explains everything? You resort to philosophical beliefs, not scientific facts, for that comment. One proof for this is your apparent inability to prove that false. Also, I never said we shouldn’t use the scientific method to try and understand all that we can.

Nope - you didn’t understand what I said any better on a second reading. I’m not quite sure why you’re finding it so difficult, but it seems that you need to ask someone with more patience than I have to explain what “methodological naturalism” means. Have a good life.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Does not methodological naturalism represent a method for remaining within natural science’s domain of competence, which is the study of empirical phenomena, their relations, natural causes, and so on?

There is, as you say, a science of psychology. And even the historical sciences?

Well of course, but someone else needs help with understanding this.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itinerant1]

Well of course, but someone else needs help with understanding this.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I know you understand and agree with it. I was just repeating the issue to draw attention to it, again, because a number of people in these threads have argued against me on it.